Clearly, the investment will boost the vaping category, if the government doesn’t shut it down first. Vaping is just another path to nicotine addiction and nicotine addiction costs this country a small fortune every year both in dollars and, more importantly, lives. Retailers are free to manage the tobacco category anyway they want, but I for one salute companies like CVS that put their lost sales where their principles are by not stocking any tobacco products. Retailers have to pick their fights and their go-to-marketing strategies, but it’s hard to talk about promoting health on the one hand and selling nicotine delivery systems on the other. We can pretend that vaping is harmless in the same way we pretended smoking was “good” for people, but it doesn’t change the medical facts. Caveat emptor? Sure … but let’s make sure retailers — and consumers — have their eyes wide open when they opt to stock and use vaping products. Retailers should be free to sell any legal product they want, but just because you can doesn’t… Read more »

Business is business. This is a perfect acquisition for Altria, as was the acquisition of buying pot company Cronos.

But before we add bans on vaping, how about we add bans on tobacco?

I think Juul understands that their storyline of being a positive alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes has run its course with the American public and their foothold has been strongly established so they can at least somewhat acknowledge what they really are — an addiction replacement for the 21st century. (Plus getting a $38 billion valuation certainly doesn’t hurt). Even if regulatory efforts become stricter, I don’t think it will adversely effect Juul’s sales. Older generations won’t be impacted by the laws and it will only add to the allure of the product for the younger generation.

I find this effort confusing. If nicotine is the addicting and dangerous substance, how does eliminating tobacco solve the problem when the alternative uses nicotine? Changing the delivery system does not eliminate the problem. Altria is changing the delivery system but is selling the same product — addiction to nicotine. The efforts to control or limit the new delivery system are ramping up. How has Altria changed their position from the old Philip Morris position of selling nicotine?

This discussion is particularly difficult for me. Yes, I have continued to enjoy cigars and pipe smoking while society around has chosen a puritanical response — hating the smoker. We kick smokers outside, out of airports, out of all public places when we kick out smoking.

All this has been done for “morally good” reasons. But societies always drape harmful actions with morally good patinas — it’s quite common. We need always look at moral legislation with a cautious eye.

My recommendation: The medical community needs to stay on top of trends like vaping and e-cigarettes. It’s very easy for new technologies like these to give an apparent “free pass” by appearing to remove medical risks. But the rest of the world needs to take a pause on the exaggerated risks of fourth-hand smoke.

From a business point of view the investment makes sense. Altria had its own e-cigarette brands as did/do all the cigarettes companies. There were also other e-cigarette companies (far too many to count) vying for the vaping market. What Juul did was reposition the competition in the consumer’s mindset. Instead of looking like a cigarette it resembled a USB storage device. It had a cool visual appeal that the other did not. It quickly became the dominant vaping device with a reported 70 percent of the vaping market.

There has been and will be a lot of discussion of the harm reduction qualities of vaping versus smoking. Both deliver nicotine to the user. Smoking involves inhaling the smoke from burning tobacco. Vaping does not. I’m not a doctor but information I have read indicates that vaping does not involve the harm that inhaling smoke does. Are either good for you? No, but is one less harmful than the other? So far it appears that way.