4 ms·

> Another luxury belief not mentioned is that vaping is just as immoral as smoking. Vaping has reversed 20+ years of anti-smoking efforts in high schools. Thi

by bsder 5y ago

> Another luxury belief not mentioned is that vaping is just as immoral as smoking. Vaping has reversed 20+ years of anti-smoking efforts in high schools. This is a problem. Vaping is seems safer than smoking but this is medically unproven. Vaping is NOT safer than not-Vaping and not-Smoking. The vaping companies ran the Big Tobacco playbook to exactly the same effect. It is unsurprising that their opponents are running their playbook to stop them.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
>Vaping has reversed 20+ years of anti-smoking efforts in high schools. This is a problem. Citation needed. >Vaping is seems safer than smoking but this is medically unproven. The research is robust enough for the UK to encourage vaping over smoking. Perhaps not being lobbied by big tobacco is the only real difference between the state of public health guidance in both countries. >Vaping is NOT safer than not-Vaping and not-Smoking. I’ve yet to meet anyone that has suggested such a thing. >The vaping companies ran the Big Tobacco playbook to exactly the same effect. It is unsurprising that their opponents are running their playbook to stop them. Juul, backed by a big tobacco corp has ran their playbook. Can you name a major company that isn’t backed a tobacco company? The cynic in me expects it was to force the public to demand the fda create new regs that can allow big tobacco to catch up and capture the market. This conversation is also pointless without bringing up the perverse incentives that tobacco taxes have on regulators and politicians. Ending tobacco use is bad for politicians because they’ll need to balance the budget by cutting services and raising taxes on everyone instead of offloading the burden to a marginalized group of disproportionately poor people. Fear mongering about children vaping is a recycled to trick to manufacture consent among the public for extortionate and regressive taxes. Alcohol, gambling and similar taxes are just perverse.
xwolfi 5y ago
I dont know if it's safer, but as a smoker, when I lived in a vaping friendly country and switched to it, I immediately noticed a vast improvement, and when I moved back to cigarets in my current vaping-banned jurisdiction it went back down. Just the ability to gradually reduce the nicotine dosage while keeping the ritual is liberating (and possible to some extent with low nicotine cigs that I smoke now) and I think it's sad there's no middle ground between "our blond angel children will become addicts in a vapping wild west" and "smokers gotta cancer happily in a vapping-free paradise". And forbidding the cigaret isnt possible, no. Or if we try, I ll he the next Al Capone smuggling them.
- bsder 5y ago
  > as a smoker No argument. Vaping replacing cigarettes is almost invariably a good thing. The problem is that "vaping" was how Big Tobacco got around the fact that cigarettes are "uncool". And the vaping companies explicitly targeted underage teens with the marketing apparatus. And it worked. > I think it's sad there's no middle ground This is solely due to the fact that Big Tobacco are malicious actors and will push the boundaries of legality on all fronts to increase their profits. In addition, the "middle ground" is an unstable point. We know from experience that nothing short of force of law would create "smoke-free" bars, clubs, etc. Any leeway always tipped back into full-on "smoking preferred". Don't get me wrong. I think that smoking bans have damaged social scenes as well as music scenes. There seems to be something integral between those and smoking. However, I'm also practical enough to realize that externalized costs were always going to be taken advantage of without laws placing restraints on them.
  - xwolfi 5y ago
    I really dont mind smoking bans in public places. I hate Japanese restaurant when everyone can smoke etc. But a full ban, which I hear people discussing in some countries (NZ I think) is just too hard: cigarets will remain legal in China and India most likely, with 3bn people able to buy them, so smuggling will be low cost, the death and general damage of cigarets is much slower than even alcohol so smuggling cigarets will be as risky as smuggling dvds, so you ll end up making random people very rich, smokers will smoke maybe a lot less but you ll have to spend the cancer money on enforcement without the current tax revenue... Best is to move to vaping and study it a lot, and regulate nicotine content. Children are no more at risk of vaping than smoking cigarets (meaning: very at risk) and if we can study it enough to make it a lot less cancerous, well they can smoke it just as much as the binge drinking they already do anyway. Big Tobacco MUST move to vaping, it seems much better than cigarets already. And the addiction is for me not the worst, it's everything that goes with tar and high nicotine dosage.

by bsder 5y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago

>Vaping has reversed 20+ years of anti-smoking efforts in high schools. This is a problem. Citation needed. >Vaping is seems safer than smoking but this is medically unproven. The research is robust enough for the UK to encourage vaping over smoking. Perhaps not being lobbied by big tobacco is the only real difference between the state of public health guidance in both countries. >Vaping is NOT safer than not-Vaping and not-Smoking. I’ve yet to meet anyone that has suggested such a thing. >The vaping companies ran the Big Tobacco playbook to exactly the same effect. It is unsurprising that their opponents are running their playbook to stop them. Juul, backed by a big tobacco corp has ran their playbook. Can you name a major company that isn’t backed a tobacco company? The cynic in me expects it was to force the public to demand the fda create new regs that can allow big tobacco to catch up and capture the market. This conversation is also pointless without bringing up the perverse incentives that tobacco taxes have on regulators and politicians. Ending tobacco use is bad for politicians because they’ll need to balance the budget by cutting services and raising taxes on everyone instead of offloading the burden to a marginalized group of disproportionately poor people. Fear mongering about children vaping is a recycled to trick to manufacture consent among the public for extortionate and regressive taxes. Alcohol, gambling and similar taxes are just perverse.

xwolfi 5y ago

I dont know if it's safer, but as a smoker, when I lived in a vaping friendly country and switched to it, I immediately noticed a vast improvement, and when I moved back to cigarets in my current vaping-banned jurisdiction it went back down. Just the ability to gradually reduce the nicotine dosage while keeping the ritual is liberating (and possible to some extent with low nicotine cigs that I smoke now) and I think it's sad there's no middle ground between "our blond angel children will become addicts in a vapping wild west" and "smokers gotta cancer happily in a vapping-free paradise". And forbidding the cigaret isnt possible, no. Or if we try, I ll he the next Al Capone smuggling them.

bsder 5y ago
> as a smoker No argument. Vaping replacing cigarettes is almost invariably a good thing. The problem is that "vaping" was how Big Tobacco got around the fact that cigarettes are "uncool". And the vaping companies explicitly targeted underage teens with the marketing apparatus. And it worked. > I think it's sad there's no middle ground This is solely due to the fact that Big Tobacco are malicious actors and will push the boundaries of legality on all fronts to increase their profits. In addition, the "middle ground" is an unstable point. We know from experience that nothing short of force of law would create "smoke-free" bars, clubs, etc. Any leeway always tipped back into full-on "smoking preferred". Don't get me wrong. I think that smoking bans have damaged social scenes as well as music scenes. There seems to be something integral between those and smoking. However, I'm also practical enough to realize that externalized costs were always going to be taken advantage of without laws placing restraints on them.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  I really dont mind smoking bans in public places. I hate Japanese restaurant when everyone can smoke etc. But a full ban, which I hear people discussing in some countries (NZ I think) is just too hard: cigarets will remain legal in China and India most likely, with 3bn people able to buy them, so smuggling will be low cost, the death and general damage of cigarets is much slower than even alcohol so smuggling cigarets will be as risky as smuggling dvds, so you ll end up making random people very rich, smokers will smoke maybe a lot less but you ll have to spend the cancer money on enforcement without the current tax revenue... Best is to move to vaping and study it a lot, and regulate nicotine content. Children are no more at risk of vaping than smoking cigarets (meaning: very at risk) and if we can study it enough to make it a lot less cancerous, well they can smoke it just as much as the binge drinking they already do anyway. Big Tobacco MUST move to vaping, it seems much better than cigarets already. And the addiction is for me not the worst, it's everything that goes with tar and high nicotine dosage.