There are two ways to look at JUUL's early marketing campaign: 1) They targeted youth to get them "hooked" or 2) they targeted young adult's who smoked, because they'd be most likely to convert.
As we hear from ANTZ all of the time, most people started smoking between the ages of 13-21. Getting those people to accept low risk alternatives isn't as nefarious as it's made out to be when you consider that and the fact that people who have been smoking 20, 30, 40+ years are probably less likely to embrace a newfangled technology and would stick to their tried and true cigarettes.
Additionally, vaping was "sold" to the judge in Sottera vs FDA as a smoking ALTERNATIVE, not a smoking cessation device. If you're selling a competing product (rather than a medical treatment) it makes sense to target the entire market base, not just "old smokers who want to quit."
Finally, before JUUL hit the market, the ANTZ were going after flavors and brands such as Blu for "targeting kids." They ridiculously claimed that "famous spokespeople" were clearly targeting teens. Blu used Stephen Dorff and Courtney Love as spokespeople, who were in their late 30's and late 40's respectively when they did the ads. Most teens at the time wouldn't have known who these people were. But that didn't stop the ANTZ from claiming Blu was targeting kids with them.
It just goes to show that the ANTZ would lie and exaggerate regardless and JUUL just provided a great scapegoat for them. They lie (or misdirect/deceive) about JUUL all of the time, including claims JUUL sent representatives into schools and that they sold cotton candy and bubble gum flavors.
Did JUUL do some stupid stuff mainly out of ignorance (including the same mistake a lot of us "old timers" did in the beginning, thinking ANTZ could be won over "if they just knew the truth?") Yes. But JUUL also took the brunt for the questionable behavior of a lot of other companies, such as manufacturing hoodies and toys with hidden vapes, and flavors with stolen logos/marketing styles of kid-oriented products. The name "JUUL" was frequently used in the same breath with products they never sold. And "ads on kid websites" were most likely random Google Ads, not ads purchased directly from those websites. JUUL would have no real control of where those Google Ads appeared. Anyone who thinks JUUL would happily spend their advertising budget on marketing to preschoolers rather than adults who have money is delusional. That claim has ANTZ misdirection and deception written all over it.
Also, don't forget that the "teen vaping epidemic" is a lie to begin with. Even at it's height, calling it an "epidemic" was pure propaganda and the numbers were purposely reported in a way to make it sound worse than it was (using past 30 days/even 1 puff as "current user") while also ignoring the declining teen smoking rates. Additionally, teen vaping was actually declining in 2016--the year after JUUL ran it's young adult social media campaign. However, after numerous news reports and anti-vaping campaigns that essentially told teens "Hey kids! Vaping is all the rage with your peers, it comes in flavors you'll like, is easy to hide from parents and teachers and your friends are vaping in the school bathroom," teen experimentation (but not daily use) skyrocketed. So, who really caused the "epidemic?" JUUL, the vaping industry or the ANTZ anti-vaping campaigns? In lying about teen use, they had the option to choose any company as the villain and they would choose whichever one was the biggest seller. It just happened to be JUUL at the time.
Anyone who thinks that we'd be in a better position if JUUL had never existed apparently wasn't around in the early days, because they'd know that the ANTZ were using every excuse they could find to get vapor products banned BEFORE there was any survey showing teens were vaping. Flavors hook kids, gateway to smoking, second-hand vapor, renormalizing smoking behavior, toxic chemicals, etc., were all talking points before JUUL launched. They couldn't yet claim "there's a teen epidemic," so they claimed "this could cause a teen epidemic" and then made sure that happened. This is not and has never been about "saving the children." It's a moral crusade against anything to do with tobacco or nicotine and the kids are just a convenient tool in their arsenal.
