Re:Why Design Thinking Works
by my_username_is_ on Sunday December 16, 2018 @09:33PM
(#18696536)
The differences in addictivity between alcohol and nicotine seem like a pretty significant difference
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Design Thinking Works
by Scoundreller on Sunday December 16, 2018 @10:04PM
(#18696645)
Except alcohol is directly harmful, nicotine is barely harmful.
And nobody has ever died from nicotine withdrawal. Or smashed their car after inhaling nicotine.
Re:Why Design Thinking Works
by TheOtherHobbes on Monday December 17, 2018 @01:26AM
(#18697260)
Literally tens of millions of people have died because of nicotine addiction, so your comment is so frankly ridiculous it doesn't even deserve a more considered response.
That's not entirely fair because there's a distinction between nicotine and smoking.
The method of delivery killed those nicotine addicts. None of those nicotine addicts died as a direct result of what nicotine does to the body. Combusting tobacco and inhaling the smoke is what killed them (ignoring chewing or snorting).
If I used a patch, I can continue my nicotine addiction without fear of lung disease. I can't do the same with smoking.
There's no method of delivering a habitual psychoactive dose of alcohol that doesn't cause harm.
But all said and done, I'm not sure vaping nicotine, with all those flavours, has been proven safe. There's a lot of talk about popcorn lung.
I read their comment as making a distinction between nicotine intake of arbitrary delivery system vs smoke inhalation of a tobacco + MAOI panoply ('cigarettes'). I can envision a world where nicotine addicts don't have to hurt themselves nearly as much to get their fix. I say that with the disclaimer that I don't think that makes it good, per se - just pragmatically a lot better.