Just went to juul.com - it clearly states in a pop-up it's an alternative not to "quit": JUUL Labs’ mission is to eliminate cigarettes. JUUL is intended for adult smokers who want to switch from combustible cigarettes.

Further, it's peppered all around their site: Warning: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

I don't vape, but I feel like this case is bull.

Do you feel like this advertising sends the same message: http://www.ggeeoorrggiiaa.com/new-page-37/ ?

Yes, it's just a modern, hip advertisement. I don't follow the rules around ads and smoking but even that ad makes it clear that it's still smoking. The terminology was "Smoking evolved" and "x # of Puffs."

I mean the PAX advertising doesn't really scream marijuana, but if you buy it you know what it's for. http://www.thenoonstore.com/?attachment_id=650

They're really pushing it given the precedent the ban on cigarette TV ads set.

Last August https://web.archive.org/web/20170823043711/https://www.juulv... it said it was "satisfying" and had "cigarette-like nicotine levels". Both of those are apparently false.

I'm confused - are you agreeing the the folks bringing the lawsuit or saying the product doesn't work?

I'm agreeing with the ones bringing the lawsuit. The nicotine levels are higher than cigarettes and the users are not satisfied (according to the article anyway).

The potential danger is that non-smoking children start vaping, and then move onto smoking. We don't think that happens, but it's a bit too early to know for sure.

In the UK there's a voluntary agreement to not market to young people, and to not sell product to people who are not smokers.

Something like juul happening over here would probably prompt more formal regulation.

>The potential danger is that non-smoking children start vaping, and then move onto smoking. We don't think that happens, but it's a bit too early to know for sure.

It definitely happens, it happened to me and a few friends. I suppose we may be extreme outliers but I think it's happening a bit more than people might guess.

> JUUL is like any other nicotine alternative (e.g. gum)

Not exactly so, a distinguishing feature of Juul is that the nicotine provided is formulated as a salt rather than as a free base.

A salt? Ouch. Then the lawsuit may have merit, unlike the free amine the salt is absorbed only in the lungs, and you are forced to inhale deeply and get a nicotine hit.

Yeah, exactly. The linked article quotes parts of the suit that specifically say "nicotine salts" which I think is suggestive that this may be a big part of the case.

The description in the patent states that pharmacokinetics and pharmacopsychology of their product is comparable to traditional cigarettes, which all smokers know are addicting as hell. It quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems like misrepresenting the addictivity (spellcheck tells me that's not a word) of the product could be illegal.

I think that really depends on a lot of things.

If they said that it was less addictive than cigarettes based on the average nicotine in a cigarette versus the average nicotine in a single pod, it would depend if a single pod has less nicotine or not.

Just looked it up, they claim a pod is equivalent to a pack.

It would also depend on their exact claim. If they're just claiming that it's a way to get people off of cigarettes, then that's not the same as nicotine independence.

Vaping absolutely is smoking is every meaningful sense

Cigarettes contain a whole host of dangerous chemicals that are absent in typical vape products, which are all about nicotine (and flavor) delivery. Nicotine itself, while not healthful, is not responsible for the bulk of smoking's adverse effects.

E-cigarettes also give the user a lot more control over what they ingest. It's anecdata, but I know several people who have weaned themselves mostly or entirely off nicotine after switching to vaping thanks to the ability to mix or purchase vape liquid with variable nicotine content (this requires some level of knowing what you're doing and doesn't apply to mass-market products like Juul).

Vape products are also the largest existential threat to the status quo of the tobacco industry right now. Drawing an equivalence between e-cigarettes and conventional smokes vilifies the former and is exactly what big tobacco wants.

I'm not anti-regulation in general - designing e-cig products to give a more intense nicotine hit than smokes seems insane and if that's what Juul is doing then they can all get bent. But telling people that vaping is smoking is deceptive, and until conventional cigarettes no longer exist I believe that the suggestion is actively harmful.