NYU professors who defended vaping didn't disclose ties to Juul
statnews.com
statnews.com
And the regulatory/public opinion environment isn't what it was in the 80s and 90s when we decided to take on cigarettes. Imagine a company being told today that they now have to stop advertising on billboards, can't advertise to kids, and have to pay a fifth of a trillion dollars over 25 years for the harms they caused to Medicaid. Can't, can you?
I'd welcome those kinds of regulations to be applied to oil and car companies. Arguably they've caused a lot more harm.
I’m genuinely curious, because isn’t tar and carbon monoxide the dangerous byproduct of smoking, not the nicotine?
I was drinking 2 liters of coffee per day while finishing my Ph.D.. Next week I wasn't drinking, and after that I occasionally drank half a cup per day. This was seven years ago, and I still drink half a cup, because I like the taste of coffee.
I have at least a dozen vaping friends who said they started to stop smoking. Now at least half of them have heavily souped up, customized e-cigs. Two of them are making their own liquids with nicotine, rest are using bog-standard vapes.
None of them stopped smoking or nicotine intake, which was the goal of all of them.
Kudos to you but let's not pretend this is the average experience of people breaking even much milder levels of caffeine consumption.
The coffee acts by blocking tiredness/sleep receptors on the brain, so brain builds more of them to work normally. This is how coffee dependence and tolerance builds.
When you stop coffee, brain detects that the number of receptors is too high and starts to break them down. This is why you get the headaches.
That "one week" period is not an edge case, it's the science of it. If it was proved to be harder on that research, I'd never let my body to reach 2L/day levels.
Was this research similar to you drawing conclusions about nicotine based on the handful of your friends that vape?
What I gave was an example, and looks like you're upset about it.
Please keep in mind that while itsoktocry, itsnotoktosnark at HN [0].
However, language is both subjective and culture dependent (plus, words doesn’t carry tone and sound). If somebody asks the same question the same way in my native language to my face, it’s not only snarky, but it’s rude (and mildly offensive depending on the context).
I don’t think I’m expected to know the all possible cultural styles, and take anything and everything kindly and politely, all day, every day.
Henceforth, I tone matched the comment according to my perception. I might be correct or wrong according some dominant discussion culture here, and people may perceive me the snarkier one according to their cultures. I can’t judge them, but this doesn’t change the fact that the style of question is rude on my side, and I have the right to respond equally (to my perception).
Normally I’m a much softer person and don’t write sharp comments, so that one is an exception.
Lastly I’ll be posting a research tome on caffeine addiction/withdrawal to the person who asked, so you might one to follow that thread too.
Have a nice day :)
Likewise have a nice day, and thanks for the tip on the research tome! I'm definitely interested to see it :-)
- The base video I have talked about is from TedED. It's here [0].
- This study was done on rats in 1985 but verifies that caffeine tolerance is real [1].
- Another controlled study on humans about caffeine tolerance [2] involved one group taking caffeine and the others taking a placebo. Caffeine drinkers taking the placebo reported withdrawal symptoms, and non-drinkers taking caffeine reported overstimulation.
- A meta-study [3] details the symptoms and durations of caffeine withdrawal's effects. The paper cites that effects persist between 2 to 9 days, and the peak of the syndrome is around 20 to 51 hours. It also notes that caffeine introduction during this phase alleviates symptoms (This study basically confirms that what I have gone through after I stopped drinking coffee as I noted in a previous comment).
- This interesting study [4] explores the body's caffeine response via blood pressure change. Subjects are administered high doses of caffeine, and blood pressure is monitored. After day three, the blood pressure normalizes, and spikes disappear. The abstinence required to reset the pressure response is less than three weeks, pointing that the body resets caffeine tolerance in less than three weeks.
If you need the papers, or want more resources, please let me know.
Have a nice day.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOjvYRgjCyU
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320585...
[2]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02245285
[3]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-004-2000-x
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
Nicotine gum is relatively harmless for example. Or perhaps imbibe on a Nicotini[0]?
[edit] Seems that nicotine is not really harmless, even in gum or patches: double the risk of heart palpitations and chest pains, 1.67 the risk of nausea and vomiting, 1.5 times the risk of gastrointestinal complaints, and 1.4 times the risk of insomnia.
Of course, if you measure anything this closely with >100k participants in RCTs, it's bound to have a significant effect. But these odds ratios are not exactly small.
Caffeine and nicotine both exist in gum form. Have their been studies comparing that?
[0] which, to my horror, I just discovered actually exist
I guess vaping/nicotine, while not the worst vice out there, is still a vice lol; so they have their own dangers.
But vaping/nicotine can be very safe if you don't do it all the time. Occassional usage is fine. Many people naturally really like the nicotine though and have a hard time regulating their intake. If you let yourself get hooked, it can turn pretty unhealthy.
Are vapers more likely to get a heart attack or are people with a stressful life with a higher risk of a heart attack more likely to be vapers?
Sorry. Could not resist.
I would imagine a chunk of vapers are people trying to transition from smoking cigarettes and still suffering from some of the ill effects.
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.
On a more personal note, when "The King's Speech" was in theaters I kept watching people smoke cigarettes on screen, and went out and bought some Drum. (Loose tobacco that comes with rolling papers.) Within a few days I started getting a voice in my head that told me it was "a good idea to go have a cigarette on the porch once I get out of bed," or "it's a good idea to have a cigarette when you get home." It was really creepy, I've never had a substance put ideas in my head 24+ hours after it was out of my system.
A single sip of coffee, or a cup of good black tea generally alleviates these symptoms. I had to drink a sip of coffee on day 4 while quitting coffee, and all my headache was gone.
The simplest is that I dislike being dependent on any substance.
A more nuanced reason is that I want to be able to use caffeine as a tool. A cup of coffee is the largest dose of caffeine that I am comfortable taking at any one time. If I already have caffeine tolerance at the level of a daily coffee habit, caffeine has lost much of its utility to me. However, if my tolerance is lower than that, I can really feel it when I do occasionally have use for a cup of coffee (e.g. the day before code freeze.)
Currently my caffeine intake is a cup of tea[0]. This is at the level where I don't hate myself if I miss it[1], and I can still use coffee as a tool on occasion. Also, you can pry my tea out of my cold dead hands.
[0] Note that how much caffeine a cup of tea has is much more nuanced than "black vs green". Cultivar, terroir, steep time are much more important to caffeine levels than how the tea is processed. In fact if anything, green tea cultivars have been shown to have, on average, very slightly more caffeine than black[2].
[1] I feel it, but it's not 3-5 days of migraines
[2] Y. Zuo et al, Simultaneous determination of catechins, caffeine and gallic acids in green, Oolong, black and pu-erh teas using HPLC with a photodiode array detector, Talanta 57 (2002) 307–316
Same here. All my daily coffee drinker friends say coffee has no effect on them. I drink it ~4-6 times a month (when I'm very busy) and I can feel the effects from one cup almost all day. More than two cups actually is quite uncomfortable.
I get weird swings in my caffeine tolerance, so I only consume caffeine 1-2 times a week, or less.
Caffeine can also cause weird mood swings. Its effects are similar to cocaine, just somewhat muted because the delivery mechanism is slower.
I've spent years as very heavy coffee and/or tea drinker but I have never been addicted to it, either physically or psychologically. I can (and sometimes do!) switch from heavy consumption to going days without it and I don't notice a difference.
In fact, I barely even feel any effects of caffeine at all. Never have.
I’ve know too many people who simply cannot quit smoking, even when it’s clear they’re rotting from the inside out.
Nicotine addiction is on an entirely different level than caffeine.
I've been on nicotine patches for several years (treating ADHD - very effective) and I'm not addicted at all. I still forget and my wife often has to remind me to put on one! There are no reports to the contrary among patch users.
In fact, even moderate pipe smoking reportedly isn't addictive - although it certainly is pleasurable (partly due to the nicotine, but mostly due to other compounds in the smoke). Pipe tobacco doesn't have all the additives (and nicotine salts) that cigarettes have; moreover, unlike cigarette smoking, pipe smoking normally does not involve inhalation—all of which smoothes and limits the nicotine blood concentration/time curve significantly compared to cigarettes and vaping, thus eliminating most of the addictive potential.
More info on nicotine itself - this is essentially a very broad bibliography with some commentary mixed in: https://gwern.net/nicotine
In contrast quitting caffeine took me several tries and I had to very carefully taper over the course of months to eventually be able to do it.
I also quit alcohol and that was pretty easy too. I used to drink every day and then I stopped without much trouble.
(My family credits his success in nicotine cessation to having previously kicked a 20-year heroin addiction. It would be interesting to see if you can “get good” at overcoming addictions, or if every substance is different for every person.)
The shoving of high-fructose corn syrup and other calorie-rich ingredients into everything sold in the US to increase consumption (again, for profits) has a much greater impact on weight management, though.
Do you have any evidence of this conspiracy? Perhaps it's just food producers adding an abundant, cheap sweetener to their crap because that's what the market demands?
Read the ingredients and buy or don't buy. People need to have a bit of personal accountability in these things.
Even the much-higher-end supermarkets near me don't have meaningful alternatives for a lot of products where I am, and I'm in a HCOL area.
If I were FDA dictator for a day, I'd requite a corn logo on anything with corn syrup, and crossed corn for anything with HFCS.
Now calorie inflation can be done with sugar, too - the real deal is to have things that aren't "diabetes inducing sweet".
I read the ingredients on everything (I'm a vegetarian) and I don't buy anything with corn syrup or added sugar that isn't either 1) a once-in-a-while treat or 2) something I'd add a bit of sweetener to if I were to make it myself.
I don't shop anywhere special.
The same thing is true for junk food. People eat it because it tastes good. How much food should be regulated is up for debate but there's something irritating about this reflex to blame every problem on some shadowy cabal of rich people.
But it takes a little time and a bit of care.
If you're stuck in traffic for time measured in hours, you're not baking fresh bread during the week.
Personal accountability can only go so far when you're shown ads for sugary cereals and candy every morning as a kid.
Contrast that with, say, the current marijuana market in my region. It's regulated, it's only available at a relatively high price from licensed dispensaries. There are billboards but not much in the way of TV or radio ads. It's not marketed to kids. If you get addicted to marijuana in the Lower Midwestern US, that's a lack of personal accountability because you can't point to all of the stuff that's used to make junk food popular and say "they got me addicted!".
It doesn't have to be some conspiracy to make people addicted to calories. People are (relatively) rich, food is cheap, and eating feels good.
That only happens in a society that is not rich and happy.
If people are actually rich and happy you see them take up expensive sports, golf, tennis, horseback riding. They rarely get fat unless there's something personally wrong with them.
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?
My point is that suggesting that people who eat and gain weight must be unhappy and coping, because happy rich people play sports, is a culturally based assumption. American WASPs and Northern Europeans absolutely stand out in that respect. Even in East Asian cultures with strong social pressure to not gain weight, adults playing sports isn’t common.
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.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/09/19/addiction...
Until you lean in for a kiss, or even a hug.
The $4 billion gum industry has gone into freefall, with sales down 11% and volume down 20% in the past five years.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033451/why-nobody-likes-to-chew...
As a father, an uncle, and a dog owner who has changed a lot of diapers and cleaned up a lot of poop (at ~10 years x 365 days x 1-10 events/day x ~1 lbs/event, probably a literal ton of shit) and been numbed to the smell, I'd literally prefer to smell feces in your adult Depends than cigarette smoke on your breath. It's not "hot" at all, completely the opposite.
It's not entirely off-putting it but it is certainly noticeable.
I recently attended an event hosted at an American Legion Post and went to the bar there where smoking was allowed (and done, frequently). The scent first hit me quite negatively, but something triggered in my mind and honestly made it feel more like home. It was an odd feeling of both not really enjoying the immediate sensation while also triggering positive nostalgia memories.
But since cigarettes also accelerate aging, you don't stay "hot" for too long.
...Except marijuana absolutely isn't legalized, so this is completely incorrect. And in the minority of states that currently ignore the illegality of marijuana, they impose the same age restrictions as cigarettes.
I'm blaming marijuana legalization for young people smoking marijuana, when they wouldn't smoke cigarettes. The fact that marijuana isn't legal in all states, or is illegal at the federal level, is immaterial to my point. In the places where my family and I live (D.C. and Oregon), marijuana has been legal for a decade. It was made legal in Oregon in 2015, after being decriminalized in 1973. Dispensaries are all over the place. In D.C. it's been legal to grew, possess, and barter since 2015.
The fact that it's illegal under federal law has no effect on people's use of it, because the feds do not bother to enforce that law on individuals. My neighborhood in downtown D.C. reeked of pot smoke way back in 2016.
Young people who would never smoke cigarettes smoking marijuana was already happening the 2000s, long before any state approached legalization.
To claim "marijuana absolutely isn't legalized" is completely incorrect. Something being illegal is more complicated than what the above poster makes it seem, unless a definition of "illegality" is used that's so broad that it's meaningless.
My point is that the legal and cultural barriers that kept young adults from heading down to their local dispensary to buy dope have disappeared. So while we were on the cusp of freeing people from smoking in the 1990s, we have just made it easy and effectively legal to smoke a different thing, and everyone seems to have forgotten that inhaling smoke into your lungs is bad for you.
I don't know for sure, but does this imply that the FDA can't really regulate these dispensaries? Since the federal government's official stance on marijuana is "you shouldn't be using it anyway!" then presumably they don't feel the need to ensure purity of the product for dispensaries.
I've said for years that I'm the only person I know that D.A.R.E. was actually effective on; I'm way too much of a coward to consume things that aren't regulated. Even as a teenager I never did any drugs because I was afraid that it might be cut with something horrible like meth and I wouldn't have any recourse for them doing that.
I'm sure most dispensaries are fine, but I'm still kind of afraid of something that doesn't have FDA oversight.
I don't know where you live, but I buy my marijuana from a government store. There exist other countries.
THC-A is just the natural form of good old delta-9 THC while the plant is still freshly harvested and unheated. THC-A is the natural, standard weed chemical that converts to “good old delta-9 THC” at 100% efficiency as soon as the weed is heated for consumption, or while the plant sits around in storage for a long time. The old laws counted THC-A as contributing to delta-9 THC content, you summed them together or converted them before testing to decide if it was hemp. Now it’s treated as a different cannabinoid and only delta-9 content determines if it is hemp or weed.
So yes, weed is now legal nationwide is the USA, and sold in brick-and-mortar stores in all 50 states…it’s just gone completely and utterly under-the-political-radar.
Also “good old delta-9 THC” edibles are legal now as well, at very high strengths, because as long as the total weight is <0.3% delta-9 THC its a “hemp gummie”.
Also, even full smoking of marijuana is less dirty than smoking cigs, and a significant amount of marijuana smokers use things like bongs, bubblers, and other water filtration systems which do (slightly) reduce the harm of the smoke.
Marijuana is straight up harm reduction over big tobacco.
I would trust vape juice 1000x over thc oil, especially if it was unflavored. Vape juice is three ingredients and very easy to get their pure forms. Vape oil is pretty sketchy and has to be done very carefully.
But thc gummies are almost certainly safer than any of the above.
Very much depends on how you define threat.
I'd very much prefer that the driver in the other lane is smoking a ciggy rather that vaping marijuana in the interest of preserving their individual health.
Not as big of a harm reduction as people not smoking anything, which is where we were heading in the 1990s before marijuana legalization.
I have smoked less than one cigarette in my entire life, but for two decades was a daily cannaburner. In the past two months, I have almost entirely stopped combusting to consume (i.e. no flame/burning), and instead used a Volcano.
My blood pressure has dropped -20/-15 in those two months of not burning.
YMMV, n=1, "not a controlled study."
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.
The kind of model Canada and California follows could be helpful as well, if only prosecution and the stick was also used in conjunction with cracking down on black markets for drugs the same way provinces and CA do on moonshine.
What is that?
Individuals absolutely should have autonomy to choose what they wish to do, but not if it has an impact on the rest of society.
Fundamentally, some amount of regulation (either via social norms or via actual laws) is needed, yet we as individuals will continue to fight each other while ignoring the core fact that we are all on the same team.
I strongly disagree with Wang and Xi, but on this part I am in agreement - individualism has gone too far in America (both economically and socially), and we need to return to our communitarian roots.
Now that we collectively know too much about the harms perpetrated by our government, we have also lost that sense of unity and shared values and purpose.
Access to information isn't bad, but we also need to remember that we're all part of the same team.
Increasingly, partisans on both sides of the political and social aisle don't actually care about the opposing side. They just want to win.
And this is why countries like Russia, China, and Iran have been so successful at weaponizing disinformation - it's being used by partisans on both sides to undermine the other, leading to chaos.
There are various different definitions of "communitarianism" but the idealized American Town Hall model of direct democracy is a direct example of communitarianism at the local level.
Political Scientists and Philosophers (all of whom are mainstream btw) like Michael Walzer, Robert Putnam, Charles Taylor, and Michael Sandel all touch on a light form of communitarianism that directly connects with Democracy.
For example, he is very positive about the kind of direct democracy he saw in Belmont, MA (the classic New England Town Meeting), and viewed that as a cornerstone of American society, along with a shared vision of innovation and development.
Fundamentally, the core pieces of America that Wang looked up to were the same pieces of policy and legislation that were pushed in the Progressive Era [0] as well as by FDR as part of his New Deal [1] and LBJ as part of his Great Society [2].
In essence, the vision that Wang and Xi are pushing within China today is basically an Authoritarian but also decentralized version of the Great Society and New Deal.
[0] - https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-wo...
[1] - https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-wo...
[2] - https://library.fiveable.me/apush/unit-8/great-society/study...
I thought it's fairly common to live in a town with a town hall meetings or PTA meetings? Or visit city hall or met your city council in elementary school?
It's the norm in most suburban towns (use the local PTA meeting as the Town Meeting instead depending on the suburb).
If you live within a big city, then it's a different story of course (city government is absolutely not community driven), but only 12% of Americans live in Urban areas/cities [0] and 69% live in suburbs.
Also, our rate of spirits consumption is higher than most developed countries and comparable to Russia [1]. Most other developed countries tend to stick to beer and wine.
[0] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-who-smoke
Additionally, whether or not Americans consume more spirits is pretty irrelevant when your link is looking at the equivalent of pure alcohol consumption, that shows the US is below countries like Germany, France, the UK, and Spain, and probably ends up being about average compared to western nations.
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.
The problem with these is that there are almost always equally plausible theories, and it's really hard to figure out which is correct.
Especially given the huge amount of effort that has gone into research on tobacco and nicotine (I guess millions of hours, if not more), I would definitely NOT say we are too quick to dismiss the possibility.
I'm sure you can find an interesting econometric paper presenting this argument, but then it would be more credible.
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 reason you don't see people who don't smoke using them, because the idea of using nicotine as a performance enhancer is crazy.
A silly question, but why not just distribute cocaine or Adderall without prescription if you're concerned about performance? Where do you draw the line ?
In certain parts of society that is what happens, including fun places like the European Parliament.
If you were to test YC applicants for Adderall (illicit or otherwise) I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were over half of them, and if you would be surprised you're naive.
That said, I really don't know, it just doesn't seem right with me but I'm happy to be proven wrong and I see another interesting comment of someone who does use patches. So it's interesting, and strange to me.
The piece entertains this and struggles with it for a while, before turning to experts on the biochemistry of nicotine.
TL;DR: “omg, lol, of course it makes you feel awesome and enhances performance on mental tasks in particular, here’s a list of the exact ways it affects your body to 100% for-sure do those things, that’s part of why it’s so incredibly difficult to quit for many people”
It's not [0]
1) Lost years of productivity as people die early from lung cancer (my smoker granddad ended his career early because of it, a challenging maritime career that as I understand it has an increasing shortage of workers).
2) Healthcare resources being directed towards diseases directly caused by smoking. Tax money and individual money that could've been productively invested elsewhere, plus the working hours of healthcare professionals (another field with a shortage).
It's really just alcohol, tobacco, and now marijuana that get this treatment.
That's what's happening to Juul right now. Juul e-cigarettes came out in 2015; 2018 had the first consent decree to not advertise anywhere kids might see the advertisements; by 2021, we had the first attempt to ban Juul from selling products in the US, period (something which never happened with cigarettes!). The current crop of lawsuits isn't at $200 billion, though, only a few billion. But for a product segment that existed for less than a decade, that's a pretty steep penalty.
To quote the Health Minister, "We were duped." Within a few months in most provinces, orders in council had been drafted to ban the advertising, and prohibit flavours except mint, and there may now be amendments to the laws federally to go further. The slow bureaucratic march to patch the loophole began as soon as it was recognized, basically. Still, the brazenness is stunning. It's the same mentality behind the marketing of the vapes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/10142796/health-minister-nicotine...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nicotine-pouches-regulation...
You weren't "duped." You wrote a law without red-teaming it thinking like a corporation.
That the general public sees this as fait-accompli and seems to be cheering it on is not funny, it's tragic.
I tend to agree with that. Moralizing corporate entities will not bring us the outcomes we desire because humans are great at creating internal structures to diffuse accountability. Strongly enforced well-defined legislation _is_ the social contract, might as well throw our weight behind that instead of presuming companies will fall in line out of the goodness of their hearts.
That's a useful model, but it isn't the whole story. It certainly often feels like that. However, the 10% of the time where the model doesn't hold really matters. Companies are made up of humans, and humans aren't just money-robots. Groups of humans don't automatically turn into unfeeling profit-maximizers either.
The moments when humans at companies make decisions that aren't purely motivated by short-term profit are significant and can have a large positive impact. It would definitely be nice to see it happen more often and more effectively.
(To anyone who caught me in the act, sorry for all of the edits :)
Some of these vapes are even complete units that are "disposable" which means we've gone from "cigarette filters" to "e-waste" littering everywhere: https://hackaday.com/2024/04/25/reverse-engineering-a-fancy-...
That's still real money by 2024 standards; but it was a thermonuclear bomb in 1998.
“Addiction is a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behaviour that produces natural reward, despite substantial harm and other negative consequences.”
You’re right about nicotine though. It’s the delivery that’s the problem, in addition to the addictive properties which make the harm of the delivery less salient. Emphasis mine. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction?wprov=sfti1#
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.
Turning quit into a waffle word takes away its impact and probably eases some psychological constraints for people.
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.
Here is an overview: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026694/
Here’s a pretty comprehensive list of the benefits of nicotine and the lack of significant side effects.
https://gwern.net/nicotine#benefits
Here’s the conclusion he came up with after significant perusal of the research
“Nicotine is pretty much harmless, the studies are clear, the relevant areas & studies comprehensible with not too much work, and I feel I can discuss it with a clean conscience. Really, about the worst you can say about pure nicotine use is that it might be a gateway to tobacco or that one’s blood pressure might increase, which are issues that can be easily addressed empirically via additional studies/surveys or by eg. measuring one’s own blood pressure after taking nicotine, respectively.”
For all the other things, the same can be said about coffee. Are we banning coffee?
It's been eight-ish years and they still vape. They've tried to stop at points, but it never stuck. Juul is gone, but now there are these $15-25 disposable vapes. I'm not sure if there's a specific term for theses, but they don't even have pods of nicotine that you swap out. You just toss the entire thing.
So now an incredible amount of my peers are addicted to nicotine while also producing an incredible amount of e-waste. Juul really helped push this into the mainstream for Gen Z, but the torch is being carried more consistently than ever. I don't even know if some of them are technically legal to sell in my state.
The thing that gets me is that we were so close to not having any casual nicotine in my generation. Now there's also a company called "Zyn" that is essentially tobacco-less dip. Whatever. I'll go back to complaining about the sports betting phenomenon now.
I purposely never picked up on juuls, because they were too good. I worked at a restaurant at the time and begged the younger kids not to pick up a juul because it was clear they were incredibly addictive with none of the restraints of cigarette (can't stealth smoke inside, tastes gross, etc).
Now kids and otherwise new smokers get to skip right to the last part.
I saw my friends get into it this way and couldn’t say much else than offering to be there when they wanted to quit a few deeply addicted years later.
Kids want to try new things, but the only “new things” we’ve come up with in the recent years are reintroduction of sports gambling, vaping, nicotine gums and new flavour of social media websites that tend to be more addictive.
About half of my YT adverts are for it right now, and I have never used nicotine products so clearly they are not targeting existing users. It makes me so uneasy because this sort of advertising has been illegal in the UK for as long as I can remember, and they have managed to skirt around the rules so easily.
A couple people have claimed this so far in this thread. Is there any data to support this hypothesis? My feeling is the percentage addicted to nicotine wouldn't have been significantly lower without vaping.
The data here [0] seems to support this. I grabbed this really quick, so I'm open to it not being excellent data. You're right that I based on comment on anecdotal data.
[0] https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco...
We know smoking was trending downward. What other means of nicotine are there besides that and nicotine gum for previous-smokers.
Is it really freedom of a drug hacks into your brain biology to make you desire something over and over again?
So, I also support "deny by default" policies for addictive substances. The problem is "deny by default" has a side effect of creating unregulated black markets. So it's a really hard problem, at least from my perspective.
I don't think about the downvote. The comment might be considered as shallow, or some people might really want the freedom, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care.
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.
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.
The problem here is/was the advertising... clouds of smokes, bubblegum flavour and targeting the kids... so you have people who never would have started smoking in the first place, staring to vape, sometimes inhaling even more harmful substances than the old-former-smoker.
I think it was a political move and not at all about the health of people.
It includes David Abrams and Ray Niaura, along with a string of professors and health professionals. Among Juul's supporters are a well-placed UK health official.
ref:https://tobaccowatch.seatca.org/index.php/2024/04/11/industr...
Haven't found a juice that matches the OG mango pods but I have a few in rotation that I like. I do miss the brief Cambrian explosion in third-party pods, before the FDA decided that "the youf" should switch to disposables, but at this point I'm just grateful that Juul is still in business, it's pretty much in a class of its own.
I'm also grateful juul is still around at all, I haven't found any other device with such a nice small and flat form factor. Everything else bulges out of my pockets
The latter isn't much like OG mango, fair warning, but you'll probably like it if you were a fan of the old school.
The trick with refilling is to press the sides in when replacing the rubber stopper. If you do it right, you'll see a bubble or two rise up from the bottom. If you skip this part it will leak everywhere. Also, blow through the cart several times to clear the tube. It's a bit fiddly at first, but you'll get the hang of it.
Hiding things, even by omission, is not acceptable. But think of it like a CI/CD system where a junior dev takes down prod. No matter what mistake they made, no matter why they made the mistake, the system shouldn't be so weak that their mistake caused any significant issues. (Please ignore for a moment the junior dev isn't acting with a level of ethnical disregard such as seen by not disclosing ties; the comparison isn't perfect.)
Basically, yeah. There's the famous replication crisis, and of course p-hacking. There's also the forking garden problem, e.g. in: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_...
Put it like this: If you're motivated to reach a certain conclusion in the soft sciences, odds are that you're going to find it. (But not that other researchers who come after you will find the same thing.)
Abrams, a frequent commentator about vaping in the news media, including CBS
This Morning, CNN, and The New Yorker, coordinated extensively with Juul on
public messaging in 2017 and 2018, according to company emails. Abrams asked
Juul officials for talking points, allowed company executives to review an
academic article prior to publishing, and attended Juul scientific advisory
board meetings, all without disclosing those connections to journal
publishers...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 have tried those too.
All that adds up to is you’re still addicted, just to a different form, and your day shifts when leaving the house from “keys, wallet, tin of dip, spitter bottle” to “keys, wallet, nicotine gum/vape/we.” You’re still owned by the chemical haha.
Only thing that worked for me and others I knew who quit for good was cold turkey and an awful 90 days, at which point the habit and the chemicals are basically broken.
Which brings me to my point:
The amount of free marketing Juul and co is getting in this thread from nicotine addicts and their supporters over how Juul is fine and much much different from the good ol’ American diet cigs and dip is disappointing and not surprising.
The 10-20 y/o brand new chemical that is extremely addictive and associated with centuries of health problems is now totally fine? Where have I heard that one before……? At least make Philip Morris’s job hard, please.
Don't you think that is an important reduction of harm from smoking cigarettes?
In other words, you’re basically taking the talking points from Corporate Voldemort and saying ”but isn’t that nice?”
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?
Vaping seems to have much lesser consequences than smoking cigarettes due to the reasons mentioned above.
Thus vaping is a reduction in harm compared to smoking cigarettes.
You’ve failed to acknowledge or consider the consequences of this even once.