7 ms·

I would support this conclusion only if cigarettes, and other tobacco products were similarly banned. Since they're not, Juul should be treated the same. What

I would support this conclusion only if cigarettes, and other tobacco products were similarly banned. Since they're not, Juul should be treated the same. What it really comes down to is not equal protection under the law, it's big tobacco wants Juul gone.

mikeyouse 4y ago
> What it really comes down to is not equal protection under the law, it's big tobacco wants Juul gone. This is nonsensical. "Big tobacco" owns Juul. And couching the shutting down of a company addicting kids to nicotine in terms of equal protection is.. bleh. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/business/altria-juul/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/business/altria-juul/index.ht...
mrtranscendence 4y ago
Juul is big tobacco; it's owned by Philip Morris.
HarryHirsch 4y ago
Philip Morris has a 35 % stake in Juul, so they are at least "medium tobacco". Practically speaking, you can't ban cigarettes right yet, you'll have another Prohibition problem, but sooner or later the cigarette problem will solve itself, everybody agrees that cigarettes are disgusting. Juul on the other hand marketed itself to schoolchildren as a hip and safe alternative. That problem must be addressed.
duped 4y ago
Equal protection applies to people, not products or companies.
HWR_14 4y ago
Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. But unlike alcohol prohibition, it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).
- Clubber 4y ago
  >Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. Idealistically only. In reality, expect a lot of societal problems if that happens. Crime increases from black market good and increase assaults from smokers who have had their drug removed. Basically drug war 2.0. Unfortunately most people vote idealistically these days and tend to ignore or not even think about the reality of implementing laws/bans. Even after seeing the horrible effects of drug wars, people still love fighting them. Seems like an example of tyranny of the majority.
  - waffleiron 4y ago
    The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. > it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >>it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to). >The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. It attempts to address it, but in banning of Juul products, which many ex-smokers used and continue to use to get and stay off cigarettes, is very obviously counterproductive to this assumed objective. Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. Full stop.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. In the short term. In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. They're the ones who cannot prove their additives are safe. They could change their juice to make it have less toxic additives.

mikeyouse 4y ago

> What it really comes down to is not equal protection under the law, it's big tobacco wants Juul gone. This is nonsensical. "Big tobacco" owns Juul. And couching the shutting down of a company addicting kids to nicotine in terms of equal protection is.. bleh. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/business/altria-juul/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/business/altria-juul/index.ht...

mrtranscendence 4y ago

Juul is big tobacco; it's owned by Philip Morris.

HarryHirsch 4y ago

Philip Morris has a 35 % stake in Juul, so they are at least "medium tobacco". Practically speaking, you can't ban cigarettes right yet, you'll have another Prohibition problem, but sooner or later the cigarette problem will solve itself, everybody agrees that cigarettes are disgusting. Juul on the other hand marketed itself to schoolchildren as a hip and safe alternative. That problem must be addressed.

duped 4y ago

Equal protection applies to people, not products or companies.

HWR_14 4y ago

Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. But unlike alcohol prohibition, it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).

Clubber 4y ago
>Cigarettes are clearly going towards being banned. Which is a good thing. Idealistically only. In reality, expect a lot of societal problems if that happens. Crime increases from black market good and increase assaults from smokers who have had their drug removed. Basically drug war 2.0. Unfortunately most people vote idealistically these days and tend to ignore or not even think about the reality of implementing laws/bans. Even after seeing the horrible effects of drug wars, people still love fighting them. Seems like an example of tyranny of the majority.
- waffleiron 4y ago
  The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. > it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to).
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >>it seems like the current plan is to just try to prevent new users and let the current users smoke until they die (or help them quit if they choose to). >The second part of the comment you replied to addresses this. It attempts to address it, but in banning of Juul products, which many ex-smokers used and continue to use to get and stay off cigarettes, is very obviously counterproductive to this assumed objective. Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. Full stop.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > Banning Juul will create more cigarette smokers, both ex-smokers and kids who decide to pick up the habit. In the short term. In the long term cigarette adoption was falling to under 5% in high-school/college kids. Juul reversed the trend and the majority started using nicotine. If we lose 7 years of people getting addicted, we can save the next 21. Plus, it's not eCigs that are being banned. It's Juul. They're the ones who cannot prove their additives are safe. They could change their juice to make it have less toxic additives.