Fuuuuck Philip Morris. Tax them heavily and use the proceeds to pay their customers’ medical expenses
If I could just push a button and make all non medical use tobacco become impossible to grow, I would push that button a million times just to be sure. I hope everyone working for Philip Morris gets lung cancer.
That should just be an accepted cost to enter the industry.
Double standards everywhere, Alcohol should get kicked too.
Frankly, we need fewer prohibitions on substances, not more. I drink responsibly and like it. We also know you can’t ban alcohol without a black market, so why even feign that it could be done?
We need better enforcement to prevent people acting like idiots when they drink. I don’t have ideas to offer on how, as I haven’t pondered it at length, but that’s the best path in my mind.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a message sent by the PMI’s senior vice-president of external affairs last month and seen by the Guardian, staff were told to find “any connection, any lead, whether political or technical” before a meeting of delegates from 182 countries.
The email sent on 22 September by Grégoire Verdeaux, the senior vice-president of external affairs at PMI, said: “The agenda and meeting documents have been made public for the main part.
Unfortunately they reconfirmed every concern we had that this conference may remain as the biggest missed opportunity ever in tobacco control’s history … WHO’s agenda is nothing short of a systematic, methodical, prohibitionist attack on smoke-free products.”
Without “reasonable, constructive outcomes” , Verdeaux wrote, the “WHO will have irreversibly compromised the historic opportunity for public health presented by the recognition that smoke-free products, appropriately regulated, can accelerate the decline of smoking rates faster than tobacco control combined”.
Tobacco companies are not invited to the event and Verdeaux said despite this he would be in Panama “to publicly denounce the absurdity of being excluded from it while PMI today” was “undoubtedly the most helpful private partner WHO could have in the fight against smoking”.
Asked about the leaked email, Verdeaux said in a statement: “What I say publicly and what I say to our employees is exactly the same: I am proud to make the case to governments and media that innovation drives down smoking rates faster and for that reason should be supported and regulated.
The original article contains 880 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Forgot how Pro-drug the fediverse is as well; vapes should be regulated as heavily as cigarettes and other tobacco products. Just because it’s less harmful doesn’t mean it’s not harmful.
The laws around vapes are nonsense and pseudoscience. That’s what really pisses people off.
Flat prohibitions aren’t saving any lives or ending any health crisis. Meanwhile cigarettes are widely available with a dozen flavors.
Well they are bad for you so it’s not exactly pseudo science, and the problem is that kids are using them.
Vapes come in candy flavour which is ridiculous, not because it exists, but because is sold to children.
At the very least I think we should say that you have to be at least what 18 to buy them. I don’t think that’s too bad.
How exactly are they bad for you? Where’s the studies? You gotta be 21 to buy them, at least in the US. I quit smoking and use vapes exclusively and I can tell a huge difference in how I feel and breathe
I’ve been vaping for 10 years and you’re kidding me with this right? Of course it’s not good for you.
Just because it isn’t good for you doesn’t mean it is bad for you
In this case yes, it absolute does. But justify it however you need.
There’s multiple completed ten-year studies on vaporizer use available with pretty high N. More frequent sickness and lung injury are shown to raise demonstrably over a five to ten year use period. It’s less pronounced than cigarette smoking, but it is an unhealthy choice.
So you’re breathing slightly less toxic gas and therefore clearly it’s great and good for you.
Absolutely zero logic.
I’m not going to try and find the studies for you because I’m on a phone right now, you can go Google it if you’re actually interested, not that you will, but be assured the studies are out there otherwise they wouldn’t be talking about regulation.
you can go Google it if you’re actually interested
Fuck that, you made a claim and the onus on you is to back it up.
Ah the classic except it isn’t on me because my claim isn’t extraordinary, your claim is your claim is that in taking toxic gases is not bad for you that’s the extraordinary claim the onus is on you to back it.
Quote me where I made that claim, much less any claim at all, go ahead.
The only comment I have in this entire thread is calling you out about your “you google it” bs.
Do you think inhaling anything besides air on a regular basis could possibly be good for your lungs?
Maybe both should have restrictions?
The laws around vapes are nonsense and pseudoscience.
Recognising that there are health issues, without fully understanding them yet due to there having not been enough time to form complete and solid conclusions, doesn’t make it pseudoscience. It means we should be cautious and continue to study, and certainly not widely adopt their use in the mean time assuming everything will be fine. Especially as it directly interacts with such a sensitive part of our inner bodies, and especially as the largest group taking up their use are teenagers.
Flat prohibitions aren’t saving any lives or ending any health crisis. Meanwhile cigarettes are widely available with a dozen flavors.
I disagree, to blanket suggest prohibitions don’t save lives is not based in fact. Even the misguided alcohol prohibition over in the USA saved lives, reducing the number of deaths that would have otherwise been caused by intoxication (dangerous driving being an obvious example, domestic abuse, etc).
And take this example from literally only yesterday, where a child almost died due to electronic cigarettes and the complications therein (often when people discuss the danger of X and Y, they assume a completely healthy person to begin with, and ignore that a large percentage of the population has at least one illness or environmental factor that it can complicate).
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67081855
Also, yes cigarettes are available, but their use in public is heavily restricted, and they aren’t attractive to young people any more thanks to decades of hard work in education. Electronic cigarettes however are targeted directly at teenagers in a very predatory way, suggested to be safe and clean, and thus we have these new issues.
In the end, I suspect electronic cigarettes are less dangerous than breathing in smoke from tobacco, which is insanely dangerous, but that will not make them safe, either, and the cumulative effects of electronic cigarette use over decades simply isn’t fully known yet.
We’re working on it, and where our health is concerned, especially that of our impressionable youth, an abundance of caution is always the best course of action.
Thank you for taking the time to develop a well thought response. I learned some things and it got me thinking in a new way!
I was under the impression that prohibition of alcohol did not reduce any harm, because people flocked to speakeasys, and the quality of the homemade alcohol was not good. A good chunk of the alcohol beverages people drank during prohibition would give them poisoning of some kind.
People didn’t stop drinking, they just started drinking homemade alcohol made with industrial alcohol. The US government also made sure that the only kind of alcohol people could aquire to make drinks was not good for human consumption.
Your comment is the first time I’ve ever heard anybody say anything good about prohibition. Maybe it saved a few people, like you said, but overall alcohol related deaths probably stayed around the same, or even went up thanks to all the poisoning. It’s hard to tell, because the US didn’t keep track of these numbers at the time.
I’m more worried about the shit in the air around me than what is in my vape juice. At least I know what’s in that
Yawn. Prohibition is not about protecting youths, its about protecting income. Your conclusions regarding the supposed benefits of prohibition are largely opinion, a generally refuted by historians. Flat bans produce unregulated markets, which lead to excess death and injury.
Shouldn’t that be an argument to regulate it less, not “as heavily”?
Many mundane things are less harmful than cigarettes and shouldn’t be regulated as heavily.
Edit: typo
yup zero logic in his comment, still has 30 upvotes right now.
I mean what I said reflects reality, is that so troubling for you?
Vaping should be limited to 18+ consumers just like “standard” nicotine products. But we shouldn’t pretend, like the WHO and other organizations do, that Vaping hasn’t been used by many (myself included) to effectively quit nicotine. Personally I kicked a 2 pack a day habit because of vaping and today I use no nicotine products (including vaping) because of it.
Vapes are even worse than cigarettes, for real.
It’s different from cigarettes. You don’t get all the tar and stuff, but many people get even more nicotine, which is bad for your heart and addictive. I would say it’s likely better, but it’s different.
(There’s also non-nicotine vape products which often aren’t regulated so can cause all kinds of issues.)
Nicotine isn’t bad for your heart. In fact, it can be beneficial.
If you’re going to make a claim like that, at least back it up with something, and no you’re almost certainly wrong.
I wouldn’t trust that meta analysis. It specifically states in the methodology that studies that mentioned smoking or cigarettes were excluded, but several studies that I spot checked were about smoking and cigarettes.
Easily the best answer i’ve gotten on this thread.
deleted by creator
I don’t see where they’re arguing that vaping is worse, that’s a strawman, they’re arguing that both are bad.
This is incorrect and an easy to debunk claim… the tar in cigarettes is extremely harmful and vaping removes that element. However, vaping is still bad for you and it is still just as addictive.
I found it much easier to quit vaping, compared to cigarettes. There are nicotine free liquids, so you can slowly wean off.
This is my experience, having quit my 10 year cigarette addiction via vaping (after dozens of failed attempts to quit), then accidentally re-addicting myself 5 years later (via vaping) — then quitting again after another year.
Vaping is arguably more addictive due to the nicotine salts, taste, and ease of use, but it’s also far easier to quit — plus my health improved dramatically when I switched to vaping.
When I first quit with vaping, I just gradually reduced the nicotine level down to zero, then continued vaping no-nic for months until I stopped completely; the key part is sticking to the no-nic no matter what (at parties or whenever drinking). Decoupling the habit from the addiction means you don’t have to stop both at once. The second time around it only took a single attempt, except I went straight to no-nic.
Yes, I think decoupling is worth a lot!
Also true what you say about more addictive due to reasons.
Overall very informative comment, thanks!
Do you keep your vape device stored somewhere over the years in case of a relapse? Or do you get a new one when needed? I see arguments for both sides.
That’s what I didm smoked cigs for 10 years tried quitting many times I bought a vape with blue raz juice all the way for the top to 0nic and every two weeks I would lower my nicotine levels after a few months I was on 0 and tossed it. Nicotine free for 6 years. Thank you vaping for helping me quit nicotine
Well done! Stay strong 🤜🤛
110% false. Vaping is far safer
Now can someone give a probability for the success of that?
It’s an international organism, with scientific input from almost every nation of the world.
Tell me more about this organism.
Wikipedia is your friend for a quick overlook. Next stop would be their own site.
I think he was taking the piss out of your use of “organism” instead of “organization”.
Couldn’t care less.
Cool, thanks for letting me know
Really, it’s fine. Of by small means it contributed towards the persons happiness, great. Doesn’t diminishes me in any way.
^ This is what happens when someone’s only social interaction is their parents.
There seem to be a few people who have unfortunately believed the anti-vaping propaganda.
If you think that vapes are more harmful than smoking in any way, this is for you. I’ve been following the actual science on this for almost 15 years and have peer reviewed the studies.
Every single study in the US that produced negative results either had methodologies designed to only produce negative results, or the negative results were orders of magnitude lower than OSHA levels, or even lower than atmospheric levels.
The only things the anti-vaping campaigns can rely on is bad science and purposefully misrepresenting study results. Well, that and the “think of the children” bullshit.
There’s also a belief that nicotine is highly addictive and very harmful. This is incorrect. Nicotine on its own is actually less physically addictive than caffeine (shorter withdrawal period), and actually has heath benefits.
Now, to the “think of the children” bullshit. For one, children can’t legally purchase nicotine in most countries. If you want to say the flavors attract children, then we need to ban any sort of flavored alcohol. Also, children can buy as many energy drinks as they want, which are actually harmful to them.
The real reason that vaping is being demonized is because the state governments are losing tobacco tax revenue faster than they planned, and they’ve already budgeted the money they expected to get. But, instead of imposing a reasonable tax to fill the gap, they tried to make a 30ml bottle of eliquid (normally ~$10-20) cost upwards of $100.
Don’t bother asking for sources, because I won’t Google for you. I am educated on the topic, and this isn’t a formal debate.
I will answer any questions you may have, though.
There’s also a belief that nicotine is highly addictive and very harmful. This is incorrect. Nicotine on its own is actually less physically addictive than caffeine (shorter withdrawal period), and actually has heath benefits.
Bullshit. Quitting caffeine (multiple caffeinated drinks a day) was far, far easier than quitting cigarettes (a pack and a half a day).
Re-read the paragraph you just quoted. I clearly specified that the statement was about nicotine only, not cigarettes.
Cigarette smoke contains over 9000 chemicals besides nicotine, some of which are added specifically to increase the addictive properties.
I also said physically addictive, not mentally addictive.
Don’t strawman the argument to “vapes are worse than smoking” - vaping is actually dramatically less harmful than smoking. If you have a nicotine addiction it’s quite beneficial to switch to vaping.
BUT both of them are quite harmful to you and vapes were popularized with candy-like flavors that attracted young adults in droves… and continuously use deceptive marketing to play down health effects. Tobacco is a product you shouldn’t use every day in any form, full stop.
That’s disingenuous. Vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking. To say that the level of harm is anywhere close is a straight up lie.
It’s also not a tobacco product. You wouldn’t call green tea a coffee product because coffee has caffeine in it. There are absolutely companies extracting nicotine from other sources or synthesizing it.
95% less harmful than pretty much the worst habit you can have for your long-term health is still pretty damn harmful, even granting the ass-pull number. And worse, most vape users go around preaching how harmless it is when it is factually and provably harmful, meaning tons of users (especially among teens/youths) aren’t even AWARE the addictive substance they are using is going to damage their long-term health.
Yeah we need to find a way to get current smokers onto vapes if they can’t quit, but prevent any new people from gaining nicotine addictions.
In terms of harm reduction they are wonderful! But they are more harmful than not inhaling any smoke or vapour.
I interviewed with them once, and they swore up and down that they were cleaning up and divesting of all the harmful stuff, and wanted me to trust they were all about health and a smoke-free future.
Thankfully they were so staggeringly full of bullshit during the interviews that I quickly realized it’d be an absolutely horrifically toxic (groan, yes, sorry) place to work irrespective of my other doubts, and I ended up telling them I didn’t want to continue the process and that I was so unhappy with the assorted bullshit during the process that I didn’t want to ever be approached by them again.
That’s the very long way of saying I’m not the slightest bit surprised it turns out they are in fact still massive asshats, and I’m very happy I caught on early enough.
That’s metal!
New life who dis?
