Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

A tainted, unregulated THC product killed people.

That is bad. That does not mean we should immediately ban all vaping devices. There should be long term studies done on devices and juices in order to determine health effects, and there should be audits on vape juice manufacturers to make sure they aren’t putting really bad stuff in them.

I don’t understand the moral panic. Marketing nicotine products to kids may be reprehensible, but marketing in general is largely reprehensible. It’s a matter of degree. Why do we decide marketing devices that have not killed people, but have just been vessels for unregulated product that have done the damage, is worse than marketing soda and sugary foods, which kill thousands, or addictive apps and social media, which damages mental health significantly, or overpriced unnecessary college educations, which cause people to go into debt for decades, or cars, which both increase debt and are a leading cause of teenage death? Most of those things are unnecessary for the majority of the population. Healthy foods, real life interactions, apprenticeships/job training programs, and public transportation are all generally better than the alternatives for the safety and financial future of young people.

The moral panic happening RE vaping is how the war on drugs started. People saw something that affected the youth and tried to smash it with a big stick rather than attack it with sophistication and respect for the free decisions of the population. It didn’t work.

If vaping is bad, let’s find out why/what specifically is bad, and let’s ban the stuff that killed the people that just died. Banning all of it is draconian. There is no good reason to drive well tested products that people enjoy out of the market, even if they aren’t 100% healthy. I don’t want to live in the Demolition Man future. Plus people who want to vape if products become very expensive and hard to get due to taxes, bans and overregulation will be tempted to buy the crap that isn’t tested that will actually kill them.




No true Scotsman ever killed people!


Non THC vapes have at the very least put people in intensive care, if not killed people.

It's far premature to try and claim the lack of any health effects from any type of vapes, they just haven't existed long enough.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/vaping-london-1.5292161


It’s also far to premature to claim any specific health effects from vaping as a whole.

The article said the teen using a nicotine based product, but that’s not enough information. We don’t where the nicotine juice he was using came from/whether he bought it off the street or from a reputable seller. We also don’t know if that was based on blood tests or self reports, although I think it’s likely the report is accurate/the issue just happens to affect THC users much more.

This spike in illness is very recent and seems to be fairly acute. Vaping has existed for a number of years without similar cases, and they all just happened to appear all at once.

It seems fairly obvious to me that it has something to do with a particular kind of juice that was recently introduced and is more common in illicit THC products. I suspect one or several shadier manufacturers started using something bad fairly recently, and that it has affected mostly THC products, but is not related to the THC itself.

The current reaction is like jumping to ban all toys because of that issue a few years back where some Chinese manufacturers were forced to recall toys with lead paint.


EDIT: looks like I missed my editing window. Apologies for the typos and grammatical issues, wrote out the above pretty quickly.


I for one find it rather interesting that all (and I mean ALL) reports of nicotine-only lung issues with symptoms similar to the THC issues are coming from teens. There was one in King County WA and it was self-reported. Another one from Delaware was also not having vaped THC... until the patient's brother found his THC carts hidden in his room.


Let us dissect a news story about this:

https://komonews.com/news/local/officials-confirm-first-case...

It's all about vaping. General vaping, no THC mentioned, except right at the end: "The Health District says people that vape or use THC products" which doesn't make a lot of sense, because edibles are THC products and I'm pretty sure you won't get any lung issues from them.

It also says: "A Pierce County man is suing the makers of vape pods and vape pens claiming the products left him wheezing". Woah.. he's probably going to sue Juul right? Wrong. https://komonews.com/news/local/pierce-co-man-files-first-la...

"Puyallup Tribal Police Officer Charles Wilcoxen claims marijuana-laced pods gave him lipoid pneumonia. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital on September 11 when the wheezing became especially severe. After tests, doctors gave him the diagnosis."

This is why we can't have nice things.


No, I think it should be banned. This is not draconian, that is a faulty argument. The ‘Vaping’ to which a ban would refer is not a human right, it is a commercial activity which is demonstrably harmful. The details and qualifications and counterfactuals and slippery slope arguments don’t matter. If you want to make your own inhaler and your own juice then be my guest. But making money off of it? That should be banned.


Should candy be banned? Demonstrably harmful commercial activity.


This is a bad faith argument.


Calling the Socratic method a bad faith argument, is itself a bad faith argument.

It's obviously an attempt to get you to clarify your position by showing if/how you differentiate a case that fits within your previously-stated criteria but we assume is actually excluded from your judgement.


I disagree. I'd say the argument of sugar versus Tobacco as the bigger killer is a close one.


Mutually beneficial exchange, e.g. Making money through selling people things they want, is the foundation of society.

If I want to give my money to someone else, in exchange for something I want and enjoy, that doesn’t hurt you - why should you care? You are not an injured party.

You don’t like it, you don’t need to buy it. But outlawing something because you don’t like it is just vicious.

All that said, I don’t vape, but I do enjoy the occasional cigar which has faced similar restrictions on flavors and sales of late.

If you have never had a nicotine buzz, you really don’t know what you are missing. Stress disappears, focus is intensely magnified. It’s great. If you’re not prone to addiction I recommend trying it sometime.

There’s a number of good articles I could list, but despite demonization, it has some fantastic upsides and without the additives isn’t nearly the Faustian bargain it’s made out to be.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix


Mutually beneficial exchange? You fail to really ask who benefits, and the answer is Juul and company. Anyway, the ‘it’s my money’ argument is untenable, society doesn’t run that way. We should never indulge any interest merely because it exists.


> We should never indulge any interest merely because it exists.

We absolutely should. Blocking someone from something they desire, from their "pursuit of happiness" is patently imoral. Prohibitions don't work because people want what they want.

> You fail to really ask who benefits

The customer benefits from getting what they want in nicotine, and the company benefits from getting what they want in money.

Benefit is entirely in personal perception.

Just because you don't believe the person is better off for getting nicotine products, doesn't mean they don't.


How about all alcohol, except for your backyard moonshine?




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: