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

341–350 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#341

Post by folli »

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.

These products can do that because they contain no substances that need approval in any way, so they are likely just food supplements without any active ingredients.

Nicotine will count as an active ingredient, you can't just slap these 9 words to any random drug and just sell it over the counter.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#342

Post by shadilay »

afavour wrote: post #76
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 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.

Somehow "It kills you slower than cigarettes" isn't an attractive slogan.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#343

Post by TchoBeer »

xgb84j wrote: post #338
TchoBeer wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

>Scientifically speaking you would be correct to say that there is no evidence that chemical X is harmful.

I wouldn't say that's true, if chemicals with a similar structure are harmful then there's weak but real evidence that X is harmful too.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#344

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

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?

Because the stories are pushing an agenda and ignoring the broader scope of the issue that is children using addictive substances. Conversations about children vaping should be had, but in comparison to the rate of other tobacco and nicotine use. If it’s really about the kids shouldn’t we also be looking at alcohol and other drugs like marijuana too as reference? I don’t see articles about the high school kids that start drinking, taking opiates, or smoking cigarettes and marijuana every year. These are expected behaviors, vaping is new, and the preponderance of evidence says is far less dangerous than smoking, so a lot of ignorant and easily frightened people got caught up in the rhetoric and forgot how to rationalize about new risks. The fear mongering about juul was little more than a perfect excuse to quash outcry over the ridiculous legislation against vaping products on the state and National level.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#345

Post by gremloni »

afavour wrote: post #76
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 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.

But it is not a cessation product. It is for people that want to continue to smoke nicotine at a fraction of the risks. Is nicotine bad by itself?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#346

Post by coryfklein »

gremloni wrote: post #345
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.

But it is not a cessation product. It is for people that want to continue to smoke nicotine at a fraction of the risks. Is nicotine bad by itself?

smoking cessation product

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#347

Post by gremloni »

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.

Is there anything bad about having a nicotine only addiction?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#348

Post by gremloni »

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

I don’t think so. A cursory google search sounds like nicotine itself causes minuscule to no damage by itself.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#349

Post by viraptor »

lelanthran wrote: post #88
viraptor wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If something is addictive (as in actually creating a physical and mental dependence on continued use in significant number of people) - why would you not classify that as harmful?

> If something is addictive (as in actually creating a physical and mental dependence on continued use in significant number of people) - why would you not classify that as harmful? You want to classify sugar as harmful? It's physiologically addictive (go a few days without carbs altogether and tell us how it goes). What about caffeine?

Yes, sugar is slightly addictive for some people. It's also slightly harmful. (Go sugar free and see how your dental health improves; dropping sugar / most carbs from diet is enough for me to get back to ideal weight)

Caffeine is also addictive and if you drink enough, stopping gives you withdrawal headaches. But in my experience not drinking caffeine at all makes me just as alert as getting used to the daily dose I thought I needed before.

So yeah, I'd totally classify both as slightly harmful.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#350

Post by mcguire »

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 also think the arguments against the flavored juices are hysterical/hypocritical given the variety of flavors of liquor one can find."

If you have a product that people enjoy using and has associated dangers, some people will use it anyway. If you have a second product that replaces the first product with less danger[1], more people will use it. That's simple economic reasoning.

The hysteria over vaping is largely a product of a puritanical mindset---the horror at the thought of someone, somewhere, enjoying themselves. People have made their peace with tobacco itself[2], alcohol[3], and marijuana[4].

[1] "Evidence so far indicates that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking as they don’t contain tobacco or involve combustion. There is no smoke, tar or carbon monoxide, and studies looking at key toxicants have generally found much lower levels than in cigarettes. They do contain nicotine, which is addictive, but isn’t responsible for the major health harms from smoking." (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/awarene...)

"In September, a paper in The Journal of Clinical Investigation described mice exposed to e-cigarettes for 4 months, nearly one-quarter of their life span. Farrah Kheradmand, a pulmonologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, who led the work, says that, at first, "There was absolutely no emphysema, nothing" in the animals that inhaled aerosol from e-cigarettes. That finding jibes with earlier research showing combustion products are the cause of airway inflammation in smokers." (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/how-safe-vaping-new-...)

[2] Ever seen one of the bans on the sale of vaping products associated with a similar ban on cigarettes? I didn't think so.

[3] Here's a toast to those who collect the statistics on the externalized costs of anything.

[4] Smoking marijuana has exactly the same dangers as smoking tobacco. (You do have a filter on that reefer, right?) The same particulates, the same "tar", and the same assortment of combustion by-products, right?

Post reply on HN