Comment by theo102 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by theo102 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

and these limits are set arbitrarily and are often even more detrimental. If you know the doc says you can have 14 but not 15, you now have a target to be "ok" when you show up to the doctor.

If the gap between 14 and 15 is linear and not somehow logarithmic then you're telling me that consuming exactly two drinks a day will be fine, but that extra scotch you have on friday makes you an alcoholic. This term is thrown around loosely by people who have never actually met an alcoholic. Even a high functioning "weekend warrior" is noticeable.

The total risk for serious liver damage drinking a 6 pack a day for over 10 years is only 18%. Of these people, around 13% develop into cirrhosis. No one has been able to explain why. For some people, especially women, the effects of alcohol are far more damaging. Much like BMI, population statistics are not as useful as what actually matters. Body mass per unit alcohol consumed. A smaller person drinking 15 drinks a week may develop health problems. A 180 pound male may or may not.

Am I encouraging drinking that heavily because the risk is 18%? No not at all. I am simply stating that these "drink limits" are arbitrary and completely and entirely made up. Mediterraneans, regularly cited for their longevity, consume more than 15 drinks a week on a regular basis.

HN is filled with these pop-sci teetotalers who rag on alcohol but promote the uninhibited abuse of THC and other dangerous mind altering drugs. It's an absurd bizzaro world.

Weed cost me 5 years of my life that I'm never getting back. It's great if some people can form better habits than me but all the weed users I know (plenty) use it every day all day.

The biggest detriment is opportunity cost, time you'd spend doing something exciting or productive is spent on watching your Netflix queue instead. Some people claim to get a lot of creative work done while stoned but those people probably haven't tried doing it sober for too long.

If you're rolling an after lunch joint while out with friends that's substance abuse even if it's, like, not harmful at all, dude.

> Some people claim to get a lot of creative work done while stoned but those people probably haven't tried doing it sober for too long.

After smoking every single day for about 5 years I decided to test this hypothesis about a year ago (I had my first kid on the way and didn’t want to be one of those parents that smoked weed.) I also surmised that maybe I really needed to get it all out of my system - by not smoking for months - to know how much an improvement it would be to stop smoking. In the past 11 months I’ve smoked exactly twice (both times around Christmas.)

I can’t honestly say stopping smoking has increased my productivity much. I’m so mentally exhausted from work at the end of each day that the idea of doing anything involving my brain is stressful. Weed helped with that, now I seem to lay on the couch and watch YouTube more. Before I at least used to sit and contemplate work-related stuff a lot more since I was able to relax.

Back when I was getting high every day I used to use voice memos a lot on my phone to record the random “brilliant ideas” I’d have each evening. The next morning I’d listen through them, and they actually led to some of my best answers to technical problems. Stuff I was stuck on at work, I’d be able to find solutions to while high. (Implementing them was another story, I had to wait for the next day for that.)

I’m still not going to go back to smoking weed because of the new kiddo, but I honestly think weed was a net positive for my life.

I'm a heavy smoker - an oz of Indica with 2 grams of powder hash added per week is my mix of choice. I've been a heavy smoker since the 70's, and a computer science research scientist pretty much the entire time. I know I am an outlier, but there are more than a few like us: people that find marihuana to aid in their ability to focus. The work that I do is basically all day calculus, and being high enables my to hyper focus on the minutia of the issue at hand. It can take up to an hour to regain the details of what I'm working on in my head, and then it is statistics and calculus for the remainder of the day. I turn off my phone, quit any communications software, smoke a bowl or three and spend the next 8 hours in abstract symbolic land. It works. I'm quite successful, published, and respected for my work and generally easy going personality. It works. Also, I do not drink booze at all - I hate. Can't think!

That's me. I don't regard it as an advantage, but I've come to be okay with it. I've quit before, for months at a time, and once for 2+ years. I used to go to Japan regularly for 2-3 weeks at a time, during which I'd have none. What I found is that I'm not more productive without it, and the quality of my work was not affected by it.

I found that indeed I am able to concentrate more deeply with it. Without it, I find myself far more tempted to drink to relax -- which breaks my personal rule for alcohol use: never for stress relief, only for celebration.

Same for me, not quite sure it helps me to focus as much as it simply relaxes me enough to allow me to focus better. I think it might have to do with (for me at least) the effects sort of tamping down the signals from my body and allowing me to be more brain-forward if that makes sense. Also helps me cut some of the distracting noise from anxiety.

While I enjoy a drink, booze gives me splitting headaches within 15-20 minutes of drinking anything more than a small (40-50ml) amount.

Thanks for the anecdata. I've come to a similar conclusion myself about weed.

My official saying is, "because it works for me doesn't mean it will work for you."

Additionally, alcohol absolutely feels like it destroys my body. Like, two drinks kills my productivity the next day, guaranteed.

I'm glad your life improved. I don't abuse any substance (no drugs at all, alcohol few times a year at most in very moderate amount) and I'm atill not doing anything exciting or productive, because I don't have to.

In my experience, people who quit subsequently taking extreme / absolutist negative positions (I assume it is something for people who actually did have a problem to help them quit?) is much more predictable than concluding that anyone who smokes a joint with friends is certainly a substance abuser or that it is impossible except in theory to be productive or creative if you ever use weed.

I rarely smoke weed, maybe a few times a year (typically as a joint on a summer day after lunch with friends, actually) and I can say I am much more likely to sit around and watch Netflix sober.

I live in the Netherlands, so maybe things are more relaxed around here. I rarely if ever run into someone throwing their life away to it.

I've developed a pretty strong aversion it's true. To the point where being high doesn't feel nice anymore.

I also know two people with PhDs who smoke, they are the kind that limit themselves to smoking in the evening. But then I also know at least 4 people in their late twenties who prefer weed and gaming over getting a job. Both groups are the exception.

Most of my friends still smoke so I'm fine with it, but I'm 100% convinced that people who try to legitimize it as some sort of productivity thing, and try to sell weed usage as anything other than "I like how it makes me feel", are lying.

Though judging from the other comments here maybe I'm just wrong. Maybe it's because I like to do stuff like maths and programming in my free time which is absolutely impossible while high.

> But then I also know at least 4 people in their late twenties who prefer weed and gaming over getting a job.

I find this kind of phrasing confusing. I think most people would prefer their substance and activity of choice over getting a job, most people just don't have that option. I'm guessing these kids are being supported by their parents or partners?

Fourth guy I was thinking of has a job so I guess I know 3. Parents and unemployment money yeah.

I really miss one guy in particular, none of our group ever see him anymore. The only way I can know what's happening in his life is to talk to the dealer who I hang out with occasionally. Hope he wisens up soon. Used to be a pretty smart guy too but all the doing nothing for years made him dumb.

Think through your last two paragraphs. Yeah, people that feel good are probably going to be more productive than those feeling bad (assuming you're not feeling too good).

I can't do the stuff you're talking about when I'm not high (or couldn't) because I couldn't stop anxiety and other issues from getting in the way. Weed liberates me from that.

I have friends that hate weed, friends that become different people while high. It's just how it is, not for everyone, though I do prefer delta-8 way more than regular cannabis, not as intense of a high, much more about the focus.

I know a couple people who didn't get anxiety issues until they started smoking. I think there's a portion of the population (not necessarily you) who feel they need it when the anxiety is actually just a weed hangover.

It definitely hits different people differently. My wife doesn't get high. I've seen her smoke good weed and she didn't change in demeanor at all and claimed it didn't do anything.

Personally all it makes me do is think about how shitty my life is for hours (hint: my life is fine..it's just the weed) although some indica stuff will make me giggle for an hour before I pass out. I'm worse than useless when high.

There's a huge range in response.

Many drugs feel great but don't make you more productive.

Medical issues are a big exception yeah. I wasn't able to focus at all while high, at least not for a prolonged period of time... I guess it's just different for me. Mostly I stayed up way too late doing nonsense and got very little sleep as a result which impacted my day-to-day activities. It wasn't a good time.

You've turned it into a negative for you. The feeling of it brings out negative feelings in you. You would need to clear out those roadblocks you setup to reach a neutral state.

Many people love math and can do it while high at a higher level.

I spent a great deal of my younger years stoned, and one day in my early 20s decided that weed was basically complete boring, and quit.

But the people I know who smoke do if in the evening or on weekends, and are nothing like what you describe.

It really is dependent on the person.

I figured out at some point during the last decade that the only stimulant that works for me is THC. Caffeine won't do it. It doesn't matter what I do, if I eat healthy get 8 hours of sleep, exercise, etc, I can wake up and within 30 minutes of work feel so mentally and physically wiped that I have to sleep...rinse and repeat. I've managed to force myself to get through that repeatedly (it didn't really happen to the same extent as a kid - I guess life was more fun).

But weed? Scared the hell out of me the first few times (over years, I'm in an illegal state, but of course it's as easy to get as donuts). You know the usual introspection, whoa dude thoughts, the slightly different perspective you see yourself and the world, and on the high, every time...incredible anxiety. But once I got past that, I could work for 8 hours like I used to, and like most people can.

I was high 24/7 for about 4 or 5 years. I care about my health so I took different precautions (dealers, vapes, etc). However, I don't begin to smoke like some people (I'm not into pot culture), can't physically take those amounts.

Changed my life. I was able to work through major issues like OCD, etc. Guess what? Nobody at work or school nor my family or friends that I've only told recently know that I was high. Couldn't tell at all, entirely functional (more functional than the past).

The real save lately has been delta-8 (the way of the future). It (THC, drugs) is not for everyone and you should not abuse it too young (psychosis). Don't go buy weed off the street and get really high your first time, you might have the worst panic attack in your life.

I agree we shouldn't just rave about drugs like they don't have an impact, but some of you guys don't obviously have that much experience with what you are talking about (not you). No offense, but that's part of the issue. How many decades have we lost and how many tens of thousands of lives have been lost because we are too prudish to test this stuff as it should be?

The geniuses in my state, instead of grabbing the new industry were ready to ban delta-8 to protect the non-existent cannabis industry, or god, or something. It'll all be legal in 10 years anyway, why waste our time? I can't tell you how many small businesses I've visited in the last few months that would have out of business, and how many customers that might have been put in really bad mental spots.

There's a Cowboys player, Randy Gregory, that's lost 4 or 5 years of his career to bans because he smokes pot because it helps his anxiety and bipolar issues. That's criminal.

I drink, sometimes, too.

edit:

To save the Google, delta-8 is just a different form of THC, extracted from hemp produce federally legally due to the 2018 farm bill (magic). Of course there's also CBD from that (the original big industry) and lots of other things coming out Delta-10, etc.

Most people don't get extreme anxiety on THC, but some do... someone is going to correct me if I'm wrong, but THC is psychoactive (CBD is not), so when people are microdosing this or shrooms or whatever they're getting different effects but similar end results. It plays with your perspective and chemistry in a way that alcohol does not, especially at higher doses.

This is an interesting anecdote. I have gotten high several times during my college years and less so since I started my career. In all of the cases I got high, it was primarily for entertainment purposes. However, whenever I am high, I get some sense of clarity about problems that were irking me the week before (I usually do weed over the weekends). This led me to wonder, esp. lately, what if there is actually some connection between productivity and marijuana use (not abuse) and your experience seems to be inline with that. Ofcourse, there are trove of other anecdotes about how weed is used for creative/artistic purposes but I haven't come across ones related to programming.

Jobs always said acid was critical to his success. He dropped a good amount of acid, so that probably really would make you think differently.

People can mock it all they want, but I really do get very creative on weed. There's a reason creative companies don't test for it...

It's not something I've shared, but it always surprises me how often I smell weed on the street (again, "illegal"), how easy it is to get, and how many people I wouldn't expect "abused" it at one point or another. I was scared of telling my parents for a long time but came to find out they were both drug using hippies, anyway.

> some of you guys don't obviously have that much experience with what you are talking about (not you)

Thanks for adding the caveat. Most people on this thread are pretty ignorant about drugs, except for me, you and the person reading this comment.

Ha.

I say that because we're going full on reefer madness with stuff like:

"uninhibited abuse of THC and other dangerous mind altering drugs"

Techies especially are a gullible lot, susceptible to new age nonsense, anti-vax style pseudoscience, and a glut of other anti-science things. At least in the Bay Area. It’s ridiculous to see how quickly they take to any fad.

Probably because they think for themselves instead of appointing someone else to do the critical thinking for them.

They think the ones who are gullible are the ones that hear something on the news and repeat it as fact without ever thinking about it.

Anti-science is anti-politics around science not anti-evidence. Things like questioning the Covid bat theory. Glad to see the news is coming around on the lab theory.

It’s more like they think too highly of their own critical thinking skills and aren’t knowledgeable enough about the science to credibly judge the evidence, then pat themselves on the back for “independent thinking.”

> HN is filled with these pop-sci teetotalers who rag on alcohol but promote the uninhibited abuse of THC and other dangerous mind altering drugs. It's an absurd bizzaro world.

Exactly! People have been drinking for millenia, and while alcohol doesn't make you healthier, it's also clear that drinking "normally" doesn't cause major health issues (unlike, smoking cigarettes for example). Sure, if you drink 2 bottles of wine a day, you're going to have a problem. Not so much with 2 glasses of wine a day.

THC, microdosing and all that other stuff is relatively new and the long-term effecs are not well researched. Shorter term, it's clear that THC can cause issues like schizophrenia, especially with teenagers. I would expect much more long-term negative effects of mind altering drugs, just because they fuck with your brain.

This call to naturalism is absurd. The fact that people are drinking alcohol for millennia is not proof of it being healthy!! That makes no sense!

While I generally agree about arbitrary cutoffs, 2 glasses of wine a day is a good indicator that you have alcohol in your system at least 1/3rd of your life! There are people who don’t get phased by this, but more likely people are just used to it and adapt (much like with coffee)

The concept of a line being arbitrary is a thing but it’s not a crazy line (especially if you’re only drinking every other day that’s 4 glasses a day).

Assuming one unit (10ml) stays in your system for one hour, a full bottle of wine per day would be 9 hours (a bit over 1/3 of the time). Two 175ml glasses of 12% wine would then be about 4 hours.

> 2 glasses of wine a day is a good indicator that you have alcohol in your system at least 1/3rd of your life!

What? The standard, conservative 'party line' quoted by national health authorities is that people process around 1 standard drink per hour. A standard glass of wine is 2 standard drinks, so 2 glasses would take 4 hours max to process, or 1/6 of a day. Unless you're using one of those giant glasses and filling it to the brim so your 'two glasses' is actually a bottle or more.

An hour? That feels pretty quick but I guess the standard is the standard.

If you read my comment carefully, I say exactly that. We know it's not healthy, but we also know that there are no crazy long-term effects if you keep it moderate.

My comment is specifically about people saying alcohol is bad but then smoking weed all day or taking LSD and other drugs and think it's good for them.

> We know it's not healthy, but we also know that there are no crazy long-term effects if you keep it moderate.

I think this claim is unjustified, and that's what your parent comment is trying to point out. Is 14 drinks a week too much? Maybe not, but you aren't likely to find documentary proof of that by looking to the "millennia" of people who did it during an era where those who survived childhood could expect to live to be 60 or so and there was little to no understanding of modern medicine.

If we were able to say with some certainty that 14 drinks a week will give you a 15% chance of getting a serious liver disease, possibly dying from it, I think most people would agree that 14 drinks a week is "dangerous". It's also dangerous at a level that would be near-impossible to discern for generations past.

I am sure plenty of people could claim that cannabis and other drugs found in nature have been used just as long if not longer than alcohol by various tribes and groups around the world.

There isn’t a safe amount of alcohol unfortunately. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/18/any-amount-o...

That statement is untested. The study you linked to tested some effect but not what the headline suggests.

These people drank 14 or less drinks a week.

They didn't test one glass or half a glass or a sip per week.

Today's study said 15 is heavy drinking. Where does 14 fit in?

Did you … did you not read the article that says alcohol causes cancer?

drinking normally increases risks of cancer much more than tobacco does.

Doing what with tobacco? Smoking it surely increases risk of cancer more, no?

Not if you look at the data. Alcohol makes a lot more damage across multiple organs and is much more of a killer than smoking.

> HN is filled with these pop-sci teetotalers who rag on alcohol but promote the uninhibited abuse of THC and other dangerous mind altering drugs. It's an absurd bizzaro world.

I've never seen this. Do you have an example article or comment that supports this? It should be easy to find since "HN is filled with these pop-sci teetotalers".

I've seen it many times in posts relating to health, drug use or alcohol: a tendency to piss all over alcohol in particular (cigarettes as a close second) and those who use anything more than a tiny amount of it while hardly blinking at descriptions by others describing THC, LSD, MDMA and all sorts of other ad hoc mind altering drug mixes as a solution to assorted psychological situations. Many people here regularly describe consuming large amounts of THC in different forms, get applauded by others who do the same and then strongly criticize the notion of someone drinking more than some very moderate, arbitrarily defined amount of alcohol per week or X time frame.

In the absence of concrete evidence showing explicitly why your drug of choice is superior to someone else drug of choice, it's hypocritical to shit on their preferences as moral weakness while you happily indulge your own substances.

There’s a lot of evidence in clinical trials with MDMA and psilocybin mushrooms (which have a lot of similarity to LSD) regarding efficacy for treating various psychological conditions when used in a safe and guided setting.

Pretty sure we have nothing of the sort for alcohol. Just the opposite, in fact, like this article.

I can’t speak for THC.

I wouldn’t say that this evidence makes any substance more morally “superior” to any other, it all depends on the context of use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com