Live data from Hacker News

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

statnews.com

251–260 of 267 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was talking about American subgroups. The moralizing around sports and exercise tends to be a WASP thing (which refers specifically to northeastern WASPs, not anyone who fits the literal definition of the term). Among Asian Americans it depends on where you are—they tend to assimilate into the local culture. My point is that suggesting that people who eat and gain weight must be unhappy and coping, because happy ri…

Why do you say moralising? Surely sports are something people do because they're fun, and prestige sports, to demonstrate skill, finesse and the kind of complete capability that engaging in the sport at a high level requires.

I think when people have more of their needs fulfilled, it becomes more rational to tackle the final bits. When you're poor, you care about food and having somewhere to live, then at an intermediate level it's about paying the bills and not falling down into the poverty hole, then at a higher level it's succeeding at university, doing good research, making a successful company, but when you have all that, and you can't lose any of these things, then you start also wanting other things, and then playing sports reasonably often becomes extremely natural.

If someone is getting fat, or eating to excess, there has to be something wrong. Something stressing them, something they want to turn away from, to distract themselves. Happy people don't have such needs.

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

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicotine use without smoking raises heart rate, constricts blood vessels, raises blood pressure, and remodels the cardiovascular system and individual cells. Those cardiovascular changes are associated with stroke and dementia. It stimulates the mesolimbic dopamine system which causes downregulation of dopamine receptors, addiction, and feeling less good when you aren't ingesting nicotine. Here is an overview: https:…

Linking nicotine to dementia, which study? For all the other things, the same can be said about coffee. Are we banning coffee?

Except coffee is associated with lower all cause mortality (likely due to the amount of fiber extracted in coffee drinks) [0]. Do you have any evidence of decreased all cause mortality associated with any nicotine product?

https://youtu.be/IBB_8vR7wpU?si=0Cmq26oBQ-9dwUNN

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

#255
post #54

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.

> 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…

> [...] because the idea of using nicotine as a performance enhancer is crazy.

It's not [0]

[0] https://gwern.net/nootropic/nootropics#nicotine

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

#256

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.

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

The answer to both questions, in my opinion, is that there are still plenty of smokers in the places that get to make these decisions and even more people whose pockets are lined by the industry.

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

#257

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?

No I don’t, I think that perspective is an incredible amount of rationalization of marketing and data out an industry that continually proves itself to be public health crisis 101 and repeatedly and litigiouslg deceptive in its discussion about it.

In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try to quit fully, long term, and then tell me the chemical isn’t dangerous after that process is complete for you.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No I don’t, I think that perspective is an incredible amount of rationalization of marketing and data out an industry that continually proves itself to be public health crisis 101 and repeatedly and litigiouslg deceptive in its discussion about it. In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”

I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. Normal cigarettes does that, and vaping does not. Thus vaping is a significant reduction in harm as compared to cigarettes.

While I don't deny that vaping companies and their corporate cheer leaders may have made the same argument, what exactly is the problem with this argument on merit?

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don’t, I think that perspective is an incredible amount of rationalization of marketing and data out an industry that continually proves itself to be public health crisis 101 and repeatedly and litigiouslg deceptive in its discussion about it. In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”

I think scientifically there are very good reasons to assume that ingesting carcinogenic products of combustion into respiratory tract is injurious to health. Normal cigarettes does that, and vaping does not. Thus vaping is a significant reduction in harm as compared to cigarettes. While I don't deny that vaping companies and their corporate cheer leaders may have made the same argument, what exactly is the problem w…

Where does popcorn lung etc fit on your spectrum of healthy consequence free vaping? Or a nicotine addiction in a middle schooler because of the ease of access and child marketing.
Post reply on HN