Users Sue Juul for Addicting Them to Nicotine(wired.com)
wired.com
Users Sue Juul for Addicting Them to Nicotine
https://www.wired.com/story/users-sue-juul-for-addicting-them-to-nicotine
58 comments
Vapes aren't cheap. Somebody gave this kid $100 to buy his device and someone regularly gives him $10+ to refill it. And somebody is failing to check his age when he makes the purchase.
The only problem the school has is that they don't have a vape awareness program. That's all you can expect them to do with the money + labour they have. The police should get involved and charge the companies who sold the devices and juice.
The only problem the school has is that they don't have a vape awareness program. That's all you can expect them to do with the money + labour they have. The police should get involved and charge the companies who sold the devices and juice.
They can be much cheaper than that. Most options at vape shops are less than $50 and the liquid can be mixed at home for pennies on the dollar. The juul device that is mentioned in the headline retails for about $20.
MSRP $35 for the device kit (comes with the vape and the charger) $50 for the starter kit (device kit + variety pack of 4 pods). At least as recently as 6 months ago it wasn't uncommon to see starter kits going for $70 in NYC. $15.99 for a pack of 4 pods, often shops will charge ~$20, depending on area.
Lord knows that non-vaping 15-year olds are never known to be highly irritable, prone to angry outbursts, and performing erratically in school!
especially when they've just lost their bedroom door and been told they're on a urine testing regime
The nicotine addiction is unlikely to be his main issue, yes.
There's a cynical part of me that wonders whether this big anti-vaping push is funded by the cigarette companies, because these products are cannibalizing their business.
I worked on software for all of the major US cigarette manufacturers.
These companies are very interested in pushing their own lines of packaged/disposable e-cigs. It is very different from the cottage style hobbyist/enthusiast e-cigs. The big companies are kind of blind to this segment of the market, I don't think they truly realize how large it is.
Their approach will be to have the e-cig industry regulated much like the current cigarette industry is... in such a way that they can win through the sheer scale of legal attrition and achieve the current prices they have in cigarettes.
It is not by mistake that there are maybe 3-4 meaningfully large cigarette companies in the US that set the prices and rules, it is impossible to enter the industry.
I think there will always be an enthusiast segment of the e-cig market, much like the pipe tobacco one that exists now. Pipe has many small manufacturers and far less legal hoops and administrative overhead.
These companies are very interested in pushing their own lines of packaged/disposable e-cigs. It is very different from the cottage style hobbyist/enthusiast e-cigs. The big companies are kind of blind to this segment of the market, I don't think they truly realize how large it is.
Their approach will be to have the e-cig industry regulated much like the current cigarette industry is... in such a way that they can win through the sheer scale of legal attrition and achieve the current prices they have in cigarettes.
It is not by mistake that there are maybe 3-4 meaningfully large cigarette companies in the US that set the prices and rules, it is impossible to enter the industry.
I think there will always be an enthusiast segment of the e-cig market, much like the pipe tobacco one that exists now. Pipe has many small manufacturers and far less legal hoops and administrative overhead.
The cigarette companies know that we're going down the path of higher prices, higher taxes, more restrictions on sales and advertising, and more restrictions on places where you can legaly smoke.
That doesn't make them scared of the vape business, it makes them want to join the vape business, and a number of them already are selling ecigarettes and juice.
That doesn't make them scared of the vape business, it makes them want to join the vape business, and a number of them already are selling ecigarettes and juice.
This exactly, the rules around usage do nothing to curb actual usage and only to prevent anyone else from making cigarettes. This increases prices and hurts cigarette consumers.
The only outcome here is that well-meaning therapeutic e-cig / nicotine quitting businesses will likely be stomped.
The only outcome here is that well-meaning therapeutic e-cig / nicotine quitting businesses will likely be stomped.
Whatever evil cigarette companies are capable of, funding lawsuits establishing liability for delivering nicotine addiction devices strikes me as implausibly self-defeating.
If the cigarettes companies had any lick of sense in them, they'd pivot to producing vape juice.
There is a journalism campaign against Juul in particular, and I don't know why. They continue to run stories about how kids are getting addicted to it, and that somehow Juul offering flavors (like cotton candy) are targeting kids specifically.
Again, I don't vape, but have occasionally done Hookah. Flavors were the whole point of it, and I was well above 18 when I made the choice.
Warn against the dangers of vaping, sure, but I don't see what this company in particular has done. And I don't see how people don't realize the dangers of vaping nicotine.
Again, I don't vape, but have occasionally done Hookah. Flavors were the whole point of it, and I was well above 18 when I made the choice.
Warn against the dangers of vaping, sure, but I don't see what this company in particular has done. And I don't see how people don't realize the dangers of vaping nicotine.
Juul is also, by far, the most mainstream product on the market (at least, as far as school-aged children go). That's how it goes ... biggest target gets the bullet.
> but I don't see what this company in particular has done.
They've developed a special formulation of vape juice that causes a much more dramatic spike in blood nicotine levels, which experts confirm increases the risk of addiction dramatically compared to the gentle plateau of blood nicotine caused by other vaping products [0].
Maybe this is beneficial on net (Juul confirms outright that the nicotine spike is the entire point of their formula, but they say it's intentional to help people quit smoking) but don't try to muddy the issue by claiming they're being singled out for no reason.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17529442/juul-vapes-nicoti...
They've developed a special formulation of vape juice that causes a much more dramatic spike in blood nicotine levels, which experts confirm increases the risk of addiction dramatically compared to the gentle plateau of blood nicotine caused by other vaping products [0].
Maybe this is beneficial on net (Juul confirms outright that the nicotine spike is the entire point of their formula, but they say it's intentional to help people quit smoking) but don't try to muddy the issue by claiming they're being singled out for no reason.
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/3/17529442/juul-vapes-nicoti...
If any of the multiple NPR pieces I've heard mentioned that, my comment would have been more moderate. I have heard nothing about altered Nicotine composition, only that "vaping liquids can have a pack of cigarettes' worth" of Nicotine, and separately, that Juul has flavors, as if that's what draws teens into it.
[deleted]
I feel it's partly because Juul is "mainstream" vaping. So you have a weird "hipster" thing with people who vape. They want to talk to you about amperage, coils, batteries, and whatever. It makes them feel smart to a degree. With Juul, there's none of that. You get a small, discreet device, you replace pods, and that's it. It does the job it is designed to do, vaporize liquid.
Well they do have a patent for a better delivery of nicotine
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909967A1/en
a previous Wired article on the patent
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/pax-juul-ecig/
https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2909967A1/en
a previous Wired article on the patent
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/pax-juul-ecig/
To be fair: The patent (around Nic Salts) is specifically useful for the delivery of nic in low output devices. Imagine it like this: You've got 12 mg/ml in a high output device which can vaporize 90% of the nicotine, versus 50 mg/ml in a low output device (like a Juul) that can only vaporize 30%.
Essentially, the patent is mostly useful in shrinking the size of the device, not necessarily delivering more nicotine. And, truly; if you put Juul-equivalent liquid (50 mg/ml) in a traditional sub-ohm device, even high tolerance users would probably black out or throw up.
That being said, anyone who has done a variety of vape devices would concur that Juuls hit harder than anything else out there. And despite their marketing that they're trying to help smokers quit, they still don't offer any refills lower than 50mg/ml, which is an obscene amount of nicotine even for a low output device. Less talk and more solutions from Juul; let's start with 35mg/ml and 20mg/ml refill packs.
Essentially, the patent is mostly useful in shrinking the size of the device, not necessarily delivering more nicotine. And, truly; if you put Juul-equivalent liquid (50 mg/ml) in a traditional sub-ohm device, even high tolerance users would probably black out or throw up.
That being said, anyone who has done a variety of vape devices would concur that Juuls hit harder than anything else out there. And despite their marketing that they're trying to help smokers quit, they still don't offer any refills lower than 50mg/ml, which is an obscene amount of nicotine even for a low output device. Less talk and more solutions from Juul; let's start with 35mg/ml and 20mg/ml refill packs.
I don't think you can blame Juul for your own mistakes and behavior.
But Juuls are seriously bad, and this is coming from an ecig/vape user. I cannot emphasize enough that people need to stay away from Juul. The sheer nicotine they pack in their pods is habitually addictive, they're ridiculously expensive, their quality control leads to constantly leaky pods... any other solution is better as far as I've experienced.
Even the other "gas station ecig" products (Vuse, Blu, etc) aren't nearly as bad. But if you're trying to quit, get a normal sub-ohm device and create a plan. The beauty of vape as a quitting mechanism for cigarettes is that you have complete control over the nicotine content. Buy a bottle of 6/9mg/ml juice + a bottle of 0mg/ml juice of the same flavor, and create a dilution plan. Week 1, full strength, week 2, 90% 9mg 10% 0mg, etc etc.
Once the nic addiction is gone, all that's left is the ritual, which is a bitch to get rid of, but you can do it. Stick on 0mg, ween it off, and replace it with new healthier habits.
But Juuls are seriously bad, and this is coming from an ecig/vape user. I cannot emphasize enough that people need to stay away from Juul. The sheer nicotine they pack in their pods is habitually addictive, they're ridiculously expensive, their quality control leads to constantly leaky pods... any other solution is better as far as I've experienced.
Even the other "gas station ecig" products (Vuse, Blu, etc) aren't nearly as bad. But if you're trying to quit, get a normal sub-ohm device and create a plan. The beauty of vape as a quitting mechanism for cigarettes is that you have complete control over the nicotine content. Buy a bottle of 6/9mg/ml juice + a bottle of 0mg/ml juice of the same flavor, and create a dilution plan. Week 1, full strength, week 2, 90% 9mg 10% 0mg, etc etc.
Once the nic addiction is gone, all that's left is the ritual, which is a bitch to get rid of, but you can do it. Stick on 0mg, ween it off, and replace it with new healthier habits.
OK, you can't blame Juul. Can you blame its ads? Can you force it to warn about its products? Can you argue that Juul doesn't deserve all of the profits it makes from selling a risky product?
You could do the same with heroin or methadone. That would work, right?
Yes. The problem is that as you taper off the opiates you basically prolong the suffering by going through mild withdrawal with each step down.
The hard part is going to zero opiates, and tapering is infinitely preferable to jumping off a large dose, but it does not make it any less taxing on your will.
The hard part is going to zero opiates, and tapering is infinitely preferable to jumping off a large dose, but it does not make it any less taxing on your will.
So I used to smoke and then started juuling, and then eventually quit so I think I have a good perspective here.
The stories about users upping the amount of nicotine they consume is very true. I was a casual smoker (only a few cigs a day), and when I switched to juuling I quickly became a pod a day vaper, and was very addicted to niccotine. They really need to release differing concentrations -- while the 50mg is great for pack a day smokers, they need to release lower amounts for all the other types of smokers wishing to quit out there. The current formula has more nicotine per puff than when smoking a cigarette. I think they should get that on par, as many users with oral fixations just like to take many puffs, but may not want the nic.
However, when it came time to quit, it actually wasn't that bad. The biggest hurdle was the mental addiction to the act of juuling, but I didn't feel any withdrawals, and I didn't get quitting sickness (which I have gotten in the past when quitting directly from smoking)
The stories about users upping the amount of nicotine they consume is very true. I was a casual smoker (only a few cigs a day), and when I switched to juuling I quickly became a pod a day vaper, and was very addicted to niccotine. They really need to release differing concentrations -- while the 50mg is great for pack a day smokers, they need to release lower amounts for all the other types of smokers wishing to quit out there. The current formula has more nicotine per puff than when smoking a cigarette. I think they should get that on par, as many users with oral fixations just like to take many puffs, but may not want the nic.
However, when it came time to quit, it actually wasn't that bad. The biggest hurdle was the mental addiction to the act of juuling, but I didn't feel any withdrawals, and I didn't get quitting sickness (which I have gotten in the past when quitting directly from smoking)
Nicotine has a similar addiction profile as caffeine. It's all the other stuff mixed with cigarettes that makes it much more addictive. People who consume only nicotine (drops, patches, gum) and then try to stop using it have a relatively easy time compared to those who smoke.
Also, dosage and frequency affects addiction. If you are constantly doing it, you are going to be addicted. I occasionally (a few times a month) use vape drops with nicotine on the skin or sublingual as a nootropic. I haven't notice any addiction or cravings whatsoever.
Having had to deal with the disgust of roommates smoking, I was so happy when they switched to using a Juul. It didn't bother me at all after that. I did notice that they smoked even more though.
This case seems bogus. They are using the product illegally since they are underage. Don't see how you can sue someone when what you are doing is illegal. Also, it is abundantly clear that the product is addictive.
Also, dosage and frequency affects addiction. If you are constantly doing it, you are going to be addicted. I occasionally (a few times a month) use vape drops with nicotine on the skin or sublingual as a nootropic. I haven't notice any addiction or cravings whatsoever.
Having had to deal with the disgust of roommates smoking, I was so happy when they switched to using a Juul. It didn't bother me at all after that. I did notice that they smoked even more though.
This case seems bogus. They are using the product illegally since they are underage. Don't see how you can sue someone when what you are doing is illegal. Also, it is abundantly clear that the product is addictive.
[deleted]
Do these people have a case? Even if JUUL advertises themselves as a "quit smoking" tool, they did quit "smoking", no? Vaping is not smoking.
JUUL is like any other nicotine alternative (e.g. gum) -- has Nicorette been sued after people switched from cigarettes to their product and retaining their addiction to nicotine?
JUUL is like any other nicotine alternative (e.g. gum) -- has Nicorette been sued after people switched from cigarettes to their product and retaining their addiction to nicotine?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
Isn't this what some people want? All addictive drugs to be legalized so people can make their own decisions to take or not?
This lawsuit has nothing to do with legalization of drugs. It's about a company profiting from users' addictions, and those users are suing the company.
In this case, Juul engineered a product that causes a nicotine spike that increases the chance of addiction.
This isn't unlike any other lawsuit where consumers sue a company for engineering a dangerous product without proper warnings.
In this case, Juul engineered a product that causes a nicotine spike that increases the chance of addiction.
This isn't unlike any other lawsuit where consumers sue a company for engineering a dangerous product without proper warnings.
Of course nicotine is legal and addictive. Did people not know that? All the illegal drugs are already being engineered to make them more addictive. IF they are made legal, will their manufacturers also be sued?
I don't have the energy to get into the history of this type of lawsuit, but in US common law (and under some statutes, too), companies may be sued when the user of a product has a reasonable expectation that a product will perform one way, and then it performs another.
The most famous (and universally misunderstood[1]) case is the woman who got 3rd-degree, flesh-falling-off burns from McDonald's coffee and sued them successfully.
It was reasonable for the woman to expect hot coffee, as one would find in one's home. McDonald's served her much hotter coffee without warning her beforehand, which led to her underestimating how dangerous handling that coffee could be.
All McDonald's had to do was tell her it was very hot.
Juul is in a worse position because engineering addiction is much more malicious than engineering extra-hot coffee that saves the company money.
1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE
The most famous (and universally misunderstood[1]) case is the woman who got 3rd-degree, flesh-falling-off burns from McDonald's coffee and sued them successfully.
It was reasonable for the woman to expect hot coffee, as one would find in one's home. McDonald's served her much hotter coffee without warning her beforehand, which led to her underestimating how dangerous handling that coffee could be.
All McDonald's had to do was tell her it was very hot.
Juul is in a worse position because engineering addiction is much more malicious than engineering extra-hot coffee that saves the company money.
1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE
>The high nicotine content is well-known; the company says Juul was designed to help adult cigarette smokers switch to e-cigarettes.
I mean if you take something that delivers nicotine... that's kinda what happens.
What exactly is the case for the users here? Did they think it had less nicotine but it did not?
I mean if you take something that delivers nicotine... that's kinda what happens.
What exactly is the case for the users here? Did they think it had less nicotine but it did not?
There's a certain sense of irony that below the article, I'm seeing a "Related Video" that is effectively just an ad for Juul.
Did these users not know that Juul was nicotine? Do vapes like that not require the same big warnings on them that cigarettes and other tobacco products require?
A lot of big warnings on tobacco products are about health risks caused by substances other than nicotine. The nicotine itself isn't causing cancer and other diseases, which is why nicotine gum lacks the warnings.
> Juul use was pervasive at the school, including on the school bus, in bathrooms, outside school, and even in class
> In order to deter his use, the complaint says the teenager’s parents removed the door from his bedroom, locked parts of their house, instructed school officials not to let him use the bathroom unaccompanied, and subjected D.P. to regular urine tests.
> Yet despite all these measures, D.P. is unable to stop Juuling.
I can't help reading into this completely different story. It reminds me of dialogues in R.D.Laing book when he questions the patient and his relatives, and you can't tell who's "ill".
But even if it's accurate account on mother's part, why not to sue the school where they vape on a schoolbus?
edit: missed words