this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
176 points (89.3% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4627 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (12 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which bit is false?

From the first link:

The key finding of this study is that e-cigarettes emit significant amounts of nicotine but do not emit significant amounts of CO and VOCs. We also found that the level of secondhand exposure to nicotine depends on the e-cigarette brand. However, the emissions of nicotine from e-cigarettes were significantly lower than those of tobacco cigarettes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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:

There’s evidence that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand vape aerosol absorb similar levels of nicotine as people exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke.

Along with nicotine, nonvapers are also exposed to ultrafine particles from secondhand vape aerosol, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)