Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I have friends and family that either quit using vapes or substituted then permanently. As a former half a pack smoker myself, on occasion I would smoke a cigarette at a bar because it’s such a nice feeling, then feel guilty the next day. Juul is the only e-cig that I really like, and since I bought one I’ve yet to smoke a cigarette when drinking. Banning them because “think of the children!” is extraordinarily short sighted. Why not ban fruity alcoholic drinks too? Kids prefer those to beer.



> Banning them because “think of the children!” is extraordinarily short sighted.

Alternatively, prioritizing the needs of the already-addicted vs. keeping a new generation off the product entirely is "short sighted". Statistically, let's be honest: you guys are a lost cause.


I disagree. Quitting at any age, even after 40 years of smoking, is still very beneficial to your health. I don’t see any of your “statistics” linked.


The point was that if you trade "make it easier to quit" for "more new addicts from candy nicotine products", you're making a bad trade. You really want me to cite the numbers for how many smokers quit? It's depressingly low -- like 30% over a lifetime or something like that.


Considering there is no definitive proof that vapes cause cancer, there is overwhelming evidence that cigarettes are responsible for a whole array of cancers and diseases, and I see teenagers and young adults smoking cigarettes all around Boston (even elite college kids), allowing Juul and other vapes to advertise and sell at retail seems like a worthwhile and beneficial option for society.


> Considering there is no definitive proof that vapes cause cancer, there is overwhelming evidence that cigarettes are responsible for a whole array of cancers and diseases...

The tobacco industry was able to hold off the "definitive proof" - which they were entirely aware of internally - for decades.

It seems quite likely that inhaling vaporized chemicals multiple times a day will have some health impacts. As with tobacco, the evidence will take a long while to accumulate, and the industry is likely to obfuscate as long as possible.


According to the article, there are currently 2.1 million underage "candy nicotine" users. How many of them would have been smokers if the alternative didn't exist? If it's banned, how many will switch to regular cigarettes vs. unflavored e-cigarettes? What are the relative risks of each? Unfortunately nobody actually knows the relative risks, which is the most pressing problem here.


There's a lot more kids out there than current smokers.


Then Juul should be put next to the nicotine patches and gum in the pharmacy, and be marketed as a medication. The FDA heavily regulates substances that can be abused when not used as medication (things like meth ingredients).

Frankly, letting a company aggressively market a highly addictive compound to an impressionable segment of society because of a single-use excuse ("it can be used as medication!") is a bit disappointing. It also reads as astroturfing because it's such a limp talking point.


>Why not ban fruity alcoholic drinks too? Kids prefer those to beer.

Sure, why not. Germany for example put a heavy tax on alcopops because they were too popular with teenagers (despite teenagers not being allowed to buy them), which largely drove alcopops from the market [1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcopop#Germany


>Why not ban fruity alcoholic drinks too? Kids prefer those to beer.

Because alcohol use is much more socially accepted than nicotine use.


What does "socially accepted" mean? Both nicotine and alcohol have centuries-old integration into social customs...

More likely there are two factors at play:

1. The alcohol industry is a massive source of tax revenues (unlike guns or tobacco).

2. Educated voters across the spectrum enjoy alcohol but have largely left smoking behind ("people that matter").

Everything about regulating vices falls down when it comes to alcohol. Every indictment of guns or tobacco (dangerous, unhealthy, societal harm) is amplified for alcohol...yet it gets a pass while other vices are condemned.


the alcohol and tobacco lobbies are also way more powerful


Juul is the first mass-market e-cigarette product I'm aware of that isn't directly or indirectly owned by a company that was already in the traditional tobacco market.


It would’ve been so easy to make these prescription only. That way people who wanted to use them in place of cigarettes or to help them quit would be able to, but it would be much harder for them to become “cool“ and take off the way e-cigarettes/vaping have.


> Kids prefer those to beer.

Inexact. A lot of young women prefer those to beer and are getting hooked on alcohol through them. Much to their detriment. (Alcohol consumption causes cancer, especially breast cancer in women.)


> Why not ban fruity alcoholic drinks too? Kids prefer those to beer.

No, they don't, and we do ban advertising those drinks directly to children.


Because high-status people drink, while smoking is mostly a habit of low-status people.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: