If you get a watch that measures heart rate variability (HRV), you will notice that alcohol is significantly reducing it, which is associated with a lot of things you don’t wish to yourself. And it doesn’t have to be a lot of alcohol.
So how sober has a simple answer if you care about your health : fully sober.
The way I see it / choose to live my life, not that it’s the “right” way: I enjoy certain things, like wine, in moderation that may have some detrimental health effects. However, a glass of wine and a nice sunset is something that brings me a lot of joy. I’d argue that a certain degree of “ah, fuck it” is psychologically healthy which can improve overall health.
I also have a bourbon and cigar on Sunday nights, usually paired some Jazz or an old movie. Sometimes I put butter on my bread even though it’s “bad” for my arteries. Let the chips fall where they may.
I agree with you completely. I think what the US is seeing now is a rejection of the binge drinking culture (which is a good thing), but going to the other extreme.
I also see a lot of over indexing on minutia. For example, worrying about drinking a couple glasses of wine, but then never exercising and sitting at a desk for 18 hours/day.
There's also the mental health aspect that you spoke about.
I don't think alcohol-lowered HRV is particularly meaningful for health outcomes. HRV is lower when you're sick; the causality probably goes the other way.
You are absolutely right. But those of us who live in 3rd world dictatorships are here for the fun time, not the long time. The more we live the more we experience corruption, inflation, infrastructure failure, war, water shortages, etc... Hard to do anything productive sober.
But is that even true? If you get enjoyment out of a drink in moderation, that affects your mental health which in turn affects your physiological health no? So maybe it's not healthy for all individuals to abstain completely. I don't drink except on holidays/events with friends or family where I can get the effects in 1 or 2 beers haha
There are associations, but correlation is not causation.
I recall reading an NYT article about the relative health risk of various drinking levels. It seems that light drinking does not have much of an effect on longevity:
> For those who have two drinks a week, that choice amounts to less than one week of lost life on average [1]
Could it reduce quality of living without reducing lifespan? I suppose. But I had been led to believe, by many news articles, that drinking even one drink a week was going to do me lots of harm.
My takeaway from this is that news outlets like to get clicks by telling people surprising and terrible things.
I've had several relatives live to quite advanced age drinking more than a person should so I'm not particularly interested in theories about how my heath demands teetotalism. Great if it works for you or you personally need to do it, not everybody does.
I have a watch that measures HRV and have seen nothing that seems a signal linked to behavior.
They still have a point. Alcohol use is intertwined with human history for thousands of years at least. People have been drinking for a while, and we generally seem to handle it just fine.
Yes, a fallacy is a reason to dismiss an argument, not necessarily the conclusion; it is a very good reason to doubt a conclusion though.
My parent's formulation can be used with other drugs in cases that are still reasonable. For example:
1. Many smokers I know have lived to old age.
2. Therefore "I'm not particularly interested in theories about how my heath demands" not smoking cigarettes.
It also makes an implicit assumption that living for a long time is both necessary and sufficient to describe a healthy person.
Alcohol abuse is can have a negative impact quality of life as well as the length of the life (this comes from mental and physical health effects). So you could live a very long life with alcohol induced depression/anxiety/diabetes etc.
The last part definitely applies as well to your own statement that we generally seem to handle it just fine. It's interesting to see what happens to communities who don't have thousands of years of history with alcohol when it's introduced. For example the Native American population, or the coloured population of south africa.
Europeans and other groups who have had much longer exposure to alcohol do seem to handle it better, but possibly just because the people who couldn't handle it were selected out of our respective gene pools. But, even then, not really. There's a very good documentary about drinking in the UK called Drinkers Like Me, that really shows the hidden cost of alcohol on the health of people in the UK [0].
There are many other things we've done okay with for long periods of time, like lead plumbing (which we used for about 2 thousand years!), which definitely had long term negative effects on us.
What other things with a 90% success rate do you avoid?
It is perfectly valid to say “I’ve seen bad stuff with alcohol and chosen to not partake”, and it is also kind of deeply weird to say “I don’t engage in anything with a <90% success rate” and then not give any other examples.
Here's what I don't see: survivors that have a particular interest in "healthy" lifestyle.
Like the survivors weren't the kinds of people who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, were drunk most nights in their 40s, nor weighed 350 pounds for a majority of their lives... so they weren't doing the obviously very unhealthy things.
But at the same time they weren't health fad people.
Yep. I once met a guy that was somehow just as proud of his two pack per day cigarette habit as he was his decades of sobriety because “at least it’s not heroin”. Dude had severe COPD and died from something lung-related a year later in his mid-50s.
People that declare themselves immune to death because they avoid [x substance] can have some insane ideas about diet, exercise, sleep, stress and [y substance]. Believing that the world is simple and controllable is a dangerous intoxicant.
I have very little desire to read a novel centered around drinking or drug use in 2025. That subject has been covered pretty extensively - and the writers who explored it have mostly either found moderation in their later years or paid a significant price.
A lot of us are drinking less, but I’m not sure we’ve really come up with a suitable replacement yet - socially speaking. I would be more interested to explore that.
Edit: To be clear, some of my favorite writers were very heavy into drugs and alcohol: Kerouac, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. I’m not criticizing their work - which again are some of my personal favorites - but if you read their biographies they often don’t end well. My thinking is what would these novels look like if written in 2025 and not set against the backdrop of substance abuse.
> A lot of us are drinking less, but I’m not sure we’ve really come up with a suitable replacement yet - socially speaking.
I have had interesting experiences with low (but not micro) doses of LSD. It felt way more interesting than alcohol and way more safe and you can be much more functional than with alcohol while having a great time.
But the effects are way too long (~8 to 10 hours at low doses) to be a good alcohol replacement at social settings.
I think a key part of freetime2's quoted excerpt is the part that relates to social acceptance.
Right now (well, not exactly now, but tomorrow-now) I can pop into any random over-21 bar near me and buy some drinks for myself and whoever else happens to be around.
And that will be perfectly OK, socially-speaking, according to anyone I'm buying a drink for, and the bartender, and anyone who sees me behave in this fashion.
Even leaving aside such notions as legality and length-of-trip: LSD is a long, long way from reaching that level of social acceptance, don't you think?
I was just saying that a short duration psychedelic could, chemically speaking, be a good replacement for alcohol with pretty much all the benefits without a lot of downsides.
But I agree we are far from there. And there is also the case for the taste of alcoholic beverages.
No, for me 30-50. The objective is to be socially apt.
In this dose range I can feel a little drunk but still have a conversation and be less impaired intellectually than with alcohol.
But it will last longer and, more importantly, I will not be able to sleep for hours which is the biggest blocker at using it at all for those situations.
A surprising number of my colleagues over the years have been know to dabble in all sorts of things to "enhance performance".
Adderall: at one point in time I think half the engineers in the bay were popping these. They were practically free and available everywhere during the dot com bubble recovery.
Weed: A good number of JS engineers I know are just miserable people to work with till they smoke a joint.
Drinking: From casual to alcoholics, drinking culture used to be huge in many bay area offices. This has died down... still there but more discrete.
LSD: there is a shocking amount of this, your average dev team likely has someone who micro-doses if not more...
Cocaine and MDMA have gone the way of the dodo: fent made them mostly non starters.
Whilst enjoying all of the above from time-to-time (though we call Adderall 'speed' in Europe and don't give it to children) my top productivity booster is total, multi-month sobriety.
> my top productivity booster is total, multi-month sobriety
For me, it's early morning workouts. If I have time to do jiujitsu at 7am, then my entire day is super charged. I've tried with other sorts of workouts, but I think there's something about being put under that much stress first thing in the morning that makes the rest of the day feel like easy mode.
Myriad of reasons, control being one of the central. By ingesting substances, one can directly influence their inner world, and for many, that possibility alone is priceless. Additionally, most of the popular substances feel good on the short term. Alcohol, for example, lowers stress, and inhibitions in general, so it's easier to strike up a conversation, or to share a vulnerable secret and feel good about it, or to start dancing. So, drinking specifically is attractive in many ways, mostly short term.
>Why would anyone with a brain poison themselves voluntarily?
Getting back to this, some people also hurt themselves, with the specific goal of hurting themselves, or to attain something by it, or to give expression to their feelings. Specifically, I'm meaning self-harm here. And substance abuse can be partly done for self-harming reasons. And therefore it's very bad taste to assert that people doing this "don't have a brain". That's denying part of human experience, which no good person ever did in human history.
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely valid not to support people harming themselves, or to not understand, or relate as to why they are doing it. But since you see that many people are doing it, you can suppose that it's something you don't understand, rather than all of them being stupid.
I could agree that inebriated, fried brains are easier to control by the rich. Sale of alcohol was always a mean of controlling populace and extracting wealth from it.
> Alcohol, for example, lowers stress, and inhibitions in general, so it's easier to strike up a conversation, or to share a vulnerable secret and feel good about it, or to start dancing.
Ale those things are super easy, when the culture doesn't force you to drink first to allow you to do them.
> And substance abuse can be partly done for self-harming reasons. And therefore it's very bad taste to assert that people doing this "don't have a brain".
Hmm... I do a decent job at new, exploratory library code with a glass of wine. Not business logic, not exacting data invariants, nothing I would ever ship to production, but exploring interfaces for a library? Yeah. Asking "What does this really need to do? How do I really wish that I could write the calling/collaborating code?"
I wouldn't trust logic I wrote with alcohol in my system, or any tests that I wrote with alcohol, but getting at the heart of "Why does this library need to exist? What should it actually allow?" is enhanced a tiny bit by a mildly-altered mental state.
Over time, I've decided that it is because I get chatty with wine, and designing a library interface feels like a conversation between me and future engineers who might use said library. And then I stash it away to read and reconsider while sober.
A touch of alcohol turns the overthinking volume down which often leads to more productivity and better code. A not so uncommon ADHD experience. In university of course also sometimes I would do my programming drunk and the result would regularly be that it worked but the solutions would be very odd.
Standard ADHD meds often lead to playing Factorio for 17 hours in a row and forgetting to eat.
I've found that sessions of Factorio lasting 17 hours (or more!) are entirely possible even when a person is completely unfettered by any manner of inebriate or medication.
(It's almost like the birds can hear the loading screen, and that hearing this prepares them for their pre-dawn onslaught of particularly-profound singing.)
It can appear a bit counter intuitive because broadly alcohol is a depressant and cocaine's a stimulant.
The primary "risk" with polydrug abuse (especially uppers + downers) is that you end up taking much more than you would normally, and once the upper wears off, the downer depressed your breathing, pote being fatal.
But with coke + alcohol, even a "normal" quantity of both when combined is far worse. It's a bunch of heart signalling stuff that affects blood pressure and a few other things, in ways that really aren't good. Which is honestly pretty impressive because coke alone is an excellent way to fuck up your heart (credits, Rohin Francis/Medlife crisis, a cardiac surgeon on YouTube who posts way too less because presumably the stress of working for NHS isn't good for a doctor's health either.)
(Iirc alcohol and Tramadol are 2 things to typically never mix with other drugs; there's a matrix chart about drug interactions and these 2 are counter indicated with most other drugs. Weed, funnily and unsurprisingly, has one of the least interactions with other drugs.)
Haha...when I used to golf, 2 beers (American swill, no fancy high alcohol types) was the optimal amount. It was just enough to make me relax, which is so critical for a good golf swing.
I think that people feel that it's real, especially when under the effect. But I highly doubt its real efficiency, and especially its sustainability on long term.
If you get a watch that measures heart rate variability (HRV), you will notice that alcohol is significantly reducing it, which is associated with a lot of things you don’t wish to yourself. And it doesn’t have to be a lot of alcohol.
So how sober has a simple answer if you care about your health : fully sober.
A perfectly valid comment, no critique.
The way I see it / choose to live my life, not that it’s the “right” way: I enjoy certain things, like wine, in moderation that may have some detrimental health effects. However, a glass of wine and a nice sunset is something that brings me a lot of joy. I’d argue that a certain degree of “ah, fuck it” is psychologically healthy which can improve overall health.
I also have a bourbon and cigar on Sunday nights, usually paired some Jazz or an old movie. Sometimes I put butter on my bread even though it’s “bad” for my arteries. Let the chips fall where they may.
I agree with you completely. I think what the US is seeing now is a rejection of the binge drinking culture (which is a good thing), but going to the other extreme.
I also see a lot of over indexing on minutia. For example, worrying about drinking a couple glasses of wine, but then never exercising and sitting at a desk for 18 hours/day.
There's also the mental health aspect that you spoke about.
HN poetry right here.
Thanks for sharing.
I don't think alcohol-lowered HRV is particularly meaningful for health outcomes. HRV is lower when you're sick; the causality probably goes the other way.
You are absolutely right. But those of us who live in 3rd world dictatorships are here for the fun time, not the long time. The more we live the more we experience corruption, inflation, infrastructure failure, war, water shortages, etc... Hard to do anything productive sober.
> if you care about your health : fully
If you care ONLY about your health
But is that even true? If you get enjoyment out of a drink in moderation, that affects your mental health which in turn affects your physiological health no? So maybe it's not healthy for all individuals to abstain completely. I don't drink except on holidays/events with friends or family where I can get the effects in 1 or 2 beers haha
There are associations, but correlation is not causation.
I recall reading an NYT article about the relative health risk of various drinking levels. It seems that light drinking does not have much of an effect on longevity:
> For those who have two drinks a week, that choice amounts to less than one week of lost life on average [1]
Could it reduce quality of living without reducing lifespan? I suppose. But I had been led to believe, by many news articles, that drinking even one drink a week was going to do me lots of harm.
My takeaway from this is that news outlets like to get clicks by telling people surprising and terrible things.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/15/magazine/alcohol-health-r...
I've had several relatives live to quite advanced age drinking more than a person should so I'm not particularly interested in theories about how my heath demands teetotalism. Great if it works for you or you personally need to do it, not everybody does.
I have a watch that measures HRV and have seen nothing that seems a signal linked to behavior.
This is a logical fallacy called Survivorship Bias.
They still have a point. Alcohol use is intertwined with human history for thousands of years at least. People have been drinking for a while, and we generally seem to handle it just fine.
Yes, a fallacy is a reason to dismiss an argument, not necessarily the conclusion; it is a very good reason to doubt a conclusion though.
My parent's formulation can be used with other drugs in cases that are still reasonable. For example:
It also makes an implicit assumption that living for a long time is both necessary and sufficient to describe a healthy person.Alcohol abuse is can have a negative impact quality of life as well as the length of the life (this comes from mental and physical health effects). So you could live a very long life with alcohol induced depression/anxiety/diabetes etc.
The last part definitely applies as well to your own statement that we generally seem to handle it just fine. It's interesting to see what happens to communities who don't have thousands of years of history with alcohol when it's introduced. For example the Native American population, or the coloured population of south africa.
Europeans and other groups who have had much longer exposure to alcohol do seem to handle it better, but possibly just because the people who couldn't handle it were selected out of our respective gene pools. But, even then, not really. There's a very good documentary about drinking in the UK called Drinkers Like Me, that really shows the hidden cost of alcohol on the health of people in the UK [0].
There are many other things we've done okay with for long periods of time, like lead plumbing (which we used for about 2 thousand years!), which definitely had long term negative effects on us.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8SvnmNo48A
You don't know any alcoholics? The ones in my life seem set out to spoil not only theirs, but anyone who dares care for them.
A doctor told me that ~10% of people who drink become alcoholics.
That's too prevalent to say we " generally seem to handle it just fine"
What other things with a 90% success rate do you avoid?
It is perfectly valid to say “I’ve seen bad stuff with alcohol and chosen to not partake”, and it is also kind of deeply weird to say “I don’t engage in anything with a <90% success rate” and then not give any other examples.
Survivors that drink: Not valid, biased, should not be counted
Survivors that do not drink: Valid, unbiased, should be counted
Here's what I don't see: survivors that have a particular interest in "healthy" lifestyle.
Like the survivors weren't the kinds of people who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, were drunk most nights in their 40s, nor weighed 350 pounds for a majority of their lives... so they weren't doing the obviously very unhealthy things.
But at the same time they weren't health fad people.
Yep. I once met a guy that was somehow just as proud of his two pack per day cigarette habit as he was his decades of sobriety because “at least it’s not heroin”. Dude had severe COPD and died from something lung-related a year later in his mid-50s.
People that declare themselves immune to death because they avoid [x substance] can have some insane ideas about diet, exercise, sleep, stress and [y substance]. Believing that the world is simple and controllable is a dangerous intoxicant.
Intoxication is basically the “temperature“ setting on a writer.
Reductive
I found free public versions for some of the essays in the compilation.
Show Mr. and Mrs. F. to Number—[1]
The Crack-Up[2]
[1] https://fitzgerald.narod.ru/zelda/shownumber.html
[2] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/f-scott-fitzgerald-...
I'm sure some of you here comment only when you are drunk. What are your expert takes? (Not asking for a friend)
In particular, how do you feel when you do that? Mildly elated? Slightly cheesed-off but still cheery?
I have very little desire to read a novel centered around drinking or drug use in 2025. That subject has been covered pretty extensively - and the writers who explored it have mostly either found moderation in their later years or paid a significant price.
A lot of us are drinking less, but I’m not sure we’ve really come up with a suitable replacement yet - socially speaking. I would be more interested to explore that.
Edit: To be clear, some of my favorite writers were very heavy into drugs and alcohol: Kerouac, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. I’m not criticizing their work - which again are some of my personal favorites - but if you read their biographies they often don’t end well. My thinking is what would these novels look like if written in 2025 and not set against the backdrop of substance abuse.
> A lot of us are drinking less, but I’m not sure we’ve really come up with a suitable replacement yet - socially speaking.
I have had interesting experiences with low (but not micro) doses of LSD. It felt way more interesting than alcohol and way more safe and you can be much more functional than with alcohol while having a great time.
But the effects are way too long (~8 to 10 hours at low doses) to be a good alcohol replacement at social settings.
How socially-suitable is that?
I think a key part of freetime2's quoted excerpt is the part that relates to social acceptance.
Right now (well, not exactly now, but tomorrow-now) I can pop into any random over-21 bar near me and buy some drinks for myself and whoever else happens to be around.
And that will be perfectly OK, socially-speaking, according to anyone I'm buying a drink for, and the bartender, and anyone who sees me behave in this fashion.
Even leaving aside such notions as legality and length-of-trip: LSD is a long, long way from reaching that level of social acceptance, don't you think?
Yeah I definitely didn’t have replacing alcohol with LSD (or any other chemical) in mind when I made my original comment.
That being said, I do wish that psychedelics were more socially accepted as I do think positive outcomes are possible when used in moderation.
I do agree with you :)
I was just saying that a short duration psychedelic could, chemically speaking, be a good replacement for alcohol with pretty much all the benefits without a lot of downsides.
But I agree we are far from there. And there is also the case for the taste of alcoholic beverages.
What is "low but not micro"? 80ug?
No, for me 30-50. The objective is to be socially apt.
In this dose range I can feel a little drunk but still have a conversation and be less impaired intellectually than with alcohol.
But it will last longer and, more importantly, I will not be able to sleep for hours which is the biggest blocker at using it at all for those situations.
I love LSD. It's the only thing that makes my depression go away, even for a brief moment.
And I love your username :D
> I have very little desire to read a novel centered around drinking or drug use in 2025. That subject has been covered pretty extensively
I like this reasoning. If a character in a book does drugs then the story isn’t interesting, if a character in a book doesn’t do drugs it is.
A surprising number of my colleagues over the years have been know to dabble in all sorts of things to "enhance performance".
Adderall: at one point in time I think half the engineers in the bay were popping these. They were practically free and available everywhere during the dot com bubble recovery.
Weed: A good number of JS engineers I know are just miserable people to work with till they smoke a joint.
Drinking: From casual to alcoholics, drinking culture used to be huge in many bay area offices. This has died down... still there but more discrete.
LSD: there is a shocking amount of this, your average dev team likely has someone who micro-doses if not more...
Cocaine and MDMA have gone the way of the dodo: fent made them mostly non starters.
Whilst enjoying all of the above from time-to-time (though we call Adderall 'speed' in Europe and don't give it to children) my top productivity booster is total, multi-month sobriety.
> my top productivity booster is total, multi-month sobriety
For me, it's early morning workouts. If I have time to do jiujitsu at 7am, then my entire day is super charged. I've tried with other sorts of workouts, but I think there's something about being put under that much stress first thing in the morning that makes the rest of the day feel like easy mode.
How is drinking even a thing? Why would anyone with a brain poison themselves voluntarily?
Myriad of reasons, control being one of the central. By ingesting substances, one can directly influence their inner world, and for many, that possibility alone is priceless. Additionally, most of the popular substances feel good on the short term. Alcohol, for example, lowers stress, and inhibitions in general, so it's easier to strike up a conversation, or to share a vulnerable secret and feel good about it, or to start dancing. So, drinking specifically is attractive in many ways, mostly short term.
>Why would anyone with a brain poison themselves voluntarily?
Getting back to this, some people also hurt themselves, with the specific goal of hurting themselves, or to attain something by it, or to give expression to their feelings. Specifically, I'm meaning self-harm here. And substance abuse can be partly done for self-harming reasons. And therefore it's very bad taste to assert that people doing this "don't have a brain". That's denying part of human experience, which no good person ever did in human history.
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely valid not to support people harming themselves, or to not understand, or relate as to why they are doing it. But since you see that many people are doing it, you can suppose that it's something you don't understand, rather than all of them being stupid.
> control being one of the central
I could agree that inebriated, fried brains are easier to control by the rich. Sale of alcohol was always a mean of controlling populace and extracting wealth from it.
> Alcohol, for example, lowers stress, and inhibitions in general, so it's easier to strike up a conversation, or to share a vulnerable secret and feel good about it, or to start dancing.
Ale those things are super easy, when the culture doesn't force you to drink first to allow you to do them.
> And substance abuse can be partly done for self-harming reasons. And therefore it's very bad taste to assert that people doing this "don't have a brain".
Self-harm is never smart.
Well, you got your good faith answer. It's up to you whether you learn, or continue to be ignorant.
You got my good faith comments. It's up to you whether you learn something from them to expand your horizons.
Not sober at all
I write my best code a little tipsy
Hmm... I do a decent job at new, exploratory library code with a glass of wine. Not business logic, not exacting data invariants, nothing I would ever ship to production, but exploring interfaces for a library? Yeah. Asking "What does this really need to do? How do I really wish that I could write the calling/collaborating code?"
I wouldn't trust logic I wrote with alcohol in my system, or any tests that I wrote with alcohol, but getting at the heart of "Why does this library need to exist? What should it actually allow?" is enhanced a tiny bit by a mildly-altered mental state.
Over time, I've decided that it is because I get chatty with wine, and designing a library interface feels like a conversation between me and future engineers who might use said library. And then I stash it away to read and reconsider while sober.
A touch of alcohol turns the overthinking volume down which often leads to more productivity and better code. A not so uncommon ADHD experience. In university of course also sometimes I would do my programming drunk and the result would regularly be that it worked but the solutions would be very odd.
Standard ADHD meds often lead to playing Factorio for 17 hours in a row and forgetting to eat.
>Standard ADHD meds often lead playing Factorio for 17 hours in a row and forgetting to eat.
Ain't that the truth.
I've found that sessions of Factorio lasting 17 hours (or more!) are entirely possible even when a person is completely unfettered by any manner of inebriate or medication.
(It's almost like the birds can hear the loading screen, and that hearing this prepares them for their pre-dawn onslaught of particularly-profound singing.)
The entirety of the dot com bubble recovery was powered by adderall, weed and booze.
I think its good for enhancing taste, fluidity, and creativity, obviously not good for strict engineering but that's not all we do...
So the Ballmer peak is real?
I thought that he was associated more with coke?
Though both of them can combine for a very interesting experience, or so I've heard...
(Nerd snipe: cocethelyne is uniquely cardiotoxic, and is somehow even worse than cocaine. Even amphetamine salts are "healthier".)
> cocethelyne is uniquely cardiotoxic, and is somehow even worse than cocaine
Cocethelyne is the result of mixing cocaine with alcohol… should I be surprised that cocaine plus another substance is worse than cocaine?
It can appear a bit counter intuitive because broadly alcohol is a depressant and cocaine's a stimulant.
The primary "risk" with polydrug abuse (especially uppers + downers) is that you end up taking much more than you would normally, and once the upper wears off, the downer depressed your breathing, pote being fatal.
But with coke + alcohol, even a "normal" quantity of both when combined is far worse. It's a bunch of heart signalling stuff that affects blood pressure and a few other things, in ways that really aren't good. Which is honestly pretty impressive because coke alone is an excellent way to fuck up your heart (credits, Rohin Francis/Medlife crisis, a cardiac surgeon on YouTube who posts way too less because presumably the stress of working for NHS isn't good for a doctor's health either.)
(Iirc alcohol and Tramadol are 2 things to typically never mix with other drugs; there's a matrix chart about drug interactions and these 2 are counter indicated with most other drugs. Weed, funnily and unsurprisingly, has one of the least interactions with other drugs.)
Cocaethylene is a metabolite produced in the liver when both substances are present and it is itself psychoactive.
And no you shouldn't be surprised, mixing two harmful things is often worse than the sum of doing each alone and that should be the base assumption.
It's an xkcd reference
I'm aware ;) I just have "Developers!" living rent-free in my head
Btw there are also the 6 peaks in the Balmer Series, which is another reference if anyone wants to get into it
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series/)
> So the Ballmer peak is real?
Haha...when I used to golf, 2 beers (American swill, no fancy high alcohol types) was the optimal amount. It was just enough to make me relax, which is so critical for a good golf swing.
I think that people feel that it's real, especially when under the effect. But I highly doubt its real efficiency, and especially its sustainability on long term.
But, it feels good.
It really is
Well, I know how sober a driver should be...