4 ms·

This was originally going to be a reply to ben509's comment but turned into a rambling mess only even tangentially related to the original article. Rather than

This was originally going to be a reply to ben509's comment but turned into a rambling mess only even tangentially related to the original article. Rather than throwing it away, I am posting it as a top-level one. I don't think it's just the substance that is perceived as unclean. Even for a libertarian, there is a slimy texture to any industry based around an inherently addictive product. Especially when it comes to marketing to kids -- potential lifelong loyal customers if you can hook them while they're more easily influenced. Suppose there was a substance that was completely neutral in terms of its effects on your body. It has no caloric content, is not caught on drug tests, it tastes like water, and doesn't even make you feel different when you take it. The only effect that it has is that, several hours after your last dose, you find yourself craving another. How would you feel about this substance being marketed? It's not hurting anyone, other than that they spend a portion of their money on the habit. But the companies selling it aren't doing their own customers any good, either, and in fact, each new customer they get to try the substance is just being roped into a life of either willing themselves through the cravings or spending a little money to make them go away. Now, obviously nicotine is not this substance. For one, I do think nicotine users actually enjoy the products and also get some alertness benefits from them. But there is that skeevy layer to it too. I'm not coming at this from a place of puritanism. I'm not a nicotine user but I do consume alcohol. I think we all know alcohol is worse than nicotine in terms of health effects, and the alcohol industry has done an extremely effective job of positioning their product as something cool grown-up adult people use, joke about, and have "sophisticated" tastes in. Just run through your favorite TV shows from the past 20 years or so and try to find any that don't show main characters either a. enjoying alcohol as part of all their social events, or b. abusing alcohol and it's played off as funny, or c. abusing alcohol as part of a "tortured genius" trope. In a lot of industries the top 10-20% of customers account for the majority of sales. It just gets weird when you have an industry that has to pretend it cares about "responsibility" when its bottom line is as dependent on its most addicted users as they are on the product. I guess my point is, at some point we call people adults and let them weigh the benefits vs. the risks. Even if they suck at doing that, it's on them. But I'm totally OK with the FDA's aggressive stance on e.g. Juul marketing to teenagers, because that seems to me to be all about getting somebody to start the habit when they're least likely to make wise decisions.

leetcrew 8y ago
> But I'm totally OK with the FDA's aggressive stance on e.g. Juul marketing to teenagers, because that seems to me to be all about getting somebody to start the habit when they're least likely to make wise decisions. is there any evidence that juul is marketing to teenagers? genuinely asking, as I receive their promotional emails and they never strike me as targeting underage users.
- rspeele 8y ago
  Good question. I took too firm a stance on it for something I don't know enough about. From what I can gather, the reported issues are mostly with their early advertising, showing a lot of vaguely 20ish people looking cool and having fun. They also did a lot of social media marketing and some music events. I can see the argument that, hey, say your goal is purely to help people transition from cigarettes to a less harmful nicotine vehicle. Won't using the marketing techniques of other successful startups be the best way to accomplish that goal? People aren't going to want to switch from cigarettes to something that has the social image of "desperate addict trying to quit". It helps if it looks like something normal people enjoy socially, and hey, maybe makes them feel a bit more youthful. That makes perfect sense. But is it possible to succeed in that, without also appealing to teenagers? If not, is it worth it? Those aren't rhetorical questions, I genuinely don't know the answers to them. It's a complex area to think about.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  Trying to get their "anti-vaping" curriculum in schools (aping what the tobacco industry did): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/science/juul-vaping-teen-marketing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/science/juul-vaping-teen-... > Five days later, Carrie Yantzer, the principal at Nederland Middle-Senior High School, received an email that immediately struck her as suspicious. The writer introduced himself as Bruce Harter, a former educator working with Juul to develop an anti-vaping curriculum for schools. > “I read about the challenges you’re having with Juul,” Mr. Harter wrote. He offered a free, three-hour curriculum provided by Juul to discourage teens from using e-cigarettes by teaching them about their brains and giving them mindfulness exercises. The "cool flavors" thing was a (now banned) tobacco industry trick, too: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electronic-cigarettes-millennial-appeal-ushers-next-generation-nicotine-addicts-180968747/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electronic-cigarettes... > Other efforts from Big Tobacco to target children were eventually stymied by the government as well. In the late '90s, the Federal Trade Commission banned the indelible Joe Camel, and the Food and Drug Administration banned kid-friendly flavors like strawberry, grape, and chocolate from traditional, or combustible, cigarettes in 2009.

leetcrew 8y ago

> But I'm totally OK with the FDA's aggressive stance on e.g. Juul marketing to teenagers, because that seems to me to be all about getting somebody to start the habit when they're least likely to make wise decisions. is there any evidence that juul is marketing to teenagers? genuinely asking, as I receive their promotional emails and they never strike me as targeting underage users.

rspeele 8y ago
Good question. I took too firm a stance on it for something I don't know enough about. From what I can gather, the reported issues are mostly with their early advertising, showing a lot of vaguely 20ish people looking cool and having fun. They also did a lot of social media marketing and some music events. I can see the argument that, hey, say your goal is purely to help people transition from cigarettes to a less harmful nicotine vehicle. Won't using the marketing techniques of other successful startups be the best way to accomplish that goal? People aren't going to want to switch from cigarettes to something that has the social image of "desperate addict trying to quit". It helps if it looks like something normal people enjoy socially, and hey, maybe makes them feel a bit more youthful. That makes perfect sense. But is it possible to succeed in that, without also appealing to teenagers? If not, is it worth it? Those aren't rhetorical questions, I genuinely don't know the answers to them. It's a complex area to think about.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Trying to get their "anti-vaping" curriculum in schools (aping what the tobacco industry did): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/science/juul-vaping-teen-marketing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/science/juul-vaping-teen-... > Five days later, Carrie Yantzer, the principal at Nederland Middle-Senior High School, received an email that immediately struck her as suspicious. The writer introduced himself as Bruce Harter, a former educator working with Juul to develop an anti-vaping curriculum for schools. > “I read about the challenges you’re having with Juul,” Mr. Harter wrote. He offered a free, three-hour curriculum provided by Juul to discourage teens from using e-cigarettes by teaching them about their brains and giving them mindfulness exercises. The "cool flavors" thing was a (now banned) tobacco industry trick, too: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electronic-cigarettes-millennial-appeal-ushers-next-generation-nicotine-addicts-180968747/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electronic-cigarettes... > Other efforts from Big Tobacco to target children were eventually stymied by the government as well. In the late '90s, the Federal Trade Commission banned the indelible Joe Camel, and the Food and Drug Administration banned kid-friendly flavors like strawberry, grape, and chocolate from traditional, or combustible, cigarettes in 2009.