180
The science is clear. So why canβt governments agree on vaping?
(www.politico.eu)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
180 points (91.3% liked)
politics
19072 readers
1881 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 siteβs, 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. Itβs OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). Itβs 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
β’ Register To Vote
β’ Citizenship Resource Center
β’ Congressional Awards Program
β’ Federal Government Agencies
β’ Library of Congress Legislative Resources
β’ The White House
β’ U.S. House of Representatives
β’ U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
β’ News
β’ World News
β’ Business News
β’ Ask Politics
β’ Military News
β’ Global Politics
β’ UK Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"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.
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.
indeed man.
half the people here π we get it you dont smoke. that means this aint your place to discuss something you are ignorant about
That is patently false, and even if nicotine were healthy, it should be someone's choice to inhale it, not forced on them by others with low self-control and no sense of courtesy.
https://www.healthline.com/health/second-hand-vape#:~:text=There's%20evidence%20that%20nonsmokers%20exposed,the%20risk%20of%20cardiovascular%20disease.
Which bit is false?
From the first link:
In a scientific context "significantly less" essentially means "we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine"
As such, it doesn't mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it'd still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.
Whereas this:
Would mean exactly what the person you're replying to has said it means, assuming it's true, aka. It's patently false to say it's safer for non-smokers to be around.
There are numbers to back it up, in the study I linked. Is 10 times less not significant?
The primary harm from cigarettes doesn't come from the nicotine, it comes from all the other toxic chemicals released by combustion, which aren't present in the aerosol exhaled from a vape.
Nobody is claiming it to be 100% safe (what is?), but it's not even in the same ballpark of harm as smoking is.
I'm personally all for banning smoking in public places (besides designated areas and specialty clubs). I agree that exposing people to secondhand smoke is rude at best and a health risk for them at worst. But I do think that especially in the comfort of your own home, you can do what you want (with the caveat that if vaping has similar odor issues as smoking, I see it entirely reasonable that renters can be required to smoke outside).