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

251–260 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#251

Post by 908087 »

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 main issue with Juul personally is that they seem to have absolutely no quality control at all in their production process. Before I quit using them, you never knew until you opened them whether a pack of pods would be okay, or dark yellow and taste/feel like smoking burnt plastic.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#252

Post by jlangemeier »

jjice wrote: post #177
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 an alternative to smoking cigarettes, it seems like a great choice. As someone fairly young who was still in high school when vaping started to pick up, the amount of people I know at my age (recent college graduates) that vape and picked it up as a habit without ever having smoked before is insane. I was out with some friends and two people I had never met before, and they immediately hit it off on their shared h…

I'm going to push back on the "less intrusive" than cigarette smoke; yes, vaping smoke doesn't stick to your clothes or on your breath, but that precludes the weird habit of vapers using the product where ever they darn well please because it isn't "smoking." The amount of times I've ran into a cloud of "banana margherita" is a bit ridiculous, and honestly I'd rather sit in a smoking section of a restaurant in podunk Wyoming than be randomly accosted by vape smoke, because at least with the smoker section I am willingly choosing to be there.

Also, as a smoker, I've never "hit it off" with somebody because we smoked. Hitting it off with someone in the smoker's pit outside a bar is just shooting the shit with someone that's in a common area; folks that vape and vegans are very similar in that it's a major point of conversation, as if they've assimilated it as part of their personality.

All that being said, vaping is fine, but the uptick in high schoolers smoking (because it's still smoking under a different name) is a bit alarming; and will be interesting to see how that consumer pipeline changes as regulation of them changes.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#253

Post by dntrkv »

Judgmentality wrote: post #232
dntrkv wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

> Otherwise, you are killing people in the meantime. What? I'm arguing vaping is more dangerous than not vaping. I specifically said I believe vaping is safer than smoking. For what it's worth, I believe all drugs should be legal. I don't care if you want to vape or not. I don't care if you want to inject fentanyl into your veins or not. It's your body.

"I suspect 1:1 between getting vaccinated and not, that getting vaccinated is safer, but who knows?"

See the problem with this type of rhetoric? There have been tons of studies done at this point with regards to vaping. Everything shows it as being safer. This is not equivalent to the tobacco companies lying to the public. Juul never makes any claim as to their product being 100% safe, just look at the packaging.

On top of that, you also repeated a known falsehood that vaping causes popcorn lung.

My point is that repeating these arguments and casting doubt on vaping being safer further promotes these bans on vaping, which in turn will kill more people.

> I'm arguing vaping is more dangerous than not vaping.

There is no need to argue an obvious fact that 100% of people will agree with.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#254

Post by markzzerella »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #239
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a good primer. I was a bit off, it’s not millions per sku, more like hundreds of thousands, but all the combinations of products also need to be accounted for and approved at great cost. https://vaping360.com/vape-news/105656/how-will-the-pmta-dea... If that’s not enough detail let me know, I’m happy to dig up other old articles for you. This small business destroying charade by the fda has been well documente…

> fear mongering about children juuling. Why is that fear-mongering? My anecdotal evidence is that it's rampant with teens. Do you have any stats that are not anecdotal so I can educate myself?

When I was growing up all the teens were smoking and drinking. Considering how bad we know alcohol and cigarettes are for a developing brain, I'm inclined to not panic over the newest trend.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#255

Post by timbit42 »

johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #176

Well whatever they're doing is working. The amount of juul pod junk under my feet in my city seems to be growing exponentially year over year. At least cigarette butts are biodegradable! They should be forced to make these things out of cellulose or a similarly biodegradable product as their consumers are going to treat them as butts and just chuck them on the ground when they're done.

Cigarette butts are NOT biodegradable. They are made of plastic.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#256

Post by kenjackson »

re-al wrote: post #85
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…

Just think, the science isn't in for vapes. But it is in for rna vaccines!

It’s certainly not in for mRNA vaccines, but I also wouldn’t say to take an mRNA vaccine just for kicks.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#257

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

dntrkv wrote: post #235
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.

Juul is the largest player in the game and were the first ones to use nicotine salts. There are many other companies ready to take their place (and they already are). The only "option" is to ban vaping outright. But then you're also banning the best smoking substitute.

> The only "option" is to ban vaping outright. But then you're also banning the best smoking substitute.

That's not the only option. So much of the deserved vitriol against Juul is because their marketing and everything else about their product (e.g. fruit flavors) were specifically designed to get kids hooked.

Juul's marketing should be the poster child for the banality of evil.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#258

Post by toomanybeersies »

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".

The idea that science is about finding the "less wrong", rather than the absolute truth, is actually fairly recent, only really becoming mainstream during the 20th century.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#259

Post by petercooper »

Before I start I note that I'm old enough to do what I want and I have no other habits/vices, but don't vape, kids ;-)

So I, a total non-smoker, started experimenting with nicotine a few weeks ago. First I tried gum which did nothing but give me an itchy throat. Then I bought a vaping device and some juices. Why? I think I'm low in dopamine (I am not depressed, though) and had read nicotine provides a temporary boost (until you get hooked) and I was intrigued to feel the difference.

I can't really tell what's happening. I like the taste and mouth feel of the smoke but the nicotine itself is a bust. Perhaps a very mild caffeine-esque feeling at a push. It hasn't proven addictive as it's been sat out in my car untouched for the past four days! Perhaps the nicest sensation is that of taking a truly deep breath.. but that feels just as good without the vape!

I remain intrigued what this means and hope to speak to someone medical about it one day. There's nicotine because it stings the throat if you hold it there (versus a zero nicotine juice) but whatever this amazing sensation people get has clearly passed my receptors by.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#260

Post by Judgmentality »

dntrkv wrote: post #253
Judgmentality wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Otherwise, you are killing people in the meantime. What? I'm arguing vaping is more dangerous than not vaping. I specifically said I believe vaping is safer than smoking. For what it's worth, I believe all drugs should be legal. I don't care if you want to vape or not. I don't care if you want to inject fentanyl into your veins or not. It's your body.

"I suspect 1:1 between getting vaccinated and not, that getting vaccinated is safer, but who knows?" See the problem with this type of rhetoric? There have been tons of studies done at this point with regards to vaping. Everything shows it as being safer. This is not equivalent to the tobacco companies lying to the public. Juul never makes any claim as to their product being 100% safe, just look at the packaging. On…

You're comparing vaping to getting vaccinated. You've clearly got an axe to grind.

> There have been tons of studies done at this point with regards to vaping. Everything shows it as being safer.

I haven't seen them, but there were also lots of studies that cigarette companies touted to show how safe their product was until they could no longer deny it. And seeing as how those same companies just invested a shitload of money into Juul, it doesn't seem crazy to think they'd use the same playbook. We also have no reason to believe vaping isn't purposefully designed to get people hooked on nicotine only to later sell them another product like cigarettes or something else they later develop. In fact, there are studies suggesting exactly that (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6652100/). There are many ways vaping could prove to be more harmful than we can currently see because it's a relatively new product.

I get your point about vaping potentially being helpful by getting people off smoking if it's safer, but it's simply unproven. Like I said if people want to vape let them, but I'll wait for the data before concluding whether or not it's safer. I suspect it's more dangerous and I'm sticking to that until the data proves otherwise. Similar to how you suspect it's less dangerous and will stick to that until the data proves otherwise. The common thread is we're lacking data and neither of us can confirm our hypotheses.

In other words we disagree and it's impossible to know who's right until we have more data. From my perspective your stance is just as harmful as you perceive mine to be.

Post reply on HN