V H @ vidarh @lemmy.stad.social

Beta testing Stad.social

---

Read more

Posts

22

Comments

158

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, you made the false claim that I said it isn't unhealthy. "One of the safest" is not the same as "isn't unhealthy".

If you can't be bothered to read my ~600 words in reply to someone else and not directed at you, that is entirely your choice. Nobody is forcing you to. Neither are anyone forcing you to blatantly misrepresent what I've claimed, however.

"I haven't read this, but let me misrepresent what the thing I didn't read says".

I have not argued it isn't unhealthy. I have argued it's one of the safer stimulants we have, unless you ingest it in a way that is dangerous (e.g. inhalation). That does not mean it's free of downsides, but neither are a whole lot of things we still decide it's fine to use.

Next time maybe try abstaining from replying to something you've not bothered to read.

they do focus on vaping, that does not mean they are irrelevant to the question of nicotine. from the cdc link:

To this and your subsequent points, these claims are not backed up by sources in the pages you linked to, and as we've seen from the other paper as well, there's good reason to be cautious about assuming their claims are separating the effects of nicotine from the effects of the delivery method, especially given every single source actually cited by the CDC article is about smoking. Neither the Johns Hopkins or Harvard article cites any sources on nicotine alone that I can see.

i disagree that ignoring delivery methods is “meaningless”. form the johns hopkins article:

And, getting hooked on nicotine often leads to using traditional tobacco products down the road.

A claim that is not backed by sources, and has divorced this from delivery method. E.g. how many people starts with gum or a patch and goes on to tobacco? I can certainly see there being some transfer from vaping to tobacco, but that is very different from the blanket claim and illustrates the problem with these sources that fail to disambiguate and extrapolates very wide claim from sources that looks at specific modes of use.

the part you quoted says that nicotine acts as an accelerator for the development of cancers from other sources, including things like car exhaust. these carcinogens are widespread in the modern world, so accelerating the development of cancer associated with them is a bad thing. eg, car exhaust fumes are everywhere.

Yes, inhaling nicotine is bad. That we can agree on, and the source supports the limited claim that if you get nicotine in a way that binds to cites in your lungs, that is bad. The sources do not provide evidence that this risk is present for other modes of use. Maybe it is, but they've not shown that.

i agree, this is bad. the problem you brought up with the “materials and methods” section is also bad. i’m not trying to defend the article holistically, i’m even particularly attached to that source (which is why i included a few different ones).

But that article is the best of the sources you gave. The others cite nothing of relevance to the claim I made that I can see after going through their links.

the article did this by reviewing “90 relevant articles” from PubMed and Medline, then discussing what those articles found

But the problem is that not nearly all of those "90 relevant articles" are relevant to their claim, and so they start off by misrepresenting what they're about to do. They then fail to quantify their claim in any way that supports their conclusion. They back up some specific claims without quantifying them (e.g. I can back up the claim that apples can be lethal, but you'd need vast quantities to get enough cyanide from an apple to harm you, so a claim they can be lethal in isolation is meaningless) or unpacking whether they are risks from nicotine in general, or nicotine via a specific delivery method. This is an ongoing problem with research on this subject.

They have not provided an argument for how any of those "90 relevant articles" supports their conclusion.

i think the second statement was thoroughly debunked by the sources i’ve included: they all say nicotine is highly addictive, and one of them says it’s “as addictive as heroin and cocaine”. i think the sources i’ve shared also discredit the idea that nicotine is “up there with caffeine in terms of safety”. i’m not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.

The say that, but they don't back it up. Ironically, pointing to heroin is interesting, because the addiction potential of heroin has also been subject to a lot of fearmongering and notoriously exaggerated, and we've known this for nearly half a century -- a seminal study of addiction in Vietnam war vets found the vast majority of those with extensive heroin use in Vietnam just stopped cold turkey when they returned to the US and the vast majority didn't relapse, the opposite of what the authors assumed going into the study. A study that was commissioned as part of Nixons then-newly started politically motivated and racist War of Drugs with the intent of providing evidence of how bad it was.

(see https://www.mayooshin.com/heroin-vietnam-war-veterans-addiction which gives a reasonable account of Robins study, and gives full reference to the paper)

That's also not to say that heroin isn't dangerous or seriously addictive because it is. Nobody should use heroin. But it's also frequently used as a means of exaggerating by implication because peoples idea of the addiction potential of heroin is largely way out of whack with reality and heavily context-dependent. So when someone drags out a heroin comparison without heavy caveats, that's reason to assume there is a good chance they're full of bullshit.

In other words: It's perfectly possible that some ways of taking nicotine can be as addictive as heroin, but that doesn't tell us what most people think it does. E.g. UK hospitals sometimes use heroin (as diamorphine; its generic name) for post-op pain management because it's far better than many alternatives.

The sources you've given do not present any support for claims that nicotine considered separate from delivery methods is particularly risky. They do provide support for claims it's dangerous when smoked, and possibly dangerous when inhaled even via vaping, and the takeaway that you should generally avoid inhaling stuff other than clean air without good reason is good. The other claims about nicotine in general do not appear to be backed up at all.

i’m not trying to say nicotine is extremely dangerous, but rather that its danger is underestimated.

I find the notion that the danger is underestimated hilarious when one of the claims used a comparison with heroin to fearmonger.

Your source, if anything, is evidence to me of the opposite.

Not everything is on Github yet, and much of it is messy and with dependencies on my environment (in the process of cleaning that up), but if you click through the "cross-posted to:" link there are a bunch of links to repo's of what I have pushed so far.

It's "psychoactive" in the same way that caffeine is. That is, it's a stimulant. Using that term only serves the purpose of making it sound scarier. And it's far less addictive on its own than when smoked. It's not harmless, but it's also nowhere near as big a problem in itself as specific product categories and delivery methods, and no worse than any number of other things we're perfectly fine with people using.

I tried to start with both a patch and gums years ago because of the stimulant benefits and the decent risk profile of nicotine on its own. I've never smoked, never will. Didn't stick - it was too hard to get used to. If I could get it as a flavourless pill, maybe.

Well of course not. You weren’t getting the dopamine rush of a large acute dose rushing from your lungs directly to your brain in a matter of seconds.

So in other words, you're saying I didn't pick the right delivery method to get me addicted. Which was my point.

Regardless, the dangers – including ease of addiction – are well-known and are scientifically proven. Your anecdata of one does not change that.

Missing the point: 1) a large part of the addiction for most people is down to delivery, not nicotine itself - something you yourself used as an argument against my anecdote above -, and most of the research focuses on that. 2) the remaining addiction potential of nicotine is real, and proven, but it's also nothing particularly special compared to other things we're fine with seeing the addiction to as ranging from a nuisance (e.g. caffeine) to a problem that doesn't justify prohibition (any more), like alcohol.

My point was not that it's impossible to get addicted to nicotine, but that confusing nicotine vs. nicotine via a given delivery method is not helpful.

The links from John Hopkins, the CDC and Harvard all focus on vaping, and so are irrelevant to the question of nicotine rather than the delivery methods.

The first link has nothing wrong in it. It's correct nicotine is toxic. So is caffeine - the LD50 of caffeine in humans is reasonably high, many grams. To the issue of ingestion, the issue is toxicity at doses people are likely to deal with.

To the cancer links, again without looking at delivery methods, this is meaningless. To let me quote one small part:

Thus, the induced activation of nAChRs in lung and other tissues by nicotine can promote carcinogenesis by causing DNA mutations[26] Through its tumor promoter effects, it acts synergistically with other carcinogens from automobile exhausts or wood burning and potentially shorten the induction period of cancers[43] [Table 2].

This makes sense. Don't inhale lots of particulates combined with nicotine in other words. There are also many other parts of the article that are useful. E.g. it's perfectly reasonable to accept that e.g. if you are on chemo you should stay off nicotine, and if you breastfeed you should stay off nicotine.

What the article does not show is that nicotine, as opposed to delivery methods like inhalation, is much worse than other drugs we're perfectly fine with.

I'll note that the article also includes things in its conclusion that it has categorically not cites studies in support of. E.g. it just assumes the addiction potential is proven (it is, but putting that in the conclusion of a paper without citing sources is really poor form, especially in a paper claiming to set out the issues with nicotine in isolation rather than smoking).

It also tried to drive up the scare factor by pointing out its toxicity at doses irrelevant for human consumption (e.g. as an insecticide; if wildly irrelevant doses should be considered, then we could write the same paper about how apples should be banned because they contain cyanide).

The "Materials and methods" section also goes on to say "Studies that evaluated tobacco use and smoking were excluded" but then goes on to make multiple arguments on the basis of harm caused by smoking (e.g. "Nicotine plays a role in the development of emphysema in smokers, by decreasing elastin in the lung parenchyma and increasing the alveolar volume") and cites a paper focused on smoking, in direct contradiction of the claim they made ("Endoh K, Leung FW. Effects of smoking and nicotine on the gastric mucosa: A review of clinical and experimental evidence. Gastroenterology. 1994;107:864–78.")

So, yes, if you make claims about how you're going to address nicotine rather than smoking, and then go on to address smoking and other means of inhalation intermingled with the rest, and if you leap to conclusions you've not cited works in support of, and if you throw out risks without linking them causally to nicotine, you can make nicotine look very bad.

They also end with subjective statements they've not even attempted to support properly. E.g. they've gone from "here is why it's dangerous" to "it should be restricted", but if that was valid logic, we should restrict sales of apples too, most cleaning agents, all caffeinated products, housepaint, paint thinners, and a host of other things, it's a specious argument and fitting that such a badly argued paper ends with it. That this passed peer review is an incredible indictment of the journal which published it.

That doesn't mean nicotine is risk-free, but compared to other things we're happy to ingest, I stand by my statement. But don't inhale it.

Nicotine is one of the safest stimulants we know, up there with caffeine in terms of safety. There's little meaningful reason to ban nicotine. You're more likely to harm yourself with any number of other things we readily allow.

The addiction potential of nicotine alone is also far lower than people assume, because smoking is highly addictive both due to the rituals and the other substances involved. I tried to get used to nicotine via patches years back to use as a safe stimulant, and not only did I not get addicted, I couldn't get used to it (and I was not willing to get myself used to smoking, given the harm that involves). That's not to say you can't develop addictions to patches or vapes etc. too, but much more easily when it's as a substitution for smoking than "from scratch".

Restrictions on delivery methods that are harmful or not well enough understood, and combining nicotine with other substances that make the addiction and harm potential greater, sure.

Thanks. I'm in no rush, but yeah, it's all very small. They depend pretty much on a handful of X calls at the moment, and aiming to isolate that in a couple of very small classes, so should be very simple. Hoping to clean it up and push more of these to github soon.

Reggie is great. Very chill. Just wish it wasn't so shy. I've only been allowed to briefly pet Reggie on a couple of occasions over several years.

Trans men doesn't exist to the bigots. They always forget them. And then when reminded they're fine with trans men being treated like men. For ... reasons (mostly reasons of having forgotten they exist)

I wish it was just the GOP they were copying, and not the damn NSDAP.

I have a suspicion she's the timeshare cat for half the neighbourhood. One of my neighbours previous cats used to have at least half a dozen houses he'd go to where he'd come in if the garden door was open and go upstairs and go to bed in our beds...

Took this in London the other day.

It's too common a symbol for X.org to have much of a shot because they're not competitors. This "X Social Media" might have a stronger claim if they've actually used and defended a trademark specifically in the social space.

There's an implicit "for the poor" that needs to be appended to these things when they come from Tories. Even then there's no reason to think it's true, but the point being that they don't see themselves as part of the groups they're talking about.

This is basically the concept of a Webring, and used to be big. Some were fixed (as in the path through the ring was always the same), but some were more flexible or random or semi-random.

A decentralised approach would be new, and not necessarily too hard since the dataset for each ring would be small, so each member could just store all or a subset of the entries in their ring and submit updates to their "neighbours" in the ring that'd eventually spread out to everyone. The challenge is moderation - you'll still end up with some entities that have a privileged position to weed out bad entries, because the appeal was always to a large extent to make discovery "someone else's problem" and the moment you let someone put links on your site someone will try to abuse it.

Not trying to convince you - people have different preferences, but Ruby does exactly what you say and nothing else unless you start pulling in gems that do lots of monkey patching or metaprogramming cleverness.

This is one of the reasons I dislike Rails in particular - it twists people's idea of what clean Ruby can be like and introduces a lot of "magic" conventions that makes the code hard to read for someone who doesn't know Rails.

A lot of Ruby programmers do overdose on the "clever", often inspired by Rails. You can do some truly insane things with metaprogramming in Ruby, but a lot of the time the cleverness is unnecessary and a bit of a footgun that people grab too early instead of thinking the problem through and realising there are simpler solutions.

My terminal is written in Ruby, and it uses a font-renderer that's 100% Ruby ( https://github.com/vidarh/skrift - I didn't write it from scratch, it's a port from C ), and it's definitely possible to get things "fast enough" for a surprising portion of code in Ruby these days, but you may end up writing Ruby code that is "surprising". For faster Ruby, see e.g. Aaron Patterson's walkthrough of speeding up a lexer which ends up doing things most Ruby devs would not usually do because at least some of the things he ends up doing goes against the readability (e.g. the TrueType renderer I linked above definitely sacrifices speed and assumes you'll memoize heavily to maintain readability). For an interpreter, you're probably right to drop to something lower level.

I prefer to hope the person who made this is just a crappy writer who desperately tried to find a way to make us think they were talking to a girl first and couldn't think of another way of describing rejection. (I fear that's not the reason, and that you're right, but I live in hope)