7 ms·

They targeted children with their flavors, colors, branding and advertisements. They are responsible for countless teenagers getting addicted to nicotine. I co

They targeted children with their flavors, colors, branding and advertisements. They are responsible for countless teenagers getting addicted to nicotine. I couldn't care less about anyone who helped make that happen. Scum of the earth.

nogabebop23 7y ago
No kidding: "the potential for harm reduction for adult smokers while combating underage use." <<insert photo of all the yummy flavors available>> If their mandate was really harm reduction they could do that with a "plain" flavor; that's how we stop the kids in my house from eating all the yogurt.
- sneak 7y ago
  Adults like yummy flavors too. This “flavored products are for kids” is utter nonsense, designed to vilify a new entrant and distract from the continued functioning of the tobacco industry. Smoking kills half its users. It is one of the great tragedies of our time that tobacco companies got vaping lumped in with smoking and its harms, when it is at least two orders of magnitude safer.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    You can't be serious. Juul is not being villified for just having flavors, they are being villified for marketing to kids. https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-teens-students-testimony-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-... "The memo accused Juul of knowingly marketing products to teens by holding programs at schools and camps and recruiting teens as "Juul influencers."" "The hearing's testimony included claims that a Juul representative once visited a high-school classroom and told students that Juul e-cigarettes were "totally safe," according to a memo from congressional investigators."
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      That’s fair, but then focus on that and not the flavors. I’ll happily continue drinking my fruity loops flavored vodka and enjoying its taste.
    - cactus2093 7y ago
      That doesn’t explain why cities like SF have banned all flavored vapes. Not just juul brand. It clearly is the flavors that people are taking issue with, this marketing thing is just a footnote. So much so that I almost never even hear this incident referenced.
      - sneak 7y ago
        SF hasn’t banned cigarettes, though, which does “explain” it: the ban is not based on rational analysis of public health outcomes.
        catalogia 7y ago
        SF doesn't need to ban flavored cigarettes because the federal government already has. SF banned flavored vapes because the federal government hasn't (yet.)
        sneak 7y ago
        I didn't say flavored cigarettes, I said cigarettes. While cigarettes are legal, discussion of any vaping regulation is irrelevant.
- samatman 7y ago
  "plain" flavor vape cartridges would not have gotten me to quit smoking. Fruity mango flavor did. The idea that only children find flavors appealing is asinine, and you should feel shame for participating in a moral panic that is leading directly to cancer and death. What I, a consenting adult, choose to do for recreation and stress relief, is none of your goddamn business, and I suggest you butt out of it.
  - aaomidi 7y ago
    I agree with you. People have this weird condescending view towards smokers. Like they see themselves as morally superior beings. It's quite infuriating and you can see that mindset reflect itself in how people approach these topics. Fuck me for enjoying a flavored vice.
    - runawaybottle 7y ago
      To be completely objective, cigarettes are dangerous because the concoction of chemicals that generate the smoke lead to lung cancer. Vaping mostly just gives you the Nicotine hit, which doesn’t have the same dangers as tobacco smoke. Of all the vices I ever picked up, vaping has the smallest footprint in terms of character change while consuming it, and long term health consequences. We probably need more studies on standard Nicotine consumption, as it may be in the same class as caffeine dependency: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Nicotine_It_may_have_a_good_side https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Nicotine_I... Now, about the kids. I think they will mostly get high on vape pens. Juul won’t even be there jam honestly.
  - dlivingston 7y ago
    I have to admit that I felt a visceral anger reading parent's comment as well. I quit smoking via e-cigarettes and via Tooti Frooti, Tiger's Blood, Fruit Loops and a dozen other "tasty" flavors. A parallel could be made to childhood obesity. Yes, soft drinks contribute, but with parent's logic, all flavored soft drinks should be made illegal in favor of, well, 'plain carbonated water' flavor. Yum! Won't somebody please think of the children! Keep me out of your Orwellian utopia, thanks.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  > If their mandate was really harm reduction they could do that with a "plain" flavor; that's how we stop the kids in my house from eating all the yogurt. frankly I don't know whether the people at juul had malicious intentions wrt teenage vaping, but I really resent the line of argument that offering enjoyable flavors implies targeting children. this is actually one of the main things that makes vaping a viable substitute for me and many other people. if they only made plain vapes, I would probably just go back to smoking.
- asdff 7y ago
  Why does yummy booze flavors in arms reach of your toddler in the gas station aisle get a free pass, but juul pods with a surgeon generals warning kept under lock and key behind the shop clerk are targeting children? I can't comprehend these mental gymnastics.
CerealFounder 7y ago
Here's an interesting question. CEO's, will seeing Juul on a resume preclude you from hiring that person, even if they are a technical fit?
- wpietri 7y ago
  I'm not a CEO, but there are a definitely company names that would get suspicion points from me on a resume, and Juul is one of them. I'm hiring for many things, but they include user focus and a sense of ethics. If somebody is willing to profit from making things that are worthless or harmful, that's not somebody I need to work with.
  - wuunderbar 7y ago
    Where do you draw the line? Would you classify anyone who worked at Facebook somebody you don't need to work with? What about Uber, Google, AirBnb, Amazon, Amazon subsidiaries? How are you going to convince others that they should pass on those too based on your particular ethical code?
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Juul sells mega-dose vaping products. Facebook is a tool used by hundreds of millions of people to connect with their friends and family. Google is a search engine and video platform. Amazon sells everything. AWS underpins a large portion of the internet most people use today. Uber provides taxi and food-delivery services. Unlike Juul, what these companies do isn't inherently evil or exploitative.
      - ahelwer 7y ago
        That's... naive. Facebook and Google are platforms for behavior modification. Their products are designed to be addictive so you spend more time on them than you really want, subjected to a barrage of tactics to get you to buy things or change your opinion on something.
bananabreakfast 7y ago
They're also responsible for countless smokers quitting cigarettes for something far less carcinogenic. It is very reductive of you to just group people into being comic book villains.
- troughway 7y ago
  This is a disingenuous comment in it's assumption that the lesser of two evils is somehow the only better option. All these people could have chosen to not participate in carcinogenic products at all. They chose poorly.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    Disingenuous typically suggests insincerity. That you think someone is wrong does not mean they are not sincere in their position.
    - troughway 7y ago
      Correct.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- celim307 7y ago
  I feel bad for lower level workers there. Anyone who had options to work elsewhere I have no mercy for. Anyone in the product team responsible for the ideation of marketing to children, can eat shit.
- gpm 7y ago
  This argument is akin to saying "sure, he murders people by night, but he's a fire fighter by day so it's ok". The kids being addicted to nicotine weren't even collateral damage. They were being explicitly targeted. Doing good doesn't excuse doing evil.
  - 7y ago
BurningFrog 7y ago
As I understand it, being addicted to nicotine isn't worse than being addicted to caffeine. What kills smokers is the uncountable number of toxins in tobacco smoke.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  It doesn't really matter if an addiction kills you or not, the question is whether the dependency is strong enough to take away from other activities in your life.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    In before video games and voracious reading. Addiction is generally a result of some failure in a person's social life and social structure that negatively impacts them to the point of developing a coping mechanism. Or at least so say the Rat Park experiments.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    As someone who doesn't want to die, if something kills me matters very much!
- woadwarrior01 7y ago
  Caffeine is relatively benign compared to nicotine. Nicotine poisoning[1] really is a thing. Also, the LD50 dosage of caffeine is ~150-200mg/kg while for nicotine it’s in the range of 0.5-1mg/kg and for children it’s much lower, at 0.1mg/kg. Given these numbers, nicotine is a far mor pernicious substance than caffeine. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > Also, the LD50 dosage of caffeine is ~150-200mg/kg while for nicotine it’s in the range of 0.5-1mg/kg and for children it’s much lower, at 0.1mg/kg. Given these numbers, nicotine is a far mor[e] pernicious substance than caffeine. What? That doesn't follow at all. You want to compare the LD50 (and other effects of consumption) to the amount normally consumed, not to the LD50 of some other substance. "LD50 is 1 mg/kg" is completely meaningless if you can't consume more than 0.005 mg/kg.
room500 7y ago
Are Apple employees scum of the earth for working for a company that uses Chinese factories? Are Facebook and Google employees scum of the earth for tracking user data? Are Netflix employees scum of the earth for getting your kids addicted to TV? Are Instagram employees scum of the earth for perpetuating impossible beauty standards? This is insane. Juul was a company with great people working at it.
- askafriend 7y ago
  There is a difference between the other companies you listed and Juul. Juul does not have great people working for it, and the marketing was intentionally dishonest towards the most vulnerable in our society. None of those other companies specifically target kids with advertising and subversive grassroots efforts to try to get them hooked on drugs.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    I would argue Apple’s earbud commercials absolutely targeted the young enjoying music and looking cool with the white string earphones.
    - google234123 7y ago
      And that is equivalent to getting them hooked on drugs? Are you saying a toy company marketing toys to kids is equivalent to what Juul did because they both targeted children?
      - t-writescode 7y ago
        I was responding to this part > None of those other companies specifically target kids with advertising and subversive grassroots efforts to try to get them hooked on [their product] I didn't intend to equate it to drugs; and, admittedly, I didn't fully read that last sentence.
        7y ago
vageli 7y ago
Aren't tobacco products already illegal to sell to children? Why is the blame on the manufacturer for making a product that adults like when the real issue is retailers selling nicotine-containing products to children?
- eganist 7y ago
  > that adults like An argument can be made that physically addictive substances violate a person's agency. That is to say, it's not that many adults "like" it; it's that many adults are unable to part ways from it.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > An argument can be made that physically addictive substances violate a person's agency. Are the substances immediately addictive? Should we violate the agency of those unaffected? What if people consent to having their agency violated? Make no mistake, I'm not defending tobacco companies, I'm against the notion of my body's inputs being subject to someone else's control.
- catalogia 7y ago
  The tobacco industry has repeatedly demonstrated it's willingness to break the law and market their bullshit to kids. Edit: > Internal documents produced to the court in Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, San Francisco County Superior Court No. 959516, demonstrated the industry's interest in targeting children as future smokers.[6] The importance of the youth market was illustrated in a 1974 presentation by RJR's Vice-President of Marketing who explained that the "young adult market ... represent[s] tomorrow's cigarette business. As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume - for at least the next 25 years."[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel Anybody who thinks tobacco companies have turned over a new leaf is an idiot.
  - erulabs 7y ago
    https://youtu.be/zBmIoUO7_Gc?t=198 https://youtu.be/zBmIoUO7_Gc?t=198 > There's not gonna be a 50 year old man who's like, "man, I should start smoking! That goddamn Camel!" That joke always kills me :P
analog31 7y ago
I wondered about this myself: Where are kids going to get their vapes, now that they're not in school. This is a great time to beat the addiction.
asdff 7y ago
How do they target kids any more than bubblegum vodka in the gas station? I never understood these arguments, implying these flavors are for kids. I've never even seen a juul advertisement to begin with. I love flavored juul and I'm an adult, the tobacco and menthol flavors are ass and I know a few people that have fallen back to smoking or chewing tobacco when they could no longer get their mango juul pods.
sneak 7y ago
“Think of the children” is almost always cover for a lack of a rational argument. In this case, it is distracting from the fact that, compared to smoking, the harm from vaping is so ridiculously tiny as to be deemed “harmless” on that scale. Smoking kills half of its users (seven million smokers a year dead), and additionally kills OVER A MILLION non-users each and every year from proximity to smokers. Your hate is misplaced. This is the pinnacle of whataboutism. Vaping is a huge net benefit to society.
- MisterBastahrd 7y ago
  There are plenty of kids who vape who would have never smoked because of the smell it has on your clothes. Now they're addicted to nicotine anyway and who knows how they're going to deal with the long-term repercussions of inhaling a bunch of hot PG and other crap.
- trcollinson 7y ago
  Is taking up vaping bad for youth that are under the age of 18? Is taking up vaping bad for adults over the age of 18? And I do mean, when they otherwise were not smokers? If so, has Juul actively tried to market their products to non-smokers in any range? Have they actively tried to inform the public about the potential harms of starting to vape when you are otherwise a non-smoker? There is no doubt that Juul is safer than a pack of cigarettes. But Juul can't make it as a start up selling to only smokers who want to reduce their risk of death, as has been seen by their sales numbers. They are actively marketing to groups of people who are in zero current harm from first hand nicotine. And nicotine does harm those people. Here's a peer reviewed article just to make the point. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/
  - sneak 7y ago
    There is no evidence whatsoever that the harmful effects of nicotine cause even 1% of the damage caused by the harmful effects of inhaling combustion byproducts. This is irrelevant, and is just emotional spillover from the decades of repetition of how bad smoking is. (In some ways it’s like people trying to ban rifles that cause ~700 deaths per year in the US while small caliber handguns cause >11k.) Salty fried foods are a bigger public health issue right now than if every nonsmoker took up vaping.
stolen_biscuit 7y ago
What are the actual impacts of nicotine on the body? I thought most of the harm came from the other carcinogens in cigarettes and tobacco rather than nicotine itself
cyberowl 7y ago
Totally agree. Same goes for tech companies like Facebook (Instagram), YouTube (Google), etc

nogabebop23 7y ago

No kidding: "the potential for harm reduction for adult smokers while combating underage use." <<insert photo of all the yummy flavors available>> If their mandate was really harm reduction they could do that with a "plain" flavor; that's how we stop the kids in my house from eating all the yogurt.

sneak 7y ago
Adults like yummy flavors too. This “flavored products are for kids” is utter nonsense, designed to vilify a new entrant and distract from the continued functioning of the tobacco industry. Smoking kills half its users. It is one of the great tragedies of our time that tobacco companies got vaping lumped in with smoking and its harms, when it is at least two orders of magnitude safer.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  You can't be serious. Juul is not being villified for just having flavors, they are being villified for marketing to kids. https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-teens-students-testimony-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-... "The memo accused Juul of knowingly marketing products to teens by holding programs at schools and camps and recruiting teens as "Juul influencers."" "The hearing's testimony included claims that a Juul representative once visited a high-school classroom and told students that Juul e-cigarettes were "totally safe," according to a memo from congressional investigators."
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    That’s fair, but then focus on that and not the flavors. I’ll happily continue drinking my fruity loops flavored vodka and enjoying its taste.
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    That doesn’t explain why cities like SF have banned all flavored vapes. Not just juul brand. It clearly is the flavors that people are taking issue with, this marketing thing is just a footnote. So much so that I almost never even hear this incident referenced.
    - sneak 7y ago
      SF hasn’t banned cigarettes, though, which does “explain” it: the ban is not based on rational analysis of public health outcomes.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        SF doesn't need to ban flavored cigarettes because the federal government already has. SF banned flavored vapes because the federal government hasn't (yet.)
        sneak 7y ago
        I didn't say flavored cigarettes, I said cigarettes. While cigarettes are legal, discussion of any vaping regulation is irrelevant.
samatman 7y ago
"plain" flavor vape cartridges would not have gotten me to quit smoking. Fruity mango flavor did. The idea that only children find flavors appealing is asinine, and you should feel shame for participating in a moral panic that is leading directly to cancer and death. What I, a consenting adult, choose to do for recreation and stress relief, is none of your goddamn business, and I suggest you butt out of it.
- aaomidi 7y ago
  I agree with you. People have this weird condescending view towards smokers. Like they see themselves as morally superior beings. It's quite infuriating and you can see that mindset reflect itself in how people approach these topics. Fuck me for enjoying a flavored vice.
  - runawaybottle 7y ago
    To be completely objective, cigarettes are dangerous because the concoction of chemicals that generate the smoke lead to lung cancer. Vaping mostly just gives you the Nicotine hit, which doesn’t have the same dangers as tobacco smoke. Of all the vices I ever picked up, vaping has the smallest footprint in terms of character change while consuming it, and long term health consequences. We probably need more studies on standard Nicotine consumption, as it may be in the same class as caffeine dependency: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Nicotine_It_may_have_a_good_side https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Nicotine_I... Now, about the kids. I think they will mostly get high on vape pens. Juul won’t even be there jam honestly.
- dlivingston 7y ago
  I have to admit that I felt a visceral anger reading parent's comment as well. I quit smoking via e-cigarettes and via Tooti Frooti, Tiger's Blood, Fruit Loops and a dozen other "tasty" flavors. A parallel could be made to childhood obesity. Yes, soft drinks contribute, but with parent's logic, all flavored soft drinks should be made illegal in favor of, well, 'plain carbonated water' flavor. Yum! Won't somebody please think of the children! Keep me out of your Orwellian utopia, thanks.
leetcrew 7y ago
> If their mandate was really harm reduction they could do that with a "plain" flavor; that's how we stop the kids in my house from eating all the yogurt. frankly I don't know whether the people at juul had malicious intentions wrt teenage vaping, but I really resent the line of argument that offering enjoyable flavors implies targeting children. this is actually one of the main things that makes vaping a viable substitute for me and many other people. if they only made plain vapes, I would probably just go back to smoking.
asdff 7y ago
Why does yummy booze flavors in arms reach of your toddler in the gas station aisle get a free pass, but juul pods with a surgeon generals warning kept under lock and key behind the shop clerk are targeting children? I can't comprehend these mental gymnastics.

CerealFounder 7y ago

Here's an interesting question. CEO's, will seeing Juul on a resume preclude you from hiring that person, even if they are a technical fit?

wpietri 7y ago
I'm not a CEO, but there are a definitely company names that would get suspicion points from me on a resume, and Juul is one of them. I'm hiring for many things, but they include user focus and a sense of ethics. If somebody is willing to profit from making things that are worthless or harmful, that's not somebody I need to work with.
- wuunderbar 7y ago
  Where do you draw the line? Would you classify anyone who worked at Facebook somebody you don't need to work with? What about Uber, Google, AirBnb, Amazon, Amazon subsidiaries? How are you going to convince others that they should pass on those too based on your particular ethical code?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Juul sells mega-dose vaping products. Facebook is a tool used by hundreds of millions of people to connect with their friends and family. Google is a search engine and video platform. Amazon sells everything. AWS underpins a large portion of the internet most people use today. Uber provides taxi and food-delivery services. Unlike Juul, what these companies do isn't inherently evil or exploitative.
    - ahelwer 7y ago
      That's... naive. Facebook and Google are platforms for behavior modification. Their products are designed to be addictive so you spend more time on them than you really want, subjected to a barrage of tactics to get you to buy things or change your opinion on something.

bananabreakfast 7y ago

They're also responsible for countless smokers quitting cigarettes for something far less carcinogenic. It is very reductive of you to just group people into being comic book villains.

troughway 7y ago
This is a disingenuous comment in it's assumption that the lesser of two evils is somehow the only better option. All these people could have chosen to not participate in carcinogenic products at all. They chose poorly.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  Disingenuous typically suggests insincerity. That you think someone is wrong does not mean they are not sincere in their position.
  - troughway 7y ago
    Correct.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
celim307 7y ago
I feel bad for lower level workers there. Anyone who had options to work elsewhere I have no mercy for. Anyone in the product team responsible for the ideation of marketing to children, can eat shit.
gpm 7y ago
This argument is akin to saying "sure, he murders people by night, but he's a fire fighter by day so it's ok". The kids being addicted to nicotine weren't even collateral damage. They were being explicitly targeted. Doing good doesn't excuse doing evil.
- 7y ago

BurningFrog 7y ago

As I understand it, being addicted to nicotine isn't worse than being addicted to caffeine. What kills smokers is the uncountable number of toxins in tobacco smoke.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
WilliamEdward 7y ago
It doesn't really matter if an addiction kills you or not, the question is whether the dependency is strong enough to take away from other activities in your life.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  In before video games and voracious reading. Addiction is generally a result of some failure in a person's social life and social structure that negatively impacts them to the point of developing a coping mechanism. Or at least so say the Rat Park experiments.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  As someone who doesn't want to die, if something kills me matters very much!
woadwarrior01 7y ago
Caffeine is relatively benign compared to nicotine. Nicotine poisoning[1] really is a thing. Also, the LD50 dosage of caffeine is ~150-200mg/kg while for nicotine it’s in the range of 0.5-1mg/kg and for children it’s much lower, at 0.1mg/kg. Given these numbers, nicotine is a far mor pernicious substance than caffeine. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Also, the LD50 dosage of caffeine is ~150-200mg/kg while for nicotine it’s in the range of 0.5-1mg/kg and for children it’s much lower, at 0.1mg/kg. Given these numbers, nicotine is a far mor[e] pernicious substance than caffeine. What? That doesn't follow at all. You want to compare the LD50 (and other effects of consumption) to the amount normally consumed, not to the LD50 of some other substance. "LD50 is 1 mg/kg" is completely meaningless if you can't consume more than 0.005 mg/kg.

room500 7y ago

Are Apple employees scum of the earth for working for a company that uses Chinese factories? Are Facebook and Google employees scum of the earth for tracking user data? Are Netflix employees scum of the earth for getting your kids addicted to TV? Are Instagram employees scum of the earth for perpetuating impossible beauty standards? This is insane. Juul was a company with great people working at it.

askafriend 7y ago
There is a difference between the other companies you listed and Juul. Juul does not have great people working for it, and the marketing was intentionally dishonest towards the most vulnerable in our society. None of those other companies specifically target kids with advertising and subversive grassroots efforts to try to get them hooked on drugs.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  I would argue Apple’s earbud commercials absolutely targeted the young enjoying music and looking cool with the white string earphones.
  - google234123 7y ago
    And that is equivalent to getting them hooked on drugs? Are you saying a toy company marketing toys to kids is equivalent to what Juul did because they both targeted children?
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      I was responding to this part > None of those other companies specifically target kids with advertising and subversive grassroots efforts to try to get them hooked on [their product] I didn't intend to equate it to drugs; and, admittedly, I didn't fully read that last sentence.
      - 7y ago

vageli 7y ago

Aren't tobacco products already illegal to sell to children? Why is the blame on the manufacturer for making a product that adults like when the real issue is retailers selling nicotine-containing products to children?

eganist 7y ago
> that adults like An argument can be made that physically addictive substances violate a person's agency. That is to say, it's not that many adults "like" it; it's that many adults are unable to part ways from it.
- vageli 7y ago
  > An argument can be made that physically addictive substances violate a person's agency. Are the substances immediately addictive? Should we violate the agency of those unaffected? What if people consent to having their agency violated? Make no mistake, I'm not defending tobacco companies, I'm against the notion of my body's inputs being subject to someone else's control.
catalogia 7y ago
The tobacco industry has repeatedly demonstrated it's willingness to break the law and market their bullshit to kids. Edit: > Internal documents produced to the court in Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, San Francisco County Superior Court No. 959516, demonstrated the industry's interest in targeting children as future smokers.[6] The importance of the youth market was illustrated in a 1974 presentation by RJR's Vice-President of Marketing who explained that the "young adult market ... represent[s] tomorrow's cigarette business. As this 14-24 age group matures, they will account for a key share of the total cigarette volume - for at least the next 25 years."[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Camel Anybody who thinks tobacco companies have turned over a new leaf is an idiot.
- erulabs 7y ago
  https://youtu.be/zBmIoUO7_Gc?t=198 https://youtu.be/zBmIoUO7_Gc?t=198 > There's not gonna be a 50 year old man who's like, "man, I should start smoking! That goddamn Camel!" That joke always kills me :P

analog31 7y ago

I wondered about this myself: Where are kids going to get their vapes, now that they're not in school. This is a great time to beat the addiction.

asdff 7y ago

How do they target kids any more than bubblegum vodka in the gas station? I never understood these arguments, implying these flavors are for kids. I've never even seen a juul advertisement to begin with. I love flavored juul and I'm an adult, the tobacco and menthol flavors are ass and I know a few people that have fallen back to smoking or chewing tobacco when they could no longer get their mango juul pods.

sneak 7y ago

“Think of the children” is almost always cover for a lack of a rational argument. In this case, it is distracting from the fact that, compared to smoking, the harm from vaping is so ridiculously tiny as to be deemed “harmless” on that scale. Smoking kills half of its users (seven million smokers a year dead), and additionally kills OVER A MILLION non-users each and every year from proximity to smokers. Your hate is misplaced. This is the pinnacle of whataboutism. Vaping is a huge net benefit to society.

MisterBastahrd 7y ago
There are plenty of kids who vape who would have never smoked because of the smell it has on your clothes. Now they're addicted to nicotine anyway and who knows how they're going to deal with the long-term repercussions of inhaling a bunch of hot PG and other crap.
trcollinson 7y ago
Is taking up vaping bad for youth that are under the age of 18? Is taking up vaping bad for adults over the age of 18? And I do mean, when they otherwise were not smokers? If so, has Juul actively tried to market their products to non-smokers in any range? Have they actively tried to inform the public about the potential harms of starting to vape when you are otherwise a non-smoker? There is no doubt that Juul is safer than a pack of cigarettes. But Juul can't make it as a start up selling to only smokers who want to reduce their risk of death, as has been seen by their sales numbers. They are actively marketing to groups of people who are in zero current harm from first hand nicotine. And nicotine does harm those people. Here's a peer reviewed article just to make the point. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/
- sneak 7y ago
  There is no evidence whatsoever that the harmful effects of nicotine cause even 1% of the damage caused by the harmful effects of inhaling combustion byproducts. This is irrelevant, and is just emotional spillover from the decades of repetition of how bad smoking is. (In some ways it’s like people trying to ban rifles that cause ~700 deaths per year in the US while small caliber handguns cause >11k.) Salty fried foods are a bigger public health issue right now than if every nonsmoker took up vaping.

stolen_biscuit 7y ago

What are the actual impacts of nicotine on the body? I thought most of the harm came from the other carcinogens in cigarettes and tobacco rather than nicotine itself

cyberowl 7y ago

Totally agree. Same goes for tech companies like Facebook (Instagram), YouTube (Google), etc