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

141–150 of 267 posts

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

#141

Post by Workaccount2 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #106
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.

Way more of those kids are vaping marijuana, which has an orders of magnitude lower threat profile than both smoking AND tobacco vape oil rigs. Also, even full smoking of marijuana is less dirty than smoking cigs, and a significant amount of marijuana smokers use things like bongs, bubblers, and other water filtration systems which do (slightly) reduce the harm of the smoke. Marijuana is straight up harm reduction ov…

There is no such thing as "tobacco vape oil"

I would trust vape juice 1000x over thc oil, especially if it was unflavored. Vape juice is three ingredients and very easy to get their pure forms. Vape oil is pretty sketchy and has to be done very carefully.

But thc gummies are almost certainly safer than any of the above.

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

#142

Post by impossiblefork »

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.

If people are genuinely happy they don't start doing things to excess. Eating to excess is usually an attempt to distract oneself from something else, a 'cope'.

That only happens in a society that is not rich and happy.

If people are actually rich and happy you see them take up expensive sports, golf, tennis, horseback riding. They rarely get fat unless there's something personally wrong with them.

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

#143

Post by kayo_20211030 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #106
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.

Way more of those kids are vaping marijuana, which has an orders of magnitude lower threat profile than both smoking AND tobacco vape oil rigs. Also, even full smoking of marijuana is less dirty than smoking cigs, and a significant amount of marijuana smokers use things like bongs, bubblers, and other water filtration systems which do (slightly) reduce the harm of the smoke. Marijuana is straight up harm reduction ov…

> Way more of those kids are vaping marijuana, which has an orders of magnitude lower threat profile than both smoking AND tobacco vape oil rigs.

Very much depends on how you define threat.

I'd very much prefer that the driver in the other lane is smoking a ciggy rather that vaping marijuana in the interest of preserving their individual health.

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

#144

Post by giraffe_lady »

Grimeton wrote: post #50
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…

20 years from now the cigarette will have a comeback as "totally natural", " 100% bio", "no batteries needed"...

This is already beginning I think. Right now usually with some irony but that's how these things start sometimes.

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

#145

Post by alephnerd »

walleeee wrote: post #104
alephnerd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's hard to translate but I'd recommend taking a read.

You wouldn't say "civilization without society" is pretty close to your first two paragraphs in your comment? Maybe I need a refresher.

"Society" and "Civilization" are very loaded terms, and by "Society" Wang specifically meant the community aspect of society.

For example, he is very positive about the kind of direct democracy he saw in Belmont, MA (the classic New England Town Meeting), and viewed that as a cornerstone of American society, along with a shared vision of innovation and development.

Fundamentally, the core pieces of America that Wang looked up to were the same pieces of policy and legislation that were pushed in the Progressive Era [0] as well as by FDR as part of his New Deal [1] and LBJ as part of his Great Society [2].

In essence, the vision that Wang and Xi are pushing within China today is basically an Authoritarian but also decentralized version of the Great Society and New Deal.

[0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-wo...

[1] - https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-wo...

[2] - https://library.fiveable.me/apush/unit-8/great-society/study...

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

#147

Post by alephnerd »

jimbokun wrote: post #134
alephnerd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty much.

Access to information isn't bad, but we also need to remember that we're all part of the same team.

Increasingly, partisans on both sides of the political and social aisle don't actually care about the opposing side. They just want to win.

And this is why countries like Russia, China, and Iran have been so successful at weaponizing disinformation - it's being used by partisans on both sides to undermine the other, leading to chaos.

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

#148

Post by jjice »

sevagh wrote: post #116
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…

[flagged]

> Why do you think you speak for your generation to bar them from casual nicotine use?

I think you're digging to deep into my phrasing. The majority of people I know that vape would prefer if they didn't. They always talk about trying to quit, but how it's very hard for them. Maybe that doesn't apply to the people you know. They don't like that they have an addiction now. Nicotine has some benefits, but it doesn't seem worth the cost for the majority of ways it's delivered. At no point do I think that we should "bar" nicotine use, but I think it's a safe bet to say that most people who have this addiction now would rather not have the addiction.

I had a similar response to a comment I made about sports betting and how my peers have gotten very into it and are losing money and forming compulsions. They are free individuals and can do what they want, but I still think it's a generally bad thing to introduce dangerous addictions to more people.

I also think that alcohol is generally bad for you too. I don't think that should be banned either, but, generally speaking, most people would live healthier lives without it. That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be legal and accessible.

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

#149

Post by rayiner »

kibwen wrote: post #121
VoidWhisperer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the recent decision by the DEA to move marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, that could be changing (insofar as legalization goes anyways)

The grandparent commenter was trying to blame current societal ills on the legality of marijuana and the legal availability to children, both of which are plainly incorrect, so any future legality cannot have had any bearing due to the causal nature of the universe. And even if it becomes legal someday, all current precedents involve treating marijuna like cigarettes as far as age restrictions go.

> The grandparent commenter was trying to blame current societal ills on the legality of marijuana and the legal availability to children

I'm blaming marijuana legalization for young people smoking marijuana, when they wouldn't smoke cigarettes. The fact that marijuana isn't legal in all states, or is illegal at the federal level, is immaterial to my point. In the places where my family and I live (D.C. and Oregon), marijuana has been legal for a decade. It was made legal in Oregon in 2015, after being decriminalized in 1973. Dispensaries are all over the place. In D.C. it's been legal to grew, possess, and barter since 2015.

The fact that it's illegal under federal law has no effect on people's use of it, because the feds do not bother to enforce that law on individuals. My neighborhood in downtown D.C. reeked of pot smoke way back in 2016.

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

#150

Post by ImPleadThe5th »

chelmzy wrote: post #10

I'm sure there are negative impacts of vaping and it should definitely be more heavily regulated. But the neutering of Juul only to allow dozens of Chinese clones to take their place was such a huge blunder.

Agreed. Congress Pating themselves on the back for taking down juul while allowing the rise of these e-waste single use vapes with notably more flavours than Juul ever had.

I think it was a political move and not at all about the health of people.

Post reply on HN