Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
brokenbyte.eth pfp
brokenbyte.eth
@brokenbyte.eth
I’m constantly shocked at the cognitive dissonance of people who avoid cigarettes but smoke cannabis regularly. Smoking anything via combustion is damaging to your lungs 🫁 Vaporizering is less harmful, and inhaling nothing but oxygen/nitrogen is best ✨ https://youtu.be/_rBPwu2uS-w?si=NMT5KwAVFLkvOMnv
4 replies
2 recasts
9 reactions
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com pfp
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com
@farcasteradmin.eth
i am one 🫡 ask any questions you want, all my beliefs are also deeply rooted in science there is no dissonance: risk is not binary, but it is a spectrum: so far no one got cancer from smoking weed, but almost everyone smoking cigs gets cancer feel free to inquire for answers!
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
brokenbyte.eth pfp
brokenbyte.eth
@brokenbyte.eth
Hullo hullo ✨ Yes indeed it’s not binary & one reason I think it’s not is that 1. Cigarettes contain a bunch of other garbage that corps shove into them, and 2. Joints are generally consumed with far less frequency then ciggies. My point remains that combustion inhaled is detrimental and should be considered 💭
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com pfp
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com
@farcasteradmin.eth
it should be considered, but for instance, if i'm offered a joint, i'd go for it without second though however, when my friends smoke cigars, i pass risks are *so much more* when smoking tobacco in any form, like magnitudes more full disclosure: i almost exclusively do edibles exactly because of your points
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com pfp
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com
@farcasteradmin.eth
@brokenbyte.eth e.g., i never smoke tobacco and i'm on a fully vegan diet — so my risks are drastically down already the real question you should be asking is why do people care enough to not smoke, yet they eat meat that is proven to be carcirogenic? because eating meat is magnitudes riskier than smoking weed
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
brokenbyte.eth pfp
brokenbyte.eth
@brokenbyte.eth
I see. You’ve considered the risks and chose appropriately. I’m actually skeptical of the harm around tobacco as it’s just another plant like cannabis, with thousands of years of use. Coupled that with the nootropic benefits of nicotine… Personally I’m waiting on the science around vaporized tobacco 💭
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com pfp
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com
@farcasteradmin.eth
ser but the science is in, literally gives you cancer if you want nootropic benefits, try nicotine patches — same results, no combustion or vaporization except still increases cancer chances even if it's not going into your lungs
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
brokenbyte.eth pfp
brokenbyte.eth
@brokenbyte.eth
Sure sure that’s just a whole nother thing and I’d rather maintain the focus for posterity 💭 As to the cancer association with nicotine I am HIGHLY skeptical of that claim. There seems to be a long litany of studies finding health benefits to nicotine. Peter Attia is a notable proponent and user.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com pfp
borodutch @ lunchbreak.com
@farcasteradmin.eth
peter also fails to recognize a huge branch of science called epidemiology because it doesn't fit his opinion like *a whole branch of science* because it disagrees with him read my review of "outlive" https://yabc.borodutch.com/outlive
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction