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

161–170 of 267 posts

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

#161

Post by ryandrake »

retrac wrote: post #140
jcranmer wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I always laugh when governments express surprise when companies exploit loopholes in the law. Here we have an amoral entity whose only purpose and incentive is to find ways to make money, and you're surprised that they hire a bunch of staff to figure out all the loopholes and how to make money against the spirit of the law but while sticking exactly to the letter of the law?

You weren't "duped." You wrote a law without red-teaming it thinking like a corporation.

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

#162

Post by papercrane »

rayiner wrote: post #149
kibwen wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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),…

I'd be interested to see actual data on that. For example, a Canadian study done after a year of legalization found that more youths tried marijuana, but that they were trying it later than average and the overall usage of cannabis among youth remained the same. Interestingly, there was also an increase to the perception of harm from using cannabis among the youth surveyed.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.09.003

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

#163

Post by happypumpkin »

ThinkingGuy wrote: post #120
VyseofArcadia wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thankfully never had to quit cigarettes or heroin, but in my experience quitting coffee is awful . 3-5 days of migraine-level headaches and nausea. And the whole time you're thinking, "all this could go away with just one little cup of coffee, which all the studies say has health benefits even. Just one little cup"

I've known 2 people who were previously addicted to heroin but had been able to quit. Both of them were still dependent on nicotine.

I've witnessed something similar, seeing someone quit a hard drug habit but still being stuck on nicotine for a few years before finally quitting. However, I don't think this says much about the inherent addictiveness of nicotine vs hard drugs, because it seems like the motivation to quit the hard drugs would be much higher. They're far more destructive in the short term, both to health and relationships.

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

#164

Post by margalabargala »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marijuana is legal for recreational use in the states where most people live. I'm in a Romney 2012 county and there's a giant dispensary on the main street that looks like an Apple store.

It is still a schedule 1 drug subject to criminal federal prosecution for possession and sale. The feds are just ignoring their obligation to uphold the law.

Lots of things that are de jure illegal are de facto legal. In many US States, marijuana meets this description.

To claim "marijuana absolutely isn't legalized" is completely incorrect. Something being illegal is more complicated than what the above poster makes it seem, unless a definition of "illegality" is used that's so broad that it's meaningless.

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

#165

Post by KennyBlanken »

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…

Meanwhile all the clones and copies just keep right on selling in bodegas and everywhere else. If anything they now have a competitive advantage because they're not paying a dime in penalties.

Some of these vapes are even complete units that are "disposable" which means we've gone from "cigarette filters" to "e-waste" littering everywhere: https://hackaday.com/2024/04/25/reverse-engineering-a-fancy-...

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

#166

Post by lokar »

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…

The fraud laws should be updated to cover this

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

#167

Post by oyashirochama »

dyauspitr wrote: post #157
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…

I don’t see the problem with being addicted to pure nicotine. It’s completely safe, causes next to no health issues, is not carcinogenic, actually has health benefits for acuity and long term memory. Addiction in itself is not a bad thing.

Nicotine DOES cause health issues, most of them are extreme versions of caffeine, and due to the severity should be controlled a little similar to alcohol.

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

#168

Post by bayindirh »

freedomben wrote: post #137
bayindirh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That comment is not my best by any means, and I see where you’re coming from, and respect your view. Thanks for bringing it up.

However, language is both subjective and culture dependent (plus, words doesn’t carry tone and sound). If somebody asks the same question the same way in my native language to my face, it’s not only snarky, but it’s rude (and mildly offensive depending on the context).

I don’t think I’m expected to know the all possible cultural styles, and take anything and everything kindly and politely, all day, every day.

Henceforth, I tone matched the comment according to my perception. I might be correct or wrong according some dominant discussion culture here, and people may perceive me the snarkier one according to their cultures. I can’t judge them, but this doesn’t change the fact that the style of question is rude on my side, and I have the right to respond equally (to my perception).

Normally I’m a much softer person and don’t write sharp comments, so that one is an exception.

Lastly I’ll be posting a research tome on caffeine addiction/withdrawal to the person who asked, so you might one to follow that thread too.

Have a nice day :)

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

#169

Post by 39896880 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #157
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…

I don’t see the problem with being addicted to pure nicotine. It’s completely safe, causes next to no health issues, is not carcinogenic, actually has health benefits for acuity and long term memory. Addiction in itself is not a bad thing.

I think you mean “dependency” and not “addiction.” Addiction is by definition a bad thing:

“Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behaviour that produces natural reward, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences.”

You’re right about nicotine though. It’s the delivery that’s the problem, in addition to the addictive properties which make the harm of the delivery less salient. Emphasis mine. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction?wprov=sfti1#

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

#170

Post by happypumpkin »

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…

> I want to be able to use caffeine as a tool.

Same here. All my daily coffee drinker friends say coffee has no effect on them. I drink it ~4-6 times a month (when I'm very busy) and I can feel the effects from one cup almost all day. More than two cups actually is quite uncomfortable.

Post reply on HN