Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal • Hacker News Board

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#111

Post by aliasEli » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:33 PM UTC

83457 wrote: post #96

k__ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My girlfriend switched to vaping 10 years ago. It saved her thousands of Euros and she is much fitter, and her breath smells delicious, haha. But she doesn't use big brands, she mixes her liquid at home and tries to lower the dose over years. But every time she can't vape, because her machine broke, or she lost it, or whatever, she get's quiet angry and smokes a few regular cigs.

Teenagers vaping then switching to regular cigarettes is one of the big concerns.

But I really wonder if that happens frequently. Cigarettes really taste and smell awful. I discovered how terrible they really are only after I quit smoking. As long as e-cigarettes remain available, I doubt that many people would switch to real cigarettes.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#112

Post by TchoBeer » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:35 PM UTC

mclightning wrote: post #43

uniqueuid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then propose another way of getting reliable, robust and explainable guidelines for managing societies? But of course, evidence-based decision making should not be turned into decision-based evidence making; science alone is not a basis for politics.

In your very last sentence there; you summed up what I meant. I don't know why you expect me to come up with a solution on how to manage societies in a comment section.

I don't think they expected you to come up with a solution to managing societies; I assume if you know of a better way to come up with reliable guidelines for running society you wouldn't have thought of it yourself. Maybe you could link to a book that contains the methodology that you think is better than science.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#113

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #76

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

I think if Juul was marketed as a smoking cessation product I’d have no problem with it. But it’s marketed as a lifestyle product and a ton of young people with no history of smoking have started vaping as a result.

But it's not a smoking cessation product. It can be used effectively as such, but it's first and foremost a healthier substitute to smoking.

People like to go to both extremes wrt. vaping - "but it creates new addicts" vs. "but it's effective tool for breaking addiction", forgetting about the biggest benefit vaping brings: letting smokers who don't want to quit to keep smoking, without risking lung cancer.

I'm definitely against marketing vaping to non-smokers. But I'm fine with converting existing smokers to vaping without any talk about quitting, because smoking e-cigarettes is strictly better than smoking analog ones.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#114

Post by excalibur » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

Vaporizers are extremely useful as smoking cessation tools. Juul is not really configured correctly for this purpose. You have to give your customers control over the nicotine content, there need to low-nicotine and nicotine-free options.

But yes, the hysteria over flavors is uncalled for. Flavors are useful. If you don't prefer the taste of your vape to the cigarettes, you're not going to switch.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#115

Post by TchoBeer » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:37 PM UTC

xgb84j wrote: post #29

ud_0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. I was unfamiliar with that term and googled it: it's described as " excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques ". I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset. In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government…

I think scientism relates to beliefs that equate the current state of scientific knowledge with absolute truth and ignoring unknown unknowns and limits of scientific methods like statistics. A common fallacy is that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". For a government this might mean "There is no definite scientific evidence that substance X causes cancer, so we do not ban it.".

Should we ban everything until we don't have solid proof that they don't cause cancer? Not banning something isn't acting like the substance is benign, it's acting like we don't know.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#116

Post by aliasEli » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:38 PM UTC

smolder wrote: post #61

totalZero wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the arguments against the flavored juices are hysterical/hypocritical given the variety of flavors of liquor one can find. I would assume a significant difference in impact between putting flavor substances in your lungs and putting flavor substances in your esophagus/stomach.

I think the argument they are referring to is the one that because there were tasty flavors, the products were targeting youth... as if adults do not enjoy tasty flavors. That's one way regulators rationalized bans on vaping products. No one is making similar arguments to ban tasty liquor. I haven't ruled out that they were trying to target youth with their products, but having nice juice flavors is the furthest thin…

Many ex-smokers try tobacco flavors when they start vaping. Many switch to other flavors after a while, because tobacco does not really taste nice.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#117

Post by hellbannedguy » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:39 PM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

I wish this was around for a friend of mine. I might have been able to talk him into these vaping products. He didn't want the gum, or the patch.

He smoked 4-5 packs of Benson & Henson Menthols/day.

He stopped when he was 64, but it was to late. He didn't die of lung cancer, but they just stopped working one night in his sleep.

He had some undiagnosed psychological problem that I believe added to his constant smoking?

I must have asked him to cut back a 1000x.

I don't like nicotine, but I'm glad these are still legal.

(That said, I had him go a doctor to check his coronary arteries. They were completely clean. I think the only thing that saved him besides good genes, he didn't eat much.)

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#118

Post by irthomasthomas » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

So Marlboro buys 35% of Juul and now Juul is advertising recklessly and inviting an e-cig ban or heavy regulation. Interesting

Well here are some fun facts about the ingredients in tobacco, for comparison...

The main* reason smoking causes cancer is the high amount of polonium 210, yeah, that same stuff they used to murder Litvenchenko. The reason for the presence of polonium 210 is flavour. Truly. It sounds far fetched, but while the polonium is thought to contaminate the plant from the environment, (Tobacco plants have lots of sticky little hairs which attract particles.) it could be washed out of the product. However, the manufacturers found that the harsh cleaning required, ruined the flavour profile of the end product. This was thought to be a disservice to the consumer. So the highly radioactive polonium 210 remains... For Flavour! [0][1]

*Edit: Comments point out it may not be the "main reason". Well I thought I read it was. Measurements show that smokers receive radiation equivelant to 300 chest xrays a year: https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-pol...

Another ingredient you may be surprised at is urea。 Pig Urine. But this one is intentional, and in fact is probably the main flavour you pick up from a smoke.

This history of this particular flavour enhancer is very interesting. They no longer use real pig urine in stuff any more, but a synthesized version. This synthesis was invented in the late 19th century by Friedrich Wöhler. But the paper that introduced urea synthesis to world is regarded as the beginning of the field of organic chemistry, and an important moment in history. That paper is now part of the western literary canon, and is often required reading for numerous academic fields.

[0]:https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/smoking.htm [1]:https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2008/08/29/radioactive-pol...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#119

Post by TchoBeer » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

esseeayen wrote: post #78

Wait, as someone overseas who hasn’t seen any of the Juul advertising what are some of the examples of them “blatantly advertising to children”? Is it just the fact that they are making flavoured nicotine products or has it been more nefarious than that. As an adult I kind of like some of the flavoured tobacco products from smoking shisha (argile, hookah etc) and they have had flavours forever and not been in the spo…

>they have had flavours forever and not been in the spotlight to marketing to children?

I think my mum would disagree

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#120

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

kevincox wrote: post #68

BoxOfRain wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for Juul but I credit my smoking cessation entirely to vaping. I've not had any nicotine since 2020, vaping or smoking! I think there's a real attitude among a small number of non-smokers that quitting without some form of sustained suffering is "doing it wrong" and that addicts of any kind deserve pain to atone for the sin of being an addict. This attitude is extremely unhelpful and should be condemned…

It may not be "doing it wrong" but different people work in different ways. I know one friend who tried to quit a couple of times by easing off with no luck. However one time they decided to just stop and it worked. They felt like crap for a week or two but then they were off it.

Whether easing off is more or less effective than cold turkey, and for whom, is a technical matter. GP is talking about something orthogonal: some people believe that breaking addiction requires suffering, so if you found a way to avoid it, you've somehow cheated, or hadn't really quit.