483
Philip Morris lobbying to stop WHO ‘attack’ on vapes and similar products
(www.theguardian.com)
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 13 Oct 2023
483 points (98.4% liked)
World News
37368 readers
1632 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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!
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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
you're very wrong. Prohibition ONLY means lower quality, more dangerous products on the streets and it's another excuse to criminalize poverty/mental illness.
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.
Maybe both should have restrictions?
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.
Yeah I was about to say, I quit smoking like 10 years ago. Then due to stressful situations and poor decisions making skills, I began vaping (I want to quit, fuck past me). I 100% know for a fact my lungs are way worse than before. Not as bad as when I was smoking a pack and a half a day, but I play guitar and sing often. It's noticable.
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.
Do you think inhaling anything besides air on a regular basis could possibly be good for your lungs?
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.
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.
Where did I say vapes are good for you? Still don't see any links to any studies. They're better than cigarettes, period.