3 ms·
Juul is the perfect example that our systems just don't work for the people or the common good by default. Any device that delivers such a highly addictive comp
by r0ckarong 2y ago
Juul is the perfect example that our systems just don't work for the people or the common good by default. Any device that delivers such a highly addictive compound should have to been blocked by default until it was allowed. It was done the other way around.
- bayindirh 2y agoBut the freedom to kill oneself! /s
- nojvek 2y agoNot sure why you got downvoted with /s tag. Is it really freedom of a drug hacks into your brain biology to make you desire something over and over again?
- bayindirh 2y agoWhile in theory it is, most (if not all) people start using these things without knowing the risks and harms of these substances. So, I also support "deny by default" policies for addictive substances. The problem is "deny by default" has a side effect of creating unregulated black markets. So it's a really hard problem, at least from my perspective. I don't think about the downvote. The comment might be considered as shallow, or some people might really want the freedom, I don't know, and frankly, I don't care.
- mardifoufs 2y agoBut it replaced cigarettes, which are much worse by every metric.
- billfruit 2y agoThen why did the court upturn the FDAs Juul ban? And why don't FDA try to ban cigarettes? There is a case to be made that vaping is safer than smoking, since it is free of ingesting the harmful products of combustion like tar and carbon compounds.
- r0ckarong 2y ago> Then why did the court upturn the FDAs Juul ban? And why don't FDA try to ban cigarettes? The answer to both questions, in my opinion, is that there are still plenty of smokers in the places that get to make these decisions and even more people whose pockets are lined by the industry.