These products are targeted towards high school teens and middle schoolers, carry a number of serious health risks, and anyone involved in making them can rot in hell.

▲

dyauspitr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The only realistic risk so far is addiction and a nicotine addiction doesn’t ruin lives. Other than that it’s marginally bad for the heart and so far atleast not carcinogenic.

	▲	dev_hugepages 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nicotine itself is carcinogenic in the mouth: > Nicotine in tobacco can form carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines through a nitrosation reaction. This occurs mostly in the curing and processing of tobacco. However, nicotine in the mouth and stomach can react to form N-nitrosonornicotine, a known type 1 carcinogen, suggesting that consumption of non-tobacco forms of nicotine may still play a role in carcinogenesis

▲

jiggawatts 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They’re better than cigarettes, so they’re the lesser evil.

	▲	internetter 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You cannot say "better" in this context without an almost endless degree of quantification that could fill textbooks. By what metric? Public health? Cost effectiveness? Environmental impact? How do we measure these things? I assume you're arguing a health perspective (which, at this point all we can say is probably better), but in the context of TFA "better" is more likely to be interpreted in an environmental context, of which I haven't really been convinced either way.
	▲	FridayoLeary 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I would argue that in the context of ops complaint they are worse.