Hacker News Reader

Comment by ent101 | Hacker News Reader

Honest question: how much of the recent pushback could be attributed to incumbents feeling threatened by Juul et al.?

The incumbents own Juul. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/health/juul-altria-e-ciga...

Sorry! I should've at least googled before asking that question.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that any sanctions and regulations that result from this are unlikely to kill off Juul since it's pretty large already and partially owned by the incumbents and instead would make any new competition have a harder time breaking in into the market?

This seems to me the same kind of thing as Facebook and Google supporting privacy regulations.

Not that regulation is inherently bad, but this kind of thing seems to be a theme lately. Well, I say lately, but reading up some history, this kind of thing does tend to happen. This is, of course, still not enough of an argument against regulation, but it does tend to temper any optimism I have about regulations that I would be in favor of.

The incumbents, some of whom own 35% of Juul?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juul#Investors

The incumbents own Juul. Altria bought a 35% stake for $13b. It’s stock is down 30% since March when broad market is up 5+%.

It's all theater as far as I'm concerned. Nobody actually gives a shit about this.

Maybe a better question is who would benefit from Juul failing?

I'm not sure who. I don't think it's big tobacco. They need vaping to addict the next generation. Maybe vaping spend is taking away from another vice.

> Maybe a better question is who would benefit from Juul failing?

Public health?

Yes, but unless you tell us how we can profit from that, that's not an interesting answer.

We can't profit from reducing national healthcare costs for things like lung disease?

It has been proven over and over again that when you ban an addictive substance, the black market and similar-but-still-legal options will rush in to fill the void.

Pushing for transparency, research and more data so adults can make better informed decisions about what to do with their own bodies is the answer. Treating adults like children who aren't mature enough to make their own decisions is not.

The massive, decades-long decline in tobacco usage, particularly amongst young people, serves as a strong and highly relevant counterpoint.

Restrictions on advertising, access, and efforts to increase the cost etc. have been quite effective there.

Those of us who are annoyed by people vaping around us would benefit from less vaping. I won't claim to know or believe that Juul specifically failing would actually lead to less vaping, but it can't hurt.

Are you annoyed by people using juul sticks, or just the big cloud blowers using big battery mods? If someone were using a juul in the next cubical I doubt I would even notice.

The government. There is big money from cigarette taxes. Juul/vaping pays none. Juul IS big tobacco.

Basic credibility of the rule of law would certainly benefit, which indirectly benefits all of society.

this isn't about juul failing -

it's about regulating the vaping industry so that entry /certification costs are so high that only incumbents can afford to certify their products and therefore capture market share from the small/independent players

this will be done by:

1) a draconian 'ban everything' scare-tactic that everyone knows is ridiculous (where we are now)

2) followed up by the 'reasonable compromise measure' (coming soon to a media spectacle near you)

Philip Morris. IQOS is about to hit US markets

Reply on news.ycombinator.com