←back to thread

275 points rntn | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.494s | source
1. phoenixhaber ◴[] No.45158654[source]
I'd like to know the effects of air pollution on at risk populations that use inhalable drugs or smoke as well. I believe the results would be much worse.

Potentially related

https://m.slashdot.org/story/446420

EDIT commenting to child so as not to start a flame war. Lung scarring, emphasema, bronchial illness and so forth can cause the lungs to trap particulates in the lungs longer than they should over the long term this exacerbating health risks. It definitely makes sense.

replies(2): >>45158741 #>>45159304 #
2. hopelite ◴[] No.45158741[source]
That does not make any sense to me. Now [inhalable] drug users and smokers are "at risk populations" and it's not the drug use or the direct inhaling of smoke, soot, and ash…usually without filtration…that is the issue and problem, but the air pollution is the thing they need to worry about?

But maybe you will be happy to hear that the rates of pollution in the whole European civilization block are orders of magnitude lower than non-European blocks[1]

[1] https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-air-pollution-l...

replies(1): >>45160806 #
3. cluckindan ◴[] No.45159304[source]
Not all inhalable drugs are the same. Also, not all inhalations are the same.

Your idea could hold for people who smoke cigarettes or use combustion-heated pipes to consume hard drugs like meth or crack, or for people who smoke a lot of poor quality cannabis, especially without any kind of filtering.

It probably doesn’t hold for people who use a dry herb vaporizer to consume cannabis, since the method of consumption doesn’t generate PM2.5 or combustion gases, and the volatile constituents of cannabis are well established to have local and systemic anti-inflammatory effects.

4. ◴[] No.45160806[source]