6 ms·
Absolutely not good for public health long-term. Their recruiter reached out to me last December and it was a hard no for me based on what I understood about t
by wtvanhest 8y ago
Absolutely not good for public health long-term. Their recruiter reached out to me last December and it was a hard no for me based on what I understood about the industry.
People use them for starting to smoke just as much as stopping and they are also heavily used for non-nicotine products as well. I don't hold any moral judgements on the brand, or customers, but I was not going to spend my effort helping that become a bigger company.
- fizwhiz 8y agoThe virtue signaling was unnecessary, tbh.
- ada1981 8y agoUsing the phrase “virtue signaling” seems to be a sort of “virtue signal”. Does it make you uncomfortable that someone would make a decision from a place of values and ethics? Or that they’d discuss it?
- sbinthree 8y agoCigarettes are "generally accepted non-virtuous behavior". Virtue signaling might mean doing something that anyone expects to be baseline "good person" behavior, but inappropriately advertising this fact. People tend to prefer to see virtue and identify it, much like people can safely refer to others as a genius but referring to themselves in that light suggests a lack of genius. Heaping praise on others for their virtuous actions is fine, where as attracting that praise in a form like this maybe not.
- ada1981 8y agoGenerally I find policing the expression of others to be a function of some disowned or repressed part of the policer.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoKudos for the ethics.
- awakeasleep 8y agoTobacco kills 7 MILLION PEOPLE A YEAR You confused your personal morality, which seems more based on "would this rule benefit everyone applied universally" with the question you were asked, which is of the "does this provide the greatest good to the greatest amount of people" variety. It's _possible_ that in the end, ecigs are not a net positive for humanity. But that is a belief without firm proof. They could be twice as addictive, but if they kill only 1/3 of us that cigs did, they'll be a net benefit. And 1/3 the lethality of cigarettes seems to be a drastic overestimation of their harm from the evidence we have right now.
- wtvanhest 8y agoI made my own assumptions and came to the conclusion that this was net negative not net positive. I guess we will find out in 30 years.
- awakeasleep 8y agoWell I am interested in what other features you considered in your analysis (not to disputed them, just curious about what elements spoke to you).
- flyingcircus3 8y agoYou, in fact, conflated the original question with a essentialized, worst case scenario that shoehorns a multivariate determination into a binary proposition. There are, after all, other methods of smoking secession beyond nicotene alternatives. In fact, there are some methods of quitting an addictive substance that work by actually stopping the ingestion of the addictive substance in the first place. Nicotene alternatives are akin to advertisers recommending you to take a break from Facebook when it's too overwhelming, instead of just deleting your account entirely, like a person with self control and agency might do when products and services continually make you regret ever starting to use them in the first place.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoYou misunderstand what is really bad about cigarettes. It isn’t the nicotine, but the tar (the burning of it). Heck, nicotine gum has long been used as a safe smoking cessation aide. Not to mention it is present in many new works vegetables. Getting rid of the burning tar is a HUGE win for smokers, healthwise.