9 ms·

This is a shame. For those who don’t know Juul uses a special nicotine salt that hits the brain hard fast and satisfying. Additionally their mango flavor was to

This is a shame. For those who don’t know Juul uses a special nicotine salt that hits the brain hard fast and satisfying. Additionally their mango flavor was top notch. I guess I’ll have to switch have to cigarettes now. I wish the government would stop mandating what I can and cannot put in my body.

silksowed 4y ago
juul has the best salts and all the other variants don't come close. cats out of the bag, and it's so backwards to take down juul when so many other trash alternates exist. any idea if other product lines use something similar to juul's nic salt mix?
- dkn775 4y ago
  Try jewel mint
pc86 4y ago
You should just stop smoking instead. I wouldn't care the least bit what you put in your body if it didn't have disastrous public health and finance implications. How many tens or hundreds of millions are spent annually via medicare and medicaid on old and poor people with COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc? Hell, I'd be happy with loosening e- and combustible cigarette regulations if it meant smoking permanently banned you from both medicare and medicaid. If you really want to smoke that bad, fine, but don't expect me to pay for the extremely predictable consequences please.
- johnisgood 4y ago
  > You should just stop smoking instead. Saying things like this do not help. You can tell me to stop doing X and/or Y, but if I do stop them, then it would be equivalent to me stopping antidepressants that help me get out of bed and do my damn job (which is helping people) and be able to live my life instead of driving myself nuts and end up hanging myself. It is NOT WORTH IT to me (and to society, since I contribute this way much more, but you may rather prefer I was dead) to stop doing X and/or Y. FWIW the reason for this is that my brain is physically damaged. Plus I would advise you give them any tips (not just any random ones though) as to how to do that exactly. --- At any case, why are we so eager to tell people what to do without knowing anything about their life anyway?
  - pc86 4y ago
    Lots of ways you could have attacked my "just stop lol" quip, and you chose to equate cigarettes with antidepressants. Interesting strategy. I smoked cigarettes for a long time, and it really does boil down to just... not smoking anymore. I think the average number of quit attempts prior to success is 6 or 7, which seems about right. Some people find success with the gum, some people like to do cold turkey and push through it. I weaned myself off to the point where the last couple cigarettes in a pack were so stale it lost its enjoyment. I think a big part of why it takes a bunch of attempts is finding the method that works for you because a lot of them are mutually exclusive.
- water554 4y ago
  I’m not going to stop smoking, it’s my body and brain. How dare you tell me what to do with myself and use societal costs as rational. I’m terribly sorry your government had forced you to pay for these things, I don’t agree with that either. I suggest you take it up with them.
- MisterMower 4y ago
  Wouldn’t it be better for a person to die of lung cancer at 60 than to die at 80 of Alzheimer’s after spending 5 years in 24/7 skilled nursing care? If all you’re worried about is Medicaid expenditures, seems like you should be encouraging people to start smoking en masse.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  I agree with all of this, but the same argument can be made for being overweight. If we ban smoking, we should also ban being fat. I don't have the numbers to compare, but I suspect banning being fat might even save the US healthcare system more money, if not now - at least at the current trajectory. If you think "You can't ban being fat, my body my choice".. well, then I don't think you should ban smoking.
  - kingofheroes 4y ago
    I generally agree. Though I would imagine banning a specific activity (smoking) is significantly easier than banning a pattern of behavior (overeating).
  - teh64 4y ago
    How do you ban being fat without banning all foods? Banning smoking is easy, just ban sales of cigarettes. How would you even enforce banning being fat? Random checks for weight? Everyone needs their weight checked periodically and if you are too fat you have to ...idk pay a fine or go to jail? That is some true dystopian stuff. Even just banning unhealthy food would not work, because there is a lot of healthy food that can cause people to being fat if they eat enough. I guess you could make some food stamp type program where you can only buy a set number of calories per week (i.e. WW2 style rationing), but that would be another very intrusive solution.
    - humbleMouse 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - wyre 4y ago
      Eliminate the subsidizes that allows for processed and fast foods to be dirt-cheap and funnel those subsidies to whole foods. >there is a lot of healthy food that can cause people to being fat if they eat enough Okay, but unhealthy food is unhealthy because it is easy to eat large quantities of it. No one is getting fat because they are overeating fruits and veggies.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Are the diseases you didn't get because smoking-related diseases killed you already, are those diseases any cheaper to treat? The predictable consequence of American lives is that you'll get serious medical conditions and spend a lot of money addressing them at the end of your life. Changing out one for another won't necessarily make things cheaper.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Smoking is actually profitable for the government. Social security and medicare make up about half of total expenditures, so the best thing you can do from the perspective of government finance is die younger.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  You're thinking about spending incorrectly. You're thinking about per year healthcare spending which is higher for smokers. You should be thinking about lifetime spending which is lower for smokers. Smokers die in there's 60s from a heart attack or lung cancer. Healthy people die in their 80s after collecting Medicare and social security for 25 years having spent the last 10 years in memory care.
- davey48016 4y ago
  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 It's possible that smokers actually end up saving Medicare and Medicaid money, because they die sooner. I've seen articles that estimate it both ways.
- thefoyer 4y ago
  People should also stop eating crap food and clogging up our 'public health' but yet mcdonalds isn't banned
  - pc86 4y ago
    I'm not saying McDonald's is healthy but there's clearly a difference between eating a cheeseburger and smoking a cigarette.
    - anm89 4y ago
      Heart disease kills way more people than lung cancer. So the only difference that I can see is that the Cheeseburger is more deadly. You seem all too happy to tell everyone what they can and can't do and ready with all of the exceptions for the things you personally like.
      - InitialLastName 4y ago
        > So the only difference that I can see is that the Cheeseburger is more deadly. Eating is a requirement for life, and there is no meaningful way to make a nutritionally complete diet available (especially at "feeding society without devoting your entire GDP to food production and distribution" scales) while making it impossible for people to gain unhealthy amounts of weight. It is fully a sliding scale. Even the most pro-nicotine people can't argue that smoking is a necessary component of human survival.
        anm89 4y ago
        Eating junk food isn't Breathing is a requirement for life and smoking is a category of breathing in the same way that eating soda and candy bars is a category of eating. I'm not arguing that in good faith. I'm pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up either.
        californical 4y ago
        You don’t have to make it impossible to gain weight, but don’t make gaining weight the default choice like it is today. Reduce the insane amount of sugar, empty carbs, and saturated fats in the food available to an average American, and subsidize vegetables and fruits and whole grains. Incentivize the mass-producing manufacturers to use healthier ingredients.
ainiriand 4y ago
That would be the same argument for wearing/not wearing seat-belts. And I think we are way past that, right?
- kfarr 4y ago
  You could make an argument that ecigs ARE seat-belts relative to cigarettes. Should we ban cars?
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  The 'seat-belt' argument is a pet peeve of mine because it shifts the debate from 'should the government do this' to 'can the government do this' and presupposes a yes answer. The argument shifts away from the specifics of the regulation in question to broadness around government authority itself. Additionally, just because the government can force you to wear a seat-belt doesn't mean it has the same kind of authority over just about anything else.
- krolden 4y ago
  That's not accurate as seal belt laws actually protect other people other than yourself. Think about a human flying through a windshield at 40mph hitting a pedestrian, or you flying around the car smashing into other passengers that were wearing their seatbelt.
  - quesera 4y ago
    Is that actually a real argument that anyone makes, pro seat belt laws? Because that's patently absurd.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Yes, it is a very real argument. Real enough that social ads for seat belts are made around it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE
dfxm12 4y ago
I guess I’ll have to switch have to cigarettes now. I wish the government would stop mandating what I can and cannot put in my body. Why are you being so over-dramatic? Juuls weren't the only e-cigs on the market. They also weren't the only alternative (to cigarettes) nicotine product on the market, either. You don't have to switch to cigarettes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

silksowed 4y ago

juul has the best salts and all the other variants don't come close. cats out of the bag, and it's so backwards to take down juul when so many other trash alternates exist. any idea if other product lines use something similar to juul's nic salt mix?

dkn775 4y ago
Try jewel mint

pc86 4y ago

You should just stop smoking instead. I wouldn't care the least bit what you put in your body if it didn't have disastrous public health and finance implications. How many tens or hundreds of millions are spent annually via medicare and medicaid on old and poor people with COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc? Hell, I'd be happy with loosening e- and combustible cigarette regulations if it meant smoking permanently banned you from both medicare and medicaid. If you really want to smoke that bad, fine, but don't expect me to pay for the extremely predictable consequences please.

johnisgood 4y ago
> You should just stop smoking instead. Saying things like this do not help. You can tell me to stop doing X and/or Y, but if I do stop them, then it would be equivalent to me stopping antidepressants that help me get out of bed and do my damn job (which is helping people) and be able to live my life instead of driving myself nuts and end up hanging myself. It is NOT WORTH IT to me (and to society, since I contribute this way much more, but you may rather prefer I was dead) to stop doing X and/or Y. FWIW the reason for this is that my brain is physically damaged. Plus I would advise you give them any tips (not just any random ones though) as to how to do that exactly. --- At any case, why are we so eager to tell people what to do without knowing anything about their life anyway?
- pc86 4y ago
  Lots of ways you could have attacked my "just stop lol" quip, and you chose to equate cigarettes with antidepressants. Interesting strategy. I smoked cigarettes for a long time, and it really does boil down to just... not smoking anymore. I think the average number of quit attempts prior to success is 6 or 7, which seems about right. Some people find success with the gum, some people like to do cold turkey and push through it. I weaned myself off to the point where the last couple cigarettes in a pack were so stale it lost its enjoyment. I think a big part of why it takes a bunch of attempts is finding the method that works for you because a lot of them are mutually exclusive.
water554 4y ago
I’m not going to stop smoking, it’s my body and brain. How dare you tell me what to do with myself and use societal costs as rational. I’m terribly sorry your government had forced you to pay for these things, I don’t agree with that either. I suggest you take it up with them.
MisterMower 4y ago
Wouldn’t it be better for a person to die of lung cancer at 60 than to die at 80 of Alzheimer’s after spending 5 years in 24/7 skilled nursing care? If all you’re worried about is Medicaid expenditures, seems like you should be encouraging people to start smoking en masse.
brianwawok 4y ago
I agree with all of this, but the same argument can be made for being overweight. If we ban smoking, we should also ban being fat. I don't have the numbers to compare, but I suspect banning being fat might even save the US healthcare system more money, if not now - at least at the current trajectory. If you think "You can't ban being fat, my body my choice".. well, then I don't think you should ban smoking.
- kingofheroes 4y ago
  I generally agree. Though I would imagine banning a specific activity (smoking) is significantly easier than banning a pattern of behavior (overeating).
- teh64 4y ago
  How do you ban being fat without banning all foods? Banning smoking is easy, just ban sales of cigarettes. How would you even enforce banning being fat? Random checks for weight? Everyone needs their weight checked periodically and if you are too fat you have to ...idk pay a fine or go to jail? That is some true dystopian stuff. Even just banning unhealthy food would not work, because there is a lot of healthy food that can cause people to being fat if they eat enough. I guess you could make some food stamp type program where you can only buy a set number of calories per week (i.e. WW2 style rationing), but that would be another very intrusive solution.
  - humbleMouse 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wyre 4y ago
    Eliminate the subsidizes that allows for processed and fast foods to be dirt-cheap and funnel those subsidies to whole foods. >there is a lot of healthy food that can cause people to being fat if they eat enough Okay, but unhealthy food is unhealthy because it is easy to eat large quantities of it. No one is getting fat because they are overeating fruits and veggies.
colechristensen 4y ago
Are the diseases you didn't get because smoking-related diseases killed you already, are those diseases any cheaper to treat? The predictable consequence of American lives is that you'll get serious medical conditions and spend a lot of money addressing them at the end of your life. Changing out one for another won't necessarily make things cheaper.
fallingknife 4y ago
Smoking is actually profitable for the government. Social security and medicare make up about half of total expenditures, so the best thing you can do from the perspective of government finance is die younger.
JamesBarney 4y ago
You're thinking about spending incorrectly. You're thinking about per year healthcare spending which is higher for smokers. You should be thinking about lifetime spending which is lower for smokers. Smokers die in there's 60s from a heart attack or lung cancer. Healthy people die in their 80s after collecting Medicare and social security for 25 years having spent the last 10 years in memory care.
davey48016 4y ago
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199710093371506 It's possible that smokers actually end up saving Medicare and Medicaid money, because they die sooner. I've seen articles that estimate it both ways.
thefoyer 4y ago
People should also stop eating crap food and clogging up our 'public health' but yet mcdonalds isn't banned
- pc86 4y ago
  I'm not saying McDonald's is healthy but there's clearly a difference between eating a cheeseburger and smoking a cigarette.
  - anm89 4y ago
    Heart disease kills way more people than lung cancer. So the only difference that I can see is that the Cheeseburger is more deadly. You seem all too happy to tell everyone what they can and can't do and ready with all of the exceptions for the things you personally like.
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      > So the only difference that I can see is that the Cheeseburger is more deadly. Eating is a requirement for life, and there is no meaningful way to make a nutritionally complete diet available (especially at "feeding society without devoting your entire GDP to food production and distribution" scales) while making it impossible for people to gain unhealthy amounts of weight. It is fully a sliding scale. Even the most pro-nicotine people can't argue that smoking is a necessary component of human survival.
      - anm89 4y ago
        Eating junk food isn't Breathing is a requirement for life and smoking is a category of breathing in the same way that eating soda and candy bars is a category of eating. I'm not arguing that in good faith. I'm pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up either.
      - californical 4y ago
        You don’t have to make it impossible to gain weight, but don’t make gaining weight the default choice like it is today. Reduce the insane amount of sugar, empty carbs, and saturated fats in the food available to an average American, and subsidize vegetables and fruits and whole grains. Incentivize the mass-producing manufacturers to use healthier ingredients.

ainiriand 4y ago

That would be the same argument for wearing/not wearing seat-belts. And I think we are way past that, right?

kfarr 4y ago
You could make an argument that ecigs ARE seat-belts relative to cigarettes. Should we ban cars?
BitwiseFool 4y ago
The 'seat-belt' argument is a pet peeve of mine because it shifts the debate from 'should the government do this' to 'can the government do this' and presupposes a yes answer. The argument shifts away from the specifics of the regulation in question to broadness around government authority itself. Additionally, just because the government can force you to wear a seat-belt doesn't mean it has the same kind of authority over just about anything else.
krolden 4y ago
That's not accurate as seal belt laws actually protect other people other than yourself. Think about a human flying through a windshield at 40mph hitting a pedestrian, or you flying around the car smashing into other passengers that were wearing their seatbelt.
- quesera 4y ago
  Is that actually a real argument that anyone makes, pro seat belt laws? Because that's patently absurd.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Yes, it is a very real argument. Real enough that social ads for seat belts are made around it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

dfxm12 4y ago

I guess I’ll have to switch have to cigarettes now. I wish the government would stop mandating what I can and cannot put in my body. Why are you being so over-dramatic? Juuls weren't the only e-cigs on the market. They also weren't the only alternative (to cigarettes) nicotine product on the market, either. You don't have to switch to cigarettes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]