7 ms·

The New Era of Nicotine

44 points by DL-Invariant 4y ago

paulryanrogers 4y ago
This enthusiasm to profit from borderline poison is unsettling. Not sure I could look my kids in the face if heavily invested in these industries.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  If 50% of people avoid investing in industries that are profitable and hurt/kill people, that means people with no such reservation take the profit. You essentially pass the gains to people OK with causing cancer. I don’t think the avoid investments you don’t believe in changes anything except making others money.
  - glaucon 4y ago
    And that's OK. Invading neighbouring countries in order to make use of their resources is a "good deal" for the invader. Just because some states might do that doesn't mean other states should say "hey, we're missing out here !".
    - desindol 4y ago
      and that's OK? oof you strongely need to readjust your moral compass.
      - glaucon 4y ago
        OK my post was ambiguous. What I was trying to convey was that just because others are making money from it doesn't mean that morally it's fine to do so oneself. Everyone has to make their own decisions, clearly supporting the production of one of the greatest poisons of the last hundred years is unsupportable but there will be some who do that.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless. And indeed investment is also a form of voting. One individual usually changes very little(except in this case one individual could make a tremendous difference depending on their net worth), but that's not necessarily a justification for doing nothing. Look up Kant for relevant philosophy.
    - LionTamer 4y ago
      > You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless Wouldn’t it be more apt to compare it to not voting? If morally principled people opt not to vote then the leader is chosen by those who are not morally principled, and the parent comment argues that if morally principled people opt to divest from tobacco then only the morally unprincipled remain as the shareholders in the industry.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Buying and owning shares sustains what the company does. That's the vote. Shareholder voting is another more fine grained dimension, and one that requires compromising ones integrity.
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
        That distinction doesn't really matter here. The point is that no matter whether I vote or not, the size of the effect of my decision is roughly the same, namely 1 vote. Therefore the fact that I'm only 1 vote is not in itself an argument for deciding either way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mrslave 4y ago
  It is curious that political action is not first and foremost in our minds, if at all. We take it for granted that all manner of immoral production and consumption will be permitted. Instead passive and voluntary actions like simply not investing in companies and not buying their products - possibly framed as something more principled like divestment - is our default setting.
  - glaucon 4y ago
    Well political action is being taken in different parts of the world. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018851003/smokefree-legislation-getting-closer https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audi...
  - dabbledash 4y ago
    Yeah, a scenario where everyone's "default setting" is trying to ban everything they consider "immoral" sounds pretty terrible.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    Indeed, the first solution to every problem should be one size fits all and involve the implicit or explicit threat of imprisonment or death.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  Do you work on ad-tech or social media sites?
- hellotomyrars 4y ago
  A lot of people worship at the altar of the almighty dollar. I mean shit, the head of the FDA goes to work for a giant tobacco company. Money talks. It’s gross but it’s the world we live in and the culture we’ve largely cultivated. I do not though and will not invest in tobacco companies for this reason.
  - DL-Invariant 4y ago
    If you have a pension fund, target date fund, market index, or many variety of diversified products in an IRA, 401k, or similar retirement account, you almost assuredly have money invested in tobacco. If you look at history, nicotine has been nearly unstoppable. If one cigarette company stops selling them, they will simply cede market share to another. If all stop selling, it would inevitably create a massive black market - there are specific markets that attempt prohibition, you can see what happened historically. Instead, isn't it rational to be realistic and aim for harm reduction? If Consumers can receive a satisfactory nicotine experience from a product that is going to be far less harmful, isn't that still a net positive?
    - hellotomyrars 4y ago
      There will always be many things in this world. I don’t have to directly support them though. Tobacco companies do not care about harm reduction, they care about money. The way they make money is to sell a product which is objectively harmful. I’m not saying they won’t exist, I am choosing to not support them though. I am realistic. But I’m not going to compromise what I believe in to ride on the back of their success in hurting millions of people on the plant, many of whom are not making an informed choice. Every child in a smoking household did not get a choice. Pets too. You make your choices and I’ll make mine.
- refurb 4y ago
  Would you do the same for someone working at Facebook? Someone who makes alcohol? It’s a moral stance and those are personal, not societal.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    > Would you do the same for someone working at Facebook? Someone who makes alcohol? This is about nicotine so these examples strike me as off topic. > It’s a moral stance and those are personal, not societal. Society level, moral choices are made all the time. Just ask some Supreme Court justices. And governments profit from nicotine consumption through sin taxes. Whose taxes should be solely devoted to paying for the externalities consumption causes.
qqqwerty 4y ago
I occasionally pop a piece of nicotine gum. Been trying to reduce my caffeine consumption (went cold turkey, back to a cup in the early AM, will probably go cold again cause sleep is suffering), and the nicotine gum helps get through the caffeine withdrawal, and outside of that gives a nice little buzz. No impact on sleep, although I notice I am little more irritable later in the day, so haven't used it in a while. Not sure how safe it is. At most I was doing 1-2 times per week, now more like 1-2 every couple of months. So I imagine at that level it is statistically negligible. But from what I ready there aren't any known long term risks. Anyways, on the topic of the article. I mostly agree, as long as people know the risks, then we should let them do what they want. With that said, Juul was particularly scummy and deserved to get banned by the FDA.
- Schnitz 4y ago
  Do NOT trade caffeine addiction for nicotine addiction. I’ve been addicted to and quit both cold turkey and quitting nicotine (smoking) was insanely hard. In fact so hard that I’ll never go for a nicotine product again. I’ve been off of it for over 10 years now. Quitting caffeine (coffee) is pretty easy, you might feel not so great for a day or a week depending on how addicted you are but that’s about it. It’s even easier if you reduce your caffeine intake over a few days, you’ll barely have withdrawal issues. Nicotine on the other hand causes insane cravings that take weeks or months to subside and it can take 6-12 months for you to no longer care about it at all if someone say smokes a cigarette next to you.
  - SnowHill9902 4y ago
    Nicotine itself alone is not that addictive.
    - novok 4y ago
      The truth is probably more similar to (meth)amphetamines. Class 2 drug, very classic stimulant that you see junkies ruin their lives over on the street. Not even legal to prescribe at all to people in some countries. Vast majority of ADHD people that it is prescribed to (like %99+) do not get addicted to the medication, and often forget to take it. It's the people just trying to get 'high' in general with doses way beyond the medical cases where it leads to addiction. So yes, it's probably pretty addictive if your using it in a way thatleads people to get addicted to it, and not if your not using it in a way that tends to not lead to addiction.
tsavo 4y ago
Knowing the origins of nicotine, an alternative use that should be investigated is as a pesticide. Completely discarding alternative research into nicotine due to other bad actors seems short sighted.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  We already do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid These compounds are arguably partially responsible for the issue of colony collapse disorder.
- klondike_ 4y ago
  Nicotine-derived compounds are already widely used in agriculture
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

44 points by DL-Invariant 4y ago

This enthusiasm to profit from borderline poison is unsettling. Not sure I could look my kids in the face if heavily invested in these industries.

brianwawok 4y ago
If 50% of people avoid investing in industries that are profitable and hurt/kill people, that means people with no such reservation take the profit. You essentially pass the gains to people OK with causing cancer. I don’t think the avoid investments you don’t believe in changes anything except making others money.
- glaucon 4y ago
  And that's OK. Invading neighbouring countries in order to make use of their resources is a "good deal" for the invader. Just because some states might do that doesn't mean other states should say "hey, we're missing out here !".
  - desindol 4y ago
    and that's OK? oof you strongely need to readjust your moral compass.
    - glaucon 4y ago
      OK my post was ambiguous. What I was trying to convey was that just because others are making money from it doesn't mean that morally it's fine to do so oneself. Everyone has to make their own decisions, clearly supporting the production of one of the greatest poisons of the last hundred years is unsupportable but there will be some who do that.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless. And indeed investment is also a form of voting. One individual usually changes very little(except in this case one individual could make a tremendous difference depending on their net worth), but that's not necessarily a justification for doing nothing. Look up Kant for relevant philosophy.
  - LionTamer 4y ago
    > You could use the same type of logic to argue that voting is meaningless Wouldn’t it be more apt to compare it to not voting? If morally principled people opt not to vote then the leader is chosen by those who are not morally principled, and the parent comment argues that if morally principled people opt to divest from tobacco then only the morally unprincipled remain as the shareholders in the industry.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Buying and owning shares sustains what the company does. That's the vote. Shareholder voting is another more fine grained dimension, and one that requires compromising ones integrity.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      That distinction doesn't really matter here. The point is that no matter whether I vote or not, the size of the effect of my decision is roughly the same, namely 1 vote. Therefore the fact that I'm only 1 vote is not in itself an argument for deciding either way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrslave 4y ago
It is curious that political action is not first and foremost in our minds, if at all. We take it for granted that all manner of immoral production and consumption will be permitted. Instead passive and voluntary actions like simply not investing in companies and not buying their products - possibly framed as something more principled like divestment - is our default setting.
- glaucon 4y ago
  Well political action is being taken in different parts of the world. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018851003/smokefree-legislation-getting-closer https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audi...
- dabbledash 4y ago
  Yeah, a scenario where everyone's "default setting" is trying to ban everything they consider "immoral" sounds pretty terrible.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  Indeed, the first solution to every problem should be one size fits all and involve the implicit or explicit threat of imprisonment or death.
throwaway6734 4y ago
Do you work on ad-tech or social media sites?
hellotomyrars 4y ago
A lot of people worship at the altar of the almighty dollar. I mean shit, the head of the FDA goes to work for a giant tobacco company. Money talks. It’s gross but it’s the world we live in and the culture we’ve largely cultivated. I do not though and will not invest in tobacco companies for this reason.
- DL-Invariant 4y ago
  If you have a pension fund, target date fund, market index, or many variety of diversified products in an IRA, 401k, or similar retirement account, you almost assuredly have money invested in tobacco. If you look at history, nicotine has been nearly unstoppable. If one cigarette company stops selling them, they will simply cede market share to another. If all stop selling, it would inevitably create a massive black market - there are specific markets that attempt prohibition, you can see what happened historically. Instead, isn't it rational to be realistic and aim for harm reduction? If Consumers can receive a satisfactory nicotine experience from a product that is going to be far less harmful, isn't that still a net positive?
  - hellotomyrars 4y ago
    There will always be many things in this world. I don’t have to directly support them though. Tobacco companies do not care about harm reduction, they care about money. The way they make money is to sell a product which is objectively harmful. I’m not saying they won’t exist, I am choosing to not support them though. I am realistic. But I’m not going to compromise what I believe in to ride on the back of their success in hurting millions of people on the plant, many of whom are not making an informed choice. Every child in a smoking household did not get a choice. Pets too. You make your choices and I’ll make mine.
refurb 4y ago
Would you do the same for someone working at Facebook? Someone who makes alcohol? It’s a moral stance and those are personal, not societal.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > Would you do the same for someone working at Facebook? Someone who makes alcohol? This is about nicotine so these examples strike me as off topic. > It’s a moral stance and those are personal, not societal. Society level, moral choices are made all the time. Just ask some Supreme Court justices. And governments profit from nicotine consumption through sin taxes. Whose taxes should be solely devoted to paying for the externalities consumption causes.

qqqwerty 4y ago

I occasionally pop a piece of nicotine gum. Been trying to reduce my caffeine consumption (went cold turkey, back to a cup in the early AM, will probably go cold again cause sleep is suffering), and the nicotine gum helps get through the caffeine withdrawal, and outside of that gives a nice little buzz. No impact on sleep, although I notice I am little more irritable later in the day, so haven't used it in a while. Not sure how safe it is. At most I was doing 1-2 times per week, now more like 1-2 every couple of months. So I imagine at that level it is statistically negligible. But from what I ready there aren't any known long term risks. Anyways, on the topic of the article. I mostly agree, as long as people know the risks, then we should let them do what they want. With that said, Juul was particularly scummy and deserved to get banned by the FDA.

Schnitz 4y ago
Do NOT trade caffeine addiction for nicotine addiction. I’ve been addicted to and quit both cold turkey and quitting nicotine (smoking) was insanely hard. In fact so hard that I’ll never go for a nicotine product again. I’ve been off of it for over 10 years now. Quitting caffeine (coffee) is pretty easy, you might feel not so great for a day or a week depending on how addicted you are but that’s about it. It’s even easier if you reduce your caffeine intake over a few days, you’ll barely have withdrawal issues. Nicotine on the other hand causes insane cravings that take weeks or months to subside and it can take 6-12 months for you to no longer care about it at all if someone say smokes a cigarette next to you.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Nicotine itself alone is not that addictive.
  - novok 4y ago
    The truth is probably more similar to (meth)amphetamines. Class 2 drug, very classic stimulant that you see junkies ruin their lives over on the street. Not even legal to prescribe at all to people in some countries. Vast majority of ADHD people that it is prescribed to (like %99+) do not get addicted to the medication, and often forget to take it. It's the people just trying to get 'high' in general with doses way beyond the medical cases where it leads to addiction. So yes, it's probably pretty addictive if your using it in a way thatleads people to get addicted to it, and not if your not using it in a way that tends to not lead to addiction.

tsavo 4y ago

Knowing the origins of nicotine, an alternative use that should be investigated is as a pesticide. Completely discarding alternative research into nicotine due to other bad actors seems short sighted.

galleywest200 4y ago
We already do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid These compounds are arguably partially responsible for the issue of colony collapse disorder.
klondike_ 4y ago
Nicotine-derived compounds are already widely used in agriculture

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]