Cigarettes and evolution

jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited May 2017 in Nutrition & Fitness
I have a question for those of you that are interested in evolutionary biology. This is a very long and winding rabbit hole so I don't want to go too far astray, but this question occurred to me. Humans have reached a strange time in our evolution. We might have evolved in terms of intelligence past the point where evolution - the driving force of life and adaptation on a changing planet - can help us. That in itself might be a controversial rabbit hole, but let's just assume something like that for sake of argument. No other species on the planet has gotten to the point where it could conceive of or make something as bizarre as a cigarette, for example. But we have.

Now I've never smoked and don't care too, but many of the people who do just loooooove it. Certainly there shouldn't be any evolutionary advantage to this. Clearly it's not healthy, nor does it give us any reproductive advantage (unless you have a smoking fetish or something, lol). I assume that it's just some coincidental trick of the body's biochemistry that we've happened upon. But there can't be any evolutionary advantage to it. So assuming human evolution were to continue in a similar way that evolution has been going on for millions of years (which I don't think it can), would the desire to smoke, or the negative health effects of smoking, be banished from the gene pool over the next however many thousands of years?

For example, humans could eventually evolve for whom:
a) cigarettes feel horrible to them, to be avoided like pepper spray, or
b) cigarettes provide a nutrient and/or energy for our body and it's healthy to smoke them
«1

Comments

  • EazzyEazzy Red Chipper Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭✭
    well I have often argued that government intervention has totally messed up evolution for humans. For centuries we have been getting smarter. Stupid people drive drunk, speed,on't wear seat belts, do things that ever one knows is bad for them like drugs, smoking, taking steroids ect.

    They did it much more often the smarter people....and the human race was getting smarter. Then the government got involved. Tax cigarettes, ticket speeding (at lower speeds), put you in jail for driving drunk , don't allow you to play sports if you use steroids....and we stopped getting smarter....

    After all Gary Larson may have had it right

    de1arzqwpfa1.jpg


  • MonadMonad Red Chipper Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭✭
    Well there is of course McKennas concept of the "Stoned Ape", and that the instinct for smoking/consuming of mind/body altering substances is "built-in" and can (in theory) have a catalyzing effect on structural changes in the human brain, etc.

    Perhaps with cigarettes, alcohol, etc. we're trying to unconsciously recapture the same effect, but our growing alienation from nature, cultural "taboos", professional advertising, etc. has totally mutated the feedback loop between the conscious & unconscious to create a self-destructive animal.

    Maybe :)
  • Doug HullDoug Hull RCP Coach Posts: 1,876 -
    If cigarettes don't kill the smoker before they reproduce, the effect does not matter all that much.

    I wonder if to some degree the Handicap principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle) starts to apply here.

    Depending on the social structure of the time, the social signaling aspect of smoking, and what it means could also have the counter-intuitive sexual selection aspect that later kills the smoker, but attracts a mate.

    It has not always been that smoking was considered a social negative. Within some sub-cultures it still is not. At certain times, it was considered a positive.
    Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
    Author Poker Plays You Can Use
    Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
  • MtipsterMtipster Red Chipper Posts: 131 ✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    For example, humans could eventually evolve for whom:
    a) cigarettes feel horrible to them, to be avoided like pepper spray, or
    No way! Brain doesn't see it as smoking, it is just another way of getting another shot of dopamine. So, we would have to either lose nicotinic receptors or completely loose using dopamine mechanism as positive reinforcement. Really can't see either of those two happening through evolution.

    P.S. Ignore my avatar, I'm smoke free for almost 5 months now. :)

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Certainly there shouldn't be any evolutionary advantage to this. Clearly it's not healthy, nor does it give us any reproductive advantage

    spoken like a dude who's never smoked
    clearly there's no evolutionary advantage to playing poker... yet you do it, right?

    smoking was once a really cool thing to do.
    but before that, the Native Americans were doing it for a variety of reasons such as:
    promotes a meditative state (deep breaths)
    delivers medicinal benefits
    provides a cultural bond amongst the smokers

    I've known many smoker who use smoking to unwind, cool off, chillax.
    I've know others to use beer, whiskey & gin for the same reasons.
    And naturally, I've known others to use both!

    If you take a good hard look at the majority of things us humans do... you'll see that there is no real evolutionary advantage to what we do... so I'm really sure why you would want to pick on smoking and the smokers. But hey, it's a free country... although not sure there's an evolutionary advantage to that either!


    (btw, I don't smoke. never have. never will. But my grandmother did all her life and lived to be in her mid-90's when she died of natural causes. And, yes, she was cool.)
  • The MuleThe Mule Red Chipper Posts: 790 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Certainly there shouldn't be any evolutionary advantage to this. Clearly it's not healthy, nor does it give us any reproductive advantage

    In an environment where both smoking and casual sex are forbidden/strongly discouraged by authority figures, I would expect to see a positive correlation between smoking and unplanned pregnancy.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2017
    jeffnc wrote: »

    For example, humans could eventually evolve for whom:
    a) cigarettes feel horrible to them, to be avoided like pepper spray, or

    It already feel horrible to the body. When you smoke for the first time, your body actually react in a way to tell you that you introduce a poison in it and It reacts exactly as if we were going to be asphyxiated. But still, it shows the power of the mind over the body(Bruce Lee), because we try again and repeat to a point where we override the mechanism of the body. If there were sensitive nerves in our lungs nobody would smoke, as the effect would be like when you receive smokes in your eyes, but unfortunately we don't.

    On a side note, I don't think people love smoking, I think, as the same mechanism they do to override the body mechanism, they try to convince themselves they love smoking.

    People often think smoking relax them but what's really going on is that they respond to the craving/need they institute in the body so actually, they relax because the body have its fix of nicotine, and we trick our brain by thinking that smoking relax ourselve when in fact we develop anxiety between every cigarettes until the next fix. I smoke for many years and I stoped, 4 years now, and looking back, to me, smoking is almost a mental disease.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 2,505 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    So assuming human evolution were to continue in a similar way that evolution has been going on for millions of years (which I don't think it can), would the desire to smoke, or the negative health effects of smoking, be banished from the gene pool over the next however many thousands of years?
    I don't think there is a specific "desire to smoke". Nor does it give a chemical pleasure per se (not like heroin, which touches neuroreceptors in the brain). There is but a chemical addition (to nicotine; and bonus to some of other chemical added).

    I would say that most of the pleasure of smoking come from the act of smoking. For the taste (despite it's unhealthy), to look cool or rebel, due to habit or boredom. And I guess they are the same reason people start smoking. (But as not smoker I can't confirm)
    And the tobacco companies make great effort to make smoking pleasant and comfortable, for example adding chemical so cigarettes don't make you cough.


    @jeffnc : To your question with a and b alternatives, I would chose:
    c. Smoking stay as trend. Humans develop a better body protection against the negative perks of smoking/chemical/etc.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Doug Hull wrote: »
    If cigarettes don't kill the smoker before they reproduce, the effect does not matter all that much.

    Yes tha'st true of course in general with regard to evolution. But I think there are complications there.

    I take into account that standard evolutionary conditions don't really apply anymore, because of the rise of modern medicine and overall lack of "normal" selection factors. So let's assume we're transported back 100,000 where somehow people were heavy smokers.

    I still think there are selection pressures even if smoking doesn't kill you before reproductive age. For one thing, you will probably be at least be less fit than your competitors, and that could cut down on mating opportunities. Second, even if you have a couple kids, you could get sick (emphysyma, cancer, whatever). Now you're going to have a harder time hunting and protecting them, resulting in a higher chance of them dying and resulting in an evolutionary dead end.
    Doug Hull wrote: »
    I wonder if to some degree the Handicap principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle) starts to apply here.

    How interesting. I will have to read more about that. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" just happens to be next on my reading list, so maybe that will cover it.
    Doug Hull wrote: »
    It has not always been that smoking was considered a social negative. Within some sub-cultures it still is not. At certain times, it was considered a positive.

    Yeah I considered that, I just figured that at present, it doesn't seem to be much of a positive, at least in American culture. But you're right, there is the rest of the world too.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mtipster wrote: »
    jeffnc wrote: »
    For example, humans could eventually evolve for whom:
    a) cigarettes feel horrible to them, to be avoided like pepper spray, or
    No way! Brain doesn't see it as smoking, it is just another way of getting another shot of dopamine. So, we would have to either lose nicotinic receptors or completely loose using dopamine mechanism as positive reinforcement. Really can't see either of those two happening through evolution.

    Why not? (I'm sure there are other mechanisms through which this could work. For example, we don't necessarily need to lose the dopamine mechanism for the body to find some way to block nicotine specifically.) That's basically exactly how evolution works.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    clearly there's no evolutionary advantage to playing poker... yet you do it, right?

    First, the basic caveat - there's basically no evolutionary advantage to much of anything anymore! But ignoring that for a moment, of course there is an advantage - you can win money at it. Isn't what you just said similar to saying there's no evolutionary advantage to males fighting each other? Or bringing back meat from the hunt?
    kagey wrote: »
    but before that, the Native Americans were doing it for a variety of reasons such as:
    promotes a meditative state (deep breaths)
    delivers medicinal benefits

    I don't really agree, but even if I did, none of this has had enough time to work on the evolutionary timescale. Smoking is a very, very recent discovery.
    kagey wrote: »
    If you take a good hard look at the majority of things us humans do... you'll see that there is no real evolutionary advantage to what we do...

    As I said in my OP, that's because we've reached a point where evolution isn't working normally any more. Go back and read my premise and assumptions. This is all completely hypothetical.
    kagey wrote: »
    But my grandmother did all her life and lived to be in her mid-90's when she died of natural causes. And, yes, she was cool.)

    I've known many smoker who use smoking to unwind, cool off, chillax.
    I've know others to use beer, whiskey & gin for the same reasons.

    One thing I've noticed about you is that on quite a few occasions, you seem to use very anecdotal evidence to prove your point. (For example, the card removal effect doesn't exist because one time you saw a guy win a big pot by flopping a set of 2s.) That seems like an odd habit for a successful poker player!

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It already feel horrible to the body. When you smoke for the first time, your body actually react in a way to tell you that you introduce a poison in it and It reacts exactly as if we were going to be asphyxiated. But still, it shows the power of the mind over the body(Bruce Lee), because we try again and repeat to a point where we override the mechanism of the body. If there were sensitive nerves in our lungs nobody would smoke, as the effect would be like when you receive smokes in your eyes, but unfortunately we don't.

    Kind of makes you wonder how smoking got started in the first place. Manly dare or peer pressure? Anyway, if evolution were allowed to work, I wonder if people would develop those sensitive nerves you're talking about, over time.

  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    And the tobacco companies make great effort to make smoking pleasant and comfortable, for example adding chemical so cigarettes don't make you cough.

    That is kind of an interesting way to look at it. If this were an evolutionary system that went on for a long time, there would be competition between the tobacco companies and smokers. As smokers got better at defending themselves, the tobacco companies would get better at circumventing those defenses. And on and on. Or an alternative would be that it evolved into a mutually beneficial system - cigarettes actually became healthy for us.

  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
    Evolution is an extremely slow moving train that is never late, used to be able to adapt to any environmental changes. It's a system to causes random genetic mistakes in that certain mistakes will eventually be beneficial. 99.99% of genetic abnormalities either kill you, don't do anything, or are unbeneficial. However, we have hopped off the train. Technology and our own innovation has allowed us to by and large escape this system, in which natural selection seems to have a diminished role. Genetic defects subside as we are able to prevent these people from dying and their traits are passed on. Type II diabetes is actually a adaption strangely enough evolved for amphibians! The increased presence of sugar in the blood means that when they freeze during winter the crystals will form in a way that don't puncture cell membranes, allowing them to freeze and thaw and be re-animated. Fun. However human beings and their ability to process and find sugars in a way that would never never never have been possible normally, and now we have it as well. We have created all these lifestyle diseases while being able to avoid more natural causes of death (an infection back in the day was a death setence). So no, we won't evolve better ways to "tolerate" cigarettes.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jfarrow13 wrote: »
    So no, we won't evolve better ways to "tolerate" cigarettes.

    Right, but the question was "assuming human evolution were to continue in a similar way that evolution has been going on for millions of years..."

    So I'm quite sure it's not going to happen.

    But there's a reason I was asking this hypothetical to question to begin with. Once you understand how/why some process works, you're in a much better place to make good choices. This will be true of other processes as well, which will be the topic of other threads. But IMHO, evolution has to be a common underlying theme in the understanding of most human function, including health and nutrition obviously, so it's good to try to understand it.

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    One thing I've noticed about you is that on quite a few occasions, you seem to use very anecdotal evidence to prove your point.
    truth can sometimes be found in the outliers....
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    truth can sometimes be found in the outliers....

    But usually not. A trite saying that proves (and means) nothing at all.

    Haste makes waste
    He who hesitates is lost
    Look before you leap
    Time waits for no man
    Out of sight, out of mind
    Absence makes the heart grow fonder
    You’re never too old to learn
    You can’t teach an old dog new tricks
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    But usually not. A trite saying that proves (and means) nothing at all.

    Haste makes waste
    He who hesitates is lost
    Look before you leap
    Time waits for no man
    Out of sight, out of mind
    Absence makes the heart grow fonder
    You’re never too old to learn
    You can’t teach an old dog new tricks

    or "majority rules"?

    my point is that if smoking causes cancer, my grandmother should have died of cancer long before she reached her mid-90s. (but she didn't.)
    if diet coke causes obesity, then I shouldn't be as slim and good-looking as I am. (But I am!)
    if pocket2s had a distinct advantage over all other pocket pairs (including 3s and 4s... cause, ain't no one calling a raise or 3-bet with 3X or 4x) - then EVERYBODY would be felting Aces and Kowboys with pocket deuces.... (but they don't. You see some of the most studied pros fold them pre in poker shows)

    yet...
    somehow... it doesn't ALWAYS seem to happen.
    why?

    because outliers show you that nothing is absolute.

    Correlation does not mean causation.

    you, jeff, should know this of all people...
    but I guess it's true that "you change the stripes on a tiger"
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    my point is that if smoking causes cancer, my grandmother should have died of cancer long before she reached her mid-90s. (but she didn't.)

    C'mon man, knock it off. This is just a bunch of nonsense. Just stop. Your logic is junk.

    Smoking increases your risk of cancer. Obviously. So no, it's not true that your grandmother "should have" died of cancer. It has nothing to do with "outliers". And yes, some things are absolute. And some aren't.

    Why don't you read up on logical fallacies, I think there might be a couple you missed while throwing out your favorites there.
    http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical-fallacies
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2017
    kagey wrote: »
    jeffnc wrote: »
    One thing I've noticed about you is that on quite a few occasions, you seem to use very anecdotal evidence to prove your point.
    truth can sometimes be found in the outliers....

    Sadly for you you're not. You would love to but you're not. Like the cool kid you wanted to be at school but never become.
  • jfarrow13jfarrow13 Red Chipper Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭✭
    Smoking doesn't GIVE you cancer. It increases your risk, substantially, based on the amount, duration, and genetic potentially for cancerous cells, your bodies ability to repair damaged DNA, and your Killer T's cells ability to detect and destroy cancerous cells. You get "cancer" numerous times each year, but you body identifies and kills those cells. As you age, more replication mistakes are made and the immune system's ability to detect and destroy these rouge cells diminishes. It's a numbers game, and your Grandma either faded the numbers, or had great genetics means if her baseline propensity to get cancer was 5% in the first place, and smoking only increased it to say 30%, instead of someone with "bad" genetics who started at 8% but smoking screws them and brings it up to 70%, then you know, she faded the #'s. But in the end, why risk it if you don't have to? Or if you don't care, then smoke. Here's my big issue. You wanna run risky behavior, American Health Care is a pool. You wanna live by the sword? You die by it. Or you pay for it the whole way. I shouldn't have to pay for you because you wanna say "eh I know smoking is bad, but I wanna do it" and then "OH I GOT CANCER FUCK WHAT A BAD BEAT, IM AN ASSHOLE WHO ENGAGES IN RISKY BEHAVIOR BUT WHEN IT GOES BAD QUICK SYSTEM BAIL ME OUT".


    I'm a socialist, I believe in the fabric of society, and that we should have a baseline net for everyone. But I also believe in personal responsibility and the need for accountability. You wanna eat garbage and get type 2 diabetes or be obese? That's fine, that's your right. But you gotta pay for it, not me. If I drink and drive, or go 65 MPH on a 25 MPH neighborhood and I get caught, my insurance goes through the roof, healthcare should too. @kagey you wanna drink diet coke, and be skinny and have good blood panels? God bless, live your life bro. BUT, you wanna eat garbage, sit around all day, not exercise and be overweight and a burden to the health care system even though your are educated (not saying you are these things, just my observation of much of the American Public)? Eat sh*t. You pay more. I choose to be healthy, exercise and not be a burden to the system, and it's part of the social contact.

    Rant over. Smoke if you want.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Well, health insurance companies do account for smokers in their pricing. But the health care system is a lot more complicated than that, so I agree with you there.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sadly for you you're not. You would love to but you're not. Like the cool kid you wanted to be at school but never become.

    wha?
    you no speaking English Adam?

    outlier
    noun out·li·er \ˈau̇t-ˌlī(-ə)r\
    a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample


    we speaking of cigarettes and evolution
    the "cool kid" comments go over here
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2017
    jfarrow13 wrote: »
    You wanna eat garbage and get type 2 diabetes or be obese? That's fine, that's your right. But you gotta pay for it, not me.

    I think that's basically a fine argument for cigarettes. But here's a difference between cigarettes and food, vis a vis evolution. We don't need cigarettes, and other than some side issues Doug and others have brought up, in the past evolution had little to do with smoking.

    But by the start of the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago or so, things changed drastically. Based on the mass production of (now, we find out) largely suboptimal food (among other things), the earth's population has skyrocketed. There was an evolutionary advantage because it allowed people who would have starved to instead live and reproduce. But that's not the same thing as "wellness".

    So now here we are, where only our most educated know that natural foods like wild salmon or wild game, vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries are best for us. And yet, the population has grown to an extent that it is simply not possible to feed the population without fake food. The natural food sources would probably be wiped out in a few months. So what's a population to do?

    OK, so there's a difference between eating a corn fed burger and cheap bread, and drinking Coke and eating Moon Pies, but still I think you see my point. Where do we draw the line exactly? It's not the people's fault that they basically were born because of the supply of cheap, fake food. How are they supposed to pay for their health care when they were buying cheap food in the first place because they had to? Evolution could continue with diet (and cigarettes for that matter), but only with much suffering by vast numbers of the population, and we're not going to allow that. We prefer our suffering to be more subtle and longer lived.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    kagey wrote: »
    wha?
    you no speaking English Adam?

    we speaking of cigarettes and evolution

    That's kinda ironic.

    But anyway, your use of the term not to mention your entire argument is just "off". You fall back on logical fallacies, just like you did in the card removal discussion. You manage to play a good game of poker in spite of this tendency, not because of it. I would bone up on it if I were you so you can participate. We'd love to have a rationale, logical version of you show up here.

  • Dean MDean M Red Chipper Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2017
    jeffnc wrote: »
    We might have evolved in terms of intelligence past the point where evolution

    And I've heard the argument that knowledge has increased to an all-time high but possibly innate intelligence has decreased.

    I think our 'thirst for knowledge & progress' often overcomes the common sense of someone like my grandfather who would often caution me to not just chase after the latest and greatest because it was possible.

    Yes, we have the knowledge to create an atomic bomb, but not the common sense to think about the ramifications of the nuclear waste produced... much less massive life annihilation.

    Yes, we have the knowledge to produce powerful antibiotics, but not the common sense to monitor their usage as not to create 'super bugs' that are impervious to them.

    Yes, we have the knowledge to allow almost all computers, cell phones, smart appliances to talk to each other, but failed to foresee what might happen if someone found an exploit that could rapidly spread across the world and hold countries, and companies ransom to their demands.

    I could go on, but the examples are many
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dean M wrote: »
    And I've heard the argument that knowledge has increased to an all-time high but possibly innate intelligence has decreased.

    Sounds right. The high intelligence and research of relatively very, very few have benefitted almost everyone on earth. This is because of the globalization of the world (and communication and other devices you mentioned). So in terms of evolution, there's no longer any benefit to being more intelligent than average.

    Watch the movie "Idiocracy" for a funny, but not that funny version of the future.
  • Dean MDean M Red Chipper Posts: 184 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    So in terms of evolution, there's no longer any benefit to being more intelligent than average.

    Plus, once you get past the 'duh, need more meat' phase of intelligence, being devious and cunning is often more important for survival.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 2017
    kagey wrote: »
    Sadly for you you're not. You would love to but you're not. Like the cool kid you wanted to be at school but never become.

    wha?
    you no speaking English Adam?

    outlier
    noun out·li·er \ˈau̇t-ˌlī(-ə)r\
    a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample


    we speaking of cigarettes and evolution
    the "cool kid" comments go over here

    That's what happen when "the love of yourself" sweat in every post you do.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @jeffnc - for some reason, I've always thought you were jeff nc esquire...
    which would mean that you should know there are two sides to every arguments

    on topics like smoking, gambling, drinking... I tend to stay on the fence
    my wife's dad died from emphysema... well actually, he died from the contaminated J&J sutures used when he was having lung reduction surgery... but all in all, we can say cigarette smoking reduced his life (he was in his late 70s)
    but on my side of the family, they smoke like chimneys. In fact, my uncle who's a doctor smokes regularly. That's how Europeans live. Why browbeat them into living how we think they should live?

    I don't believe in demonizing things that I personally don't believe in. I also don't believe in forcing everyone to live according to my rules/beliefs... which is why I'm not a socialist or a communist. (btw, I do exercise and don't overeat)

    some people live full, productive lives smoking cigarettes. others live full, productive lives eating twinkies and diet coke. yes, there are others who don't. but that's the beauty of free will and a free society. we get to choose how we strengthen or destroy our own bodies. and what hurts one body doesn't necessarily hurt the other...

    why must everything be a square peg? are there not round holes? why must we homogenize everything?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file