4 ms·

Not really. You can want something to be legal, not have the state brutalize people, and still not want for profit companies synthesizing desire via marketing a

Not really. You can want something to be legal, not have the state brutalize people, and still not want for profit companies synthesizing desire via marketing and product design and creating ubiquitous availability.

scarface74 7y ago
You can want both. But it can’t happen. I personally would rather not have a world where marijuana use is widespread, but I would rather have that if it means taking away one more tool from the justice system to punish people (unequally) for a victimless crime.
dr_dshiv 7y ago
What world do you live in? Potato chip companies cause way way more social harm than Juul. It is waaay easier to quit Juul than cigarettes. It doesn't cause cancer. What is actually the issue, besides the puritanism?
- kennywinker 7y ago
  1. potato chips aren't addictive. 2. juul is bringing millions of new people to tobacco products, not just providing a way for smokers to ease off cigarettes.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    > potato chips aren't addictive this claim is not uncontroversial. they don't cause physical dependence in the way we think of with drugs (ie, no physical withdrawal syndrome), but eating junk food can be an exceptionally difficult habit to break. humans can become addicted to almost anything that gives a moderate to strong immediate reward.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      Clearly there are differences between potato chips (hard to stop eating) and alcohol/tobacco/coffee (physical withdrawal symptoms). So how about this: I think the more addictive something is, the more carefully we should regulate the capitalist systems that surround it. Not actually that complicated a position.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        not trying to split hairs, but it's worth pointing out that addiction is a lot more complicated than most people think. the severity of physical withdrawal is not perfectly correlated with how hard it is to kick a habit; there are a lot of other factors. I don't disagree with your broader point though. as long as you are focused on preventing new users rather than making the lives of existing users needlessly difficult, you'll get no argument from me.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    1. Potato chips are totally addictive. Obviously and [1]. And they market extensively to children. 2. If Juul offered nicotine from non tobacco sources, would that change things? Calling nicotine tobacco still doesn't make vaping anywhere close to being as deadly as cigarettes. [1] Lennerz, B., & Lennerz, J. K. (2018). Food addiction, high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, and obesity. Clinical chemistry, 64(1), 64-71.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      1. a 2018 paper arguing that food addiction is real is hardly conclusive consensus. That paper is literally evidence that the topic is still under debate. 2. everybody in this thread is conflating nicotine and tobacco, but the difference is moot. the point is health risks and addiction. Whatever is in your vape is an unquantified health risk, and is definitely addictive. We won't know if vape chemicals and usage patterns cause more or less damage than cigarettes until people have been huffing them at scale for 20-30 years at least. Even if they do cause less damage than cigarettes, how much less is ok? half? a tenth? a one-hundreth?
      - dr_dshiv 7y ago
        The benefit of a 2018 paper is that it assembles the evidence. But, to satisfy, here is a much older paper about caffeine addiction [2]. Because, yes. Caffeine. It's addictive. And that's not really a problem, is it? You ask how much less damage is ok. Half would be great! But it is likely to be more than that. The sun causes more cancer than Juul, that is worth keeping in mind. It's a free country. [2] Olekalns, N., & Bardsley, P. (1996). Rational addiction to caffeine: An analysis of coffee consumption. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 1100-1104.
        kennywinker 7y ago
        Ok... so caffeine is addictive therefore potato chips are? Does not follow. Addictive alone is not necessarily a problem, but it does mean there is the potential for companies to exploit that addiction to make money while causing great harm along the way. > It's a free country. A "free country" and regulated capitalism are not mutually exclusive. It's a free country and you need a license to drive a car. It's a free country and you can't sell someone baking soda disguised as flour. Regulations, done right, have the potential to make us all safer, and protect us from exploitation by capitalist interests. For example, stealing is very profitable... but we made it illegal in order to discourage corporations from forming around theft as a business model. All that said, to be perfectly honest, my actual biggest beef with juul is the stupid disposable plastic pods. Everything else is... well, capitalism exploiting addiction for profit... at the cost of people's health. Which as you point out, is not exclusive to juul.

scarface74 7y ago

You can want both. But it can’t happen. I personally would rather not have a world where marijuana use is widespread, but I would rather have that if it means taking away one more tool from the justice system to punish people (unequally) for a victimless crime.

dr_dshiv 7y ago

What world do you live in? Potato chip companies cause way way more social harm than Juul. It is waaay easier to quit Juul than cigarettes. It doesn't cause cancer. What is actually the issue, besides the puritanism?

kennywinker 7y ago
1. potato chips aren't addictive. 2. juul is bringing millions of new people to tobacco products, not just providing a way for smokers to ease off cigarettes.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > potato chips aren't addictive this claim is not uncontroversial. they don't cause physical dependence in the way we think of with drugs (ie, no physical withdrawal syndrome), but eating junk food can be an exceptionally difficult habit to break. humans can become addicted to almost anything that gives a moderate to strong immediate reward.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Clearly there are differences between potato chips (hard to stop eating) and alcohol/tobacco/coffee (physical withdrawal symptoms). So how about this: I think the more addictive something is, the more carefully we should regulate the capitalist systems that surround it. Not actually that complicated a position.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      not trying to split hairs, but it's worth pointing out that addiction is a lot more complicated than most people think. the severity of physical withdrawal is not perfectly correlated with how hard it is to kick a habit; there are a lot of other factors. I don't disagree with your broader point though. as long as you are focused on preventing new users rather than making the lives of existing users needlessly difficult, you'll get no argument from me.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  1. Potato chips are totally addictive. Obviously and [1]. And they market extensively to children. 2. If Juul offered nicotine from non tobacco sources, would that change things? Calling nicotine tobacco still doesn't make vaping anywhere close to being as deadly as cigarettes. [1] Lennerz, B., & Lennerz, J. K. (2018). Food addiction, high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, and obesity. Clinical chemistry, 64(1), 64-71.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    1. a 2018 paper arguing that food addiction is real is hardly conclusive consensus. That paper is literally evidence that the topic is still under debate. 2. everybody in this thread is conflating nicotine and tobacco, but the difference is moot. the point is health risks and addiction. Whatever is in your vape is an unquantified health risk, and is definitely addictive. We won't know if vape chemicals and usage patterns cause more or less damage than cigarettes until people have been huffing them at scale for 20-30 years at least. Even if they do cause less damage than cigarettes, how much less is ok? half? a tenth? a one-hundreth?
    - dr_dshiv 7y ago
      The benefit of a 2018 paper is that it assembles the evidence. But, to satisfy, here is a much older paper about caffeine addiction [2]. Because, yes. Caffeine. It's addictive. And that's not really a problem, is it? You ask how much less damage is ok. Half would be great! But it is likely to be more than that. The sun causes more cancer than Juul, that is worth keeping in mind. It's a free country. [2] Olekalns, N., & Bardsley, P. (1996). Rational addiction to caffeine: An analysis of coffee consumption. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 1100-1104.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        Ok... so caffeine is addictive therefore potato chips are? Does not follow. Addictive alone is not necessarily a problem, but it does mean there is the potential for companies to exploit that addiction to make money while causing great harm along the way. > It's a free country. A "free country" and regulated capitalism are not mutually exclusive. It's a free country and you need a license to drive a car. It's a free country and you can't sell someone baking soda disguised as flour. Regulations, done right, have the potential to make us all safer, and protect us from exploitation by capitalist interests. For example, stealing is very profitable... but we made it illegal in order to discourage corporations from forming around theft as a business model. All that said, to be perfectly honest, my actual biggest beef with juul is the stupid disposable plastic pods. Everything else is... well, capitalism exploiting addiction for profit... at the cost of people's health. Which as you point out, is not exclusive to juul.