Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#51

Post by uniqueuid »

jorvi wrote: post #44
uniqueuid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many studies on the effect of nicotine. I would look for several meta-analyses or umbrella (meta-meta) analyses. Ideally reporting all-cause mortality. Here is one like that: ~500k individuals, vaping has an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI = 1.14–1.56) for heart attacks compared to non-smoker/non-vapers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01675... [edit] To compare that to caffeine, this stud…

You are conflating the harms of the delivery mechanism with the harms of the substance. Nicotine gum is relatively harmless for example. Or perhaps imbibe on a Nicotini[0]? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotini

You're right that these studies measure the product, not the substance. But TFA is about vaping, and I am referring to that.

[edit] Seems that nicotine is not really harmless, even in gum or patches: double the risk of heart palpitations and chest pains, 1.67 the risk of nausea and vomiting, 1.5 times the risk of gastrointestinal complaints, and 1.4 times the risk of insomnia.

Of course, if you measure anything this closely with >100k participants in RCTs, it's bound to have a significant effect. But these odds ratios are not exactly small.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1617-9625-8-8

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#52

Post by anonymoose33282 »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #42

I just want my mango pods back... Seems really arbitrary to ban things on a flavor by flavor basis. I don't see anybody banning fruity flavored vodka.

It's definitely a double-standard that is especially prevalent in the US. In a gas station you can buy alcohol that will kill you, nicotine products that will kill you, processed food that will kill you. I don't understand why only 1 of those seems to ruffle feathers.

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#53

Post by fidotron »

uniqueuid wrote: post #48
fidotron wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like that it is desirable. Unfortunately people perform better when they have nicotine, so the effect for society as a whole is non negligible if a huge mass of people get a slight performance bounce. Smoking is annoying, disgusting, unhealthy etc. but we are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that nicotine itself may have been a civilization booster.

That's a very interesting, but completely ad-hoc theory. The problem with these is that there are almost always equally plausible theories, and it's really hard to figure out which is correct. Especially given the huge amount of effort that has gone into research on tobacco and nicotine (I guess millions of hours, if not more), I would definitely NOT say we are too quick to dismiss the possibility. I'm sure you can f…

This has come up before here but unfortunately I'm right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Performance

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#54

Post by bilekas »

fidotron wrote: post #39
lenerdenator wrote: post #9

It really is amazing. We were thiiiiiiis close to having a generation that wasn't addicted to nicotine for the first time in hundreds of years (like, since trade between North America and Europe really became a thing) and these guys pulled this thumb drive that tastes like cotton candy out of nowhere and every young person is just jonesing . And the regulatory/public opinion environment isn't what it was in the 80s a…

You say it like that it is desirable. Unfortunately people perform better when they have nicotine, so the effect for society as a whole is non negligible if a huge mass of people get a slight performance bounce. Smoking is annoying, disgusting, unhealthy etc. but we are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that nicotine itself may have been a civilization booster.

> Unfortunately people perform better when they have nicotine.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone bring this argument. Ignoring the health risks involved with nicotine, the 'performance boost' is negligible. It's less than caffeine.

> but we are way too quick to dismiss the possibility that nicotine itself may have been a civilization booster.

There are nicotine gums and patches available, and a very good reason you don't see people who don't smoke using them, because the idea of using nicotine as a performance enhancer is crazy.

A silly question, but why not just distribute cocaine or Adderall without prescription if you're concerned about performance? Where do you draw the line ?

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#55

Post by gwbas1c »

dudisubekti wrote: post #26
lenerdenator wrote: post #9

It really is amazing. We were thiiiiiiis close to having a generation that wasn't addicted to nicotine for the first time in hundreds of years (like, since trade between North America and Europe really became a thing) and these guys pulled this thumb drive that tastes like cotton candy out of nowhere and every young person is just jonesing . And the regulatory/public opinion environment isn't what it was in the 80s a…

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. Quitting cigarettes is about as hard as quitting heroin. In contrast, quitting coffee is much, much easier.

On a more personal note, when "The King's Speech" was in theaters I kept watching people smoke cigarettes on screen, and went out and bought some Drum. (Loose tobacco that comes with rolling papers.) Within a few days I started getting a voice in my head that told me it was "a good idea to go have a cigarette on the porch once I get out of bed," or "it's a good idea to have a cigarette when you get home." It was really creepy, I've never had a substance put ideas in my head 24+ hours after it was out of my system.

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#56

Post by nojvek »

rayiner wrote: post #32
lenerdenator wrote: post #9

It really is amazing. We were thiiiiiiis close to having a generation that wasn't addicted to nicotine for the first time in hundreds of years (like, since trade between North America and Europe really became a thing) and these guys pulled this thumb drive that tastes like cotton candy out of nowhere and every young person is just jonesing . And the regulatory/public opinion environment isn't what it was in the 80s a…

We socialized people to realize smoking is dirty, then went ahead and legalized marijuana so now kids who would never have smoked cigarettes are filling their lungs with tar: https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/14/health/marijuana-smoke-wellne... . At least cigarettes made people skinny and hot.

Curious, what makes having cigarettes have low body fat? or in general they get undernourished?

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#57

Post by VyseofArcadia »

uniqueuid wrote: post #31
dudisubekti wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

There are many studies on the effect of nicotine. I would look for several meta-analyses or umbrella (meta-meta) analyses. Ideally reporting all-cause mortality. Here is one like that: ~500k individuals, vaping has an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI = 1.14–1.56) for heart attacks compared to non-smoker/non-vapers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01675... [edit] To compare that to caffeine, this stud…

This is an apples to oranges comparison. Ideally an apples to apples comparison of the effects of nicotine and caffeine would control for method of ingestion. I wouldn't be surprised if vaping caffeine[0] has a similar odds ratio for heart attacks.

Caffeine and nicotine both exist in gum form. Have their been studies comparing that?

[0] which, to my horror, I just discovered actually exist

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#58

Post by nojvek »

bayindirh wrote: post #17
r0ckarong wrote: post #14

Juul is the perfect example that our systems just don't work for the people or the common good by default. Any device that delivers such a highly addictive compound should have to been blocked by default until it was allowed. It was done the other way around.

But the freedom to kill oneself! /s

Not sure why you got downvoted with /s tag.

Is it really freedom of a drug hacks into your brain biology to make you desire something over and over again?

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#59

Post by dudisubekti »

uniqueuid wrote: post #31
dudisubekti wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

There are many studies on the effect of nicotine. I would look for several meta-analyses or umbrella (meta-meta) analyses. Ideally reporting all-cause mortality. Here is one like that: ~500k individuals, vaping has an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI = 1.14–1.56) for heart attacks compared to non-smoker/non-vapers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01675... [edit] To compare that to caffeine, this stud…

Thanks! Your links have convinced me

I guess vaping/nicotine, while not the worst vice out there, is still a vice lol; so they have their own dangers.

Re: NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul

#60

Post by jprete »

lenerdenator wrote: post #9

It really is amazing. We were thiiiiiiis close to having a generation that wasn't addicted to nicotine for the first time in hundreds of years (like, since trade between North America and Europe really became a thing) and these guys pulled this thumb drive that tastes like cotton candy out of nowhere and every young person is just jonesing . And the regulatory/public opinion environment isn't what it was in the 80s a…

We did something similar with prescription opioids and medical amphetamine relatives are extremely regulated.

It's really just alcohol, tobacco, and now marijuana that get this treatment.

Post reply on HN