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

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#161

Post by fromfar » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

aliasEli wrote: post #111

83457 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anecdotal, but all my friends juul'd in university (some quit some still use it daily). Probably about 30% of them at some point tried to quit juuling by smoking cigarettes instead thinking that the bad taste would deter them for smoking and therefore cause them to consume less nicotine overall. Needless to say that did not work and a few of them now use both cigarettes and juuls.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#162

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

nurb wrote: post #151

chrisseaton wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most harmful part of smoking is the smoke, not the addiction to nicotine. The critical thing to do is to get people off the actual smoke. However they achieve that safely, including with nicotine vaping, should be supported.

Nicotine is harmful for your mind more than your body. Every time the need to smoke appears, it replace everything you had in mind, to the point that the only thing you can think of is «Damn I need to go to smoke». To me this is by far worst than any potential cancer risk. (I smoked for 15 years and stopped 3 years ago, if that precision can add any value) EDT: Juste to add that realizing this gives you motivation wh…

> Nicotine is harmful for your mind more than your body. Every time the need to smoke appears...

Right but you don't need smoke for nicotine - that's the point.

Nicotine is still harmful, but it isn't as lethal as smoke.

And more critically - smoke is dangerous to people around you, while nicotine is just your problem alone. If we can get people off smoke but still on nicotine, that's better for everyone.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#163

Post by ud_0 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #26

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…

In an ideal world, maybe. In the real world it means treating a study on 31 American undergrads as scripture (the studies that failed to replicate its result go unpublished), regulation based on a study sponsored by the regulated, or a diet recommendation for half a century based on a hypothesis that saturated fat causes heart disease. This policy by science simply doesn't seem very effective. It largely provides cov…

Sorry I missed your reply amongst the other comments.

> In the real world it means treating a study on 31 American undergrads as scripture

My opinion is that scripture shouldn't be treated as scripture to begin with.

> This policy by science simply doesn't seem very effective.

As a tool for making policy decisions, science gives you access to solutions that might work based on the evidence. Now, that evidence may be completely bogus, so there is no getting around the need for evaluation. But saying that data is a bad basis for goal-oriented action planning is a self-defeating position.

Policy by science is not a meaningful concept on its own, policy action requires a component we haven't talked about yet: a value system. Science can give you the data, but your goals determine what actions should follow. You're certainly correct when you say that politicians are getting some cover from improper data, but overall I find they seldomly hide their motivations.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#164

Post by smeej » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

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.)

Related: Why is there talk about banning Juul from selling its products in the U.S. entirely, but no such conversation about banning any of the big tobacco companies from selling theirs?

It's all about power.

There are so many things it would be useful to quantify and compare:

Does anybody know the difference between the percentage of non-nicotine users who begin smoking cigarettes and the percentage who begin vaping? It sounds like the percentage for vaping is higher, but how much higher? Is it as much higher as the risk of dangerous health complications smoking has over vaping?

Never mind the question of why nicotine addiction is so dangerous it must be prevented on a federal level, but alcohol addictions aren't? How much more dangerous is nicotine than alcohol?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#165

Post by fromfar » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

I used to be a cigarette smoker who went to juuling and eventually "quit" (I still cave to a few puffs of e-cigs every month or so when I'm with someone that has one).

I agree if you have no intention to quit, juuling is much safer than continuing to inhale smoke.

But you might want to be careful using it as a smoking cessation tool. I smoked about 7 cigarettes a day but after I picked up juuling the sheer convenience of not having to go outside, being able to use it in bed, etc. got me up to 1-2 pods (equivalent to 1-2 packs of cigarettes) per day in nicotine consumption.

My lungs caught a break by vaping but my nicotine addiction was uncontrollable. I eventually used nicotine gum to quit and it was absolute hell. I suspect it would have been much easier if I wasn't so used to a constant stream of nicotine 24/7.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#166

Post by jasonhansel » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #136

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.

Fun fact, if you claim to be a smoking cessation product you get the FDA at your door going "oh, so this is a medical product" and you're now obligated to prove that your product works as a medical cessation product, and requires a doctor's note to pick up. You can't market yourself as a smoking cessation product without getting the hounds of hell being unleashed on you by the regulators.

> you're now obligated to prove that your product works

And that's a bad thing?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#167

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:36 PM UTC

wholinator2 wrote: post #135

aliasEli wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ive seen it go two ways, you start with the vape pod or all in one systems, get bored and you 1. Buy a big boy vape, roll your own coils, maintain and clean it, the whole shabang. Or 2. Smoke cigarettes I have seen many people choose option 2. The big vape systems are sometimes large, heavy, and clunky, require sometimes very publicly dis and re assembling a little contraption, carrying juice on you, lots of things t…

That was case years ago. Nowadays people just buy refillable tanks with disposable coils that perform on par or better with what an above average person can create. The devices are inexpensive when amortized over months-years depending on how well taken care of. 30-200 is the range for devices with the sweet spot around 60-100. Tanks are 20-50, but a lot of devices include them. Coils are about $2 or less wholesale/from China, and retail for 5-15/ea depending on how greedy/low volume the shop is. Coils last for 1-4 weeks. Juice costs about $0.01-0.04/ml to make and 60ml bottles previously sold online for $5ish, they go for 20-60/ea in retail stores including taxes. Yeah, $0.6-2.40 in product is being sold for 10-30x the cost to manufacture. At most half of that is tax, the rest is profit and funding asinine marketing or paying for lawyers and lobbyists to pull the ladder up. This ain’t about children, it’s about a cash cow.

Source: I’m friendly with a few people that have run vape shops/companies and got out because they can’t afford to lobby against Phillip Morris or comply with pmta with annual revenue in the tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars. Blame Juul for the vaping crisis in schools, and shut them the duck down. Then let adults have their safer and less expensive alternative to cigarettes back. I’ll take cotton Candy clouds over cigar smoke every single time.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#168

Post by ouid » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #136

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.

Fun fact, if you claim to be a smoking cessation product you get the FDA at your door going "oh, so this is a medical product" and you're now obligated to prove that your product works as a medical cessation product, and requires a doctor's note to pick up. You can't market yourself as a smoking cessation product without getting the hounds of hell being unleashed on you by the regulators.

Working as intended: moved to won't fix.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#169

Post by Spooky23 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

pope_meat wrote: post #136

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.

Fun fact, if you claim to be a smoking cessation product you get the FDA at your door going "oh, so this is a medical product" and you're now obligated to prove that your product works as a medical cessation product, and requires a doctor's note to pick up. You can't market yourself as a smoking cessation product without getting the hounds of hell being unleashed on you by the regulators.

But… you get to charge 10x more and make the insurance companies or government pay.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#170

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

smeej wrote: post #164

leereeves wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Related: Why is there talk about banning Juul from selling its products in the U.S. entirely, but no such conversation about banning any of the big tobacco companies from selling theirs? It's all about power. There are so many things it would be useful to quantify and compare: Does anybody know the difference between the percentage of non-nicotine users who begin smoking cigarettes and the percentage who begin vaping…

> Related: Why is there talk about banning Juul from selling its products in the U.S. entirely

Important distinction: I didn't say anything about banning sales, just marketing, which we've already done for both smoking and alcohol.

> How much more dangerous is nicotine than alcohol?

According to the CDC, "cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States...causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States" while "excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, "

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...

Edit: as for vaping specifically, the risks are not yet fully known, but some health authorities argue "a growing body of evidence shows that smoking e-cigarettes, or vaping, may be even more dangerous than smoking cigarettes".

https://www.nm.org/healthbeat/healthy-tips/emotional-health/...