El gran vapeo: Auge y caída de Juul

As Episode 1 of "Big Vape" (2023 release; 4 episodes ranging from 43 to 51 min) opens, we are introduced to Stanford students and smokers James Monsees and Adam Bowen. On a smoke break, they fantasize of coming up with a better product that is less harmful to a person's health. Upon graduating from Stanford, they pursue their crazy idea... At this point we are 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is the latest documentary from longtime writer-producer-director R. J. Cutler. Here he reassesses the legacy of the maker of "the iPhone of e-cigarettes". I was vaguely aware of the rise and fall of Juul, but to see it laid out like this gives a entirely new perspective. And as it turns out, Monsees and Bowen say one thing (to rid the world of cigarette smoking), only to end up doing a great deal of harm themselves, and for what. (Money, of course!) Check out Episode 3, focusing on the teen vaping crisis that overwhelmed this country (and still does a lot of damage today). And what of Big Tobacco in all this? Just watch! These 4 episodes flew by in no time. Last but not least: this is listed on IMDb and several other platforms as "Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of Juul". There is not a single reference to that in the 4 part documentary, which is simply tltled "Big Vape".

"Big Vape" premiered on Netflix earlier this week. I binge-watched all 4 episodes in a single setting. If you have any interest in how one company decided to take on Big Tobacco by creating a supposed less harmful alternative, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

As someone who smoked since the age of 13, quit with the patch, got hooked on the gum and still occasionally smokes cigarettes, has a law degree and once dabbled in marketing I may have a more bird's-eye perspective than Juul apparently did. Just because it was marketed incorrectly and kids raising themselves with little or no authentic supervision got hooked doesn't mean the product itself was bad. I really question the quality of the legal team that allowed Juul to be blamed when cigarettes and conventional NRT are still sold and still easily get into the hands of minors. Hopefully, they had a good marketing team that knows when one product fails you just repackage it.

Juul should have had a legal team overseeing every aspect of their creating and marketing, which Apple - their big inspiration - has at every turn. They could have foreseen that vaping would eventually fall under age limits (and should have been presumed as such). They would have been warned that social media influencers' main audience are teen agers. Ultimately, they might have discovered that nicotine actually causes brain degradation and that the combustion associated with conventional cigarettes is not the only concern (still big tabacco's best kept secret).

During a time I had quit all nicotine and I was struggling with snacking and gaining weight, I was watching this film (can't recall the name) where a rich guy who owns a ballet team asks their tutor "So do they bring a salad for lunch or how do they stay so thin?" And the tutor replies smuggly, "They smoke!" Fed up with my extra 40 lbs, I went out and bought cigs. It did help but they no longer sold the worlds best cigarette - Nat Sherman - so I went back to the gum. The nicotine manufactures know that it's the hardest addiction to quit.

Gum was routinely used by college kids long before vapping was a thing but nic gum manufactures have not suffered, from what I can tell even tho they are the ones who started claiming it helps with studying and keeping weight off.

The big take-away here is that, yes, the creative team made a lot of mistakes but our culture is now trying to blame products instead of people. Its the Big Brother people in the 70s worried could happen if we keep trying to make the government responsibly for our welfare.

New cars now have technology that tells the driver when something is close - beeping frantically as if common sense is being replaced. But I promise, those same manufactures are going to eventually be blamed when the technology drivers come to rely on fails and someone dies.

The point is, there's always a law suit waiting to happen and if you pick the right legal team and the right jury, you are guaranteed an award. In the legal realm it's called The Money Grab

As a member of the legal world and someone who has studied nutrition extensively, I know that what's harming American citizens the most urgently is processed packages foods and fast foods and that they are the ones who should be wrapped up in law suits to relieve our health care system from spending billions of tax payer dollars annually from propping up "life style disease" like obesity and diabetes. But no one wants to challenge that industry because of the deep pockets. When a film like Fat Sick & Nearly Dead comes out the processed food industry responds with 3 films "proving" how safe processed food is.

The real take-away here is that we are all at the mercy of the squeaky wheels including parents who failed at the front end and now want someone responsible at the back end. It's the difference between common sense and the unreasonable passing of the buck we see today.

Please don't keep voting these l i b e r a l s back into office. Let's rebuild a nation of smart people who don't pretend to think everything for sale is safe and that those who make things are responsible for your misuse of them.

Gave this a go primarily because it's exhausting searching for something new. This story is actually pretty interesting and if they dug more into unraveling the actual business it would be great. But they spent a crazy amount of time with these influencers and it distracted greatly from the problems this company found itself facing. I mean.. they have Taylor Lorenz in this documentary, why?? It's all of these unnecessary interviews and frivolous input from these outside characters that drag this storyline on too long. I guess I was more looking for an examination of the failures of the business and this would be business case study with some backstory on the founders and the current legal problems. It isn't awful by any means, this doc just incorporates too many erroneous characters that don't really provide any value to the story.

So we have to label nicotine products with a warning: "Nicotine is addictive" but not sugar products? Or caffeinated coffee or green tea (which also contains nicotine)? Nicotine is used to treat Parkinsons. Nicotine is basically the same as vitamin B3 found in every multivitamin. It is basically harmless when inhaled. Check out Discover magazine's article about this "wonder drug" and draw your own conclusions.

The business aspect of the story on the other hand is pretty cool but they chose a questionable demographic in young people who don't typically have the wherewithal or wisdom to practice constraint.

The hypocrisy runs deep when it comes to protecting kids from unhealthy practices and the likelihood is that the tobacco lobby is behind the anti vape movement.

So the US government basically got rid of the only reputable vape system in the US and now the most popular disposable vape comes from China. How does this make any sense? As long as vape exists, kids are going to use it, so doesn't it make more sense that it should be made in the US? Some of these reviews that I have read are about the legitimacy of vaping. It should be about this documentary, which is very well-made. Vaping is a viable alternative to smoking cigarettes and the US government has ignorantly eliminated the best possible alternative. This just goes to show how politicians are so out of touch with the common man.