91–100 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radioactivity is not the driver of lung cancer in cigarettes.
So you're saying the EPA and CDC are making it up?
They reached out to me on LinkedIn. Don't know why they need software engineers, but I don't think I'm aligned with their mission -- whatever it may be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not suggesting we should be letting 12 year olds vape. I'm saying that we treat it like other vices that people imbibe in.
...by not letting children make their own choices weather or not to imbibe. We don't allow kids to buy weed or alcohol either. They don't make informed decisions because they are literally incapable of it. They do not have adult brains yet.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough; I don't think children should be able to use vape products just as I don't think they should be drinking or smoking. I do think that they should be allowed to make that choice when they're an adult.
And he is being replaced by a former Marlboro employee. I am sure the public will feel so much safer knowing that the advertising will be handled by a Big Tobacco veteran moving forward.
The public should probably feel a bit better about having a tobacco veteran who knows better than to get the bosses in trouble by deliberately market to kids. Juul's former CEO took the startup strategy: disruptfluence the vape market by winnovating a "let's just sell them in high schools directly" strategy.
[0] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Falsely claiming that Juul was selling their products directly to high schoolers inside high schools isn't a very strong argument. Edit: I agree examples cited below arguably constitute selling. That said, if this is what parent was referring to, would likely have been better to say so since this isn't what selling implies when stated without any qualifier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.... > In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.” > Other schools across the country were offered $10,000 from the e-cigarette company for the right to talk to students in classrooms or after school. > In Richmo…
On the one hand, you have what sounds like straight up abusive targeted marketing of a drug at a vulnerable population: direct meeting with children, no teachers present (!?), "totally safe", etc. This seems reprehensible.
On the other hand, if it's an "education program" specifically targeted (and limited) to students who have already demonstrated that they have a cigarette problem, it seems like it could be a genuinely well intended part of a program to provide harm mitigation and a (apparently fairly successful) tool to help quit. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that version, even if it's still financially motivated.
On the gripping hand, vaping has unclear risks of its own that we don't fully understand yet, and even setting aside the improvement going from smoke to vapor, any nicotine product is still going to be an addiction risk.
They reached out to me on LinkedIn. Don't know why they need software engineers, but I don't think I'm aligned with their mission -- whatever it may be.
Who cares if you're "aligned with a mission"? It's a paycheck.
The job I have doesn't improve the world, I accept that. But it also doesn't make the world a worse place. I sure as hell would never work for an industry that's creating or enabling smokers. No matter how legal.
They reached out to me on LinkedIn. Don't know why they need software engineers, but I don't think I'm aligned with their mission -- whatever it may be.
Who cares if you're "aligned with a mission"? It's a paycheck.
They reached out to me on LinkedIn. Don't know why they need software engineers, but I don't think I'm aligned with their mission -- whatever it may be.