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

31–40 of 267 posts

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

#31

Post by uniqueuid »

dudisubekti wrote: post #26
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…

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

There are many studies on the effect of nicotine. I would look for several meta-analyses or umbrella (meta-meta) analyses. Ideally reporting all-cause mortality.

Here is one like that: ~500k individuals, vaping has an odds ratio of 1.33 (95% CI = 1.14–1.56) for heart attacks compared to non-smoker/non-vapers.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01675...

[edit] To compare that to caffeine, this study does not see a significant risk increase for coffee drinkers. So it seems that vaping is objectively more harmful:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5940396/

[edit2] And an umbrella review, because I like them a lot: This shows that negative effects of high coffee intake mostly disappear when controlling for smoking. Note this paper has a correction, which I think is a great sign of credibility. https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5024

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

#32

Post by rayiner »

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…

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.

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

#33

Post by alphazard »

dudisubekti wrote: post #26
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…

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

Really nothing; you're correct to think of it in the same category as caffeine. Both addictive, yet safe.

But vaporizers have more than nicotine. There's other chemicals needed to produce vaporizer fluid, and it's far too soon to tell if they are safe. Even though most of them have been in the food supply, they haven't been inhaled at scale. We already found one that wasn't safe (Vitamin E Acetate), because it was causing very obvious problems. What about the non-obvious problems?

A more direct comparison to caffeine is a nicotine (not tobacco) pouch.

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

#34

Post by alephnerd »

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…

Opium War 2.0 - we have too much inertia to stop the "good times", and while everyone had the right to ruin their bodies, they're doing it out of complete ignorance.

The Western relationship to addictive substances is insane, and I hate to admit this, but to a certain extent Wang Huning's thesis about America is right.

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

#35

Post by downrightmike »

The netflix documentary is pretty amazing. You get to see people start of with ideals of making smoking safe and as time goes on and they make deals for money, that they justify the increasingly evil things they are doing because they are making more money.

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

#36

Post by prox »

downrightmike wrote: post #35

The netflix documentary is pretty amazing. You get to see people start of with ideals of making smoking safe and as time goes on and they make deals for money, that they justify the increasingly evil things they are doing because they are making more money.

What documentary is that?

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

#37

Post by madog »

bayindirh wrote: post #27
dudisubekti wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

Nicotine addiction is chronic and very hard to break. You can reset caffeine tolerance and dependence in 10 days.

Actually with vaping it becomes pretty easy to quit. You just taper down the nicotine slowly until you're on nothing and eventually you just kind of stop because you don't feel the need to do it anymore.

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

#38

Post by user_7832 »

alphazard wrote: post #33
dudisubekti wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s so bad about nicotine? Is it any worse than caffeine? I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?

Really nothing; you're correct to think of it in the same category as caffeine. Both addictive, yet safe. But vaporizers have more than nicotine. There's other chemicals needed to produce vaporizer fluid, and it's far too soon to tell if they are safe. Even though most of them have been in the food supply, they haven't been inhaled at scale. We already found one that wasn't safe (Vitamin E Acetate), because it was ca…

Aren’t nicotine’s vasoconstriction worse than coffee’s (at regular consumption levels)?

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

#39

Post by fidotron »

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…

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.

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

#40

Post by spicyusername »

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.

Not sure why you're being down voted, this is definitely true.
Post reply on HN