And you’re not interested in whether they actually did anything, not even enough to respond to my point. I’m not interested in “simping” for them, but I am interested in whether there is any substance to the accusations. That article provided insinuation, not substance.
I really don’t understand this - what would be different if they were? I have no problem with the idea that Juul was irresponsible or whatever in their marketing but it’s weird to me that this all seems to be based on generally eyeballing the marketing and being like “yeah this isn’t for smokers/This is directed at kids” with basically nothing to back it up.
deleted by creator
And you’re not interested in whether they actually did anything, not even enough to respond to my point. I’m not interested in “simping” for them, but I am interested in whether there is any substance to the accusations. That article provided insinuation, not substance.
They clearly weren’t marketing to existing smokers to move away from a harmful product, to something slightly less harmful.
I really don’t understand this - what would be different if they were? I have no problem with the idea that Juul was irresponsible or whatever in their marketing but it’s weird to me that this all seems to be based on generally eyeballing the marketing and being like “yeah this isn’t for smokers/This is directed at kids” with basically nothing to back it up.
Over 20 times less harmful