Slashdot Mirror


Synthetic Molecules Emulate Enzyme Behavior

FiReaNGeL writes "Ohio State University chemists have created a synthetic catalyst that can fold its molecular structure into a specific shape for a specific job, similar to natural catalysts. In tests, the chemists caused the catalysts to twist one way or the other, either to form one chemical product or its mirror image. They confirmed the shape of the molecules at each step using techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Being able to quickly produce a catalyst of a particular shape would be a boon for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries."

58 comments

  1. Yay! by nhstar · · Score: 3, Funny

    maybe it'll finally be cheap enough to ~cure~ things rather than just treat 'em.

    --
    --- no sig to see here... move along.
    1. Re:Yay! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pharmaceutical companies can only sell a cure once. They can sell treatments indefinitely.

    2. Re:Yay! by bagsc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's called "an installment plan." Most doctors offer them. The real question these days is how do you get your payment after the patient declares bankruptcy...

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    3. Re:Yay! by Veggiesama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does everybody always say this, hinting about the possibility of conspiracy theory cover-ups and withheld cures? Why is it so hard to believe that some people actually are searching for cures?

      If a company develops a cure for AIDS, cancer, or the common cold, then it stands to reason that the company is going to make a lot of money. While other companies are bumbling around with "treatments" and "therapies," this company is going to make a lot of short-term profit, and with the help of a patent office (or whatever equivalent), AFAIK they'll retain that virtual monopoly for decades to come.

      And if you can count on capitalism for anything, it's short-term gains.

    4. Re:Yay! by maxume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's more satisfying: "we don't understand the disease well enough to cure it" or "those guys with more money than me are assholes"?

      What's interesting is that research into a lot of auto immune issues is actually starting to get somewhere, so we might actually start seeing cures for stuff in the next decade or two.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Yay! by autophile · · Score: 1

      Give a man a fish, he eats for one day.

      Teach a man to fish, he eats for the rest of his life.

      Sell a man a fish, you're rich -- to heck with the man :

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    6. Re:Yay! by abushga · · Score: 1

      "If a company develops a cure for AIDS, cancer, or the common cold, then it stands to reason that the company is going to make a lot of money"

      Not necessarily. Orphan drugs are not patentable and therefore pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to pick up the huge costs of clinical trials for promising but dirt cheap molecules like dichloroacetate, 3-bromopyruvate, melatonin, to name but three.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01moss.html?pagewanted=print

    7. Re:Yay! by beckerist · · Score: 1

      We've been seeing cures for "stuff" for the past century as it is.
      Examples:
      Malaria
      Typhoid Fever
      Chicken Pox
      Measels
      Polio
      Tetanus
      Diptheria
      Yellow Fever
      Small Pox...on and on...

      Next up (hopefully) Diabetes, HIV Infection, Cancer, Herpes...etc... and we're making advances in all. The problem is is that we're vulnerable as humans. Eradicate one problem and something new will ultimately take its place.

    8. Re:Yay! by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      It's called "an installment plan." Most doctors offer them. The real question these days is how do you get your payment after the patient declares bankruptcy...

      Pound of flesh.

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    9. Re:Yay! by sbeckstead · · Score: 2, Informative

      I appreciate your enthusiasm but that list contains not one single cure. Only prevention that is about 97% effective. Most also require booster shots to keep the protection active. If you actually contract one of those diseases we can make you as comfortable as possible and let it run it's course. But there are no cures. Pharms get paid for each person that receive those inoculations as well. Face it there is NO Financial incentive to cure a disease if you can make drugs to treat it.

    10. Re:Yay! by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Indeed. However, in a market with both treatments and cures, people will probably pay more (as well as upfront) for the cure than for a treatment. It's kind of like the difference between buying software outright, and going for a subscription model. And you bet your bank account if people are offered the choice between $5/month for treatment for disease X and $5000 for the lifetime (or your money back) cure, people will typically rush to the cure.

      Let's take an example. 500 ./ers and myself get together for a month or so at Med Con (or whatever) where we pull our brain power (and spend time studying up), and somehow (between the closed-body/open-body debates) we seemingly miraculously develop a cure for AIDS. Now putting aside business expenses (a giant warehouse to house that many geeks, various foods, air conditioning (so the geeks do not become 'ripe'), and of course an OC-120 (or whatever) for an internet connection), there's the small matter of them probably wanting to pick up some change (cash, money, $$$) for pulling this off. Which leads us to this point: we are going to charge our customers money for our cure.

      Now, across the road Pharm Con is going on, and Big Pharm Company 45J notices what we have going on, and tries something similar (but different), and comes up with a treatment for AIDS (one that fully suppresses the viral DNA in a cell, making viral count practically undetectable). Being Big Pharm Company 45J (boo! hiss! Pharm companies!, No, really guys...), they also want to turn some cash. Which means they are going to charge their customers for their treatment.

      Now, all math aside, Big Pharm Company 45J is going to charge their customers $45/month for their treatment. On the other hand, Big Geeks Co:/// (the geeks at Med Con, thus incorporated) wants to charge our customers $20,000 for a 100% cure for AIDS.

      Who wants to worry about taking AIDS medication everyday of their life, for the rest of their life, what may happen if you miss a dose (what? you missed a dose? viral suppression off!). I posit that cures are intrinsically worth more than treatments (not that treatments aren't worth a lot, when there isn't anything else available). Think from Big Pharm Companys' (as in, plural, many Big Pharm Companys, and hey, some of them even compete!) standpoint: 1.) Yes, going for the treatment over the cure makes sense only if you KNOW that no one else is going to go looking for the cure for a little while (it would be stupid for a Big Pharm Company to announce a treatment for AIDS, only to be one-upped by another Big Pharm Company announcing a cure only a week later), 2.) if it ever got out that Big Pharm Company 45J had the Cure for AIDS, and was suppressing it to sell treatments instead, the bad press would be so expensive in terms of the company's image, it's doubtful they would survive (without having to leave the country, as well as the very real suicides of some of the high-ranking execs).

      I personally think that Big Pharm Companies, being keen for the green, would try for research that goes something along the lines of "Well, if this isn't the cure, it might at least be able to slow it down". My thinking being that research for cures and treatments of illnesses is closely related. Just a guess, I could be wrong, God knows I've been wrong about a lot of things in my life.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    11. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is. You are a conspiracy theorist. Stop posting.

    12. Re:Yay! by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is. You are a conspiracy theorist. Stop posting.

      Thank you for that most informative reply. Since I proposed no conspiracy theories; I merely pointed out an inconvenient truth, and you obviously are too lazy to bother logging in or perhaps setting up an account I shall feel free to ignore you! Oh and if you intended to be funny, you missed that also.

    13. Re:Yay! by beckerist · · Score: 1

      A) To the A/C you never help a cause by posting stupid responses like that.

      B) I'll use the example of polio. By simply not allowing people to contract it, you stop the spread. Without looking anything more up, I believe there have been no new cases in years. Just because it doesn't cure a single individual doesn't mean it won't cure our RACE of the disease. Not trying to be pedantic, merely reinforcing my previous statement!

  2. Not just a boon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be the holy grail. Things like converting glucose to ATP in the body achieve ~70% efficiency. This is absolutely insane. If the scientists could accurately model and design the tertiary structure of proteins at will then they could do things like making ethanol factories using minimal energy. This is extremely significant.

    1. Re:Not just a boon, by ruinevil · · Score: 4, Informative

      Things like converting glucose to ATP in the body achieve ~70% efficiency.

      Glucose to ATP using glycolysis followed by cellular respiration using the electron transport, the most efficient process, is only about 40% efficient. The rest of the energy is released as heat, which is good for warm blooded creatures like ourselves. In babies, the brown fat makes cellular respiration even less efficient, which keeps them warm.

    2. Re:Not just a boon, by structural_biologist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Scientists have been able to design new proteins that can catalyze reactions. In two landmark papers just this year (De Novo Computational Design of Retro-Aldol Enzymes, Science 2008 319, 1387; Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design, Nature 2008 453, 190), David Baker's group at the University of Washington was able to computationally design two entirely new enzymes from scratch. Of course, there's still a lot of work to be done as these enzymes are not nearly as efficient as natural enzymes, but these breakthroughs open up many great possibilities. Here's a summary describing the results of the Science paper.

    3. Re:Not just a boon, by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah maybe someday we can upgrade to something we can adjust.

      90% efficiency when running (want to stay cool - stuff stops working well when the temperature goes up[1]), and 10% efficient when sitting on the couch watching TV - to stay warm and not get fat after eating all that junk food.

      [1] "muscles tire because they get too hot"
      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr.html
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2354135.stm

      --
    4. Re:Not just a boon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are different energy calculations for this. Calculated at STP, the number is about 38%. But in actual cellular conditions, the calculated value is anywhere from 50% to 70%, depending especially on the ratio of ADP to ATP.

    5. Re:Not just a boon, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn law of mass action...

  3. Spelling by jasonmanley · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    You spelt behaviour wrong. I joke, I joke ... I'm a kidder.

    --
    http://projectleader.wordpress.com
  4. It's pronounced... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..."nucular." Nucular.

    1. Re:It's pronounced... by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Go to bed, George...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:It's pronounced... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flamebait?! Are you people kidding me?! That was a Homer Simpson quote! For the freaking love of Pete. Look, here's what was written:

      "They confirmed the shape of the molecules at each step using techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy."

      Good freaking grief people. Get a sense of humor.

  5. a hint of deja vu by janneH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone remember catalytic antibodies - from 20 years ago - which also promised rapid engineering of "enzymes" for specific reactions. They were made by immunizing an animal with a transition state analog - under the theory that stabilizing the transition state would speed up reactions (since that is what enzymes do). Well, these "abzymes" completely revolutionized enzymology and biotechnology.....oh, wait...

    1. Re:a hint of deja vu by Rev_Frozt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is fairly clearly overhyped. They are suggesting the following:

      We can construct more flexible molecules to use as catalysts. More flexible molecules interact more easily with other molecules in the environment. Unfortunately, by reacting without selectivity, it is more likely to find unexpected side-effects. This would have no place in drug design, though it could plausibly be used in very controlled environments. Realistically, people tend to want a catalyst to take A->B, not to take A-B, C-D, E-F, G-H, B-A, etc. The laundry list of reactants makes it more difficult to control or contain the reaction and makes the "enzyme" itself more dangerous to handle. There may be some utility to this in the long run; however, at present it appears as though their chief accomplishment can be summed up in one sentence:
      "We have come up with a (complex) way to take a very simple, easy to use enzyme like TAC Polymerase and turn it into something with unknown side-effects that may or may not function as expected."

      This just looks like buggy code to me... I mean, consider Polymerase as an example. It works well because it binds very specifically to DNA and matches appropriate base pairs. If it had a significantly more flexible binding pocket, and was less choosy, what use would it really be? Who wants to use a polymerase with a high probability of generating "AAAAAAAAAAAA..." regardless of the source strand used as a basis? Who wants a transport mediator protein without directionality? I mean, the idea translates to "let's take known algorithms and just give a non-0 probability of incorrectly jumping at any control point to see what happens". I think it is clear that most algorithms just fail if someone so much as flips an if -- imagine if they removed, flipped, or added random ifs every time the algorithm was run...

      Yadda yadda more analogies...

  6. Coming soon... by BPPG · · Score: 2, Funny

    Super-powered beef cows. No hormones added.

    --
    What's the value of information that you don't know?
  7. I have an idea for a catalyst by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about a catalyst that takes CO2, H2O and photon energy and converts it into sugar and oxygen? Then we could use another catalyst to convert the sugar into alcohol. *Runs off to the patent office*

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    1. Re:I have an idea for a catalyst by BPPG · · Score: 1

      That'd be fine if you just want pure alcohol. But there's a lot more to brewing drinkable beer or liquor than just feeding sugar to yeast.

      Unless you don't drink for the taste :-P

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    2. Re:I have an idea for a catalyst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But there's a lot more to brewing drinkable beer or liquor than just feeding sugar to yeast.

      You old folk are always so picky. So long as it fucks me up, I'll drink/smoke/eat it :D

    3. Re:I have an idea for a catalyst by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      pfft, for beer, there're four ingredients, and one of them is water.

    4. Re:I have an idea for a catalyst by norpan · · Score: 2, Funny
      pfft, for beer, there're four ingredients, and one of them is water.

      Water, alcohol, taste and bubbles?

      --
      Opinions expressed above are mine, and not my employees'.
    5. Re:I have an idea for a catalyst by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Pure alcohol is a fuel idiot. Far more valuable than yet another stupid way to get stupid.

  8. Re:Further Decline of Society by mlawrence · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Now I know why none of the other comments made any sense - I posted this in the wrong story! :)

  9. Alternate viewpoints by bperkins · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's what the Ohio State chemists find most exciting: the molecule does not maintain only one shape.

    See, that's how I'm different. They lost me at the Rockettes.

  10. Re:Further Decline of Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you need some extra enzymes to convert the excess alcohol in your bloodstream to something less potent.

  11. Until.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1, Troll
    it gets hacked!

    I don't want to piss on a good idea, but powerful technologies can be bent to cause problems too.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Until.... by apathy+maybe · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      OK, this is totally off topic, but what the fuck are you talking about? I just did a search for "if I was from control", apart from stupid things like the above post on slashdot, the only relevant thing I found was

      Get Smart wasnt that nice as i imagine.cos the trailer showed it being so funny, but in the movie is like quite lame. i think they overdid it with the lame humor. like when the actor said something thats supposed to make ppl laugh, no one laugh at all. SO SAD THE PRODUCER! xD
      i like the part where max & seigfried talk to each other.
      Max: if i was from CONTROL you'd already be dead.
      Sieg:if you were form CONTROL you'd already be dead.
      Max:well, since neither of us are dead it proves that im NOT from CONTROL.

      So, there is a movie? A movie about Get Smart? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425061/ I guess so.

      So yeah, I found the answer myself. Stupid memes. (I still don't get the one about hot grits and Natille Portman, though I found out apparently she is some actor or another. Oh yeah, and just because I don't watch movies or TV or know about popular culture, doesn't make me not a geek. I play Nethack, I read Slashdot, I program, so fuck you if you want my fucking non-existent "geek membership card" or whatever.)

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:Until.... by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      Hey, fuck you too.

      What are we talking about again?

  12. This is cool on many levels. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At some level, it was only a matter of time: put the molecules together in the right order, and (generally) the form the right shape when left to fold by themselves.

    But synthesis of enzymes and such has interesting ramifications for medicine (can't think of any enzyme-deficient diseases off the top of my head, but there must be some)

    Now what would be *really* interesting is if they could do proteins in general. That would open up a whole world of life-saving drugs.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:This is cool on many levels. by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 2, Informative

      (can't think of any enzyme-deficient diseases off the top of my head, but there must be some)

      How about phenylketonuria, for one?

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  13. I'm skeptical by Sethumme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAC, but TFA seems to overstate the find and contains several misleading statements.

    First, they cannot "quickly produce a catalyst of a particular shape," but rather they are able to take one molecule and make it twist into either of two orientations. This isn't the holy grail of catalyst molecular engineering (to "give scientists a quick and easy way to get the catalyst that they want"); rather, it gives scientists a couple 'bonus' molecular shapes for each catalyst they synthesize. There is no indication that the ability to twist synthetic molecules means that scientists will have a significantly easier time discovering new catalysts that conform to the necessary shape. As TFA says, "[d]espite decades of research, scientists aren't sure exactly how this kind of propagation works." Why should searching for "a catalyst of a particular shape or function," involve any less trial and error than before?

    Moreover, the scientists claim that "as long as there is even a slight chemical preference for one of the hands. . . . [t]he 'flexible glove' will find a way to make a better fit, and so it will assist in specifically making one of the mirror image forms." Yet there is no proof that this "chemical preference" necessarily results in the ideal molecular arrangement of the catalyst. In fact, trying to synthesize a molecule that is capable of folding into multiple useful shapes in response to specific chemical environments seems more difficult than synthesizing individual catalysts to each handle one function independently.

    Again, I could be wrong, but I think this is only a very preliminary step in making more advanced synthetic catalysts, and not necessarily a way to design them faster.

    1. Re:I'm skeptical by dlanod · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I read the summary and was thinking being able to design catalysts was a huge development if it was the case but was quite disappointed when finding out the actual details were extrapolating from a single data point. "Look, we got this tennis ball to bounce! Therefore all balls must bounce!", etc.

    2. Re:I'm skeptical by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Actually it looks like you get more bang for your buck this way. You get several shapes at a time instead of one. Possibly faster if the shape you need is a right twist or mirror of the current one. It quickly goes beyond my understanding past that point.

  14. Not that special... by comm2k · · Score: 2, Informative
    As far as I can tell there are some factual errors - either because the reporter got it wrong or the researches are well.. just chemists and not biologists ;)

    Natural catalysts, such as enzymes in the human body that help us digest food, get around this problem by shape-shifting to suit the task at hand. (...)
    Natural catalysts reconfigure themselves over and over again in response to different chemical cues -- as enzymes do in the body, for example.

    Actually enzymes do a have a somewhat *fixed* fold for a specific (type of) reaction and don't just catalyse this then that etc. They can be highly selective for only one substance / functional chemical group or not. However they certainly don't reconfigure themselves (we're not talking about allosteric enzymes). The cell just produces a different set of enzymes to adjust to new conditions.

    In tests, the chemists caused the catalysts to twist one way or the other, either to form one chemical product or its mirror image.

    They better have this working 'error-free'. Having a mixture of both shapes can get you into big trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide).

    "For many chemical reactions to work, molecules must be able to fit a catalyst like a hand fits a glove," RajanBabu said. "Our synthetic molecules are special because they're flexible. It doesn't matter if the hand is a small hand or a big hand, the 'glove' will change its shape to fit it, as long as there is even a slight chemical preference for one of the hands. The 'flexible glove' will find a way to make a better fit, and so it will assist in specifically making one of the mirror image forms."

    I'm not sure this is so good - wouldn't you want them to behave like enzymes aswell, being highly selective? And last but not least there is no comparison offered to *real* enzymes in terms of 'speed' and what kind of reactions besides fatty acid hydrogenation are possible.

    1. Re:Not that special... by fearofcarpet · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, I just can't let this one go... I may just be a lowly organic chemist, but there is nothing static about an enzyme. First, the obvious--conformational changes in response to pH, phosphorylation, ionic strength, etc. that turn on, turn off, or alter the functionality of an enzyme. And the even more obvious--the typical behavior of an enzyme is to alter conformation dynamically to stabilize transition states which lowers the activation barrier between two thermodynamic minima--the definition of a catalyst. The whole point of an enzyme is that the active site can accommodate a starting material, alter its conformation to stabilize the transition state that leads to the desired product, then shift again to release it. Traditional synthetic homogeneous catalysts are a trade off between specificity (e.g., stereoselectivity, substrate specificity) and efficiency (e.g., turnover number, rate). People have made entire careers out of designing Lewis acids that stereospecific, for example. Enzymes get around this trade-off precisely because they can dynamically change their conformations.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    2. Re:Not that special... by phaggood · · Score: 1

      soooo..... uber efficient enzymatic production of hydrogen from simple stocks (i.e. water) or is this tech completely inapplicable (HS chem ~ 25yrs ago)

    3. Re:Not that special... by comm2k · · Score: 1

      You're right about what you're talking about (stabilization of transition state etc.).
      What I meant is that they don't just start catalyzing a new (type of) reaction - if there are entirely different substrates the cell will just adapt to this with a different set of enzymes - the existing enzymes wont automagically "shape-shift to suit the task at hand" to quote the original article.

  15. um, Lock-and-Key model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For many chemical reactions to work, molecules must be able to fit a catalyst like a hand fits a glove," RajanBabu said.

    Generally one refers to a "lock and key" but we'll let you call it whatever you want, RajanBabu.

    1. Re:um, Lock-and-Key model? by I+cant+believe+its+n · · Score: 1

      "For many chemical reactions to work, molecules must be able to fit a catalyst like a hand fits a glove," RajanBabu said.

      Generally one refers to a "lock and key" but we'll let you call it whatever you want, RajanBabu.

      Well, since he is talking about chirality, (you know, the "left and right handedness" of molcules), I think the "hand fits a glove" analogy is better than yours AC.

      --
      She made the willows dance
  16. Full Text Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the Abstract to the ACS submission:

    http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/2008/130/i25/abs/ja802308a.html

    Natureâ(TM)s catalysts promote the reactions necessary for life with extremely high specificity by folding into specific shapes capable of communicating remote structural information to an active site. Achieving this objective in synthetic systems has been hampered by the lack of information concerning how dynamic conformational chirality can influence the stereoselectivity of a catalytic process. Herein, we report the first illustration of a catalytic dendrimer that achieves high enantioselectivity by amplifying/propagating local chirality via a dynamically folded structure. Experimental evidence supports a chiral relay mechanism that propagates local terminal chirality of the dendron to the axial chirality of the biphenyl core through the helical secondary structure of the dendron.

    Full text here: http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/article.cgi/jacsat/2008/130/i25/html/ja802308a.html

  17. multiple varied consequences by rootpassbird · · Score: 1

    would be a boom for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries ?

    --
    Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
  18. This has been done before, and better too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replicating the structure of an enzyme using non-protein-like chemsitry has been done before, and more elegantly too.

    For example, Salvemini et al. Science (1999) 286:204-206:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5438/304

    I know it is easy to read a local newspaper/blog/university press release and get the report about how some science is "revolutionary" but it would be nice if the OP at least ran a Google Scholar search prior to posting.

    Further, those of us in the field recognize that rigid enzymes and catalysts are usually more efficient than flexible ones. Entropy is difficult.

    1. Re:This has been done before, and better too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh! "Replicating the structure of an enzyme..." should read "Replicating the FUNCTION of an enzyme..."

  19. dont mod down by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

    theres a WINE joke here...

    --
    I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack