I have two very close younger friends who are practically my little brothers. They come from an established family in Hollywood, and have a very famous actor-dad. The younger brother is about 20 now, and is friends with half of the teen “influencers” on Instagram/YouTube; the older brother is about 22, and hangs with a group of LA kids who are obsessed with the movie American Psycho and dress/look the part — ironic given that their lives are a 2010s version of that book’s author’s other classic, Less Than Zero.
About two years ago, I’m at a club in Hollywood when these two hand me a thick pile of paper, which looks like a legal document. I’m really confused — is someone getting sued? Is this a screenplay? Am I being asked to sign an NDA?
The older brother, in his American Psycho-inspired suit, takes a puff of his vape and then whispers in my ear, “this is the funding prospectus for Juul. Our friends have been invited to invest.”
I looked at the thing. It was crazy. The valuation was well over $1 billion. The growth rate was off the charts. And, looking around at that club in Hollywood, filled with kids vaping in the outdoor area, I realized the numbers made sense. But the fact that a 19 year old Hollywood kid was handing me the funding documents for this company and telling me that his friends had been invited to invest told me that there was something very, very wrong about how Juul got into the hands of all of these young people — it clearly wasn’t an accident.
That's why it's called an investigation, you follow leads not knowing whether they will pay off.
There's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that they did. Building relationships w teenage social media influencers is part of that.
The unfortunate fact is that Juul achieved explosive popularity among high schoolers. It spearheaded a U turn in youth nicotine use rates, which had been declining for a long time and are now way up.
The investigation is here to determine to what extent this was the result of a deliberate strategy.
High schoolers during my day smoked a lot, and did a lot of pot. They didn’t need to be marketed to, they will find the bad stuff on their own. Marketing to them directly would actually have the opposite effect (eg nothing promoted drug use more effectively than DARE). I feel like we’ve all become old fogeys that remember nothing about what it was like to be teenagers.
You make a good point though, that we somehow expect that kids exist in a vacuum when they are actually full and active participants in society. It is ludicrous to think that Juul's advertising to make their product seem desirable to adults would not also affect young people. It's similarly unrealistic to think that kids wouldn't vape in the absence of any advertising whatsoever.
I wonder what kind of evidence might be uncovered that would prove Juul did something that is clearly illegal. Joe Camel was held to be a cartoon character and therefore an appeal directly to children. In the case of Juul hiring influencers though, perhaps they could analyze the influencers' analytics data and see if they disproportionately reach under-18s, but pure numerics might be hard to sell to a jury without a smoking gun like an email that says "sign Jim Fortnite because he's big with the 14-16 year olds this week".
Edit: it seems to be unclear that this is a pragmatic decision made millions of times a day around the world, and not particular to Juul.
Like that ever stopped anyone. :)
Nicotine withdrawal kicks in very quick which is why smokers take constant breaks. The anxiety, the grumpiness, irritability and anger you feel as a smoker when you are without nicotine will piss off your partner, make you seem difficult to friends and colleagues and generally just color your world in a dark way.
Juul pods helped me stop smoking for a short period of time but I became an order of magnitude more hooked on nicotine. I work from home and couldn't go more than 15 minutes without sucking on that stupid device.
I quit smoking cold turkey 90 days and it's made a dramatic difference to my mood. I no longer worry about being socially outcast or being judged for blowing vape clouds.
edit: note I say "easy", but its not a short process.. If you try to go immediately from 48mg to 3mg you won't have a good time. It takes months for each step down
That's largely why e-cigs are the most successful way to quit smoking tobacco products - it's the most similar habit to smoking cigarettes, so it slots into the existing highly-reinforced habits that smokers have. You drop a bunch of the random other chemicals that are present in cigarettes, and wind up reinforcing the replacement habit before dropping dosages and having a regular habit that's as easy to quit as, say, biting your fingernails.
I chew one 4mg piece of gum over the course of a day for mental stimulation and that's had some really nice side effects for me, such as being able to stay up later and continue on mentally engaging work.
I think she was chewing the nicotine gum a few times a day, but I'd still be careful about it.. iirc the reason she did it was she wanted gum and the only gum her parents had regularly was nicotine gum and she was like 14 at the time
There's some truth to this. I used to believe it wholly. You can go through my comment history and see that I've mentioned it before on Juul-related threads.
My more recently-developed stance is that it doesn't work as well as you'd think it does. It may work for some people, in some situations, but the reality is that your body can become surprisingly good at figuring out that its not getting the nicotine it wants, so you may just end up vaping the lower stuff more often. The double-blind thing honestly wouldn't work for real addicts; it may even be subconscious, but the body knows. You can't trick yourself out of a nicotine addiction.
The ritual is a big part of the addiction, and if you're not careful in regulating the number of pulls you're just going to make the ritual worse, without changing the amount of nicotine you pull in.
If you can combine it with some kind of regimen, like you don't pull more often than once every ten minutes, then sure, that could work. That's why it works for some people; not the strict reduction in potency.
Tobacco had similar issues but I just couldn't smoke tons of cigarettes all day.
Both bad, I think stepping down nicotine works for some but not for me. You gotta do what you can to quit :)
If you ban everything that is addictive you end up doing a disservice to people who can handle the substance or item in question. Banning addictive substances because some people can't handle them goes against my philosophy of the purpose of government.
Do we need some kind of super-citizen test where you have to prove your knowledge and responsibility for people to be able to be free to do/have/use the things they want?
I don't want a nanny state that bans what it thinks is bad for me and prevents me from accessing things that I want because some people can't handle it.
I was talking to some of my old farmer relatives a few months ago and one of them was telling stories about his dynamite license. It was a useful thing to have when interacting with the land and you could get a license and just go out and buy dynamite. This was maybe 50 years ago. That is the kind of world I want to live in, where people who can prove themselves can get any tool they want or need to manipulate their minds or the world around them.
Not a world where a committee (or public pressure) can decide what I can't handle or what's too dangerous.
I don't want to live in a world of padded walls.
The government can just as well have "addiction" problems with things that are bad for the population which are supported by the population.
The difference isn't free-will or not, it is only the level on which it is applied.
I prefer personal free will to collective free will whenever it is possible and reasonable.
The purpose of government is to do things we can't do for ourselves. I can decide whether or not to use a substance which might be addictive or to abstain from it forever. The government can do that too but I really don't think they need to. They need to make sure that those kinds of products are sold pure and as expected, that there is accurate information about their usage and effects available, and that people selling them do not mislead or manipulatively hook people, but ultimately I would rather a responsible individual make decisions than a collective.
I don't think anybody is going around discussing the philosophy of government because they're concerned that they aren't free enough to be advertised to.
There is a marked difference between governments interfering with an individual's freedom to act on themselves and interfering with an individual's freedom to manipulate the actions of others.
>giving mega corporations carte blanche to market poisonous and addictive substance
They absolutely do not have this. Tobacco ads are banned from TV and Radio in the US, for example. Wouldn't exactly call that a blank check.
I want the government to promote what is true, not what is right.
Heroin isn't a good habit, but it's surprisingly well tolerated by the human body and the majority of evils come from prohibition itself.
Way ahead of you...
$12B to make the cops go away. The adult version of Carlos the Jackal.
NB: Do not do this if you have a felony conviction since this that makes it a crime.
But if anyone wants a remote employee in a central time zone moving back to the family farm so I have a few hundred acres to screw around with instead of about 20 sq ft...
Again, not a lawyer, highly suggest you consult with one before doing amateur rocket science.
But on a more serious note, if you're considering the remote work life, I do recommend it.
Show me a one-armed guy who bought a stick of dynamite thinking, “No way can I handle this.”
If you want to live in a HEPA bubble, live in a HEPA bubble. Outside isn't that.
Nicotine is really powerful stuff. I believe there's no free lunch with quitting. Eventually you will take a quality of life hit white quitting that almost directly mirrors how much relief it gave you to get through the day.
The by far best way is to just never start. In Germany we made a lot of very good progress towards that (lowering % of young people getting hooked on smoking), which seems to have been completely upended by vaping.
It's well known that the other chemicals in tobacco act as MAIOs increasing the effect of nicotine which makes it more habbit forming - and I believe that extends to even after you switch to a nicotine replacement program.
Really, the most annoying thing is that tobaccoo is still legal are are both nicotine + cancer. At least vaping/nicotine alone won't kill you so it's strange that it gets more attention.
For sure many tumors respond much more intensely to GH than normal tissue. Much in the same way estrogen makes some breast cancers grow faster. So it has a carcinogenic effect, and once the cancer starts, nicotine turbocharges it. (Depending on the cancer, of course).
Clearly we should ban fasting
There is a lot of other foods that do that too
No, no it's not. It's a teratogen.
Smoking may cause cancer and lung disease which kills smokers over time, but that time period is measured in years and decades.
In contrast, 8 people have died in the last few months from vaping-related illnesses despite most of them being active and healthy only a month or two before their deaths. Another several hundred people are in hospital beds with severe lung diseases related to vaping and many of them could die or never regain function.
At the current rate, vaping would need to go another few decades without a single death just to achieve statistical parity with smoking.
Since 2011 when vaping really started taking off, there are roughly 220,000,000 vaping years: total cumulative # of years folks have vaped. And 8 deaths, or 0.000000003 deaths per vaping year. Compare to smoking, which has had about 8,000,000,000 smoker years and 28,000,000 deaths, or 0.007 deaths per smoker year. We don't know the really long term effects of vaping, so all of this is subject to change, but the idea that vaping kills more is completely unsupported by even the most basic (see above) accounting.
And that's leaving off the fact that you're ignoring the cause of death for these 8: which, while unknown, has strong indications it's not linked to mainstream vaping devices.
By your logic, eating and shots kill 130 people a day, so how long would it take before vaccines are safer than cigarettes?
very acute and savvy of you.
It's also pretty gross and strong by comparison IMO. But I guess it's for people who just stopped smoking cigarettes which is similarly harsh whenever I try them now.
The volume held in the device & volume per 'puff' is also a lot less hence the smaller devices.
You realize quickly that the Nicotine content isn't super important as long as you taper it down.
Which is not an option with Juuls and the other disposable garbage products. Refillable Vladdin style devices are the way to go.
Still trying to think up a good replacement for this...
It's just not good for your health or happiness. I was especially worried whenever I was going back to the bar/restaurant/office wondering if I smell too much like cigarettes
As someone who quit cigarettes 5 years ago, but still chews 2mg gum (12 of them per day, about), you did for sure heh. Wasn't until I stopped smoking that I realised how bad it smelled.
Also how good food tastes when I could taste stuff properly again!
So I basically never smoke cigarettes anymore, and Juul only occasionally.
Still, I miss it...
Holy smokes! If you look at data from a few years ago  that's more than double what you'd see for cigarette smoking (eyeballing the numbers here, the data is more granular).
Is it easier for kids to get e-cigs than cigarettes? Or do they just want them more?
2. Yes, they are easier to get, for a couple reasons: once you have a juul you only need juul pods, and additionally you don't need to purchase a lighter (which you need to be over eighteen a lot of places to purchase).
edit 3. They are far more discreet (you can vape in a classroom if you are in the back and it is dark) and deliver more nicotine.
And I'm not aware of any place in the states you need to be over 18 to buy a lighter - and as a former dumbass teenager, I don't think kids have difficulty in figuring out how to light things on fire.
Discretion makes sense, but I feel like rationalizing an irrational decision here. Wouldn't it be more discrete not to vape?
Huh? Are you saying that teenagers behave completely rationally? We just wanted to rip our magic flight launch boxes while watching bill nye. It would have been more discrete to sit down and shut up.
There are non-nicotine pods. And they have all of the social addictiveness even if they don't have actual nicotine in them.
The "safety" of vaping is predicated on being compared to "smoking cigarettes". If a bunch of non-smokers picks up vaping, that calculus evaporates.
Consequently, selling vaping to a non-smoking, teenage market should come under extreme scrutiny.
In addition, everything about the vaping experience is designed to be addicting. I had a friend who believed exactly as you do until he tried one of the flavored, non-nicotine pods. They have a very strong attraction.
(Of course avoiding getting any kind of particulate in your lungs is better than getting it.)
Frequent long-term use of any stimulant is probably not great for you; e.g. my mother has a pretty severe coffee addiction (she typically drinks 4–8 cups per day), and gets headaches and shakes if she goes a couple days without. But compared to other kinds of drugs, it doesn’t seem like such a huge public health threat that we should freak out about it.
Apparently in most popular, educational and health-related communication, nicotine is treated as synonym to tobacco, leading to confusion.
I know what I would do if I was selling drugs and didn't give a crap about anything but profits, I would make them as addictive as possible.
I've only tried sun-dried leaves from my own garden yet, which isn't quite as exciting. The nicotine boost is still the same though.
The idea is to grow enough to make my own mapacho paste and ferment a roll for a while.
By itself it's pretty harsh, and trippy because of the nicotine. I prefer it mixed with Cannabis and/or regular tobacco.
They need nutrients, lots of nutrients (epsom salt works like magic). And loose, sandy soil or the initial roots won't go anywhere.
Juul pods are age-restricted consumables, just like cigarettes.
I think the lack of odor, more agreeable flavors, and less health or social stigma are more important. I doubt e-cigarettes differ much from cigarettes in how easy it is to get ahold of when underage, although perhaps adults are more willing to sell them to or buy them for teenagers on the belief that they're harmless.
The lighter is the juul itself. The cigarettes are the juul pods.
A juul lasts longer than a lighter.
Edit: Assuming the average teenager has limited funds, a lighter and pack of cigarettes is far cheaper than a juul vaporizer and pack of pods. Even once you have the juul, the pods are still more expensive than buying a new lighter and cigarettes in many areas.
But there was definitely a year of my life less than six years ago when I was not able to purchase a lighter from any gas station in the bay area, and I'm absolutely certain that it has only gotten more difficult for teenagers since cigarettes now require you to be 21 to purchase.
And I should mention there is no law preventing the sale of lighters. People will just flat out refuse if you don't have an ID.
The times they are a changing
And they last such a long time that frequency of replacement just does not matter compared to the cost and frequency of either cigarettes or vaping consumables.
My little sister told me that the bathrooms are basically used vape-stations between classes now, and most people have tried it.
That is bad. That does not mean we should immediately ban all vaping devices. There should be long term studies done on devices and juices in order to determine health effects, and there should be audits on vape juice manufacturers to make sure they aren’t putting really bad stuff in them.
I don’t understand the moral panic. Marketing nicotine products to kids may be reprehensible, but marketing in general is largely reprehensible. It’s a matter of degree. Why do we decide marketing devices that have not killed people, but have just been vessels for unregulated product that have done the damage, is worse than marketing soda and sugary foods, which kill thousands, or addictive apps and social media, which damages mental health significantly, or overpriced unnecessary college educations, which cause people to go into debt for decades, or cars, which both increase debt and are a leading cause of teenage death? Most of those things are unnecessary for the majority of the population. Healthy foods, real life interactions, apprenticeships/job training programs, and public transportation are all generally better than the alternatives for the safety and financial future of young people.
The moral panic happening RE vaping is how the war on drugs started. People saw something that affected the youth and tried to smash it with a big stick rather than attack it with sophistication and respect for the free decisions of the population. It didn’t work.
If vaping is bad, let’s find out why/what specifically is bad, and let’s ban the stuff that killed the people that just died. Banning all of it is draconian. There is no good reason to drive well tested products that people enjoy out of the market, even if they aren’t 100% healthy. I don’t want to live in the Demolition Man future. Plus people who want to vape if products become very expensive and hard to get due to taxes, bans and overregulation will be tempted to buy the crap that isn’t tested that will actually kill them.
It's far premature to try and claim the lack of any health effects from any type of vapes, they just haven't existed long enough.
The article said the teen using a nicotine based product, but that’s not enough information. We don’t where the nicotine juice he was using came from/whether he bought it off the street or from a reputable seller. We also don’t know if that was based on blood tests or self reports, although I think it’s likely the report is accurate/the issue just happens to affect THC users much more.
This spike in illness is very recent and seems to be fairly acute. Vaping has existed for a number of years without similar cases, and they all just happened to appear all at once.
It seems fairly obvious to me that it has something to do with a particular kind of juice that was recently introduced and is more common in illicit THC products. I suspect one or several shadier manufacturers started using something bad fairly recently, and that it has affected mostly THC products, but is not related to the THC itself.
The current reaction is like jumping to ban all toys because of that issue a few years back where some Chinese manufacturers were forced to recall toys with lead paint.
It's all about vaping. General vaping, no THC mentioned, except right at the end: "The Health District says people that vape or use THC products" which doesn't make a lot of sense, because edibles are THC products and I'm pretty sure you won't get any lung issues from them.
It also says: "A Pierce County man is suing the makers of vape pods and vape pens claiming the products left him wheezing". Woah.. he's probably going to sue Juul right? Wrong. https://komonews.com/news/local/pierce-co-man-files-first-la...
"Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Charles Wilcoxen claims marijuana-laced pods gave him lipoid pneumonia. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital on September 11 when the wheezing became especially severe. After tests, doctors gave him the diagnosis."
This is why we can't have nice things.
It's obviously an attempt to get you to clarify your position by showing if/how you differentiate a case that fits within your previously-stated criteria but we assume is actually excluded from your judgement.
If I want to give my money to someone else, in exchange for something I want and enjoy, that doesn’t hurt you - why should you care? You are not an injured party.
You don’t like it, you don’t need to buy it. But outlawing something because you don’t like it is just vicious.
All that said, I don’t vape, but I do enjoy the occasional cigar which has faced similar restrictions on flavors and sales of late.
If you have never had a nicotine buzz, you really don’t know what you are missing. Stress disappears, focus is intensely magnified. It’s great. If you’re not prone to addiction I recommend trying it sometime.
There’s a number of good articles I could list, but despite demonization, it has some fantastic upsides and without the additives isn’t nearly the Faustian bargain it’s made out to be.
We absolutely should. Blocking someone from something they desire, from their "pursuit of happiness" is patently imoral. Prohibitions don't work because people want what they want.
> You fail to really ask who benefits
The customer benefits from getting what they want in nicotine, and the company benefits from getting what they want in money.
Benefit is entirely in personal perception.
Just because you don't believe the person is better off for getting nicotine products, doesn't mean they don't.
Says a company that:
• Recruited social media "influencers" to post about Juul
• Sponsored programs at schools and summer camps
• Ran "youth education" and "holistic health education" programs where they told teenagers about the dangers of nicotine and (reportedly) that using their product was safe
Do you have sources for the last 2 statements?
From the house oversight committee - https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/economic-and...
NYTimes - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping....
Others - https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/juul-targeted-teens-by-spendin...
The FTC has already been investigating them for a while now as well - https://www.wsj.com/articles/juuls-marketing-practices-under...
Should Juul be found guilty they will be punished via fines, just like a tobacoo company.
Of course Juul knew this and decided it was worth it because if their device went viral, which it did, they would be locked in as a market leader, which they are.
All they have to do now is lawyer up and try to survive the next year or so and they are locked in.
If they are fined so hard as to go out of business, the product is still not banned and you would have the next in line take the market leader position.
The product is here to stay, banning the devices will be more difficult than banning marijuana (which is a loosing battle).
Will Juul be a brand in the United States in 5 years? Maybe?
Will we still have e-cigarettes in the United States in 5 years, definitely.
If prohibition really occurs of course we will have 3d printed vapes and an even strong black market vape.
I think regulation will likely occur, likely making it require a prescription, but that is still not an outright ban.
New York State banned flavored e-cigarettes recently, on the grounds that they encourage kids to take up vaping; that ban wasn't specifically targeted at Juul (who saw the writing on the wall and stopped selling flavors last year) but that's the brand name everyone knows, so that's why they're catching the investigative heat now.
What? Juul still sells flavors, even if you select that you live in NY or MI (also banning flavors) on the popup when you enter the site: https://www.juul.com/shop/pods
Guess what it does to their value after getting an entire generation hooked on vaping nicotine for a decade, then for a brief time remove all flavors but the ones you can find in traditional cigarettes, then once people switch to tobacco and menthol only, remove e-cigarettes entirely. The only option is traditional cigarettes or not smoking at that point.
If it was easy to quit, we would’ve never had a need to create e-cigarettes to begin with.
It’s completely evil any way you look at it.
I'm glad I didn't use it for a long time. I had a feeling this was just as bad as smoking. I tried to tell some kids I know who are always vaping but they laughed at me with a statement like 'science bitch!'. Well, here you go.
Nicotine products cause only harm to society. That’s enough. Any other argument for individual freedom or benefit is moot. We should ban commercial enterprises based on nicotine. There is one moment when this is possible, which is now. Anyone who thinks that vaping reduces harm from cigarettes is dreaming. Why on earth do we want to spend the next 50 years studying vaping and understanding the risks and benefits of life long vaporised nicotine use, so that Juul’s founders can make a lot of money? If you enjoy moderate and sensible recreational use of nicotine - sorry.
Big tobacco was prohibited from advertising is various media for creating characters like Joe Camel, only to circumvent the spirit of the law via the internet.
Vaping is killing kids, how is this not a valid use of resources?
The recent (adult) deaths from Vaping are due to black market THC cartridges filled with vitamin e acetate. It is very likely the kids are obtaining (safe) retail product, which is a failure in retail process, not the manufacturer. While it is a bad thing that school aged children are illegal acquiring Juul -- how is this different (or even worse) than Alcohol? We should investigate alcohol vendors for making tasty beverages too. Can't have flavors that adults might like...
There is a combination of events occurring simultaneously that is making it hard for folks to objectively understand the problem, and if there is actually a problem at all.
Also, no nicotine product is (safe). There is no safe amount. In my opinion, we should just work towards a smoke-free future.
The analog to alcohol is a bit of a whataboutism. Just because alcohol is bad, doesn't justify smoking.
Protecting kids from predatory companies selling them addictive substances? Yep that’s exactly what we should be spending resources on.
At a minimum, it's probably reasonable to say that political capital is real, and selecting an issue to work on (either in the executive branch or more commonly in Congress) does indeed have costs that impair effort on other issues.
The auto industry and the pharma industry, whose products kill huge numbers of kids, and who have both repeatedly taken actions in pursuit of profit without regard for the health and safety effects of those decisions, never seem to face any serious, lasting consequences.
The "rash of injuries and deaths" link in the article is a 404, but let's assume they are talking about the six deaths over the past two-and-a-half years. During that same time, 30,000 people have died from opiod overdose and 70,000 have died from MV traffic.
This is a distraction, and not even a convincing one.
Our public lawyers, lawmakers, regulators, and consumer advocates are spending their time and resources focused on really stupid things as a way not to have to talk about real life.
Hahahaha. No.. no it's not. Perceptions about public health are high priority issues. Public health itself is not, unless it risks affecting the upper class.
Nicotine is an extremely complex molecule which has been proven to have positive effects in the treatment of autism, as well as mild cognitive impairment, such as Alzheimer disease. Blanket statements like this are harmful to the general nature of science and show a disregard for empirical evidence.
Nicotine can be utilized for positive measures at therapeutic levels and was in Phase III clinical trials with the FDA for such uses before the backing pharmaceutical firm ran out of money. I recommend you do some research on Nicotine as a compound and interactions with nicotinic receptors in the body, the pharmacology is actually fascinating.
It's not like people are going to be less horny if we make raping illegal!
This seems to me the same kind of thing as Facebook and Google supporting privacy regulations.
Not that regulation is inherently bad, but this kind of thing seems to be a theme lately. Well, I say lately, but reading up some history, this kind of thing does tend to happen. This is, of course, still not enough of an argument against regulation, but it does tend to temper any optimism I have about regulations that I would be in favor of.
I'm not sure who. I don't think it's big tobacco. They need vaping to addict the next generation. Maybe vaping spend is taking away from another vice.
it's about regulating the vaping industry so that entry /certification costs are so high that only incumbents can afford to certify their products and therefore capture market share from the small/independent players
this will be done by:
1) a draconian 'ban everything' scare-tactic that everyone knows is ridiculous (where we are now)
2) followed up by the 'reasonable compromise measure' (coming soon to a media spectacle near you)
Pushing for transparency, research and more data so adults can make better informed decisions about what to do with their own bodies is the answer. Treating adults like children who aren't mature enough to make their own decisions is not.
Restrictions on advertising, access, and efforts to increase the cost etc. have been quite effective there.
If you don’t care about yourself, you can’t be trusted to care about anything.
I don't smoke or vape. But it's a glaring double standard. McDonalds can market to kids, lure them with toys, and people who are 300+ lbs are allowed to eat whatever they want, as much as they want.
Why is it legal for parents to feed a 12 year old Cheetos and Pepsi? It's just as damaging health wise. In my city's public school there are teenagers who have gout. Yet nobody cares.
You don't have to intake nicotine, at all.
Neither is nicotine, necessarily. Neither is smoking if it isn’t done long term and on a regular basis. But of course people who eat Big Macs tend to do it more than occasionally.
People don’t have to intake sugar. They don’t have to intake meat either.
You think I’m being facetious, but I’m dead serious. I’ve lost one family member to obesity and another suffers from type 2 diabetes.
I agree with the parent, banning nicotine outright because of its perceived risk/benefit ratio while still allowing Coca Cola to advertise and sell bottled diabetes and tooth decay is a blatant double standard, and the fact that drinking water is essential for survival doesn't change that.
Not that I'm in favor of banning (so called) unhealthy life choices, I think that every adult individual should be given enough information to be able to decide themselves whether the rewards outweighs the risks in each case. I see no reason why drug dealers of any kind should be allowed to run ad campaigns though, so I'm fine with banning that.
Many people use these things because their concept of well being differs from yours, and not every in an individualistic way (like antivaxx). There are a number of benefits to nicotine and if it can be taken safely then all the better.
I used to rent an apartment that had a shared ventilation system. It was a no-smoking building. My neighbors decided to ignore this. The smell would get so bad it would make your head spin. The building management did nothing, because it was hard to prove which neighbor was the culprit. I ultimately had to break the lease & move out.
I don't care if you drink yourself under the table, snort meth on the regular, or whatever other self-destructive habit you choose for yourself. It's your right to be an idiot. But your rights stop the moment they infringe on my right to not part take in your self-destructive habits.
No, we don't need smoking rooms. No, it's not sufficient to ban smoking in public places. None of that has prevented me from coming in contact with nicotine or weed. Just ban it outright. It's really that simple.
Nicotine patches, weed cookies, etc. on the other hand? Those are fine. Go nuts. As long as you leave me out of it.
So long to baking cookies.