And he is being replaced by a former Marlboro employee. I am sure the public will feel so much safer knowing that the advertising will be handled by a Big Tobacco veteran moving forward.
Edit: I agree examples cited below arguably constitute selling.
That said, if this is what parent was referring to, would likely have been better to say so since this isn't what selling implies when stated without any qualifier.
> In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.”
> Other schools across the country were offered $10,000 from the e-cigarette company for the right to talk to students in classrooms or after school.
> In Richmond, Calif. last year, Juul gave the Police Activities League $90,000 to offer the company’s vaping education program “Moving Beyond” to middle school and high school students who faced suspension for using cigarettes.
Not defending either of those, but making a distinction in meaning.
Even if it's still a very bad thing.
This claim is pretty strongly refuted by all available evidence, given that (before vaping), tobacco use among teenagers had been in a consistent decline for decades, without a corresponding consistent increase in marijuana or heroin use among teenagers.
As someone who used to work in drug policy during this exact time period and has a very strong grasp of the facts on the matter, I can assure you that your speculation is entirely without merit. Teen tobacco use decreased. It didn't pawn off those would-be tobacco users onto other drugs, as if drugs were some fully fungible entity in teenagers' minds. Teen tobacco use decreased, full-stop.
$10k per room of kids is probably a low cost of customer acquisition for a potential lifetime addiction.
On the one hand, you have what sounds like straight up abusive targeted marketing of a drug at a vulnerable population: direct meeting with children, no teachers present (!?), "totally safe", etc. This seems reprehensible.
On the other hand, if it's an "education program" specifically targeted (and limited) to students who have already demonstrated that they have a cigarette problem, it seems like it could be a genuinely well intended part of a program to provide harm mitigation and a (apparently fairly successful) tool to help quit. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that version, even if it's still financially motivated.
On the gripping hand, vaping has unclear risks of its own that we don't fully understand yet, and even setting aside the improvement going from smoke to vapor, any nicotine product is still going to be an addiction risk.
[0] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...
But these big companies can't compete with all the Vape Shops that are insanely popular and are everywhere.
This is why there is just a big hubbub over regulation and the deaths over black market Marijuana cartridges. These massive corporations can afford to deal with things like FDA certification of flavors and such things.
Were as the small companies, that make up the bulk of the vape market, cannot. So they will get pushed out of the market and 'big tobacco' will be the only ones that are allowed to sell in the USA. They really don't care if they have bad names and are used as targets by the regulators when they are going to be the only ones allowed to sell to the public.
Governments are going along with this because tobacco is a massive tax base. They can't regulate small business and internet sales in the same manner they can regulate and tax a small number of massive corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
According to 'Lung Cancer Fact Sheet' there was a estimated 154,000 Americans that would of died to lung cancer in 2018. Tobacco smoking contributes to all types of cancer.
This is why Vaping, which should cut these lung cancer rates by over 95%, is one of the most important public health break-throughs in recent memory.
If allowed to continue to exist in the way it is now it should do more to cut down on cancer deaths then billions of dollars in medical research spent in the past 20 years.
People have found that vaping is massively more effective at helping them to quit smoking compared to patches, gum, or any other medical-grade nicotine delivery method. It's extremely cheap, it's effective, and it's safe and has none of the side effects associated with any other type of drug being sold by doctors to help people quit.
And yet you have politicians now scrambling all over each other to flush this miracle down the toilet to protect their tax revenue and help out 'Big Tobacco'.
And when you look close at the facts behind 'vaping deaths' it's pretty obvious that these are related to drug prohibition more then anything else. These are deaths that are massively contributed to by regulation. If people bought those cartridges from gas stations or vape shops they would still be alive, but they couldn't because they were illegal in their states.
I mean smoking shouldn't really cause cancer to begin with. It really depends on how much radioactive material is in ecigs, which afaik we don't know yet.
I say fill cigarette because I use fruit flavored liquids and it helped me develop an aversion to the taste of Tobacco and smoke. A few years ago I had a few drags of a cigarette at a party and it made me want to throw up.
Not saying what I do is harmless, but it's a major harm reduction for me. I went from having some pretty serious lung issues to being able to do intense cardio workouts for several hours without any problems breathing.
I don’t vape, but if they banned flavored liquids, they better ban menthol cigarettes as well.
I agree vaping can help stop cigarette use, but I am not sure they are all equally good at this.
Their USP seems to be delivering a much higher "hit" more quickly, trying to give a hit like your first ever cigarette. Never tried one and don't intend to so have no clue how true this is, but it was definitely part of the buzz around them.
Juul owns 70% of the vape market.
Not so sure about this. If the recent lung illnesses are tied to vaping, then that really can't be true.
Also, the 154,000 dying of lung cancer would undoubtedly be those who started smoking tobacco decades ago. The overall trend of smoking tobacco is downward. That alone would decrease the future number of lung cancer deaths. Hard to pin that on vaping, which seems to be (even just a few short years after widespread adoption) is leading to sudden cases of lung illnesses/deaths.
>They say black market operators are using more thickening agents to dilute THC oil because of a crackdown by state authorities that has made the oil scarcer on the black market.
Maybe regulators should be blamed for causing a scummy black market, instead of pointing the finger at "vaping."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/potential-culprits-in-...
The few places that were moving some have mostly started selling independent vaping brands. My local petrol station now carries a couple. Still expensive, but "sanely" expensive.
With the exception of Juul, big tobacco appears to be failing badly at vaping.