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

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#221

Post by JohnDoerian2 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:39 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…

As someone who vapes and has tried out some different products. Atleast here in Europe Juul was the only "pre-filled" cartridges product which contains nicotine salt instead of freebase nicotine.

Nicotine salt is much easier to vape and feels less harsh. I.e I can easily vape 50mg/ml nicotine salt, while above 10mg/ml freebase gets uncomfortable for my throat. That might have been the reason for your dad coughing.

But I still agree, besides the salt/freebase aspect there can be different aspects of the ingrefients, each affecting health differently.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#222

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:39 PM UTC

ud_0 wrote: post #10

blfr wrote: post #4

Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. At least they made it open access. At first I thought they bought out the entire issue so that people couldn't read it.

> 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…

As a hypothetical example: "excessive deference to science" might occur when you have a global pandemic, and a government official says, "I am following the science. Therefore an attack on me is an attack on science." This official asks for exciting new emergency powers, and uses them to push through measures which coincidentally achieve policy goals he couldn't achieve before the pandemic. In the name of Science™, he tries to silence any dissent that says his measures are ill-suited to mitigate the pandemic, or unduly burdensome; maybe he even has an excuse to ban opposition political parties, perhaps because they are antivax (eww — but still) or just because they are questioning his power grabs.

(This is a hypothetical government official. Any resemblance to real-world government officials is coincidental.)

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#223

Post by toomanybeersies » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #196

smeej wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How much more dangerous is nicotine than alcohol? If you divorce nicotine from its problematic delivery systems, nicotine itself is a pretty good drug (albeit very addictive). It's potentially protective against diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, it's associated with weight loss, and it improves short term memory and attention. It's also great in combination with caffeine, and it speeds up caffeine metaboli…

Replace nicotine with amphetamine and your statement still holds true.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#224

Post by Centigonal » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

CaveTech wrote: post #219

plank_time wrote: post #197

We spent decades trying to get rid of cigarettes and it worked and now we let this fucking Juul through the front door. It’s as if we haven’t learned a fucking thing in decades, and the fact that this founder is celebrated in Silicon Valley sickens me. He just found another opportunity to hook kids on nicotine for another few generations and now he’s a fucking billionaire. Fuck that guy.

When exactly do you think we got rid of cigarettes?

1. GP said "trying to get rid of cigarettes," implying it was not a completed effort.

2. It was (and is) a fairly successful effort:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx

https://www.statista.com/chart/20385/cigarette-sales-in-the-...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#225

Post by twojacobtwo » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

acituan wrote: post #216

theli0nheart wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And that's a bad thing? If your product causes harm in any way—regardless of the benefits—you're going to have a difficult time getting regulatory approval. It will also greatly affect access to the product, as not everyone has access to good doctors, and most items that are FDA-regulated requires prescriptions. For a product which is a superior, healthier option to cigarettes, it's a massive regulatory burden that…

> If your product causes harm in any way—regardless of the benefits—you're going to have a difficult time getting regulatory approval Question stands, is that a bad thing? Besides not everything FDA approved becomes a prescription medication. On topic; nicotine gums and patches as smoke cessation products are widely available as OTC.

I think the implication is that a product can do some harm, while reducing the overall harm in the system. In this case, vaping might cause some harm, but it potentially reduces the overall harm by doing much less harm than cigarettes. I believe the comment is saying that, by pushing for regulatory approval, the product may never enter the market and would thus not be able to reduce the overall harm being done.

In this case, we would certainly have to consider the potentially increased harm of non-smokers taking up vaping to assess the overall harm being done, but I see the merits of the basic argument at least.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#226

Post by hwayne » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:55 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…

Juul's advertising was specifically targeted at teens: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette...

(Referenced paper: http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_M...)

Juul bought ads on socialstudiesforkids, dailydressupagames, and collegeconfidential: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsui...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#227

Post by dntrkv » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

Judgmentality wrote: post #215

lolc wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's the harm of vaping? As far as I know, there is some evidence of harm, but it compares very favorably to smoking. It's a different class. To talk about "years of life lost" is quite off from what I know about it. And I never vaped, just smoked.

We don't have as much data on vaping as we do for smoking, but this reminds me of what cigarette companies said for decades: "where is the data showing our products are harmful?" We already know vaping causes popcorn lung. I suspect 1:1 between vaping and smoking that vaping is safer, but who knows? We won't know until we have decades of data about mortality related to vaping. It seems plausible that it increases lun…

> We already know vaping causes popcorn lung.

Not true. The data we have shows that it was being caused by Vitamin E acetate, which was used by off-brand THC cartridges. None of the major nicotine vapes used this chemical.

Also, this attitude of "oh we don't know" could be extended to any new product anywhere, including the vaccines we are using now. All of the current data supports vaping to be significantly safer than cigarettes, so let's proceed with that data and if the data later changes, we can update our guidelines.

Otherwise, you are killing people in the meantime.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#228

Post by yeetman21 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

plank_time wrote: post #197

We spent decades trying to get rid of cigarettes and it worked and now we let this fucking Juul through the front door. It’s as if we haven’t learned a fucking thing in decades, and the fact that this founder is celebrated in Silicon Valley sickens me. He just found another opportunity to hook kids on nicotine for another few generations and now he’s a fucking billionaire. Fuck that guy.

who cares if people want to smoke, i don't smoke but i don't see this kind of hate towards drinking (no one preaching Teetotalism) or even weed

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#229

Post by hwayne » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 4:00 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…

Here ya go! http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_M...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#230

Post by rob74 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

wayneftw wrote: post #127

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…

Yes, it is a smoking cessation product. It helps you cease smoking. Vaping is not smoking.

Ok, so it's a smoking cessation product if you take the definition strictly - but it doesn't do anything to get you off your nicotine addiction, which people usually mean by "smoking cessation product"...