4 ms·

I'd say it's more akin to, "He flipped the switch to divert the train from running over 3 people, although the other track still had it running over one person.

I'd say it's more akin to, "He flipped the switch to divert the train from running over 3 people, although the other track still had it running over one person."

munk-a 7y ago
As an alternative - vaping flipped the switch to divert the train from three to a single person - Juul flipped the switch later down the line to make sure it still hit three people anyways.
- nickysielicki 7y ago
  I don't follow -- how did they cause more harm to existing smokers? Are you saying that a Juul is more dangerous (or even equally as dangerous) as smoking -- or that there's evidence that nicotine in and of itself is harmful? I don't think either has evidence to suggest it's true.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Oh sorry - they continued the trend of lowered harm to existing smokers, but they also developed a lot of new customers. I work in a company with a lot of coops and just in the past three years a lot of the folks we've hired on have a nicotine addiction - there are more people in their twenties that vape or smoke than people in their thirties or forties.
catalogia 7y ago
No, it's not really akin to that. This isn't a trolley experiment with only two tracks; they could have chosen to not market their product to children.
- nickysielicki 7y ago
  They targeted them at young adults -- it turns out that kids in high school typically emulate college kids. Who knew? Go to any college bar and you'll see kids -- naive children -- smoking outside. A lot of those kids use Juuls instead now. If targeting that demographic inherently means that highschoolers will look at them and think they're cool, does that mean nobody should ever target that demographic? Harm reduction only applies to the 30+ crowd? edit: I also don't think that it's really fair to say that they advertised towards children. The worst they did was push some colorful and fruity flavors. I guess only children like sweet things, and once you turn 18 you can no longer like mangoes?
  - catalogia 7y ago
    It shouldn't be legal to market tobacco products at all. Juul knowingly and deliberately marketing to kids is further proof of that, as if any more were needed. > They targeted them at young adults This is literally the same bullshit the same industry was spewing when they were advertising their cigarettes with cartoon characters (e.g. the cartoon camel.)
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    No, Juul openly and deliberately advertised to children. It used to run ad campaigns featuring high-school age models vaping, and as recently as last year paid hundreds of high-school age "influencers" to peddle their products.
    - btown 7y ago
      Article re: the above: https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-teens-students-testimony-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-... . There's nothing accidental about this.
    - nickysielicki 7y ago
      Just to be clear -- when you say high-school age, you really mean 18 year olds, right? And coincidentally, that's also college aged, right? What's the argument here? That they should have casted 40 year olds for their marketing campaign? Or that they should have casted someone in their 20s instead of an 18 year old? The former is ridiculous and the latter doesn't make a difference. Natalia Dyer is 25 years old and plays an 18 year old in Stranger Things.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Just to clarify - regardless of whether they cast someone 18 or 17 - they were intent on casting young adults in advertising - this wasn't an effort on their part to make sure 40 year olds are aware of a way to safely quite smoking, it was a deliberate effort to hook new consumers since... even within the range stretching up to 20-23, those potential customers will be conversions from non-smokers in all likelihood.

I'd say it's more akin to, "He flipped the switch to divert the train from running over 3 people, although the other track still had it running over one person."

munk-a 7y ago

As an alternative - vaping flipped the switch to divert the train from three to a single person - Juul flipped the switch later down the line to make sure it still hit three people anyways.

nickysielicki 7y ago
I don't follow -- how did they cause more harm to existing smokers? Are you saying that a Juul is more dangerous (or even equally as dangerous) as smoking -- or that there's evidence that nicotine in and of itself is harmful? I don't think either has evidence to suggest it's true.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Oh sorry - they continued the trend of lowered harm to existing smokers, but they also developed a lot of new customers. I work in a company with a lot of coops and just in the past three years a lot of the folks we've hired on have a nicotine addiction - there are more people in their twenties that vape or smoke than people in their thirties or forties.

catalogia 7y ago

No, it's not really akin to that. This isn't a trolley experiment with only two tracks; they could have chosen to not market their product to children.

nickysielicki 7y ago
They targeted them at young adults -- it turns out that kids in high school typically emulate college kids. Who knew? Go to any college bar and you'll see kids -- naive children -- smoking outside. A lot of those kids use Juuls instead now. If targeting that demographic inherently means that highschoolers will look at them and think they're cool, does that mean nobody should ever target that demographic? Harm reduction only applies to the 30+ crowd? edit: I also don't think that it's really fair to say that they advertised towards children. The worst they did was push some colorful and fruity flavors. I guess only children like sweet things, and once you turn 18 you can no longer like mangoes?
- catalogia 7y ago
  It shouldn't be legal to market tobacco products at all. Juul knowingly and deliberately marketing to kids is further proof of that, as if any more were needed. > They targeted them at young adults This is literally the same bullshit the same industry was spewing when they were advertising their cigarettes with cartoon characters (e.g. the cartoon camel.)
- gamblor956 7y ago
  No, Juul openly and deliberately advertised to children. It used to run ad campaigns featuring high-school age models vaping, and as recently as last year paid hundreds of high-school age "influencers" to peddle their products.
  - btown 7y ago
    Article re: the above: https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-teens-students-testimony-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/juul-congress-e-cigs-target-... . There's nothing accidental about this.
  - nickysielicki 7y ago
    Just to be clear -- when you say high-school age, you really mean 18 year olds, right? And coincidentally, that's also college aged, right? What's the argument here? That they should have casted 40 year olds for their marketing campaign? Or that they should have casted someone in their 20s instead of an 18 year old? The former is ridiculous and the latter doesn't make a difference. Natalia Dyer is 25 years old and plays an 18 year old in Stranger Things.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Just to clarify - regardless of whether they cast someone 18 or 17 - they were intent on casting young adults in advertising - this wasn't an effort on their part to make sure 40 year olds are aware of a way to safely quite smoking, it was a deliberate effort to hook new consumers since... even within the range stretching up to 20-23, those potential customers will be conversions from non-smokers in all likelihood.