There are a few methods to reduce the symptoms of a hangover.
Hangovers don't just happen like a headache, an ingrown toenail, or cancer. Looking for a cure for a hangover is largely too late. Prevention is the key but there are a few things that can be done to help get through the day after drinking too heavily.
Hangovers don't just happen like a headache, an ingrown toenail, or cancer. Looking for a cure for a hangover is largely too late. Prevention is the key but there are a few things that can be done to help get through the day after drinking too heavily.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1: Prevention
Eat
One of the best things to do before drinking is to eat a hearty meal. If you can't do that gobble down the peanuts, popcorn, or whatever other food is available where you are drinking. Drinking on an empty stomach is unwise.
Drink water
Downing a quart of water before the first drink will give your body the fluid it needs and help divert the absorption of the alcohol into your system.
One of the best things to do before drinking is to eat a hearty meal. If you can't do that gobble down the peanuts, popcorn, or whatever other food is available where you are drinking. Drinking on an empty stomach is unwise.
Drink water
Downing a quart of water before the first drink will give your body the fluid it needs and help divert the absorption of the alcohol into your system.
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
I am by no means suggesting that smoking marijuana is a good idea. It certainly leads to inflammation in the lungs which can in tern lead to cell damage and what we call "pre-cancerous" cells in lung tissues.
Smoking marijuana has certainly been linked to higher levels of testicular cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer in regular pot smokers than non smokers. it has also been linked to complications for women who smoke during pregnancy.
That being said, while this issue is debated, the medical community certainly does not agree that "weed is far more dangerous than tobacco, presenting an increased risk of cancer"
I believe it's quite the opposite.
It is difficult to really study this as long-term studies just aren't being done on any real level. partly due to the legal and political debate.
but what we do know for sure is that marijuana certainly has some therapeutic uses. nicotine, with the exception of a few very rare cases, has no therapeutic value - even less so when smoked.
marijuana is nowhere near as addictive.
there is so much nonsense in the media about marijuana it's mind-boggling. my favourite is the study that came out of new zealand that apparently claimed smoking 1 joint was the same as smoking 20 cigarettes, which was of course not at all what the study claimed. the press went bonkers and that is the source of most of these kinds of claims you hear today. although - read the paper for yourself:
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/31/2/280.full
They looked at 79 people with lung cancer and 324 controls.
Of those 79 people with cancer, 9 of them didn't smoke cigarettes.
9.
58 of them never smoked marijuana with 3, 4 and 14 being in their three categories of increasing amounts smoked respectively.
"While cannabis smoking (defined as lifetime use of o20 joints)
was not associated with a significantly increased risk of lung
cancer (table 2), those with the highest tertile of use
(.10.5 joint-yrs of exposure) had a significantly increased risk
(RR 5.7 (95% CI 1.5–21.6)) after adjustment for age, sex,
ethnicity, pack-yrs of cigarette smoking and a family history of
lung cancer."
However - in their control group they had 4 "highest tertile of use" patients vs 14 in the cancer group.
Contrast that with what i think is a far superior study (and the community would agree based on the impact scores of the two journals) done at UCLA:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/180/8/797.long
and you'll see a far different story.
that's not to say smoking pot is good for you - it almost certainly contributes to COPD in people that smoke tobacco (although surprisingly doesn't appear to lead to COPD on its own)
Tashkin's even hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer because of the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, like you said. However that simply didn't appear to be the case in his study which included almost 10 times as many subjects as the New Zealand study.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found they absolutely did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
Of course you probably shouldn't do either - but cigarette smoking is almost certainly far worse for your general health and well being than smoking marijuana is.
However, it's summary does state that smoking marijuana poses similar risks to smoking regarding heart disease and pulmonary obstructions, and further states that the risks are greatly increased in those who smoke both marijuana and tobacco.
Your first reference seems to be double-thinking itself - first stating that there is no significant risk, then pointing out that long-term smoking of cannabis is a significant risk, and also pointed out that 1 in 20 lung cancers in the under-55 age-group in New Zealand (ie, those too young to have developed the disease from general exposure to pollution) is due to cannabis use.
the NZ paper isn't double-thinking itself - they presented the data they found. that's how science is done.
the aim of the study was to determine the risk of lung cancer associated
with cannabis smoking. one of their findings was that people that smoked less were not at a risk of contracting the disease.
they seemed to have based their conclusions on the higher groups - which, while apparently significant - i find those data dubious at best, based on the lack of power.
Either way, i maintain that your claim that weed is far more dangerous than tobacco, presenting an increased risk of cancer is not based on fact.
Sounds to me like you're biased.
I personally have no horse in this race - i don't smoke either so i don't really care. politically i don't believe the government should be regulating behaviours beyond protecting the rights of others - it's absurd to me that pot is illegal while far more dangerous drugs like tobacco and alcohol are perfectly legal.
the greater-than symbol didn't carry over so maybe that's the source of the confusion. they had 4 groups - non smokers, less than 1.39 joints/year, between 1.39 and 10.5 and greater than 10.5/year.
they are claiming that people who have smoked the greatest amount of marijuana (the highest group) have a significantly increased risk of lung cancer.
but their sample size was 18 people. 14 of which had cancer, 4 didn't. and many of the marijuana smokers were also cigarette smokers.
as it were i think the claim is dubious based on their own data. but this is the paper that was all over over the place and is the source of the "1 joint = 20 cigarettes" myth and that's why i brought it up.
feel free to provide a better one that you feel more adequately supports your claim that "weed is far more dangerous than tobacco, presenting an increased risk of cancer"
Wrecks, all I can say.
The only thing close to damage by alcoholism is heroin.
Both are certainly the most dangerous drugs available (wether it's legal or not).
Interestingly a lot of (most ?…) heroin addicts when they survive fall into alcohol addiction after they quit heroin… And they usually die from the effect of both over the years … mostly between35 and 45-50.
As for balancing between the effects of nicotine and THC I'm quite surprised about what you say. It is a well known fact that THC does not causes cancer whereas nicotine is the primary cause of throat and lung cancer (how much you inhale is ludicrous as many permanent non smokers died of tobacco induced lung cancer simply by living in places where cigarette smoking was prevalent).
Now I do not mean THC has no bad effect on health, but as long as weed is not mixed with tobacco there is no proof yet that THC causes cancer.
Anyway all these arguments seem quite absurd to me : if you want to live a healthy life and respect yourself as you should respect others, do not get over the barrier of non self-control, be it alcohol, weed or any other recreational drugs …
Knowing which one is less harmful than the other misses the point : the point is in words "less harmful" / "harmless" there is "harm". This should be avoided altogether.
exactly. an strangely enough - alcohol is the only drug that i know of whose withdrawal symptoms can kill you. narcotics are close if you're not careful to stay hydrated during the invariable diarrhea that comes with coming off opiates.
another thing about Heroin that is crazy is the fact that pharmacologically it's just morphine.
heroin has acetyl groups that make it much more soluble than morphine so when it is injected it is more potent than morhpine because it gets to the brain faster - however once in the brain those acetyl groups are cleaved and the it is converted to morphine...
Where did I say pure THC causes cancer?
Stop putting words and arguments in my mouth, it is disingenuous.
And, news flash, pure nicotine does not cause cancer either - both marijuana and tobacco contain many other substances, many of which are highly carcinogenic. Causing any complex organic substance to smoulder for prolonged periods generates dozens, often hundreds, of carcinogenic toxins.
THC and nicotine are just the single substance that produces the desired effects, amongst the hundreds of substances that have only UNdesirable effects.
a bolus of pure nicotine extracted from a pack of cigarettes would almost certainly kill you - and quickly.
the LD 50 of nicotine is about 100 times higher than that of cocaine, for example.
the human ld50 of nicotine is .5 - 1 mg/kg.
Pure nicotine almost certainly is a carcinogen - but there just isn't enough data to support that in humans due to the fact that its toxicity is so high. At the very least it is definitely highly mitogenic & I can tell you that they have validated tumours in lab animals AND they have shown that it stimulates rapid division of pancreatic cells.
and that's real sources, not "my medical acquaintances"
by why take my word for it? just pop over to pubmed and search for marijuana and cancer.
despite the fact that NIH simply will not fund research exploring potential positive effects of marijuana bur rather will only entertain grants that are written in order to explore the negative effects, you will see an overwhelming amount data that suggest that not only is marijuana far less toxic than most prescription and recreational drugs, it is effective in treating a host of diseases and disorders ranging from anxiety to end-stage cancer.
i am by no means saying that people should smoke marijuana recreationally, but there is no medical basis whatsoever for keeping the drug on the list of Schedule 1 drugs.
in other words - you would need to give a group of people 100 - 200 times the amount of cocaine you would need to kill half of them if you used pure nicotine.
drug laws in this country aren't so much about safety as they are about lobbying.
also, to be clear - the LD50 obviously isn't that useful of a tool when determining drug safety. Obviously cocaine is one of the worst things you can put in your body - probably far worse for you than nicotine when looking at their relative dosages and administration routes. however the point stands that nicotine is a HIGHLY toxic substance - and it's not just the various tars and god only knows what other compounds they are putting in cigarettes that kill you.
While not a doctor, let me say this: your lungs are actually fairly delicate and as such, are damaged when exposed to more than your garden variety dust and pollen. Your lungs are designed with defensive mechanisms to cope accordingly, such as phlem production, etc. They were never intended for the intense exposure that smoking ANYTHING produces. The body IS IMHO, amazingly resilient. Will smoking weed cause cancer, etc.? Dunno. Probabley not. BUT, I'm not a doctor or researcher. BUT, again, smoking anything, IMHO is abusing what you were born with. Will not drinking or smoking make you live longer? Or does it just feel like it? Dunno. One thing I do know, moderation never hurt anyone and a drug conviction on one's record will.
Drinking water is 10 times less dangerous than smoking pot.
I've not been smoking pot for 37 years and I've done my homework and weed is scientifically proven to have carcinogens, induce laziness, and has ruined a few of my friend's chances at a decent wage, extended (by years and tens of thousands of dollars) the time it took to get a degree, and wasted thousands of hours arguing for the legalization of something that will never be legalized.
10 times? I'm not even going to ask if you just made that up or not.
Barbecue is scientifically proven to have carcinogens in it. That doesn't stop me from grilling though.
"induce laziness" Really? Care to share a link to that scientific study? yeah, I didn't think you would.
"has ruined a few of my friend's chances at a decent wage"
The rest of your stoner friends got lucky and got good jobs right? Maybe there is just no corollary between the two?
"something that will never be legalized"
You mean like the 50,000 years of human existence when it was legal? It didn't seem to be such a problem then as it suddenly became in the past 80 or so years it has been illegal.
Do you want to know why drugs are illegal? Because old white folks are scared of hispanics, blacks, and asians. Unfortunately old white folks are the ones who write most laws. It really is as simple as that. Don't believe me? The historical records still exist.
Hispanics cannabis
blacks cocaine
asians opiates
Lucky for you old white folks like to drink, or they'd have outlawed that too. Oh wait they did, it just didn't work for their society.
"...and wasted thousands of hours arguing for the legalization of something that will never be legalized."
What part of it was legal until modern times aren't you getting? Everything is defacto legal until laws are passed against them. Not every law drawn up happens to be a good, or even a legal one.
Personally I don't care what people do as long as they don't interfere with me. But I do care what my government does because that reflects poorly on me. You know, by the people, for the people?
I'm not going to debate you because you do not seem to have a grasp of the issue. Do try not to lose sight of the fact that law makers are public servants. They work for us!
almost all my friends are stoners and they all above average intelligence.
i also know a lot of people that still get drunk every week, they are getting more stupid every time.
drink driving is illegal - but it's neither illegal to drink nor to drive. why would this be any different?
i think it's quite clear that he meant no deaths as a direct result of drug toxicity. marijuana didn't kill that poor woman - selfish stupidity did.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-04/study-strengthens-marijuana-brain-damage-case/2459244
You'll notice that the studies quoted to "prove" marijuana is safe all use purified extracts from the plant, whereas those that show it is dangerous are referring to the full plant or resin, and all the other organic compounds therein. You know, the stuff people actually smoke.
1) If you plan to get drunk, then you'll be drunk no matter what.
2) If you don't want to get drunk, don't drink : simple as that.
3) If you develop a strategy in order to get over the effect of being drunk, go bact to number two.
4) If you develop a strategy be cause you know your system cannot take as much alcohol as you'd like, again go back to number two.
5) If you like drinking and cannot control yourself you might as well go back to number 1)
6) If you like drinking and cannot control yourself, it means you don't like drinking as drinking is the pleasure of taste and socializing, then you fall in number 5)
7) If you know you'll get drunk and are not able to control yourself not only do you fall back on number 1) but you're a moron as you are a hazard to yourself.
8) If you're a hazard to yourself you're also a hazard to others, which makes you a potential criminal : which means you won't even fall into the above categories ; in which case you won't even read this comment in the 1st place.
All in all : for the 1st time do I feel that Instructable.com is way off line as it encourages stupid and dangerous behaviors.
In this view the Disclaimer is downright hypocrite.
Does possession of a band-aid encourage self-harm?
This instructable talks about behavior, not tools.
Band aid is a tool that yo need when you run into a mishap.
Here we're talking about a wrong behavior which is "how to get drunk without a hang over";
Pushing the argument to the limit (which is not said in the instructable but that could be followed by mindless punks) it means : "how can I get drunk (and behave foolishly) without having the after effect ?"
Same logic is : "How can I get drunk, kill someone on the road, and get away with it ?…"
I truly think the whole thing is a shame.
Ps. I am have nothing against alcoholic beverages, actually I enjoy them a lot, as I live in a wine drinking country.
Back in my university days, I helped run a "safe lifestyle" campaign, and when it got as far as drinking, much of the advice we gave then is repeated here now.