this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
151 points (89.9% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4976 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
[–] raunz@mander.xyz 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't quite understand how the science is clear if "there is still no data on the long-term effects of e-cigarettes".

[–] draagon@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We dont have long term data because e-cigarettes haven't been used for a long time. They got popular ten years back?

[–] itsJoelle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Also, as a vaper who switch from cigs because I was desperate for an alternative, I'm also curious about the different strata of products that exist on the market. For example, I visit a juice shop that mixes their products on site with pure materials, and I get to customize what exactly appears within my harmful juices. I build and maintain my parts as well. How does this approach compare to 'over the connivence store counter' kits like Juul?

It wouldn't surprise me if those products contain preservatives, or byproducts of a corporation skirting regulatory lines, that could be hazardous for consumer health. Though, that is purely my speculation — yet I wonder if my choice method of getting my sweet, sweet nicotine will get lumped in with everything else.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the science isn't clear yet. It's still emerging

You would think 10 years would be enough time to see a groups increased risk to associated illnesses. If I made a study group and made them smoke daily for 10 years there would definitely be poorer health. The science is pretty clear, but the WHO doesn't want to admit that vapes are net neutral, whereas tobacco is bad, so obviously that would make vapes "healthy" in comparison.

Nicotine in the body acts much like caffeine, it increases your blood pressure, giving the effect of a "calmer" feeling, and headaches when in withdrawal. No one is lobbying against coffee/caffeinated drinks, even though it's understood that too much caffeine can cause health risks. That's really where we're at. Alternative methods like nicotine gum or patches have existed for a long time and while there can be dependencies formed on these, no one would dare say nicotine gum is as dangerous as smoking cigarettes. The associated cancer risks from tobacco come from the carcinogens that are created when burning tobacco, not from the nicotine itself

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anything other than air going in to your lungs is bad. Vaping puts stuff that isn't air into your lungs. The science is clear on that.

Just how much damage it's doing isn't really clear because they're only becoming really popular now, but it is doing damage.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cool. The science is in, when are we banning coffee?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m be fine with them banning coffee so that’s not the “gotcha!” you think it is. Alcohol too btw. Alcohol especially should be banned tbh.

Coffee isn’t inhaling stuff into your lungs that isn’t air though. I’m assuming you’re saying “caffein = bad”? People aren’t filling their lungs with caffeine from coffee.

Again - science is settled here. If it’s not oxygen it’s bad if it goes into your lungs.