179
The science is clear. So why can’t governments agree on vaping?
(www.politico.eu)
I don't quite understand how the science is clear if "there is still no data on the long-term effects of e-cigarettes".
We dont have long term data because e-cigarettes haven't been used for a long time. They got popular ten years back?
Also, as a vaper who switch from cigs because I was desperate for an alternative, I'm also curious about the different strata of products that exist on the market. For example, I visit a juice shop that mixes their products on site with pure materials, and I get to customize what exactly appears within my harmful juices. I build and maintain my parts as well. How does this approach compare to 'over the connivence store counter' kits like Juul?
It wouldn't surprise me if those products contain preservatives, or byproducts of a corporation skirting regulatory lines, that could be hazardous for consumer health. Though, that is purely my speculation — yet I wonder if my choice method of getting my sweet, sweet nicotine will get lumped in with everything else.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
"It beats smoking" is a low fucking bar.
The science is that putting shit in your lungs is not great. There's no upside for non-smokers. It's a lark. The only truly positive side is that it's objectively better than inhaling smoke, and that only matters if it's a tobacco alternative - and contains nicotine. Which let this low-impact delivery mechanism create new addicts.
Two decades in either direction and the calculus would be trivial. 1990, the way people smoked back then? We'd solve the epidemic overnight. Trade it for vaping in a heartbeat. 2030, the way statistics were headed? Pointless and inexcusable. A brief fad that would linger in countries with hookah culture.
Instead, the worst-case scenario happened immediately. The same murderous liars made money hooking a new generation with a fairly unsafe and hideously addictive chemical. Like they'd previously done by adding filters, and then menthol, and then cloves.
Smoking kills 8 million people worldwide every year. I think it's worth pushing the alternatives.
Maybe I read it wrong but what I got from it is this:
Vaping is good as an alternative to non-smokers. The problem is that it's being pushed to non-smokers. It's not as bad as smoking, but the best is neither.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The problem isn't pushing it as an alternative to already active smokers, that's what it was initially touted as...
The problem is it became the new smoking fad. People who never smoked are taking this up, and are now the new generation of hungry addicts to keep the tobacco corps alive and well.
An adult should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, as long as it doesn't impact other people. Vaping doesn't emit any carcinogens or toxic substances, and 10 times less nicotine than smoking does. At the end of the day, vaping does far less harm than smoking, and it's easier to reduce the amount of nicotine consumed with vaping. Nicotine also has health benefits, such as slowing down the onset of Parkinson's.
If teenagers are vaping then that's an enforcement issue, but at the same time I would be less worried if I found a vape in my kid's bedroom than a packet of cigarettes. Teenagers will experiement with substances. Nicotne vapes are way down the list of ones I would be worried about.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Yeah, that's a lot of words when they could've just said "I don't understand risk, harm reduction, any statistics relavent to the topic, or science."
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(22 replies)
If we ban vaping, we should ban cigarettes, cigars, chew, alcohol, and weed as well.
All have a negative effect on your health.
Strongly agree. We’ve already learned that prohibition doesn’t work and that people will always find other ways to get their fix.
If flavored vapes are “marketed to children”, what about flavored THC edibles and fruity/candy flavored alcohol? What about energy drinks and highly caffeinated sodas? What about high calorie ultra-palatable foods with absurd quantities of high fructose corn syrup? How is nicotine so different from any of the other drugs that society has decided are socially acceptable?
Humanity has had a relationship with mind altering substances since the dawn of time. It’s ingrained in our cultures, and may even be partially responsible for how human intelligence has adapted to where it is today. Nobody is going to overwrite thousands of years of history by banning vapes. People will just find some other way to access nicotine and other substances, probably by switching back to smoking or chewing. A brief ten-year interval of pushback against smoking in select countries didn’t mean that people no longer wanted nicotine, it just meant that people wanted a less objectionable way of consuming it than burning leaves in paper.
load more comments
(9 replies)
All advertising for all tobacco products should be banned, including of course the product placement bullshit.
Other than that, and age restrictions, people should have the right to consume it. They should not have the right to force other people to consume it, as in secondhand smoke.
Same with other addictive and/or harmful products.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Why do all of these articles always assume all vaping is nicotine-related? It's exchanging the words "e-cigarette" with "vape". Seems irresponsible of the author. It's like writing an article on the dangers of squares and mixing in the word rectangle
Most of these anti smoking articles are written by people who don’t understand smoking devices themselves. Irresponsible for sure.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Bro I could say the same thing about global warming, vaccines, race, and abortions, but I'm still surrounded by people fighting progress. Vaping is no different.
The politicians are paid by the tobacco companies. There is money to be made, and a new generation will replace tobacco smokers and ensure that the tobacco industry will survive for longer.
Nicotine is socially accepted, that is the other main problem.
Tobacco lobby
Why are people all of sudden so concerned about other people’s health? I should be able to do just about anything I want to my body, as long as it has minimal impact on those around me. I can understand second hand smoke being a problem indoors, what impacts does exhaling vapor have on others?
load more comments
(7 replies)
Oh wow governments don't follow the science
How are the health risks of vaping marijuana?
Data suggest it mainly affects the ability to formulate clear sentences.
load more comments
(1 replies)
(Guesstimating) Better than smoking, but as any doctor will tell you, putting anything that isn't air into your lungs is worse than not putting anything that isn't air into your lungs.
I say this as someone who both smokes and vapes cannabis.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
179 points (91.6% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3533 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS