Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

prospect.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#141

Post by ilikecakeandpie »

wccrawford wrote: post #13
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'm not who you replied to, but I've experienced this with some of my friends. Some people believe in science. They don't take the facts and understand them, they just say "Science says this is true. Anyone who disagrees needs to be shouted down." They will shame people for expressing any doubt against a "scientific consensus". This is actually the opposite of science. For instance, the Theory of Gravity. I know peop…

Anecdotally, I've seen this too. I think people look for something to believe in, and they take almost everything a celebrity scientist they agree with tweet or share as gospel without much scrutiny of the research. It's ridiculous

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#142

Post by alsetmusic »

Aldipower wrote: post #132

I quit to smoke after 13 years of smoking. And I was a heavy smoker. I am a non-smoker for 10y now and will never smoke again. No need for vaping or such. I think if you substitute you do not catch your addiction at the root. Vaping is really the wrong way. You need to get rid of the addiction. My main point why it was easy for me to quit finally, I hated to be controlled by an chemical. A chemical that has control o…

> My main point why it was easy for me to quit finally, I hated to be controlled by an chemical. A chemical that has control over my brain? No way anymore! I've destroyed this beast. I am a free man!

I quit for seven years. It was one of the hardest things I’ve done. Starting again was the worst decision of my life, but I was in crisis at the time. Quitting a second time, with full knowledge of the first, is even more daunting. I’m happy to have something in between while I try to reduce dependence.

Saying that vaping is not a legitimate path toward reducing the harm of cigarettes is like saying there’s no use for the patch or nicotine gum. They’re better than smoking, even if a crutch.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#143

Post by Semaphor »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #113
afavour wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defini…

> letting smokers who don't want to quit to keep smoking, without risking lung cancer.

I started smoking when I was 18 (2004), picked up some of the first vapes in 2009 (they were horrible), and finally stopped smoking in 2012. But I don’t want to stop vaping. I don’t like the modern mainstream ecigs like juul (I mix my own liquid and build my own coils on a dual 18650 battery device), but I’m just glad that vaping exists, because, if all my fruitless attempts at quitting were any indication, otherwise I’d still be smoking a pack a day.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#144

Post by kortex »

Aldipower wrote: post #132

I quit to smoke after 13 years of smoking. And I was a heavy smoker. I am a non-smoker for 10y now and will never smoke again. No need for vaping or such. I think if you substitute you do not catch your addiction at the root. Vaping is really the wrong way. You need to get rid of the addiction. My main point why it was easy for me to quit finally, I hated to be controlled by an chemical. A chemical that has control o…

That's wonderful, but be careful generalizing your experience to others. You don't know who is struggling with mental illness, executive control issues, ADHD, OCD, depression, etc.

Tobacco is more than nicotine delivery. It contains harmaline alkaloids, which among other effects, is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Quitting a cocktail of nicotine and MAOIs, while those stimulants are "treating" underlying conditions, is a way harder task.

For these folks, vaping is absolutely a step up, and allows them to wean off the tobacco MAOIs, especially in conjunction with treatment such as bupropion.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#145

Post by throwitaway1235 »

Cigarette smoking is so harmful, in addition to the reasons cited by other comments, because you are inhaling burnt matter. Vaping doesn't involve this.

Big difference between inhaling a heated liquid vs combusted solid. And yes the nicotine is mostly harmless. I rather enjoy my nic addiction with good black coffee.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#146

Post by bena »

vincent-toups wrote: post #54
wccrawford wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not who you replied to, but I've experienced this with some of my friends. Some people believe in science. They don't take the facts and understand them, they just say "Science says this is true. Anyone who disagrees needs to be shouted down." They will shame people for expressing any doubt against a "scientific consensus". This is actually the opposite of science. For instance, the Theory of Gravity. I know peop…

Gotta ask: is this gravity example real? You really have friends who have some sort of mystical commitment to the idea that gravity is somehow entirely epistemologically self-grounded? Almost literally every physicist since Newton has believed that there is some sort of underlying theory which explains gravity. Its hard to imagine how anyone could get the idea that the matter was somehow settled. I'd love it if you c…

Most people think we understand gravity better than we actually do.

To compare it to an actual hot-button issue, we know more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about the mechanisms of gravity.

We know kind of how it behaves at various scales, but we don't know why it does. We don't know what makes gravity. Why do denser objects have more of it. Why is it weaker than other forces, yet felt on larger scales? Does it actually exist or is it an emergent property kind of like the centripetal force (or is it centrifugal, I keep getting those flopped)?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#147

Post by KingOfCoders »

Tenoke wrote: post #9
KingOfCoders wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone who doesn't want funny smells in their face. While since some decades cigarette smokers go outside, many ecigarette users spread funny smells without any empathy.

The smell from vaping is not comparable and it goes away quick, at least if you are not using some fancy liquid. Even if it doesn't, it's no worse than the smell of kebab which people are allowed to eat indoors.

So vaper says, non-vaper should not be annoyed by what they is doing?

"Even if it doesn't, it's no worse than the smell of kebab which people are allowed to eat indoors."

Shouldn't it be me to decide instead of you?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#148

Post by Gatsky »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #118

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 fetc…

Although interesting, tobacco is not primarily carcinogenic via this mechanism. Smoking related cancers harbour DNA damage resulting from chemical carcinogenesis, not radiation.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#149

Post by quixoticaxolotl »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #118

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 fetc…

> The main reason

Neither of the two sources you cite the presence of radioactive polonium as the main carcinogenic effect, just FYI. It is a contributing factor, but there are about 70 different compounds in tar that are known to be carcinogenic, one of which is radioactive polonium.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#150

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

leereeves wrote: post #128
TeMPOraL wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defini…

> I'm definitely against marketing vaping to non-smokers. But I'm fine with converting existing smokers to vaping How can a society allow marketing vaping as a healthier way to smoke without allowing marketing that makes non-smokers think vaping is a healthy way to smoke? (Especially considering that the marketers are eager to market to non-smokers.)

Hot take. Ban marketing/advertising?

These are conversations that belong in a physicians office. Advertising is a scam on both sides and destroys instead of creates value for humanity. Historians will look back upon advertising the way many look back upon slavery.

Post reply on HN