Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

prospect.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 400 posts

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#371

Post by dude187 »

bmj wrote: post #333
prepend wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the addiction that causes lung cancer, it’s the smoke. So the goal of stopping smoking should have positive health outcomes.

My understanding is that the proverbial jury is still out on whether vaping truly is less harmful to the lungs that smoking[0][1]. That would mean that vaping (instead of smoking) isn't necessarily a positive health outcome. [0] https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2020/05/risks-vaping [1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi...

It's not really up for debate whether or not vaping is healthier. It's a night and day difference. Vaping is far less harmful than smoking.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#372

Post by dude187 »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #241
toomanybeersies wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace nicotine with amphetamine and your statement still holds true.

Exactly. Whatever positive effects nicotine has are completely overshadowed and undermined by its addictiveness.

That's really not true at all. Addictiveness in and of itself is not some hugely detrimental trait. Not to mention that nicotine delivered in vapor form is less addictive in the first place.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#373

Post by dude187 »

nohuck13 wrote: post #248
egeozcan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthier substitute to smoking practically means a smoking cessation product. Impossible meat, likewise, is a meat "cessation" product. If impossible meat makes vegans start eating burgers, you can't just argue "well, it's still better than meat". > I'm definitely against marketing vaping to non-smokers. But this is the whole point, they do attract non-smokers. They should explicitly detract them instead.

> But this is the whole point, they do attract non-smokers. They should explicitly detract them instead. This is magical thinking. Do we apply this requirement to healthier alternatives in any other market? For example: I really like McDonalds fries, but I mostly don't eat them because they're unhealthy. However anecdotally some "heavy users" eat them 3 to 5 times a week. Imagine if McDonalds introduced "Beyond Fries…

> This is magical thinking.

Attitudes around smoking in general are grounded deeply in magical thinking. People have been raised on anti-smoking rhetoric so deep, with such little cultural push back toward sanity, that it's tough for most people to think let alone discuss the subject with any objectivity.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#374

Post by webnrrd2k »

afavour wrote: post #76
lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

I think if Juul was marketed as a smoking cessation product I’d have no problem with it. But it’s marketed as a lifestyle product and a ton of young people with no history of smoking have started vaping as a result.

This reminds me of the old "is it ok to smoke while praying/pray while smoking" question:

A young priest asked his bishop, “May I smoke while praying?”... The answer was an emphatic “No!”

Later, when he sees an older priest puffing on a cigarette while praying, the younger priest scolded him, “You shouldn’t be smoking while praying! I asked the bishop, and he said I couldn’t do it!”

“That’s odd,” the old priest replied. “I asked the bishop if I could pray while I’m smoking, and he told me that it was okay to pray at any time!”

I first heard it from an Alan Watts talk, but couldn't easily find the quote, so I used one from r/jokes, at ”https://amp.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3q2h1a/a_young_pries...

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#375

Post by Semaphor »

yCombLinks wrote: post #286
boredtofears wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it accurate to say you quit smoking when you've really just switched the device that delivers the substance you're addicted to?

100% accurate, he didn't say he wanted to quit being addicted to nicotine. He wanted to quit smoking, which he has done.

In addition, I went from 25mg nicotine in 2012, to less than 2mg now.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#376

Post by bagacrap »

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

it sounds like juul should be a prescription medication (paid for by insurance companies as a way of lowering their total costs).

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#377

Post by elif »

fragmede wrote: post #362
elif wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See marijuana if you believe regulators will actually listen to a preponderance of evidence. FDA/pharma executives are a revolving door, and therefore concerned chiefly with the health of pharma rather than humans.

There are (AFAIK) 3 cannabis derived products that the FDA has approved. Given the large cost required to get a new patentable drug through the FDA, it doesn't come as a surprise that no one's willing to foot that bill. What the DEA (a totally different governmental organization with different motivations and biases) thinks about marijuana is reprehensible, however.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-...

Exactly. They have approved 3 niche pharmaceutical industry replacements. Meanwhile they have kept their head in the sand regulating the 26 state cannabis industry, and we have no universal standards for contaminants, potency, etc. beyond state imposed regulations.

The CBD industry, which has been commercialized in most states, is also totally unregulated.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#378

Post by wolverine876 »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #207
OptionX wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several "Citation needed" in that comment.

Here’s a good primer. I was a bit off, it’s not millions per sku, more like hundreds of thousands, but all the combinations of products also need to be accounted for and approved at great cost. https://vaping360.com/vape-news/105656/how-will-the-pmta-dea... If that’s not enough detail let me know, I’m happy to dig up other old articles for you. This small business destroying charade by the fda has been well documente…

I don't know that I buy Vaping 360, which has a banner saying "57 MILLION smokers and vaping enthusiasts reached since 2015!", as a credible source.

Below you accuse stories about harm to children of "pushing an agenda"; might this be pushing one?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#379

Post by wolverine876 »

hyper0perator wrote: post #367
ReGenGen wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its easy to forget that heart-disease kills as many smokers as Cancer. Vaping is still ingesting mystery compounds & heavy metals directly into the blood stream for the body's immune system to freak out on. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2018/study-lead-and...

This is why all fast food needs to be heavily regulated by FDA and only available via prescription to limit abuse.

Is there a history of fast food as a leading cause of death?

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#380

Post by wolverine876 »

snarf21 wrote: post #315
plank_time wrote: post #197

We spent decades trying to get rid of cigarettes and it worked and now we let this fucking Juul through the front door. It’s as if we haven’t learned a fucking thing in decades, and the fact that this founder is celebrated in Silicon Valley sickens me. He just found another opportunity to hook kids on nicotine for another few generations and now he’s a fucking billionaire. Fuck that guy.

If only we would work on the real health issues in this country (world?) and start looking at what is being put into our foods. We largely only went after smoking because of its externalities. There is no such thing as second-hand sugar, sadly.

Because there are other health issues, we should ignore this one? Smoking is a leading cause of death, so it's not insignificant.
Post reply on HN