9 ms·

So, let me get this straight. Our government is ok with Marijuana but not ok with nicotine? Amazing times we live in.

dvtrn 4y ago
MJ is still illegal at the federal level, though?
iancmceachern 4y ago
Nicotine is harmful and physically addictive. Consuming tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world. It's apples and oranges, and yes, the oranges are less harmful and should be allowed and the apples are addictive and kill more people than any other preventable cause. https://tobaccofreelife.org/resources/marijuana-vs-tobacco/ https://tobaccofreelife.org/resources/marijuana-vs-tobacco/
- radlad 4y ago
  It's worth noting that tobacco is not nicotine, and Juul is not tobacco.
  - FreqSep 4y ago
    And Juuls additionally are not “smoking” - it operates at a much lower temperature than combustion in a typical cigarette.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      After around (some number of) people died from vaping Vitamin A Acetate, I don't think we should really make a distinction anymore. (I originally said 1k, which appears to have been misremembering.)
      - pizza 4y ago
        I think it would be wise to retain the pretty significant distinction that those people (really sadly) died from vaping Vitamin A Acetate. But it's kind of like talking about moonshine deaths in a discussion about how non-alcoholic beers might still make your tummy hurt. I think there is nobody in this comments section who would disagree with banning the use of Vitamin A Acetate as an additive to vape products, and also nobody who wouldn't want those responsible for the deaths to be held accountable.
      - samatman 4y ago
        Inhaling gasoline is also bad for you. So is freon. Asbestos? Really bad for you. None of those are in a Juul cartridge. Vitamin A Acetate is also not in a Juul cartridge.
      - radlad 4y ago
        As a slightly tangential counterargument, forcing vapes off the legal market means less regulation around ingredients.
        maxbond 4y ago
        It's an interesting argument and something I struggle with. I don't generally support prohibition. I do think Juul (along with all tobacco and liquor companies) is monetizing suffering in a way that's unacceptable. I don't think making them illegal is the answer. But there is no amount of regulation which will stop these companies from doing harm, nor any that will be particularly effective at containing it, since their mission is to harm.
      - sjcoles 4y ago
        Those were cannabis cartridges. This is the exact misinformation that gets vapes banned unfortunately. Vitamin A is far too thick to vape in a Juul type pod system. The only use it has is as a thickener for concentrates which use a whole different type of wicking system.
        maxbond 4y ago
        If the Vitamin A Acetate were in a Juul pod, you'd be just as dead. I'm not particularly interested in the mechanics of Juul pods that stop this particular chemical from being used - it probably isn't going to be the only chemical we thought was safe and turns out to be deadly in this new context. Vaping is, in fact, dangerous, and framing it as distinct and safer is, in my view, the misinformation.
        sjcoles 4y ago
        Juuls use a silica wick which, while possible to absorb something as thick as Vit A the vaporization process would happen too quickly for the pod to perform properly. You'd have to wait 10+ minutes between puffs and the vapor production would suffer greatly. You would immediately know something was wrong. Concentrate cartridges use a ceramic stone with a heating element inside or encased. This ceramic greatly reduces the flow rate and allows slower vaporization of the concentrate. I ran a vape shop for years I am more than happy to discuss safety of vaping but won't participate in whataboutism.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Having given the matter more thought, I do believe I spoke out of turn.
        sophacles 4y ago
        What if you let me choose the risks I take? I'm not hurting you by doing so (no matter if you agree, disagree or if, like most moral crusaders, you are literally unable to comprehend someone making choices different than your own), so what's the problem?
        4y ago
      - sophacles 4y ago
        yeah, and we should ban cars because a bunch of people drowned while boating. Vehicle deaths are vehicle deaths after all.
      - lfuller 4y ago
        To be clear that was a black-market additive in unregulated cannabis vape cartridges, nothing to do with nicotine vapes and definitely not relevant to a company as regulated as Juul. This would be like saying Coors Light is dangerous because your cousin's moonshine had methanol in it.
        causi 4y ago
        It's even less-related than that. At least Coors Light and moonshine are both intended to be an ethanol beverage. It's more like saying scuba tanks are dangerous because some black-market BB gun CO2 cartridges were poisonous to inhale.
      - nyolfen 4y ago
        where on earth did you get 1k from? it was a few dozen people: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+died+from+vaping+vitamin+e+acetate&oq=how+many+people+died+from+vaping+vitamin+e+acetate&aqs=chrome..69i64j69i57.6715j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+died+from+va... also, vitamin e acetate was used to cut black/grey market cannabis vape products, not nicotine. nic juice is so cheap to produce that there's no reason to cut, vitamin e acetate is probably more expensive. i quit an 8 year smoking habit the first day i purchased a vape. it's depressing and frustrating to see this option removed for others.
        vonseel 4y ago
        Chiming in as another person who switched entirely from smoking ~1 pack per day for 10ish years to juul. I never intended to quit nicotine, but e-cigarettes got me off combustion and I consider that a good thing.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        1000 deaths (which briefly googling suggests is less than the number that die from lighting strikes annually), is in no way comparable to the nearly half a million from cigarette related health issues[0]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#:~:text=Cigarette%20smoking%20is%20estimated%20to%20cause%20the%20following%3A&text=More%20than%20480%2C000%20deaths%20annually,including%20deaths%20from%20secondhand%20smoke https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...)
      - ghastmaster 4y ago
        Here is a link to the CDC where they mention 68 confirmed deaths and strongly link it to black market marijuana cartridges, not nicotine. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s... > National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases and play a major role in the outbreak.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        What does people dying from poisonous additives have anything to do with making a distinction between two different things? People also die in car accidents, but we maintain a distinction between car accidents and smoking. Incidentally, smoking has been a pretty significant cause of car accidents. People drop them while driving and panic.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    And also that Marijuana can be consumed in a similar way, vape.
- kahrl 4y ago
  Speaking of apples and oranges...the words "smoking" and "tobacco" have no relation to nicotine vaporizers.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    Thank you, it was just a semantics vernacular thing. I've updated my comment to say "consuming" rather than smoking.
    - sumy23 4y ago
      Ok, but is consuming nicotine the leading cause of preventable death, or is smoking tobacco?
      - iancmceachern 4y ago
        One includes the other. Smoking is one form of tobacco consumption. Tobacco consumption includes smoking, vaping, chewing, snuff, etc. So, yes, it is.
        sumy23 4y ago
        This is a classic logical of error. Just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. Smoking tobacco is a form of nicotine consumption, but that doesn't mean you can substitute "nicotine consumption" any place you see "smoking tobacco."
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        It's not that A implies B. It's that B is contained within B. It's simple statistics. It's like when we talk about alcohol consumption. Yes there are negative effects from the calories and other stuff in beer, but the main negative health effects come from the alcohol in the beer, so we talk in terms of alcohol consumption not beer (without the alcohol) consumption. Nicotine is the same thing, it's far worse than the simple act of smoking. It changes the brain chemistry to be dependent on it, it hardens your vessels and leads to long term systemic hypertension (high blood pressure) that can cause tons of other issues. Smoking is a form of nicotine consumption. If cigarettes didnt have nicotine we wouldn't smoke them. Smoking causes X number of preventable deaths per year, which is the most preventable deaths in any one bucket. There are other forms of nicotine consumption, which also cause preventable deaths which add to that number. So Y number of additional deaths due to chewing tobacco, Z additional due to vaping nicotine and the systemic circulatory issues that come with that. It's a simple fact that X < X + Y + Z
- chitowneats 4y ago
  As a lifelong heavy marijuana smoker I've got some news for you friend. Weed is addictive too. Smoking plant matter of almost any variety increases cancer risk.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    That's why I specified "physically addictive". Yes, weed can be and is addictive, but it's not chemically physically addictive in the same way nicotine or opiates are.
    - tgv 4y ago
      And nicotine is nowhere near the addictivity of opiates. Sharing both under the same label is just a frame to make marijuana look better.
      - iancmceachern 4y ago
        I've actually heard the opposite anecdotally so i looked it up. In this study 57% out of 1000 persons seeking treatment for drug and alcohol dependencies said that quitting smoking was harder than their problem substance. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/376289 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/37628... From this article: 'Heroin addicts say it is easier to give up dope than it is to give up smoking,'' says Dr. Sharon Hall, a psychology professor https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-... I dont have personal experience with opiates, but do with nicotine and I can say it took 10-15 years before I didn't have a regular desire to consume nicotine. It was the hardest thing I've ever done.
        chitowneats 4y ago
        You can die from opiate withdrawal. It may seem easier to give up, but it is an objectively more addictive substance. Not to mention much more dangerous once becoming addicted.
    - 4y ago
- ogwh 4y ago
  FWIW nicotine in cigarettes is only as addictive as it is because tobacco also contains short acting MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors - harmane and harmaline, the same ones combined with DMT) and other additives that relax the airways and increase nicotine absorption. Smoking a cigarette is like taking a fast acting but short duration antidepressant along with a mild/moderate stimulant simultaneously, which has been specifically engineered to go from lungs to brain in the shortest time possible. Switching to vaping from smoking has a transition period ranging from a few days to just over a week while the brain adjusts to receiving the nicotine much more slowly. Vaping relieves nicotine cravings, but at normal doses in an ex-smoker barely scratches the surface of the instant relief/rush delivered by a cigarette. Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. But should still be avoided by non-smokers. Most of the harm caused by cigarettes are related to the tobacco-specific nitrosamines found naturally in tobacco which are carcinogenic, combined with additional carcinogens and harmful compounds created when tobacco combusts. That said many of the flavourings used in e-cigarettes are harmful to health, especially when heated. Most notably sucralose, which itself partially decomposes into carcinogenic compounds when heated to temperatures reached by vaping. But that's another problem, my main point is that nicotine is only about as harmful as caffeine when consumed alone outside the context of a cigarette.
  - cma 4y ago
    > Smoking a cigarette is like taking a fast acting but short duration antidepressant along with a mild/moderate stimulant simultaneously, which has been specifically engineered to go from lungs to brain in the shortest time possible. Chewing tobacco is about just as fast without I assume engineering or maoi.
  - sithadmin 4y ago
    >Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. Why is this meme so popular on HN? There's nothing 'harmless' about it, and a few minutes of Googling makes that incredibly clear. Even in the absence of tobacco compounds, nicotine unquestionably wreaks havoc on pulmonary and cardiovascular function, and promotes vascular calcification and arteriosclerosis. It's also implicated as a cause with a plethora of other horrible medical issues.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  There's no evidence that Nicotine itself is harmful, only addictive.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    Simply not true, re-quoting an above comment: >Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. Why is this meme so popular on HN? There's nothing 'harmless' about it, and a few minutes of Googling makes that incredibly clear. Even in the absence of tobacco compounds, nicotine unquestionably wreaks havoc on pulmonary and cardiovascular function, and promotes vascular calcification and arteriosclerosis. It's also implicated as a cause with a plethora of other horrible medical issues.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    There are several dozen studies on nih.gov, here [1] is one of them connecting nicotine with atherosclerosis. [1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755365/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755365/
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      This is not a "study". There's nothing observational or even experimental in this paper to demonstrate a measurable effect (much less calculate the effect size) in people. This is literally just looking at pathways and saying "yeah that seems possible".
      - sbcd 4y ago
        There is an epidemics of people who argue on bad faith on the internet and just google links from pubmed to add to their ""argument"" without ever reading or understanding the articles they link to, expecting others to not go past the title (because most people aren't going to read full articles linked by randoms on comments), giving their ""argument"" credibility and weight solely based on the fact that "it's on pubmed, it's research". It has grown incredibly tiresome. Not to mention there are tons of published papers that are worth less than toilet paper. This is a huge problem and pubmed is a central database that doesn't exert anywhere near enough curation, it is meant to be used by professionals of targeted interests who can exert proper critical judgement, not by random people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/ >Recent reports that PubMed, one of the world’s leading biomedical databases, includes predatory journals and their publications1,2 is cause for concern. PubMed handles millions of queries daily and represents a key source of knowledge for health researchers worldwide. Much medical research that underpins clinical practice relies on the findings generated by peer-reviewed studies that are retrieved via biomedical databases, in particular, those that are free to search such as MEDLINE and PubMed. Thus, it is imperative that these databases are free of contamination by the outputs of predatory journals with their critically flawed peer review procedures.3 We analyze why this is happening and identify some possible solutions to stop the penetration of predatory journals and publishers into biomedical databases. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-a... >Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to inflammation of the colon and to autism, and upon whose illusory foundation the modern anti-vaccine movement rests, is listed on PubMed (though it is marked as “retracted”). There is a journal called Medical Hypotheses whose articles are also discoverable through PubMed. The journal’s purpose is to publish theoretical papers, and its editors will consider “radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas” as long as they are written in a way that makes some kind of sense. One such paper proposes that ejaculation might be a potential treatment for a congested nose. Another argues that this handy intervention is “inconvenient, unreliable and potentially hazardous.” Both are, you guessed it, found on PubMed. Just because it's on pubmed doesn't mean anything. There are so many terrible studies published and listed there that only a researcher of the studied field can tell whether it's any good or bad.
- thebigspacefuck 4y ago
  If this is the kind of thing where smoking shaves 8 years off your life and you die at 67 instead of 75 it could be a net benefit to society because you aren’t collecting any social security. I’d be interested in what the leading cause of preventable death is for people under retirement age. Otherwise, is there any reason to force people to live as long as possible?
radlad 4y ago
Seems like nicotine is fine as long as it's combusted.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Well that's they want me to go back to I suppose. I keep getting anti vaping ads clearly designed for teenagers.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    That'd be because as a replacement for nicotine cigarette consumption, vaping is a net gain to public health, but as a new addiction for people not yet addicted to any chronic respiratory chemical intake, it's a net loss. ... but in this specific case, if you're already vaping, the FDA doesn't care if you switch to Vuse. It's Juul specifically that isn't getting the nod, it seems.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      Yeah, I just find it funny with all the data collected in advertising, I get ads designed for teenagers.
  - drugstorecowboy 4y ago
    At least in some cases, the anti-vaping ads are funded by settlements with the tobacco companies under the guise of preventing "tobacco use". Its genius on the part of the tobacco companies, managing to pay a settlement and direct it toward advertising against your own competition.
hnusersarelame 4y ago
jjulius 4y ago
>Our government is ok with Marijuana... Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, considered illegal for possession and consumption, at the federal level.
bediger4000 4y ago
Federal government is not ok with marijuana. Only some states. I presume that because of some legal precedent, individual states can legalize the Devil's Lettuce, while the federal government keeps considering it illegal. The benefits of federalism!
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Individual states cannot legalize it, they can only decriminalize it- at least, until a court case makes its way to the supreme court that removes marijuana from the federal government's ability to regulate drugs via the DEA. The fact that the federal government has chosen to not interfere in states that have decriminalized it is merely a policy position- it continues to have the authority to go after people in any state for the production, distribution and (I think) consumption of any Schedule 1 drug, which marijuana is currently listed as.
  - Der_Einzige 4y ago
    LOL dude tell that to the states with dispensaries. "States can't legalize only decriminalize" God I hate when HN members who are really wrong act all conceited about it.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    A state can repeal state laws against it. This is what we refer to as "legalization". Decriminalization refers to reducing the penalties. A state can either legalize or decriminalize. In either case this does nothing to change federal law.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > Individual states cannot legalize it, they can only decriminalize it- at least, until a court case makes its way to the supreme court that removes marijuana from the federal government's ability to regulate drugs via the DEA. "Decriminalization" is a specific term with a specific meaning in the context of drugs. When states decriminalize a drug, they reduce/eliminate enforcement of the existing laws. When states legalize a drug, they actually remove the laws prohibiting the drug. When most states legalize marijuana, they also create regulatory regimes to dictate how when the drug can be created, sold and used. So while you are correct that Marijuana is illegal under federal law and that there are good precedents for their ability to enforce those laws, you attempt to get this point across by nitpicking the use of "legalize" is pedantically wrong. The correct explanation is that there are many states that have legalized marijuana under state law and the federal government has a policy of decriminalization for intrastate marijuana commerce in those states. I think that part of the reason why that approach is taken by the DEA is to avoid creating opportunity for legal challenges that might undermine the existing precedents that give them power to regulate even intrastate commerce.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 4y ago
No; your government is OK with Vuse and not with Juul. Other reporting form Reuters covering the WSJ article (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-fda-order-juul-e-cigarettes-off-market-wsj-2022-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-fda-order-juul-e-cigaret...): "In October, the FDA allowed Juul rival British American Tobacco Plc (BATS.L) to market its Vuse Solo e-cigarettes and tobacco-flavored pods, making it the first-ever vapor product to get clearance from the health regulator." We won't know for sure until the FDA actually releases their report, but one could infer that Juul as a provider of human-consumable vapor products was unsalvageably bad, to the point of being a danger to public health (in a way that their market competition was not).
bluedino 4y ago
Wait until it's HFCS and heroin.
dfxm12 4y ago
Most of our government is not ok with marijuana. This is also the result of a poorly run company, not an indictment of nicotine. As the headline states, only Juul is being forced off the market, not nicotine products in general.

MJ is still illegal at the federal level, though?

Nicotine is harmful and physically addictive. Consuming tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world. It's apples and oranges, and yes, the oranges are less harmful and should be allowed and the apples are addictive and kill more people than any other preventable cause. https://tobaccofreelife.org/resources/marijuana-vs-tobacco/ https://tobaccofreelife.org/resources/marijuana-vs-tobacco/

radlad 4y ago
It's worth noting that tobacco is not nicotine, and Juul is not tobacco.
- FreqSep 4y ago
  And Juuls additionally are not “smoking” - it operates at a much lower temperature than combustion in a typical cigarette.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    After around (some number of) people died from vaping Vitamin A Acetate, I don't think we should really make a distinction anymore. (I originally said 1k, which appears to have been misremembering.)
    - pizza 4y ago
      I think it would be wise to retain the pretty significant distinction that those people (really sadly) died from vaping Vitamin A Acetate. But it's kind of like talking about moonshine deaths in a discussion about how non-alcoholic beers might still make your tummy hurt. I think there is nobody in this comments section who would disagree with banning the use of Vitamin A Acetate as an additive to vape products, and also nobody who wouldn't want those responsible for the deaths to be held accountable.
    - samatman 4y ago
      Inhaling gasoline is also bad for you. So is freon. Asbestos? Really bad for you. None of those are in a Juul cartridge. Vitamin A Acetate is also not in a Juul cartridge.
    - radlad 4y ago
      As a slightly tangential counterargument, forcing vapes off the legal market means less regulation around ingredients.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        It's an interesting argument and something I struggle with. I don't generally support prohibition. I do think Juul (along with all tobacco and liquor companies) is monetizing suffering in a way that's unacceptable. I don't think making them illegal is the answer. But there is no amount of regulation which will stop these companies from doing harm, nor any that will be particularly effective at containing it, since their mission is to harm.
    - sjcoles 4y ago
      Those were cannabis cartridges. This is the exact misinformation that gets vapes banned unfortunately. Vitamin A is far too thick to vape in a Juul type pod system. The only use it has is as a thickener for concentrates which use a whole different type of wicking system.
      - maxbond 4y ago
        If the Vitamin A Acetate were in a Juul pod, you'd be just as dead. I'm not particularly interested in the mechanics of Juul pods that stop this particular chemical from being used - it probably isn't going to be the only chemical we thought was safe and turns out to be deadly in this new context. Vaping is, in fact, dangerous, and framing it as distinct and safer is, in my view, the misinformation.
        sjcoles 4y ago
        Juuls use a silica wick which, while possible to absorb something as thick as Vit A the vaporization process would happen too quickly for the pod to perform properly. You'd have to wait 10+ minutes between puffs and the vapor production would suffer greatly. You would immediately know something was wrong. Concentrate cartridges use a ceramic stone with a heating element inside or encased. This ceramic greatly reduces the flow rate and allows slower vaporization of the concentrate. I ran a vape shop for years I am more than happy to discuss safety of vaping but won't participate in whataboutism.
        maxbond 4y ago
        Having given the matter more thought, I do believe I spoke out of turn.
        sophacles 4y ago
        What if you let me choose the risks I take? I'm not hurting you by doing so (no matter if you agree, disagree or if, like most moral crusaders, you are literally unable to comprehend someone making choices different than your own), so what's the problem?
        4y ago
    - sophacles 4y ago
      yeah, and we should ban cars because a bunch of people drowned while boating. Vehicle deaths are vehicle deaths after all.
    - lfuller 4y ago
      To be clear that was a black-market additive in unregulated cannabis vape cartridges, nothing to do with nicotine vapes and definitely not relevant to a company as regulated as Juul. This would be like saying Coors Light is dangerous because your cousin's moonshine had methanol in it.
      - causi 4y ago
        It's even less-related than that. At least Coors Light and moonshine are both intended to be an ethanol beverage. It's more like saying scuba tanks are dangerous because some black-market BB gun CO2 cartridges were poisonous to inhale.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      where on earth did you get 1k from? it was a few dozen people: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+died+from+vaping+vitamin+e+acetate&oq=how+many+people+died+from+vaping+vitamin+e+acetate&aqs=chrome..69i64j69i57.6715j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+died+from+va... also, vitamin e acetate was used to cut black/grey market cannabis vape products, not nicotine. nic juice is so cheap to produce that there's no reason to cut, vitamin e acetate is probably more expensive. i quit an 8 year smoking habit the first day i purchased a vape. it's depressing and frustrating to see this option removed for others.
      - vonseel 4y ago
        Chiming in as another person who switched entirely from smoking ~1 pack per day for 10ish years to juul. I never intended to quit nicotine, but e-cigarettes got me off combustion and I consider that a good thing.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      1000 deaths (which briefly googling suggests is less than the number that die from lighting strikes annually), is in no way comparable to the nearly half a million from cigarette related health issues[0]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#:~:text=Cigarette%20smoking%20is%20estimated%20to%20cause%20the%20following%3A&text=More%20than%20480%2C000%20deaths%20annually,including%20deaths%20from%20secondhand%20smoke https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...)
    - ghastmaster 4y ago
      Here is a link to the CDC where they mention 68 confirmed deaths and strongly link it to black market marijuana cartridges, not nicotine. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s... > National and state data from patient reports and product sample testing show tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal sources like friends, family, or in-person or online dealers, are linked to most EVALI cases and play a major role in the outbreak.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      What does people dying from poisonous additives have anything to do with making a distinction between two different things? People also die in car accidents, but we maintain a distinction between car accidents and smoking. Incidentally, smoking has been a pretty significant cause of car accidents. People drop them while driving and panic.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  And also that Marijuana can be consumed in a similar way, vape.
kahrl 4y ago
Speaking of apples and oranges...the words "smoking" and "tobacco" have no relation to nicotine vaporizers.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Thank you, it was just a semantics vernacular thing. I've updated my comment to say "consuming" rather than smoking.
  - sumy23 4y ago
    Ok, but is consuming nicotine the leading cause of preventable death, or is smoking tobacco?
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      One includes the other. Smoking is one form of tobacco consumption. Tobacco consumption includes smoking, vaping, chewing, snuff, etc. So, yes, it is.
      - sumy23 4y ago
        This is a classic logical of error. Just because A implies B doesn't mean B implies A. Smoking tobacco is a form of nicotine consumption, but that doesn't mean you can substitute "nicotine consumption" any place you see "smoking tobacco."
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        It's not that A implies B. It's that B is contained within B. It's simple statistics. It's like when we talk about alcohol consumption. Yes there are negative effects from the calories and other stuff in beer, but the main negative health effects come from the alcohol in the beer, so we talk in terms of alcohol consumption not beer (without the alcohol) consumption. Nicotine is the same thing, it's far worse than the simple act of smoking. It changes the brain chemistry to be dependent on it, it hardens your vessels and leads to long term systemic hypertension (high blood pressure) that can cause tons of other issues. Smoking is a form of nicotine consumption. If cigarettes didnt have nicotine we wouldn't smoke them. Smoking causes X number of preventable deaths per year, which is the most preventable deaths in any one bucket. There are other forms of nicotine consumption, which also cause preventable deaths which add to that number. So Y number of additional deaths due to chewing tobacco, Z additional due to vaping nicotine and the systemic circulatory issues that come with that. It's a simple fact that X < X + Y + Z
chitowneats 4y ago
As a lifelong heavy marijuana smoker I've got some news for you friend. Weed is addictive too. Smoking plant matter of almost any variety increases cancer risk.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  That's why I specified "physically addictive". Yes, weed can be and is addictive, but it's not chemically physically addictive in the same way nicotine or opiates are.
  - tgv 4y ago
    And nicotine is nowhere near the addictivity of opiates. Sharing both under the same label is just a frame to make marijuana look better.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      I've actually heard the opposite anecdotally so i looked it up. In this study 57% out of 1000 persons seeking treatment for drug and alcohol dependencies said that quitting smoking was harder than their problem substance. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/376289 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/37628... From this article: 'Heroin addicts say it is easier to give up dope than it is to give up smoking,'' says Dr. Sharon Hall, a psychology professor https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html https://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-... I dont have personal experience with opiates, but do with nicotine and I can say it took 10-15 years before I didn't have a regular desire to consume nicotine. It was the hardest thing I've ever done.
      - chitowneats 4y ago
        You can die from opiate withdrawal. It may seem easier to give up, but it is an objectively more addictive substance. Not to mention much more dangerous once becoming addicted.
  - 4y ago
ogwh 4y ago
FWIW nicotine in cigarettes is only as addictive as it is because tobacco also contains short acting MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors - harmane and harmaline, the same ones combined with DMT) and other additives that relax the airways and increase nicotine absorption. Smoking a cigarette is like taking a fast acting but short duration antidepressant along with a mild/moderate stimulant simultaneously, which has been specifically engineered to go from lungs to brain in the shortest time possible. Switching to vaping from smoking has a transition period ranging from a few days to just over a week while the brain adjusts to receiving the nicotine much more slowly. Vaping relieves nicotine cravings, but at normal doses in an ex-smoker barely scratches the surface of the instant relief/rush delivered by a cigarette. Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. But should still be avoided by non-smokers. Most of the harm caused by cigarettes are related to the tobacco-specific nitrosamines found naturally in tobacco which are carcinogenic, combined with additional carcinogens and harmful compounds created when tobacco combusts. That said many of the flavourings used in e-cigarettes are harmful to health, especially when heated. Most notably sucralose, which itself partially decomposes into carcinogenic compounds when heated to temperatures reached by vaping. But that's another problem, my main point is that nicotine is only about as harmful as caffeine when consumed alone outside the context of a cigarette.
- cma 4y ago
  > Smoking a cigarette is like taking a fast acting but short duration antidepressant along with a mild/moderate stimulant simultaneously, which has been specifically engineered to go from lungs to brain in the shortest time possible. Chewing tobacco is about just as fast without I assume engineering or maoi.
- sithadmin 4y ago
  >Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. Why is this meme so popular on HN? There's nothing 'harmless' about it, and a few minutes of Googling makes that incredibly clear. Even in the absence of tobacco compounds, nicotine unquestionably wreaks havoc on pulmonary and cardiovascular function, and promotes vascular calcification and arteriosclerosis. It's also implicated as a cause with a plethora of other horrible medical issues.
bpodgursky 4y ago
There's no evidence that Nicotine itself is harmful, only addictive.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Simply not true, re-quoting an above comment: >Nicotine itself and on its own is relatively harmless to an ex-smoker. Why is this meme so popular on HN? There's nothing 'harmless' about it, and a few minutes of Googling makes that incredibly clear. Even in the absence of tobacco compounds, nicotine unquestionably wreaks havoc on pulmonary and cardiovascular function, and promotes vascular calcification and arteriosclerosis. It's also implicated as a cause with a plethora of other horrible medical issues.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  There are several dozen studies on nih.gov, here [1] is one of them connecting nicotine with atherosclerosis. [1] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755365/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755365/
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    This is not a "study". There's nothing observational or even experimental in this paper to demonstrate a measurable effect (much less calculate the effect size) in people. This is literally just looking at pathways and saying "yeah that seems possible".
    - sbcd 4y ago
      There is an epidemics of people who argue on bad faith on the internet and just google links from pubmed to add to their ""argument"" without ever reading or understanding the articles they link to, expecting others to not go past the title (because most people aren't going to read full articles linked by randoms on comments), giving their ""argument"" credibility and weight solely based on the fact that "it's on pubmed, it's research". It has grown incredibly tiresome. Not to mention there are tons of published papers that are worth less than toilet paper. This is a huge problem and pubmed is a central database that doesn't exert anywhere near enough curation, it is meant to be used by professionals of targeted interests who can exert proper critical judgement, not by random people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148641/ >Recent reports that PubMed, one of the world’s leading biomedical databases, includes predatory journals and their publications1,2 is cause for concern. PubMed handles millions of queries daily and represents a key source of knowledge for health researchers worldwide. Much medical research that underpins clinical practice relies on the findings generated by peer-reviewed studies that are retrieved via biomedical databases, in particular, those that are free to search such as MEDLINE and PubMed. Thus, it is imperative that these databases are free of contamination by the outputs of predatory journals with their critically flawed peer review procedures.3 We analyze why this is happening and identify some possible solutions to stop the penetration of predatory journals and publishers into biomedical databases. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition-general-science/finding-paper-pubmed-does-not-mean-paper-any-good https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-a... >Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to inflammation of the colon and to autism, and upon whose illusory foundation the modern anti-vaccine movement rests, is listed on PubMed (though it is marked as “retracted”). There is a journal called Medical Hypotheses whose articles are also discoverable through PubMed. The journal’s purpose is to publish theoretical papers, and its editors will consider “radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas” as long as they are written in a way that makes some kind of sense. One such paper proposes that ejaculation might be a potential treatment for a congested nose. Another argues that this handy intervention is “inconvenient, unreliable and potentially hazardous.” Both are, you guessed it, found on PubMed. Just because it's on pubmed doesn't mean anything. There are so many terrible studies published and listed there that only a researcher of the studied field can tell whether it's any good or bad.
thebigspacefuck 4y ago
If this is the kind of thing where smoking shaves 8 years off your life and you die at 67 instead of 75 it could be a net benefit to society because you aren’t collecting any social security. I’d be interested in what the leading cause of preventable death is for people under retirement age. Otherwise, is there any reason to force people to live as long as possible?

radlad 4y ago

Seems like nicotine is fine as long as it's combusted.

the_only_law 4y ago
Well that's they want me to go back to I suppose. I keep getting anti vaping ads clearly designed for teenagers.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  That'd be because as a replacement for nicotine cigarette consumption, vaping is a net gain to public health, but as a new addiction for people not yet addicted to any chronic respiratory chemical intake, it's a net loss. ... but in this specific case, if you're already vaping, the FDA doesn't care if you switch to Vuse. It's Juul specifically that isn't getting the nod, it seems.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Yeah, I just find it funny with all the data collected in advertising, I get ads designed for teenagers.
- drugstorecowboy 4y ago
  At least in some cases, the anti-vaping ads are funded by settlements with the tobacco companies under the guise of preventing "tobacco use". Its genius on the part of the tobacco companies, managing to pay a settlement and direct it toward advertising against your own competition.

hnusersarelame 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago

>Our government is ok with Marijuana... Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, considered illegal for possession and consumption, at the federal level.

bediger4000 4y ago

Federal government is not ok with marijuana. Only some states. I presume that because of some legal precedent, individual states can legalize the Devil's Lettuce, while the federal government keeps considering it illegal. The benefits of federalism!

zdragnar 4y ago
Individual states cannot legalize it, they can only decriminalize it- at least, until a court case makes its way to the supreme court that removes marijuana from the federal government's ability to regulate drugs via the DEA. The fact that the federal government has chosen to not interfere in states that have decriminalized it is merely a policy position- it continues to have the authority to go after people in any state for the production, distribution and (I think) consumption of any Schedule 1 drug, which marijuana is currently listed as.
- Der_Einzige 4y ago
  LOL dude tell that to the states with dispensaries. "States can't legalize only decriminalize" God I hate when HN members who are really wrong act all conceited about it.
- confidantlake 4y ago
  A state can repeal state laws against it. This is what we refer to as "legalization". Decriminalization refers to reducing the penalties. A state can either legalize or decriminalize. In either case this does nothing to change federal law.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Individual states cannot legalize it, they can only decriminalize it- at least, until a court case makes its way to the supreme court that removes marijuana from the federal government's ability to regulate drugs via the DEA. "Decriminalization" is a specific term with a specific meaning in the context of drugs. When states decriminalize a drug, they reduce/eliminate enforcement of the existing laws. When states legalize a drug, they actually remove the laws prohibiting the drug. When most states legalize marijuana, they also create regulatory regimes to dictate how when the drug can be created, sold and used. So while you are correct that Marijuana is illegal under federal law and that there are good precedents for their ability to enforce those laws, you attempt to get this point across by nitpicking the use of "legalize" is pedantically wrong. The correct explanation is that there are many states that have legalized marijuana under state law and the federal government has a policy of decriminalization for intrastate marijuana commerce in those states. I think that part of the reason why that approach is taken by the DEA is to avoid creating opportunity for legal challenges that might undermine the existing precedents that give them power to regulate even intrastate commerce.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 4y ago

No; your government is OK with Vuse and not with Juul. Other reporting form Reuters covering the WSJ article (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-fda-order-juul-e-cigarettes-off-market-wsj-2022-06-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-fda-order-juul-e-cigaret...): "In October, the FDA allowed Juul rival British American Tobacco Plc (BATS.L) to market its Vuse Solo e-cigarettes and tobacco-flavored pods, making it the first-ever vapor product to get clearance from the health regulator." We won't know for sure until the FDA actually releases their report, but one could infer that Juul as a provider of human-consumable vapor products was unsalvageably bad, to the point of being a danger to public health (in a way that their market competition was not).

bluedino 4y ago

Wait until it's HFCS and heroin.

dfxm12 4y ago

Most of our government is not ok with marijuana. This is also the result of a poorly run company, not an indictment of nicotine. As the headline states, only Juul is being forced off the market, not nicotine products in general.