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

241–250 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#241

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #223
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly. Whatever positive effects nicotine has are completely overshadowed and undermined by its addictiveness.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#242

Post by dntrkv »

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…

> To me this is by far worst than any potential cancer risk.

I think anti-smoking/vaping organizations should put more focus on this. I never realized how much this aspect of nicotine takes over your life.

Personally, my thought process was always something like: Lung cancer and all those other health effects are scary and all, but they're gonna happen decades from now, and I'm gonna quit by then so it doesn't matter.

Whereas focusing on the immediate effects of nicotine addiction and how it drives your day-to-day life, that's not talked about enough.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#243

Post by IshKebab »

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?

I don't know about elsewhere but smoking is has been dropping for decades in the UK. See figure 4 here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

I would say "it's working" rather than "it worked" but his point is valid.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#244

Post by [deleted] »

theli0nheart wrote: post #193
jasonhansel wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're now obligated to prove that your product works And that's a bad thing?

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#245

Post by [deleted] »

twojacobtwo wrote: post #225
acituan wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

[deleted]

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#246

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #117
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…

> but I'm glad these are still legal.

This is a great story. But it can be legal and restricted -- prescription only, just like Nicorette gum was when it was first introduced.

> He had some undiagnosed psychological problem

There is definitely a correlation between schizophrenia and smoking. I dont know if there are studies on it, but ask any psychologist experienced with schizophrenics if they see that pattern.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#247

Post by ohdannyboy »

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…

My uncle was a lifelong smoker and survived lung cancer (in remission getting close to 5 years). He vapes now and seems to be doing a lot better. It seems preferable to cigarettes considering his odds of full cessation are basically zero.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#248

Post by nohuck13 »

egeozcan wrote: post #137
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…

Healthier substitute to smoking practically means a smoking cessation product. Impossible meat, likewise, is a meat "cessation" product. If impossible meat makes vegans start eating burgers, you can't just argue "well, it's still better than meat". > I'm definitely against marketing vaping to non-smokers. But this is the whole point, they do attract non-smokers. They should explicitly detract them instead.

> But this is the whole point, they do attract non-smokers. They should explicitly detract them instead.

This is magical thinking. Do we apply this requirement to healthier alternatives in any other market?

For example: I really like McDonalds fries, but I mostly don't eat them because they're unhealthy. However anecdotally some "heavy users" eat them 3 to 5 times a week.

Imagine if McDonalds introduced "Beyond Fries" tomorrow, equivalent in every salient way, but less unhealthy (say, baked potato-level healthy). Would anyone apply the standard above, calling for it to be _only_ a "fry cessation product" for heavy users, and expecting it to explicitly repel the abstaining-for-health-reasons users like me?

I can't see how it's even possible to achieve both goals at once. A healthier alternative to _anything_ is going to draw some former abstainers-for-health-reasons into the market. And smoking has a _lot_ of abstainers-for-health-reasons.

By all means let's call vaping a smoking cessation product, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume that we can have our cake and eat it too here.

Edit: sense

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#249

Post by mullingitover »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #159
egeozcan wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting licensed for vaping is easier? (really asking)

They’re both incredibly expensive and laborious. Like millions of dollars per sku expensive. The fda has put all the good vape shops out of business and extortionate taxes are killing the rest as people revert back to cigarettes. The fda is actively hurting Americans by shifting these costs onto retailers which was a Coup d'état for big tobacco who had been completely blindsided by the success of startup vape compani…

> The fda has put all the good vape shops out of business and extortionate taxes are killing the rest as people revert back to cigarettes

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'll just point out the observation that there are a lot of perverse incentives to keep the tobacco money flowing, public health be damned. Hell, remember back 2019 public health officials were running made-up 'e-cigarettes are causing lung injury' scare which turned out to be entirely caused by contaminated black market THC cartriges? SF still hasn't walked back their e-cigarette ban that led to a doubling of tobacco use by high schoolers[1].

To give an idea of where priorities are, the state of California does 10x the number of checks to make sure stores are paying their cigarette taxes as they do to make sure stores aren't selling to minors.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#250

Post by enkid »

pietrrrek wrote: post #194
enkid wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think science is about "the truth", as the scientific process shouldn't allow definitive claims. Rather, there should always be an understanding that whatever is being said comes with a probability of being true. We can make a prediction and assign a likelihood the prediction will be accurate, but we can never say "this is the truth" using the scientific method. There are going to be things that are so close…

Since is not about finding "the truth" as you put it, but it is about finding the current, most fitting truth. As circumstances change "the truth" also changes, as such science will never be able to find anything but "the current best bet".

Sure. I just don't think it's accurate to think science comes to a definitive conclusion. It is a process of constant discovery and coming closer and closer to the truth, but will never arrived at a final answer.
Post reply on HN