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

221–230 of 267 posts

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

#221

Post by lenerdenator »

shermantanktop wrote: post #127
itsoktocry wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The shoving of high-fructose corn syrup and other calorie-rich ingredients into everything sold in the US to increase consumption (again, for profits) Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy? Perhaps it's just food producers adding an abundant, cheap sweetener to their crap because that's what the market demands? Read the ingredients and buy or don't buy. People need to have a bit of personal accountability in…

Better yet, buy the ingredients and make your own. Most food is not hard to make from scratch, tastes better, and is healthier because you see what goes into it and can choose to moderate elements. But it takes a little time and a bit of care.

The time is the rub.

If you're stuck in traffic for time measured in hours, you're not baking fresh bread during the week.

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

#223

Post by RobotCaleb »

dogman144 wrote: post #205
dyauspitr wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do have the addiction and I have quit before but it’s really hard. That was when I smoked cigarettes and needed to quit because I was severely harming my body. I now vape with a 100% vegetable glycerin and nicotine mix that is fully unflavored so I haven’t found the need to quit again because frankly the health risks are very low.

I’ve quit as well and imo there’s no “quit before,” it’s quit or still doing it. I respect your opinion but I can’t really take a nicotine addict’s claim that the substance isn’t harmful, when the addict hasn’t actually ever quit the chemical. Somehow along the way “quit” got subbed in with “vaping but it’s basically the same as quit.” Biggest marketing con the industry has ever pulled.

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree. You can only quit once. You may have stopped before, but if you ever pick it back up then you didn't quit.

Turning quit into a waffle word takes away its impact and probably eases some psychological constraints for people.

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

#224

Post by squigz »

tremon wrote: post #203
ryandrake wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 witho…

Personally, I find it deeply troubling that we've come so far along the "free-trade" axis that companies are presumed immoral by default. There is no way to have a high-functioning society when one large part is actively undermining the social contract of society. That the general public sees this as fait-accompli and seems to be cheering it on is not funny, it's tragic.

Companies will do the most heinous shit imaginable and people will be like, "Well, yeah, what did you expect? Should've known better!"

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

#225

Post by squigz »

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…

> The thing that gets me is that we were so close to not having any casual nicotine in my generation

A couple people have claimed this so far in this thread. Is there any data to support this hypothesis? My feeling is the percentage addicted to nicotine wouldn't have been significantly lower without vaping.

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

#226

Post by impossiblefork »

rayiner wrote: post #200
impossiblefork wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re projecting culturally-determined views about what “rich and happy” people do onto others. Rich people taking up sports and eating in moderation is a WASP thing. It’s much less of a thing in the south. And it’s not a thing at all in say the Indian subcontinent, where it’s unusual for adults to play sports.

I don't think so.

Swedes aren't WASPs, but we are this way. I think Spanish people and Germans are too. I agree that it is as you say in India, but surely both Indian-Americans and Asian-American must become a bit this other way, since they'll probably work with many WASPs, and surely they get affected by media and general societal expectations?

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

#227

Post by billfruit »

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.

Then why did the court upturn the FDAs Juul ban? And why don't FDA try to ban cigarettes?

There is a case to be made that vaping is safer than smoking, since it is free of ingesting the harmful products of combustion like tar and carbon compounds.

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

#228

Post by billfruit »

dogman144 wrote: post #211

adding just to counteract some very odd takes in here from I presume currently vapors or wildly uneducated non-nicotine addicts. Nicotine addiction owned my life for years. Nothing like it. I still have dreams about relapsing dip and then saying “f-it” and spending a day in my dreams going wild with Cope. Quitting meant trying to taper, trying the gum, trying pouches vs loose dip, and if vapes were around I’d prob ha…

Atleast vaping doesn't make people ingest the very harmful products of combustion, tars and other nasty products of the burning that happens inside normal cigarettes.

Don't you think that is an important reduction of harm from smoking cigarettes?

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

#229

Post by dyauspitr »

dogman144 wrote: post #205
dyauspitr wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do have the addiction and I have quit before but it’s really hard. That was when I smoked cigarettes and needed to quit because I was severely harming my body. I now vape with a 100% vegetable glycerin and nicotine mix that is fully unflavored so I haven’t found the need to quit again because frankly the health risks are very low.

I’ve quit as well and imo there’s no “quit before,” it’s quit or still doing it. I respect your opinion but I can’t really take a nicotine addict’s claim that the substance isn’t harmful, when the addict hasn’t actually ever quit the chemical. Somehow along the way “quit” got subbed in with “vaping but it’s basically the same as quit.” Biggest marketing con the industry has ever pulled.

Oh, I am not saying I quit. I meant to say I made an attempt at quitting and succeeded for sometime. I am not calling vaping “quitting”.

What does my quitting have to do with its effects? If nicotine is dangerous it’s going to be that way if I quit of not.

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

#230

Post by freedomben »

bayindirh wrote: post #168
freedomben wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expe…

All make sense to me! And yes for sure there was some snark in the comment you replied to. If it helps, the specific part of your comment that I felt elevated it to a higher level was the reference to their username, which was ad homimen/personal snark, whereas both theirs and the first part of your reply was snark directed at the research or the methods.

Likewise have a nice day, and thanks for the tip on the research tome! I'm definitely interested to see it :-)

Post reply on HN