'Don't vape. Don't use Juul': Juul CEO issues stark warning to non-smokers
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
Also, they design their products to be usable while hidden within your palm. Some adults might like this but this is clearly intended for teenagers to be able to get access to nicotine discreetly while still in school.
It isn't shown as "cool" in movies like it used to be, so adults who are "set in their ways" are lacking most of the remaining peer pressure tactics that typically works for adults.
Wait for vape scenes in the movies. You can be reasonably sure there's a lobby group working towards it. How about a "FBE Teens try different healthful Vape Flavours"?
https://theinfosphere.org/Transcript:The_Problem_with_Popple...
Bender: Hear me, hear me! Stop eating Popplers! Stop eating them with honey mustard sauce. Stop eating them with tangy sweet-and-sour sauce. Stop eating the new fiesta Poppler salad. Stop taking advantage of the money-saving 12-pack.
A chinese company cannot do business in the USA, they need to register locally at which point they become an American company, technically, to be held accountable under US law.
The concern of nationhood or nationality might be a matter of degree, as well as the details and beaurocratic workarounds, however of fleeting interest because a potentially worse morallity of the Chinese is not indicated. If you note that leaving profits up for grabs to a competing economy, whether the profit was ethicallly dignified or not ... then the moral of the story still sucks?
If you hold equivalently that making profit and not smoking were imperative, then we could have an argument that applies to competition in general. The argument is interesting, if it implies, that non-smoking were a profit, and that profiting from idiots were imperative. Then we could have an argument about obsession and compulsion, that is, addiction and dependence.
Reading the article further it’s clear to me that they just want to avoid criticism by positioning themselves as a tool to quit smoking. They know that some people are going to buy them no matter what they say - and this just keeps parents off their backs and their products on retailers shelves.
But I'm not here expecting that to happen...
Instead I think we should just know that what they are saying and why they are saying it is 100% a cyncial play to make more money at the cost of the environment and people's health, and regulate them as such.
2. juul is bringing millions of new people to tobacco products, not just providing a way for smokers to ease off cigarettes.
this claim is not uncontroversial. they don't cause physical dependence in the way we think of with drugs (ie, no physical withdrawal syndrome), but eating junk food can be an exceptionally difficult habit to break. humans can become addicted to almost anything that gives a moderate to strong immediate reward.
I don't disagree with your broader point though. as long as you are focused on preventing new users rather than making the lives of existing users needlessly difficult, you'll get no argument from me.
2. If Juul offered nicotine from non tobacco sources, would that change things? Calling nicotine tobacco still doesn't make vaping anywhere close to being as deadly as cigarettes.
[1] Lennerz, B., & Lennerz, J. K. (2018). Food addiction, high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, and obesity. Clinical chemistry, 64(1), 64-71.
2. everybody in this thread is conflating nicotine and tobacco, but the difference is moot. the point is health risks and addiction. Whatever is in your vape is an unquantified health risk, and is definitely addictive. We won't know if vape chemicals and usage patterns cause more or less damage than cigarettes until people have been huffing them at scale for 20-30 years at least.
Even if they do cause less damage than cigarettes, how much less is ok? half? a tenth? a one-hundreth?
You ask how much less damage is ok. Half would be great! But it is likely to be more than that. The sun causes more cancer than Juul, that is worth keeping in mind. It's a free country.
[2] Olekalns, N., & Bardsley, P. (1996). Rational addiction to caffeine: An analysis of coffee consumption. Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 1100-1104.
Addictive alone is not necessarily a problem, but it does mean there is the potential for companies to exploit that addiction to make money while causing great harm along the way.
> It's a free country.
A "free country" and regulated capitalism are not mutually exclusive. It's a free country and you need a license to drive a car. It's a free country and you can't sell someone baking soda disguised as flour. Regulations, done right, have the potential to make us all safer, and protect us from exploitation by capitalist interests. For example, stealing is very profitable... but we made it illegal in order to discourage corporations from forming around theft as a business model.
All that said, to be perfectly honest, my actual biggest beef with juul is the stupid disposable plastic pods. Everything else is... well, capitalism exploiting addiction for profit... at the cost of people's health. Which as you point out, is not exclusive to juul.
Cigarettes have few positive side effects and heavily contributes to the #1 preventable disease in the US: cardiovascular disease. AFAIK there are no outright bans on nicotine or tobacco products. However, the places you may consume them in public are shrinking (and often the same restrictions are placed on marijuana). Also the kind of products that are attractive to kids are being targeted (again, AFAIK companies are not allowed to market marijuana - or alcohol - to children).
It seems to me that tobacco used to be much more prevalent but is being re-categorized from "acceptable everywhere" into the same group as alcohol. And marijuana is being re-categorized from Schedule 1 to the same category as alcohol.
We do demonize alcohol makers and sellers -- Scotland has introduced Minimum Unit Pricing; there's a push to get that introduced in England (unlikely with a current PM who doesn't believe in regulation for anything) and alcohol is taxed and has controls on who can buy it and who can sell it.
Artificial sweeteners are not harmful.
Red meat is no where near as harmful as either tobacco or alcohol.
> I’m sure everyone has some bad habits that will lead to a premature death.
Tobacco kills huge numbers of people in a variety of ways. The number one public health issue at the moment is getting people to smoke less and then to stop smoking.
I'd also prefer that arms dealers shut down, that whatever Philip Morris calls itself these days shut down, that food manufacturers stop using high-fructose corn syrup, etc, etc.
edit: I do understand that some people are concerned about juul's alleged marketing to minors. if that's really what you're upset about, why not narrow your focus? I don't think many vape consumers would object to having vape advertisements strictly limited or banned.
I've got a few friends that went this way and it's a bit... odd.
in a way, it kinda reminds me of the pc overclocking community.
The moral thing to do is not to sell the thing you openly admit is bad for the people you sell it to, even if you end up losing a profit making machine. That is oddly often the case that morality doesn’t quite align with profits. But let’s not pretend like you are option-less to do anything but maximize profits.
I can be mad at the system that motives you, and also think you're a dick for valuing money over doing something that is a net benefit to the world.
I can also seek to control your ability to do damage using laws and public discourse.
Whether that is true in reality is dubious, but I'm not surprised their CEO would come out publicly and say something like that.
Lots of good points here, but when I first read what the CEO said, it struck me as pretty much the opposite of what I expected him to be saying.