> the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0%

> the risk for a non-smoking teenager who picks up vaping definitely increases because there was not any risk before (as the article points out, we went from 0% vaping teens to 20%), and the nicotine will likely produce some fraction of smokers down the line. Are you just pointing out that since some activity that didn't exist before has a non-zero risk, one class of risks are going up? This is not a good argument for saying that total risk is going up, or that that activity should be suppressed. > And we all know that Juul styles itself as a tech brand that looks cool for a reason Starbucks tries to loop hip and trendy, but really they're just selling an addictive drug too: caffeine. And they sell it to children. They even sell hot chocolate, which is a sweet drink that appeals to children who wouldn't normally drink coffee, but is served very similar to coffee and is derived from some of the same ingredient. Once Starbucks gets them in the habit of getting hot chocolates, they graduate to coffee as they get old. > They should be evaluated in the light of not inhaling toxic substances at all. Caffeine and nicotine are both addictive stimulants, and nicotine is stronger, but neither are "toxic" in any reasonable sense.