You've applied an argument I didn't make to what I said.
If these are medical devices used to ween off cigarettes, they don't need to be flavored. The alternative is cigarettes. People aren't grabbing the next cigarette because they love the strawberry daiquiri flavor. The fact that they are basically all flavored is proof that anti-addiction is not their primary purpose.
I didn't say they shouldn't be flavored. I said the flavors are proof of what they are.
Harm reduction should be at the core of any policies around smoking and vaping
What if the outcome of that analysis is that the people being brought off cigarettes are not being outweighed by the people being brought into vaping? That vapes should be prescription medical devices for people who need them and not OTC feelgood drugs? Would you still make the same argument that harm reduction is foremost? I have a feeling you won't.
There's a perfectly coherent argument that tobacco trends were heading towards extinction until vaping reignited things. All the trends were heading that way. It was largely dying out as a habit among young people. Vaping completely changed that. It's now a growing sector that has the potential to last for a long time and damage a lot of people. And we are still only in the early days of seeing how harmful it is -- but just like with cigarettes, there's a huge apparatus pushing out an information campaign that they're Good Actually and Not Unsafe At All (TM).
I don't think you and I really disagree on any particular policy prescriptions here. I bet we want the same things, and want the same level of honesty brought to the debate. I just think we need to be very clear that the "vapes as useful medical devices" argument does not justify the "vapes being sold abso-fucking-lutely everywhere" result we're currently getting. They are not popular because they are medical devices. Their usefulness as medical devices isn't a significant part of the business model.
If this is a medical device for ending addiction, do we really need to have fruit/candy flavors lining the shelf in colorful bottles with cartoon mascots?
People weren't smoking fruit/candy cigarettes. Those were banned and nowadays only barely exist. No reason to have vape flavors beyond cigarette flavors, if they are a medical tool.
Just looking at vape products on a store shelf is proof that the producers do NOT think about their product as a medical device. That entire argument, that it is primarily a tool for breaking a smoking habit, should be categorically dismissed. If it were a BTC or prescription-only product for breaking a smoking habit, no reasonable person would have negative opinions about it.
The reality is, vaping's primary purpose is as a drug. An addictive drug that makes the user feel good to use and has certain provable short- and long-term side-effects.
I think people should be able to buy and use drugs. But only with informed consent. So long as the information is so poor around vaping, the consent isn't informed and we need regulations. And if this is a drug, it should be getting sold in an appropriate dispensary by trained, knowledgeable staff and not from corner stores, bodegas, and sketchy website that don't even properly screen out teen buyers.
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.
What even would meet your standards here? Only an ad that started "Hey, kids!"?
Juul was buying ads on Cartoon Network/Seventeen/Nickelodeon and youth education sites. They got sued for it. They then fired the ad firm that developed an adult-oriented campaign for them in favor of the vaporized campaign which I definitely see plainly targets teens -- and the courts agreed, since they paid over $400 mil in fines because of it.
Companies do what they can to maintain plausible deniability. But it's also an absolute fact that the fruit/candy-flavored vapes are vastly more popular among youths. The FDA has entire teams dedicated to "advising" producers on how not to market these things to kids based on expert advice.
Your position here is one where you default to giving the producers of harmful, addictive products the benefit of the doubt. When I see Puff Bar being ranked among the most popular vape brands for teens, my assumption is that there is actual malice leading to that position.
And to be clear, the youth vaping market did not exist until the era of Juul reinvented it through advertising. These were not particularly new products, just new ways of selling them. Smoking was solidly on the decline among teens. It was new sales strategies that reversed that trend.
Banning candy and such flavors was provably effective at reducing youth smoking rates in many studies, even knowing that other flavored tobacco/nicotine products were still available to absorb some of that demand. There's no reason to think vaping would be different.
The law they respond to was one that was intended to simply get website to stop using tracking cookies. Just don't do it unless absolutely necessary. It's just uncalled for bad practice.
But it is so vanishingly rare for ANY company/site to be well-behaved that now, the modals are ubiquitous. So common that people desensitize to them. It's just Ferengi trying to scam you every way you look.
There's really little question it was intentional sabotage. Most sensible theories show Russia had means and opportunity. Including a well-equipped vessel detected near the pipelines shortly before the explosions. The motive is a bit strange, though, since it seems like Russia really wanted to be selling that oil... But it's also not hard to believe that Russia would do stupid, self-harmful things that make no sense, given the whole war in Ukraine is such a thing. Especially when there's a compelling chain of events that connect to Putin.
The Russians claim it was the US (or occasionally the UK), but they do so essentially without evidence. At least at the time of the attacks, the talk was that it would hurt NATO allies FAR more than it would hurt Russia, so it is a bit absurd. Also, when it comes to Russia, false flags are the playbook and accusations smell like confession.
There's also theories that it was a Ukrainian sapper mission. There's some evidence for establishing an opportunity, and the 'motive' of 'fuck Russia' is hardly insane. But those theories have never convincingly established means (the vessel accused was simply not capable of doing the thing and no other vessels were ever identified) and it would still not be in Ukraine's interest to hurt European allies / NATO members given their intense need to maintain that relationship. It's a bit far fetched, in my opinion. But maybe there's a logic to "this pipeline is creating an unnecessary relationship and severing it will further isolate Putin." I dunno, if the Ukrainians had wetworks logistics like that I feel like we'd see a lot more shit going wrong deep in Russia right now.
The reality is, we may never know what really happened with those bombings. It's hard to establish fact at the bottom of the sea and all investigations are almost necessary state-led ones, meaning it's easy to dismiss the evidence you don't like and stick with only the evidence that supports you. Which creates an environment full of conspiratorial speculation. And the Russians have a very effective disinformation network that captivates both the extreme left and extreme right that enjoys the chaos and uncertainty.
So your claim is that the defense projects the US funds in Israel exclusively for their conflict with Hamas and nothing else? That we should somehow de-fund that particular conflict while paying for its defense versus more globally-threatening adversaries like Iran? And somehow that will work?
Or maybe that Israel is a worthless ally to the US in the region so we shouldn't care if they get wiped off the map?
Or is the claim that Israel doesn't need the US's aid, it will be just fine without it and breaking off that defense relationship will have no negative impacts on the US?
Any way you cut it, your sentiment of 'countries should pay for only their own defense' doesn't make sense. Those defensive packages are an investment that is seen as having returns. They are intended to promote security and prosperity both for the one receiving AND the one sending. It's reasonable to debate on whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but you were rejecting the very premise that you should squeeze if you want juice.
Man, what kind of universe am I in where a Wolf 359-truther is getting favorites.