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

391–400 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#391

Post by michaelmrose »

tekknik wrote: post #386
michaelmrose wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cigarettes are hard to covertly hit at school/home. They leave the person with a very distinctive stink. They are hard to buy online and damn near impossible for a minor to buy in person. With only 13% of adults smoking they aren't available to be swiped in most households and taxes in many places make those who do smoke liable to notice them walking out the door. Many places its about $10 a pack. Furthermore it is m…

> Cigarettes are hard to covertly hit at school/home. I once knew an adult smoker who smoked about 1/2 a pack a day. She also didn’t want to smell like it, he had methods she employed that would leave absolutely no smell on her. If your kid wants to hide smoking analogs then they can easily, just stand in front of a fan and wash your hands and face after.

The overwhelming majority of parents are now non smokers and no schools are accepting of smoking. Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home.

What you say is correct you could certainly decrease the chances of being caught but on net out of 100 smoking teens 90 will end up getting caught trying to smoke real ciggs whereas hiding a non scented vape is so extremely trivial that the situation is reversed. 90 will escape detection.

There is a distinct difference between those two circumstances.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#392

Post by markzzerella »

tekknik wrote: post #385
markzzerella wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t forget marijuana, it reduces blood flow to the brain. Absolutely horrible for a developing brain.

I don't know how I forgot that. It was more popular than alcohol and cigarettes at my school.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#393

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

wolverine876 wrote: post #378
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…

I don't know that I buy Vaping 360, which has a banner saying "57 MILLION smokers and vaping enthusiasts reached since 2015!", as a credible source. Below you accuse stories about harm to children of "pushing an agenda"; might this be pushing one?

Everyone’s pushing an agenda these days. I didn’t post that as an unbiased source, but as a counter argument to the unified front against vaping amongst the mainstream teleprompt readers. If you want an unbiased source for this discussion you’re going to have to have a bad time.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#394

Post by tekknik »

michaelmrose wrote: post #391
tekknik wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cigarettes are hard to covertly hit at school/home. I once knew an adult smoker who smoked about 1/2 a pack a day. She also didn’t want to smell like it, he had methods she employed that would leave absolutely no smell on her. If your kid wants to hide smoking analogs then they can easily, just stand in front of a fan and wash your hands and face after.

The overwhelming majority of parents are now non smokers and no schools are accepting of smoking. Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home. What you say is correct you could certainly decrease the chances of being caught but on net out of 100 smoking teens 90 will end up getting caught trying to smoke real ciggs whereas hiding a non scented…

> Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home.

My wife when she was smoking would go all day without smoking only to smoke at home. Also one of my school grade friends was a smoker at 13 or so, and he only smoked at home.

Also vape’s have a smell, it’s just not as pungent.

What you’re really saying is you can’t watch your kid 24/7, you don’t trust them, didn’t teach them why smoking is bad and now you want everybody else to suffer.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#395

Post by michaelmrose »

tekknik wrote: post #394
michaelmrose wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming majority of parents are now non smokers and no schools are accepting of smoking. Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home. What you say is correct you could certainly decrease the chances of being caught but on net out of 100 smoking teens 90 will end up getting caught trying to smoke real ciggs whereas hiding a non scented…

> Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home. My wife when she was smoking would go all day without smoking only to smoke at home. Also one of my school grade friends was a smoker at 13 or so, and he only smoked at home. Also vape’s have a smell, it’s just not as pungent. What you’re really saying is you can’t watch your kid 24/7, you don’t tr…

What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking. I don't think this is something we can just fine and move forward. If I walked into a school and shot several of the children I would be universally despised and strung up if the people could get their hands on me but if I market a product which leads to excess mortality of millions down the way the connection is sufficiently indirect that it is deemed somehow acceptable.

I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#396

Post by tekknik »

michaelmrose wrote: post #395
tekknik wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home. My wife when she was smoking would go all day without smoking only to smoke at home. Also one of my school grade friends was a smoker at 13 or so, and he only smoked at home. Also vape’s have a smell, it’s just not as pungent. What you’re really saying is you can’t watch your kid 24/7, you don’t tr…

What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking. I don't think this is something we can just fine and move forward. If I walked…

> What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir.

I don't even know what to make of this. How many other things do humans do that are dangerous that we all have to pay for?

> They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking.

Why do you think this? Is it because of flavors? Do you not realize how many adults prefer flavored vape liquid? Or is it cause they ran commercials?

> I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

So then you naturally try to force your opinion onto others. Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want? Do you think banning vapes will keep people from returning to cigarettes? Do you think addiction is just a switch one can easily turn on and off? You will cause more damage than good "taxing them out of existence like a boiling frog" (seriously wtf with that statement?) than realizing they are helping people and just minding your own business.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#397

Post by dillondoyle »

macspoofing wrote: post #331
dillondoyle wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Totally I'm an advocate for 100% legalization of all drugs. Though with strong regulation for things like opiates, more as replacement harm reduction thing than it being something you can get at a liquor store (and you can probably argue similarly for alcohol looking only at a net harm + addiction lens, but that kind of proves the point in treating different drugs differently because of stigma).

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#398

Post by themeiguoren »

gremloni wrote: post #348
dillondoyle wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the best single source compendium I’ve seen on the question: https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#399

Post by michaelmrose »

tekknik wrote: post #396
michaelmrose wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking. I don't think this is something we can just fine and move forward. If I walked…

> What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. I don't even know what to make of this. How many other things do humans do that are dangerous that we all have to pay for? > They have clearly marketed themselves to young peopl…

> Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want?

Because the only way to provide for the health of a society is with socialized medicine. Most of the civilized world has settled on this conclusion and even we have basically half and half.

In that context allowing people to be stupid as they want to be is ultimately allowing the stupid people to spend everyone's money.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#400

Post by tekknik »

michaelmrose wrote: post #399
tekknik wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. I don't even know what to make of this. How many other things do humans do that are dangerous that we all have to pay for? > They have clearly marketed themselves to young peopl…

> Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want? Because the only way to provide for the health of a society is with socialized medicine. Most of the civilized world has settled on this conclusion and even we have basically half and half. In that context allowing people to be stupid as they want to be is ultimately allowing the stupid people to spend everyone's money.

So then this devolves into no drinking and heath police. Too much sugar in your gum? Fine. Too many carbs, fine. Overweight? Fine. Drink alcohol, fine. Light incense in your house, fine. Don’t eat the required 3 meals a day, fine. Don’t eat the menu prepared by the health and nutrition czar, fine.

Is this a country you want to live in?

Also we don’t yet have, and hopefully will never get, socialized medicine. Why do we prepare society by starting to implement the boot on the neck when we’re not even sure if it’s needed yet? Seems a bit assumptive and preemptive no?

Post reply on HN