Hacker News Reader

Comment by TedDoesntTalk | Hacker News Reader

> fear mongering about children juuling.

Why is that fear-mongering? My anecdotal evidence is that it's rampant with teens. Do you have any stats that are not anecdotal so I can educate myself?

View on HN

Because the stories are pushing an agenda and ignoring the broader scope of the issue that is children using addictive substances. Conversations about children vaping should be had, but in comparison to the rate of other tobacco and nicotine use. If it’s really about the kids shouldn’t we also be looking at alcohol and other drugs like marijuana too as reference? I don’t see articles about the high school kids that start drinking, taking opiates, or smoking cigarettes and marijuana every year. These are expected behaviors, vaping is new, and the preponderance of evidence says is far less dangerous than smoking, so a lot of ignorant and easily frightened people got caught up in the rhetoric and forgot how to rationalize about new risks. The fear mongering about juul was little more than a perfect excuse to quash outcry over the ridiculous legislation against vaping products on the state and National level.

When I was growing up all the teens were smoking and drinking. Considering how bad we know alcohol and cigarettes are for a developing brain, I'm inclined to not panic over the newest trend.

Don’t forget marijuana, it reduces blood flow to the brain. Absolutely horrible for a developing brain.

I don't know how I forgot that. It was more popular than alcohol and cigarettes at my school.

Do you have any (non-anecotal, ideally) evidence that it's dangerous?

It was rampant with teens, but then we "fixed" things.

They went back to cigarettes.

Mission accomplished I guess.

Cigarettes are hard to covertly hit at school/home. They leave the person with a very distinctive stink. They are hard to buy online and damn near impossible for a minor to buy in person. With only 13% of adults smoking they aren't available to be swiped in most households and taxes in many places make those who do smoke liable to notice them walking out the door. Many places its about $10 a pack.

Furthermore it is much more socially unacceptable and awareness of the harms of cigarettes has never been higher.

Insofar as teens if eciggs were to become as hard to get as heroin tomorrow nicotine addition of teens all cause would be liable to decrease because your mom is absolutely going to know your smoking actual ciggs and have something to say in the matter.

> Cigarettes are hard to covertly hit at school/home.

I once knew an adult smoker who smoked about 1/2 a pack a day. She also didn’t want to smell like it, he had methods she employed that would leave absolutely no smell on her.

If your kid wants to hide smoking analogs then they can easily, just stand in front of a fan and wash your hands and face after.

The overwhelming majority of parents are now non smokers and no schools are accepting of smoking. Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home.

What you say is correct you could certainly decrease the chances of being caught but on net out of 100 smoking teens 90 will end up getting caught trying to smoke real ciggs whereas hiding a non scented vape is so extremely trivial that the situation is reversed. 90 will escape detection.

There is a distinct difference between those two circumstances.

> Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home.

My wife when she was smoking would go all day without smoking only to smoke at home. Also one of my school grade friends was a smoker at 13 or so, and he only smoked at home.

Also vape’s have a smell, it’s just not as pungent.

What you’re really saying is you can’t watch your kid 24/7, you don’t trust them, didn’t teach them why smoking is bad and now you want everybody else to suffer.

What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking. I don't think this is something we can just fine and move forward. If I walked into a school and shot several of the children I would be universally despised and strung up if the people could get their hands on me but if I market a product which leads to excess mortality of millions down the way the connection is sufficiently indirect that it is deemed somehow acceptable.

I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

> What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir.

I don't even know what to make of this. How many other things do humans do that are dangerous that we all have to pay for?

> They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking.

Why do you think this? Is it because of flavors? Do you not realize how many adults prefer flavored vape liquid? Or is it cause they ran commercials?

> I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

So then you naturally try to force your opinion onto others. Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want? Do you think banning vapes will keep people from returning to cigarettes? Do you think addiction is just a switch one can easily turn on and off? You will cause more damage than good "taxing them out of existence like a boiling frog" (seriously wtf with that statement?) than realizing they are helping people and just minding your own business.

> Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want?

Because the only way to provide for the health of a society is with socialized medicine. Most of the civilized world has settled on this conclusion and even we have basically half and half.

In that context allowing people to be stupid as they want to be is ultimately allowing the stupid people to spend everyone's money.

So then this devolves into no drinking and heath police. Too much sugar in your gum? Fine. Too many carbs, fine. Overweight? Fine. Drink alcohol, fine. Light incense in your house, fine. Don’t eat the required 3 meals a day, fine. Don’t eat the menu prepared by the health and nutrition czar, fine.

Is this a country you want to live in?

Also we don’t yet have, and hopefully will never get, socialized medicine. Why do we prepare society by starting to implement the boot on the neck when we’re not even sure if it’s needed yet? Seems a bit assumptive and preemptive no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com