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

331–340 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#331

Post by macspoofing »

dillondoyle wrote: post #326
macspoofing wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We spent decades trying to get rid of cigarettes We spent decades trying to get rid of carcinogens from cigarettes. What's the problem with cigarettes without carcinogens?

Do those exist? Maybe can argue vapes but we don't know either way just can guess. Also aren't there a LOT of other problems from smoking and nicotine alone, in terms of lung health and hypertension, heart stuff etc

>Also aren't there a LOT of other problems from smoking and nicotine alone, in terms of lung health and hypertension, heart stuff etc

Probably. Weed isn't good for you either. Neither is Alcohol. At some point, you got to let people make some decisions.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#332

Post by dude187 »

boredtofears wrote: post #292
yCombLinks wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% accurate, he didn't say he wanted to quit being addicted to nicotine. He wanted to quit smoking, which he has done.

You haven't really overcome your main addiction in that case though. I don't think that people colloquially interpret that as "quitting smoking" when that term gets used in this context, even if the meaning is literal.

When you quit smoking, you quit smoking. Vaping is not smoking. What's inaccurate is to insist that someone still smokes when they do not, because you insist on calling something that is not smoking "smoking".

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#333

Post by bmj »

prepend wrote: post #299
boredtofears wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't really overcome your main addiction in that case though. I don't think that people colloquially interpret that as "quitting smoking" when that term gets used in this context, even if the meaning is literal.

It’s not the addiction that causes lung cancer, it’s the smoke. So the goal of stopping smoking should have positive health outcomes.

My understanding is that the proverbial jury is still out on whether vaping truly is less harmful to the lungs that smoking[0][1]. That would mean that vaping (instead of smoking) isn't necessarily a positive health outcome.

[0] https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2020/05/risks-vaping

[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#334

Post by tw04 »

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.

*these statements have not been validated by the FDA

There are countless products from weight loss to joint pain to "improve your memory" that sidestep the issue with those 9 simple words. I don't see why it would be any different for Juul.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#335

Post by conductr »

missedthecue wrote: post #324
macspoofing wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We spent decades trying to get rid of cigarettes We spent decades trying to get rid of carcinogens from cigarettes. What's the problem with cigarettes without carcinogens?

It's like the people who think smoking a cigarette or Juul is one of the seven deadly sins, but also smoke pot every day and see no problem with it.

That's not me, but I can kinda relate conceptually. Constantly pumping anything into your body seems bad; to use your deadly sin adage, I'd call it gluttonous. Even a daily pot smoker, would likely not be smoking a bowl every ten minutes all day long. Sure those people exist, but they probably aren't looking down on nicotine users.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#336

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

dntrkv wrote: post #318
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying that adult smokers can enjoy fruit flavors, but at this point not even Juul is trying to deny their early marketing was targeted to youths. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette...

None of the evidence in that whitepaper shows that they were targeting kids. They were targeting millennials (ages 24-40 now), like most other products out there today. Once they caught the attention of the media and anti-smoking groups, they made changes to lay low and actively avoid many of the usual advertising channels and approaches. Minimalist design, tasty flavors, colorful ads, and using social media does not…

> Minimalist design, tasty flavors, colorful ads, and using social media does not equate to targeting kids.

Well, we clearly just agree to disagree. That article I think shows well how the early Juul marketing followed the cigarette marketing so closely, and there is voluminous evidence that cigarette marketers know you need to target young people because hardly anyone starts smoking after their early twenties.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#337

Post by BoxOfRain »

cmckn wrote: post #325
BoxOfRain wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for Juul but I credit my smoking cessation entirely to vaping. I've not had any nicotine since 2020, vaping or smoking! I think there's a real attitude among a small number of non-smokers that quitting without some form of sustained suffering is "doing it wrong" and that addicts of any kind deserve pain to atone for the sin of being an addict. This attitude is extremely unhelpful and should be condemned…

Congrats! Quitting smoking is really difficult; I feel lucky to have kicked it myself. I started in high school, like many folks (especially in the southern US); and was on-and-off through college. A Juul really helped me power through times of stress without buying a pack of cigarettes. I remember e-cigs were initially pitched to consumers as a way to quit smoking, and I think it's unfortunate that part of the messa…

Cheers! And yeah I started around the same sort of time in my life, about 17 years old. When I was at uni me and my mates bought vapes because around the time they hadn't been banned by most pubs yet so we could use them inside, West Wales is a bastard of a place to be a smoker in the winter! I was the only smoker at my current job when I started though, so I went on just the vape as not to be the only one reeking of cigarettes. Once the social aspect of smoking was gone it just became a bit of a shackle rather than a break for me so I decided to taper down and quit by the start of 2020 which turned out to be an outstanding move!

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#338

Post by xgb84j »

TchoBeer wrote: post #115
xgb84j wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think scientism relates to beliefs that equate the current state of scientific knowledge with absolute truth and ignoring unknown unknowns and limits of scientific methods like statistics. A common fallacy is that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". For a government this might mean "There is no definite scientific evidence that substance X causes cancer, so we do not ban it.".

Should we ban everything until we don't have solid proof that they don't cause cancer? Not banning something isn't acting like the substance is benign, it's acting like we don't know.

There is a middle ground that exists only when you combine science with common sense.

Let's say a chemical X is used in baby food production. There are no studies that show that it is harmful, because no studies have been done yet. Many chemicals with similar structure have been shown to be harmful.

Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful. There is no way yet to accurately model the interaction of any chemical with your body without any actual experimentation. You can make an argument that chemical X might be harmful because similar chemicals are harmful, but that would not be science.

I would not buy that baby food with chemical X if given a choice. Best case I don't lose.

Finding conclusive evidence in science often takes lots of time to gather enough data because there are so many different variables to consider. So absence of evidence means a lot more when you have been looking for a long time and invested lots of resources.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#339

Post by folli »

elif wrote: post #214
jasonhansel wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

See marijuana if you believe regulators will actually listen to a preponderance of evidence. FDA/pharma executives are a revolving door, and therefore concerned chiefly with the health of pharma rather than humans.

Recent developments (see aducanumab) have shown that the FDA mainly cares about safety but much less so about efficacy.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#340

Post by billh »

tw04 wrote: post #334
pope_meat wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*these statements have not been validated by the FDA There are countless products from weight loss to joint pain to "improve your memory" that sidestep the issue with those 9 simple words. I don't see why it would be any different for Juul.

Because that language is for dietary supplements which have a specific legislative carve out from falling under FDA regulation.
Post reply on HN