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

131–140 of 267 posts

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

#131

Post by remram »

kurthr wrote: post #118
remram wrote: post #114

In what capacity did those professors push Juul? In the classroom? Scientific papers? Lobbying?

From the article: Abrams, a frequent commentator about vaping in the news media, including CBS This Morning, CNN, and The New Yorker, coordinated extensively with Juul on public messaging in 2017 and 2018, according to company emails. Abrams asked Juul officials for talking points, allowed company executives to review an academic article prior to publishing, and attended Juul scientific advisory board meetings, all w…

Thanks. I can only read the first 2 paragraphs without paying $30...

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

#132

Post by rayiner »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #113
pavel_lishin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least cigarettes made people skinny and hot. Until you lean in for a kiss, or even a hug.

It doesn't take a kiss or hug, I have a visceral reaction to just talking to or walking by someone who stinks of cigarette smoke, it's disgusting to me. I'll still assert that all people are innately deserving of compassion and respect, but it takes effort and a choice when I smell that. As a father, an uncle, and a dog owner who has changed a lot of diapers and cleaned up a lot of poop (at ~10 years x 365 days x 1-1…

Socialization is a funny thing. I have the same reaction you're describing to dog smell, but I'm not troubled by cigarette smoke at all. (My dad was a multiple packs a day smoker when I was a kid.) I actually find it quite pleasant, even the stale tobacco smell in old motel rooms.

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

#133

Post by freedomben »

VyseofArcadia wrote: post #84
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why quit coffee if it has health benefits?

Great question! A couple of reasons. The simplest is that I dislike being dependent on any substance. A more nuanced reason is that I want to be able to use caffeine as a tool. A cup of coffee is the largest dose of caffeine that I am comfortable taking at any one time. If I already have caffeine tolerance at the level of a daily coffee habit, caffeine has lost much of its utility to me. However, if my tolerance is l…

Agreed. I would also add that something can simultaneously provide health benefits in one area and costs in others. If the costs outweigh the benefits, quitting makes sense despite the benefits.

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

#134

Post by jimbokun »

alephnerd wrote: post #97
mcphage wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to a certain extent Wang Huning's thesis about America is right What is that?

Hyper-individualism leading to a nihilistic worldview. Individuals absolutely should have autonomy to choose what they wish to do, but not if it has an impact on the rest of society. Fundamentally, some amount of regulation (either via social norms or via actual laws) is needed, yet we as individuals will continue to fight each other while ignoring the core fact that we are all on the same team. I strongly disagree w…

Patriotism previously worked as a check on hyper individualism in the US, tying people to a shared sense of national community.

Now that we collectively know too much about the harms perpetrated by our government, we have also lost that sense of unity and shared values and purpose.

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

#135

Post by leononame »

slibhb wrote: post #125
lenerdenator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem came from the fact that sporadic smoking didn't serve the profits of tobacco companies in the way they would have liked. The shoving of high-fructose corn syrup and other calorie-rich ingredients into everything sold in the US to increase consumption (again, for profits) has a much greater impact on weight management, though.

> The shoving of high-fructose corn syrup and other calorie-rich ingredients into everything sold in the US to increase consumption (again, for profits) has a much greater impact on weight management, though. It doesn't have to be some conspiracy to make people addicted to calories. People are (relatively) rich, food is cheap, and eating feels good.

I think my GP isn't suggesting that it's a conspiracy at all. Just that sugar is in almost every where you can put it even if it doesn't need it just to hook you on sugar a bit more.

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

#136

Post by cycomanic »

lenerdenator wrote: post #49
eej71 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered if our complete demonization of all smoking was a bit of a disservice to the sporadic smoke that likely helped with managing one's weight which has its own health benefits.

The problem came from the fact that sporadic smoking didn't serve the profits of tobacco companies in the way they would have liked. The shoving of high-fructose corn syrup and other calorie-rich ingredients into everything sold in the US to increase consumption (again, for profits) has a much greater impact on weight management, though.

And the ones responsible are the same. Much of the obesity crisis is caused by tobacco companies investing in food and employing the same advertisement and lobbying tactics as before [1]. The penalties were too light, really the behaviour should have resulted in serious jail time and confiscation of all assets.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/09/19/addiction...

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

#137

Post by freedomben »

bayindirh wrote: post #101
itsoktocry wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I did my research before letting coffee loose on my body. Was this research similar to you drawing conclusions about nicotine based on the handful of your friends that vape?

Yes. I read papers about both subjects. Also read papers about other drugs because of an addicted friend who I don't talk with anymore. What I gave was an example, and looks like you're upset about it. Please keep in mind that while itsoktocry, itsnotoktosnark at HN [0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

fwiw I thought this comment was the snarky one, not GP. Given that this snarky comment also tried to call out GP for snark and refer to the HN guidelines against snark, it also became highly ironic. I would guess that's why you've been downvoted.

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

#138

Post by Workaccount2 »

jjice wrote: post #87

I'm blown away by how vaping took over. I was a senior in high school once Juul started to get popular. We'd joke about our peers that willingly took on an addiction when our generation was mostly in the clear from being addicted to cigarettes. Then some of my friends who'd joke about it started vaping. I don't even know how they started, but they did. Let me be clear - it's not nearly as annoying or destructive for…

I was a smoker, turned vaper, turned quitter. Smoked for 8 years, vaped for 7, quit now for 4.

I purposely never picked up on juuls, because they were too good. I worked at a restaurant at the time and begged the younger kids not to pick up a juul because it was clear they were incredibly addictive with none of the restraints of cigarette (can't stealth smoke inside, tastes gross, etc).

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

#139

Post by eddieroger »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #46
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> At least cigarettes made people skinny and hot. Until you lean in for a kiss, or even a hug.

I was in college when the bars in my college town went smoke free. It was noticeable how all of a sudden I didn't feel like my night needed to end with a shower just because I went out and didn't want to lay in bed smelling like an ashtray. So yeah, well before the hug.

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

#140

Post by retrac »

jcranmer wrote: post #82
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…

> Imagine a company being told today that they now have to stop advertising on billboards, can't advertise to kids, and have to pay a fifth of a trillion dollars over 25 years for the harms they caused to Medicaid. Can't, can you? That's what's happening to Juul right now. Juul e-cigarettes came out in 2015; 2018 had the first consent decree to not advertise anywhere kids might see the advertisements; by 2021, we had…

We had a minor scandal here in Canada. The same company behind Vuse vapes (Imperial Tobacco of Canada) got approval for an oral product that falls in the same category as nicotine gum, legally. Not heavily controlled. The regulators had apparently never considered that someone might try to market nicotine gum to children who do not use any nicotine products. It was approved as normal, just another off-brand nicotine replacement.

To quote the Health Minister, "We were duped." Within a few months in most provinces, orders in council had been drafted to ban the advertising, and prohibit flavours except mint, and there may now be amendments to the laws federally to go further. The slow bureaucratic march to patch the loophole began as soon as it was recognized, basically. Still, the brazenness is stunning. It's the same mentality behind the marketing of the vapes.

https://globalnews.ca/news/10142796/health-minister-nicotine...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nicotine-pouches-regulation...

Post reply on HN