Juul E-Cigarettes To Be Ordered Off US Shelves (reuters.com) 227
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preparing to order Juul Labs Inc to take its e-cigarettes off the market in the United States, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. Reuters reports: Juul has faced heightened scrutiny from regulators, lawmakers and state attorneys general over the appeal of its nicotine products to teenagers. Under pressure, the company in late 2019 had halted U.S. sales of several flavors. "This clearly comes as a surprise to the market ... we would expect that Juul would appeal the decision, and remain on the market through that process, which would likely take a year or more," Cowen analyst Vivien Azer said.
The looming verdict comes nearly two years after Juul had applied for approval to keep selling e-cigarettes in the country. The FDA's review of the applications was based on whether the e-cigarettes are effective in getting smokers to quit and, if so, whether the benefits to smokers outweigh the health damage to new users, including teenagers. [...] The estimated fair value of Altria's investment in Juul was $1.6 billion as of March end, a fraction of the $12.8 billion it paid in 2018, as a crackdown on vaping has upended the once fast-growing industry.
The looming verdict comes nearly two years after Juul had applied for approval to keep selling e-cigarettes in the country. The FDA's review of the applications was based on whether the e-cigarettes are effective in getting smokers to quit and, if so, whether the benefits to smokers outweigh the health damage to new users, including teenagers. [...] The estimated fair value of Altria's investment in Juul was $1.6 billion as of March end, a fraction of the $12.8 billion it paid in 2018, as a crackdown on vaping has upended the once fast-growing industry.
Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no information that suggests this, but I'm waiting with bated breath to watch Philip Morris International launch a line of "safe" e-cigarettes very soon.
Re: Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:5, Funny)
I have no information that suggests this, but I'm waiting with bated breath to watch Philip Morris International launch a line of "safe" e-cigarettes very soon.
Are you a time traveler from the early oughts?
https://www.pmi.com/smoke-free-products
There are no weapons of mass destruction. Look out for the housing crash in 2008. And President black Reagan's Wall Street bailout. And President Donald Trump right after that - yes, that Donald Trump! You have an "interesting" couple of decades in front of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Wall Street bailout started with Bush Jr. And if it hadn't continued under Obama, the U.S. would have suffered a lot more with a devastated banking sector.
Re: Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:3)
Re:Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true, yet there was also a huge opportunity to hold accountable the bankers, stock brokers, and other who caused the whole situation through their negligence.
And we didn't do that at all.
That is the actual failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:2)
Heated tobacco seems to be popular around here, people are afraid of random unknowm chemicals in e-cigs, as we don't usually want coloring or flavoring in our foods either. So our food tastes like shit compared to american food and we still die of cancer anyway.
Big Tobacco bought Juul (Score:3)
I'm not entirely sure why this happened. The Article doesn't say. Though the point that keeps coming up is they wouldn't stop trying to get teens to smoke. That makes sense. Smoking sucks. Your body rebels against it and you kind of have to force yourself to adapt to it. So unless you've got a powerful marketing campaign going after young, inexperienced users you're not gonna get anywhere.
Okay somebody over at ArsTechnica explained it (Score:5, Informative)
The reason the FDA went after Juul and not others is because they were explicitly targeting teens. Again you kind of have to because otherwise you can't grow and to any modern large corporation you have to grow or you're going to get gutted by investors.
Honestly if you want to get rid of smoking just have the government give away free nicotine to anyone who wants it and is of age. That would make it impossible for tobacco companies to be profitable and it would eliminate this song and dance where they are constantly finding new ways to sell the product to teenagers
Re:Okay somebody over at ArsTechnica explained it (Score:5, Interesting)
She had to explain to her daughters what it was they were doing, because the Juul people pitched it to all the sales people that they were only targeting smokers and it was a healthy product and whatever lies they could come up with.
The whole thing seemed really sleazy.
Re: (Score:2)
So...
Any pictures?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit to some observation bias, but MMORPGs have destroyed more lives of people I know than nicotine.
I don't think you have observation bias, I think you're blind as a fucking bat without a sonar system to compensate.
Re: Okay somebody over at ArsTechnica explained it (Score:3, Informative)
Or perhaps you are the one with the agenda. Those numbers are straight from the CDC. And if you think the CDC has some agenda, then 1) these numbers are in line with smoking death per capital in the 1960s (and we're considerably higher at their peak around 1990) so this agenda has been going on for well over 60 years, and 2) the deaths per capita are in line with smoking deaths per capita in countries all over the world, so this isn't just some CDC agenda but a global-wide conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse. The additives also likely potentiate the addiction. Without them, nicotine hits milder and when blood levels fall, there is much less urgency to consume more. It is documented that that is/was the case for cigarette tobacco.
Teens were better off before all the anti-ecig legislation when most vendors were offering un-boosted nicotine to facilitate stopping or reducing nicotine intake. After the legislation, mostly companies already skilled at jumping through hoops and loop holes, that is, tobacco
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tyranny!
Hyperbole much?
Re: (Score:2)
That's tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yeah, because banning a dangerous product that didn't even exist in the 1970s is now "tyranny."
"Can the government ban encryption?" https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
--
It's like listening to children say their first reaction without thinking things through.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether these are good at letting smokers quit is irrelevant to whether they should be banned.
These things have NEVER been sold as a way for smokers to "quit".
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly Juul never was. Some of the others were, but with the clamp down killing off many of the smaller players, some former smokers are forced to consider returning to smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way they've been used though. Every person I've spoken to with one has said that was why the switched over. I even personally know people who have successfully quit using one.
The problem here is that no one in their right mind wants to make any health related claims. If you want to say your vape thing helps people quit smoking, you had better have some damn good evidence. I'm reminded of a similar product from around 15 or 20 years ago. It was a brand called "Quest" that was sold with vary
Re: (Score:2)
That's the way they've been used though.
No they weren't. Juul doesn't make any products that can help you quit. They not only don't make a nicotine free variant, they even sell you nicotine boosters to make their already comparatively high doses compared to the rest of the e-cigarette industry, even higher.
We're not talking about vaping, or e-cigs. Neither are being banned. We're talking about Juul, a company that through their product mix only offers something addictive and through their marketing only targets non smokers and youths.
Re: (Score:2)
They were when industry representatives were up in front of a committee in Congress. That was one of their main arguments on why they should be allowed to continue to sell them.
Re:Hey you, Big Tobacco wants its margins back (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not your business or the government's what I choose to inhale.
As long as it doesn't affect me, have at it. Free Pat Tribett, go Warriors.
This tyranny in the name of keeping people safe needs to end.
Slow down there, cowboy. What you call tyranny I call necessary. You better believe I want rules, regulations, and heavy-handed enforcement that keeps lead out of baby formula and the labels on products honest.
Let's be real here: you can't trust the average for-profit entity for a second. If they can get away with it, they absolutely will compromise your safety in exchange for a better Q3. Hell, they do it now when they think screwing you and getting caught is more profitable than just doing the right thing. What do you think they'll do when getting caught isn't a consideration?
If you think it's annoying sorting through all that homeopathic junk at the pharmacy now, wait until they can just flat-out lie and say it's the real thing. That's what you're advocating for here, and I haven't even scratched the surface.
Re: (Score:3)
Way to completely miss the point.
Altria is a bad actor, who is intentionally targeting underage consumers in order to give them a chemical addiction and lock in their business until they prematurely die. This follows a pattern that the tobacco industry has been doing for decades, and has already landed them on the wrong side of many civil judgements in the past.
If you are of legal age and want to smoke, fine - just do it somewhere I don't have to smell it, and for fucks sake pick up after yourself and don'
Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought with growing laws authorizing marijuana use that we as a nation were finally past this bullshit "war on drugs" nonsense... but instead we just regressed terribly by outlawing something safer and less addictive than cigarettes.
This really comes out of left field, how could this ban have been authorized?
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
This really comes out of left field, how could this ban have been authorized?
Big Tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans every year, their product is not only still legal, but practically defended as an "American pastime" for the industry itself despite the massive sickness and death, and you're really asking that question?
If you truly want to know the answer, it's simple. Vaping isn't deadly enough. It doesn't create enough harm-for-profit and interferes with current harm-for-profit streams. So, it's a target now.
Re: (Score:2)
This really comes out of left field, how could this ban have been authorized?
Big Tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans every year, their product is not only still legal, but practically defended as an "American pastime" for the industry itself despite the massive sickness and death, and you're really asking that question?
If you truly want to know the answer, it's simple. Vaping isn't deadly enough. It doesn't create enough harm-for-profit and interferes with current harm-for-profit streams. So, it's a target now.
Apparently it's up to 480k/year [cdc.gov]. Though realistically, the reason it's still around is it's been around long enough that people consider it to be part of their identity, so it's easier to let them slowly kill themselves than to try forcing them to quit.
With vaping, the user base is largely just a bunch of teens and early twenty somethings who have neither the dedication of a decades long addiction nor the political power to do anything about it if they did.
So you can squash it out of existence before it get
Re: (Score:2)
With vaping, the user base is largely just a bunch of teens and early twenty somethings who have neither the dedication of a decades long addiction nor the political power to do anything about it if they did.
Yeah, HI! I'm about to be 59 years old. I vape, because it doesn't make everything smell terrible and leave stains on the walls. I vape, because there is no risk of setting fire to anything. I vape, because it's about the same price as cigarettes.
It hasn't stopped me from wanting a lot of nicotine but, my lungs feel cleaner.
If the government actually gets away with banning vapes, which seems wildly unlikely, I'll have to switch back to smoking cigarettes. On the "wildly unlikely" part, I'll note that (was i
Re: (Score:2)
With vaping, the user base is largely just a bunch of teens and early twenty somethings who have neither the dedication of a decades long addiction nor the political power to do anything about it if they did.
Yeah, HI! I'm about to be 59 years old. I vape, because it doesn't make everything smell terrible and leave stains on the walls. I vape, because there is no risk of setting fire to anything. I vape, because it's about the same price as cigarettes.
It hasn't stopped me from wanting a lot of nicotine but, my lungs feel cleaner.
If the government actually gets away with banning vapes, which seems wildly unlikely, I'll have to switch back to smoking cigarettes. On the "wildly unlikely" part, I'll note that (was it Vermont?) some state banned eggs that weren't cooked to extinction, just in case that 1/20,000 chance of salmonella for your "over easy" was a problem. The law lasted for approximately one day before being repealed. People were outraged at the law! Charming.
So, let me frame it this way: who's making money off passing this law? It is so obviously a big money-grab. I'm not sure who benefits or when.
To be more specific, the core user base is the kids.
There's definitely a secondary user base of cigarette smokers either looking to quit or simply wanting something healthier.
And for them I think e-cigarettes should definitely still be available.
I think it's a practical question of how to make them easily available to people like yourself without letting companies like Juul build a market of addicted kids.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
Correction : there is still a very small risk of setting fire. Vaping device fires are a thing. It's usually caused by the battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the risk of a battery fire in a vape device is about the same as in a cell phone, which includes the fact that cheap vapes and cheap phones will have a higher risk due to quality control and attention to charging safety circuits.
If you go simply by numbers, the number of cell phones hugely outpaces the small relative number of rechargeable vape devices.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I read, many of the vaping device battery fires are supposedly caused by using third party chargers that aren't designed for them. At least that's what the manufacturers want you to think. In any case, I agree with you, the battery fires are not a widespread issue. That probably doesn't warrant banning a specific brand of vapes. We'll have to wait and see if the FDA actually bans Juul, and their rationale for doing so, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, HI! I'm about to be 59 years old. I vape, because it doesn't make everything smell terrible and leave stains on the walls. I vape, because there is no risk of setting fire to anything. I vape, because it's about the same price as cigarettes.
It hasn't stopped me from wanting a lot of nicotine but, my lungs feel cleaner.
If the government actually gets away with banning vapes, which seems wildly unlikely, I'll have to switch back to smoking cigarettes.
After 35 years of smoking, I recently quit "smoking". I had the help of patches and gum, but the thing that made it tolerable is using a vape device to still get a small nicotine fix when I have the urge to smoke (after meals, driving in the car, watch TV, working on the computer, etc). My cigarette spending was $300 a month, which dropped to $30 a month for vaping.
I agree the health benefits of quitting have been amazing. I assume my vaping habit will taper off over the next few years but for now vaping
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I went back to cigerettes about 7 months ago. I had quit and switched to vaping for 5 years and my lungs and energt was much better.
Since going back to cigerettes, I cough all day long and am tired more than I've been in a long time.
No one holds a gun to your head to make you smoke. (Score:2)
How much nanny state do you want? It's not like we have free healthcare (US, Altria is the American half of PMI after forced break up) and even if we did, this is a VERY slippery slope.
How many people does shitty fast food heart disease kill? How about giant sugary drinks? How about alcohol? Where is the line of where the gov't can tell you what you can and can't do? Should they make recommendations? Yea they should. Do they need to be the health/morality police, which is where we're headed with Roe
Re: (Score:2)
>Big Tobacco kills over 400,000 Americans every year No. Some fairly large number of people choose to shorten their lives, and -- if your number is accurate, which I really, really doubt -- die at the rate of 400,000 per year. You don't get to erase the consumer's typically informed decisions.
And you don't get to dismiss obvious statistics or the raw power of addiction like that either. Don't be ignorant. Chances are I'm arguing with someone who sucks on hot bean water every day to keep the headaches away. Addiction is real. If it were that easy to quit, we wouldn't be here defending the existence of vaping products, which are a hell of a lot less deadly.
Vaping isn't deadly enough. It doesn't create enough harm-for-profit and interferes with current harm-for-profit streams. So, it's a target now.
Seriously? You're actually claiming the cigarette lobby is behind this ban because they want more of their customers to die? I want some of that you are smoking.
HAHAHAHA! Are you trying to imply Big Tobacco actually wants it's customers to live? That's fucking rich, since they've only taken the la
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
Dead customers stop spending money and that reduces business.
Re: (Score:2)
But not before the next quarterly report.
You've got to remember that corporate America doesn't think beyond next quarter. A customer who dies even a year from now is irrelevant; with population growth, that dead customer can just as easily be replaced by a teenage idiot who has more disposable income and less wisdom than the average American. The reason these companies target teens is because they've been told by left-leaning teachers to "question everything" and don't have enough life experience to kn
Re: (Score:2)
Dead customers stop spending money and that reduces business.
Those dead customers have usually lived just long enough to extract ALL of their money, over a period of several decades, and feeding not just the tobacco industry, but also the Medical Industrial Complex.
And remember what I said about Resource Management over all. Death is a requirement in the end. You ensure it's an expensive one that generates a lot of revenue for many, and your product will not only remain legal, but vehemently defended by the Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, I'd be sucking on "Hot bean water" everyday if it wasn't addictive.
Prior to that morning coffee I'm a goddam spastic.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey look, a pro-life conservative anonymous who is probably anti-vaccination and anti-masking, but still wants to bitch about the covid death toll. How did the quack cures of hydroxychloroquine and horse paste work out?
You are the douchebag that George Carlin was mocking when he talked about pro-life conservatives: we must protect the fetus, but once born, you're on your fucking own and we're not paying for healthcare, education, food, or housing. Good luck! Oh, and absolutely start using nicotine at 15
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
Because are politicians are actually giant furnaces with big gaping mouths with fire inside that we shovel our money into.
Re: (Score:2)
Well when you market your adult products to children the hammer tends to come down. Get the hooked on the great fruity vape flavors young so when they turn 18 you get them on nicotine. Note that the million other vape makers are still free.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
God damned right, where is my hello kitty assault rifle
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The only people having sex with children are republicans and the religious folks. Here’s a comprehensive list of them all.
https://dailykos.com/stories/2... [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA has been talking about banning menthol cigarettes "to help the black community" for years now. Non-menthol flavors were banned a decade ago. They've raised the smoking age to 21 already. They're considering mandating cigarettes to be nicotine-free. Employers won't hire applicants who test positive for nicotine. Many colleges have banned smoking entirely on campus. (As in, not outside, not in the parking lot, not anywhere.)
The war on nicotine has been accelerating for a long time.
They didn't outlaw e-cigs (Score:2)
The company t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see the "youth who take up vaping are likely to take up smoking".
I smoked for years, and I liked smoking. I've had cigarettes since I quit and they were pretty gross. I vape now and I can't see cigarettes as a viable option for replacing vaping. Vaping doesn't taste horrible, leave a vile taste in your mouth, bad breath or make your clothes stink. You can vape pretty much anywhere without anyone smelling anything, good luck doing that with cigarettes.
And this is from someone who used to smo
Re: (Score:3)
Until the Feds repeal the scheduling of pot, we're not doing to get anywhere really.
Funny, it took a full blow constitutional amendment to ban alcohol...and yet, the mere stroke of a pen to outlaw (schedule) all other forms of human consumables.
How exactly did that work?
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with war on drugs, nothing even to do with e-cigs specifically, and everything to do with one specific company.
If you think this has come out of left field then it just means you are ... as usual ... completely oblivious to the world around you.
As for "less addictive than cigarettes" Juul is the one company that not only doesn't sell nicotine free products, but even sells you an additive to make that high a bit extra.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:2)
No no they are not fuckwit and drivers under the influence has been a law for generations now
Re: Ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
You don't seem to realize that driving like a total fucking moron comes perfectly natural to most people.
Re: Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Studies have shown no significant deleterious impact on driving from marijuana consumption despite a measurable increase in reaction times, amusingly because marijuana doesn't affect your perceptions in the same way as alcohol. Specifically, alcohol makes people think they're in control, and marijuana doesn't. People on Alcohol speed up, people on Marijuana slow down.
Think of the Excuses (Score:2, Insightful)
Only in America can an industry responsible for over 400,000 American deaths every year, point the finger at the pathetic-by-comparison competition, and cry Think of the Children, as their parents are killed off by addiction.
* golf clap *
Re: (Score:3)
Only in America can an industry responsible for over 400,000 American deaths every year, point the finger at the pathetic-by-comparison competition, and cry Think of the Children, as their parents are killed off by addiction.
* golf clap *
Lets ignore that a tobacco company owns 35% of this one for a second...
You may not remember this because you haven't been alive long enough but when tobacco advertising was unregulated they expressly targeted teens to get them addicted to cigarettes early. Most countries made this illegal 30+ years ago.
Basically this is a ruling applying the same rules as tobacco companies (and alcohol companies) have had to abide by for decades.
Seriously? (Score:2)
I guess they want people to switch back to smoking tobacco which have worse cancer causing alkaloids than just nicotine. I am not sure who paid off the FDA .. tobacco companies or cancer therapeutic companies?
Re: (Score:3)
This is wrong on multiple levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Decisions like this should be made by elected officials. The FDA should make recommendations to Congress and enforce its decision. Legal, illegal, leave it to the states, etc
The evidence shows that vaping can help people get off of cigarettes. The FDA should protect the kids, but let adults decide for themselves. Similar to alcohol. Put MJ, magic mushrooms and vaping in the same category. Regulate, tax and let the states manage it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe try reading the article.
Re: (Score:2)
The FDA should protect the kids
Isn't that what happened? Juul stealth advertised to kids. Juul products get banned so kids can't by them via any means fair or foul. Unless I misunderstand something, it doesn't sound like other brands have been banned.
Re:This is wrong on multiple levels (Score:5, Insightful)
Decisions like this should be made by elected officials.
No. Decisions like this should be separate from elected officials. Lobbyists should not be involved in swaying the minds of the mouth-breathers in Congress when it comes to personal health.
This should be entirely a call from the FDA. It should be a call based on risk. And it should be applied equally across the sector. Ban e-cigarettes. And with the same stroke of pen ban cigars and regular cigarettes too. The entire industry deserves to be curb stomped to death, and executives, lobbyists, and marketing departments belong behind bars.
Big Tobacco Scumbags (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
How could this backfire? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Good. Next they should come for the entire industry and abolish smoking from the country completely.
Re: (Score:3)
And next...alcohol, that's a big killer.
And then:
Re: How could this backfire? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the concern but honestly they would be better off leaving it alone. It is about harm reduction, the genie is out of the bottle. Perhaps it needs regulations for marketing idk, just saying more harmful stuff out there that should be dealt with first.
Is the genie really out? If they can pull it off the shelf without riots on the street then I'd say that genie can get shoved back inside.
W.r.t. harm reduction people get started smoking by trying to look cool and fitting in with the older kids/adults. I don't see e-cigarettes diverting many kids from smoking.
I suspect e-cigs can work as a device to help addicted smokers quit smoking, and I have no objection to that, but maybe do that with a doctor's note so you don't have kids starting there and getting ho
Re: (Score:2)
the genie is out of the bottle
No it isn't. Vaping is in its infancy and still on a rising trend, while smoking is trending downards. It's not mature yet, and predatory companies like Juul (yes specifically this one group of fuckwits) should be purged from the onset.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if Juul users are addicted to nicotine and you just cut off the supply of juul, what exactly is going to happen? Kind of seems like this is going to end up with a whole bunch of Juulers become straight up smokers.
The idea is to save the generation after them from getting hooked as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Switched to vapes before all the hysteria, ratcheted myself down to 0 nicotine
How did you do that? Certainly now with Juul, they don't offer any 0 nicotine products. Could it be you simply vaped using the product of another company? Why would people switch to smoking instead of doing what you did?
and now with an RDA, 0-nicotine DIY vape juice is dirt cheap and easily available.
Good. Hopefully after Juul is curb stomped people can adopt the non-addictive substance instead.
Oh get a real job you government fucks (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally think smoking is a filthy habit, and so are most types of adult substances.
But I'm not a control freak who yearns to use the machinery of the state to impose my personal opinions on a country of 300 million people.
Re: (Score:2)
Cigarette smoke is not just filthy, but also harmful to non smokers nearby. Second hand smoke is a real thing. Thus, it is entirely reasonable for government to regulate it, at least in public places. I'm glad I don't have to suffer with smokers in restaurants or airplanes anymore, for example. That wasn't the case where/when I grew up.
I can still smell vape, but it is not as vile as cigarette. And I don't know how harmful second hand vape is. Not an issue anymore with current legislation that forbids both
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your personal opinion is that Philip Morris (a.k.a. Juul) stealth advertising to teenagers is fine (which interestingly few people agree with you) and you do want this opinion imposed on everyone else because you're clearly pissy that they might actually not be allowed to.
As always, you simply consider your own opinions to be right and just and therefore not imposed.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm not a control freak who yearns to use the machinery of the state to impose my personal opinions on a country of 300 million people.
Yeah abolish the FDA. What have they ever done for the health and safety of Americans. /s
Re: (Score:2)
I am. I want to stop it from being legal to smoke tobacco in public. Second hand smoke is still a serious health hazard. But then, I also want to stop people from wearing toxic perfumes and colognes. Some of them put it on so fucking heavy I can taste it when they walk past. Stupid sick fucks poisoning us all.
The FDA is just trying to divert attention. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Government needs to be small ...
The problem being the US has a federal government that can legislate on almost anything, thus simultaneously overriding the states and doing their job with federal money. The problem being, you have states that help the rich then demand a bail-out from the federal government. Furthermore, you have politicians and an entire party that promises "small government" then enforces the opposite, repeatedly.
Then there are the voters who delude themselves with 'my [party] politician/president will fix it'.
Re: (Score:3)
Government needs to be small, it helps make their frequent errors smaller.
The solution to incompetent government isn't to reduce it's scope. That just leads to anarchy. The solution is to purge the incompetent idiots from it.
America is a country of 330million people. It's a fantasy to think it would work with a small government. And for every crisis you can point to at the FDA you can equally point to something they've done that has positively affected / dare I say protected the people of the country.
Hoping kids don't buy Bugler and start rolling (Score:2)
As a kid growing up I saw the WWII vets, and others of that era and earlier, rolling their own cigarettes.
Huh, bags of weed becoming legal, but untaxed tobacco getting you ticketed or arrested? I guess it could happen.
Justification (Score:4, Informative)
The justification here seems to be that this particular brand of e-cig hasn't been shown to help smokers quit. Not sure why they expect a functional difference between brands; they expended a lot of effort to make sure nobody can legally suggest one cigarette brand is easier to quit and every pack has a warning to that effect. (Probably this weirdness is an artifact of the FDA being mandated to evaluate e-cigs strictly as smoking-cessation-devices and in no other way?)
It should also be noted that this particular brand (Juul) was the one the media made into the whipping boy for the whole industry. For years you'd get headlines about "Vaping grows EXPONENTIALLY among teens" (duh, because you're starting from zero) and Juul's name got thrown around far more than any other brand. Their biggest transgression was marketing to children, which it seems they most likely did.
Juul's cartoon character mascot has been gone for years now, but I'm not sure "Think of the children!" has gone anywhere. It could be a factor in banning the product, and "it doesn't work" is simply being used as a justification. Keep in mind, this the same FDA that recently approved an Alzheimer's drug that they themselves admit is ineffective.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why they expect a functional difference between brands
Marketing and product selection. Here's a thought experiment:
Brand a) offers an e-cig + single flavour product in a kit. The kit comes with various capsules that will allow you to smoke for 2 months before having to buy a top-up. The kit comes contains different vials to work through each with diminishing levels of nicotine. The top-up kit only comes nicotine free.
Brand b) offers an e-cig + multiple delicious flavours in a kit. It only comes with full strength nicotine. It is marketed as tasty and cool.
Do y
I quit after 30+ years of trying using vape (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried everything but couldn't kick it. Then I tried vaping. Vaped for about 5 years slowly turning down the nicotine. Stopping completely 3 years ago. My eldest daughter quit too using vape. My youngest vapes but hasn't had a real cigarette in 5+ years.
Vaping helps people quit so of course the anti-nicotine lobby, who in the USA get a cut of cigarette sales (conflict of interest much?) are against it. Fuck them with a spoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck them with a spoon.
You do you, but in between bouts of said energetic exercise, can't your youngest vape with a different brand instead? Or are we a on a give-me-Juul-or-give-me-death kind of thing here?
CEO Matt Stool (Score:2)
Re: Nanny state do gooders (Score:2)
"nicotine"...and cannibis
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like it may have saved your life. But kids who have never smoked or baked are still better off not starting to do either. The FDA isn't banning all vaping, only one brand. Do you think you couldn't have gotten off regular cigarettes with a different brand of vape8 ?
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize. General health policy can rarely make room for individual circumstances, like most policy.
Earlier, I meant smoked or vaped, not baked. Somehow I didn't notice what autocorrect did. Baked is what I actually was. I should never try to type anything more than one word on a phone. Lesson learned - I'm back on Firefox on my desktop.
My favorite non-prescription drug isn't caffeine, but alcohol. Somehow, I don't think the FDA is going to try to outlaw that. Prohibition was tried before, and failed. I
Re: Absolute bullshit (Score:2)
I was referring to your eliquid mixing as the individual circumstance. Surely most vapers don't do that ? Just as most alcohol drinkers don't make their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha. You'd be surprised. There are a lot of us, at least here in the US. With states imposing stupid flavor bans, or taxing eliquid to death, to the point where it's cheaper to just smoke cigarettes, we resort to doing it ourselves, and for others. Prohibition just creates black markets. Same old story. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Re: Absolute bullshit (Score:2)
BTW the FDA does regulate your facorite drug, caffeine. They have been going after dietary supplement manufacturers. Some highly concentrated ones have led to cardiac arrest. Too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Caffeine has an upper tolerable daily value, like most things.