Juul/Altria...Willing To Sell Out The Industry To Save Their Bottom Line

[bombastinator]

You mean like how they can't currently sell to anyone under 18?

No. To anyone. Period. Personal use is personal use. I for example have given away juice I have made, but I cannot sell it without going through significant state requirements. “Generous donations” was a way for internet prostitutes to work nationwide for a short time but it got quashed. They really mean free now. If you give a cigarette to a minor it’s still illegal, but that’s a different law. Then you’re “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” I believe. Law is complicated and very exact. This is why lawyers make the big bucks and I don’t.

 

[ScottP]

No. To anyone. Period. Personal use is personal use. I for example have given away juice I have made, but I cannot sell it without going through significant state requirements. “Generous donations” was a way for internet prostitutes to work nationwide for a short time but it got quashed. They really mean free now. If you give a cigarette to a minor it’s still illegal, but that’s a different law. Then you’re “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” I believe. Law is complicated and very exact. This is why lawyers make the big bucks and I don’t.

I guess I am not understanding what you mean. If the product can't be sold, how does one obtain it for personal use or to give it away free? Of course this line of debate is probably moot anyway since I highly doubt they will restrict salts and leave freebase alone. That is counter to their endgame IMHO.

 

[jandrew]

If Vape-Company-X was your ONLY weakness then kill Vape-Company-X is the correct answer. Follow the logic, if you are a vaper then by definition you are already boycotting Altria, so how, as a consumer, can you impact their bottom line (which is the ONLY thing Corporations understand)? Answer, you have to boycott the vaping products that they have a financial stake in, which in this case is unfortunately Juul.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Juul and I would take no pleasure in making them go out of business, but there is no other way to impact Altria. Now if Juul buys back the stake Altria bought then they are off the hook.

I can see how you might see that as the logical answer for you.

However, in reference to me, yes I am a vaper, but no, I am not, in fact, boycotting Altria (or any other tobacco company). They do not have a product that interests me, and neither does Juul for that matter, but that does not mean I am boycotting them. If a Juul works for someone, that's great in my book. I am not, at this point, prepared to boycott what seems to be a successful smoking cessation product (and if the numbers that get thrown around in relation to Juul, it seems it works well for quite a lot of people).

 

[jandrew]

So I did a bit of googling.
Working Control
20% is officially considered working control of a company. apparently in practice it is much more variable.

To be more specific:

DEFINITION of Working Control
Working control is a situation wherein a minority shareholder or shareholders have enough voting power to influence or determine corporate policy. This exists in corporations with widely dispersed share ownership where no single individual has a majority interest, meaning ownership of 51% or more of the voting shares.

At this point it does not appear that Juul has widely dispersed share ownership. It looks more like they've raised all their investement capital selling in the neighborhood of 43% or so of the company. So, no, it would not appear that Altria, or Altria and all other investors combined could have working control.

 

[ScottP]

I can see how you might see that as the logical answer for you.

However, in reference to me, yes I am a vaper, but no, I am not, in fact, boycotting Altria (or any other tobacco company). They do not have a product that interests me, and neither does Juul for that matter, but that does not mean I am boycotting them. If a Juul works for someone, that's great in my book. I am not, at this point, prepared to boycott what seems to be a successful smoking cessation product (and if the numbers that get thrown around in relation to Juul, it seems it works well for quite a lot of people).

No, you are not boycotting specifically, but not buying their product is essentially the same thing, either way, they are not getting your money. The less people buying their products, or products that put money in their coffers is good for us.

Obviously we disagree. There are lots and lots of products similar to Juul that people can use to stop smoking, but allowing money from Juul to keep flowing to Altria is bad for anyone that likes flavors other than tobacco IMHO. I would agree that Juul helping someone quit is good, until the proceeds from them are used to eliminate the freedom of choice for everyone else.

 

[bombastinator]

I guess I am not understanding what you mean. If the product can't be sold, how does one obtain it for personal use or to give it away free? Of course this line of debate is probably moot anyway since I highly doubt they will restrict salts and leave freebase alone. That is counter to their endgame IMHO.

Heh. I guess I don’t understand who you mean by “they’re”. My answer to your question doesn’t matter either since the older stuff is all state based. The FDA would be making up their own stuff.

If I were uber-rich and bought a large (but non-controlling) stake in Vape-Company-X, and then proceeded to use more of my wealth to lobby for regulations that might harm other vape companies and benefit Vape-Company-X (thereby benefitting me) ... should you kill Vape-Company-X ... or just me?

depends. Are you an elected official using your position to do those things?

 

[jandrew]

No, you are not boycotting specifically, but not buying their product is essentially the same thing, either way, they are not getting your money....

By that line of thinking, then the number of companies I am essentially boycotting is large enough to render the term, essentially, nonsensical

 

[Eskie]

Here's a bit of a closer look at the deal. Altria is not involved in daily management and is limited to no more than 1/3 of seats on the board of directors. That's not assuming control. Altria also can't buy or sell its stake for six years, so no sudden buyout or dumping of Juul. Altria will assist in getting Juul placement the equivalent of Marlboro, a pretty good position. Of course that's now with "traditional" flavors with untraditonal by online purchase. That's not so terrible for either company as most smokers do start out with a cigalike that's tobacco flavored to initially get started. So if you're not targeting teens, that's theoretically OK. However they don't want to kill flavors because if Juul were the only company to do so users would defect to products that do. And a complete market ban would only decrease total revenue so it's not in their interest.

Altria has also invested in that herb stuff up in Canada. They know the smoking days are coming to an end and are diversifying across the board. If you can inhale something, anything, they want to sell it to you.

Interesting fact is Juul started as a spinoff from Pax. Never knew that before. Here's where that comes from. Tobacco giant Altria takes 35% stake in Juul, valuing e-cigarette company at $38 billion

 

[bombastinator]

Here's a bit of a closer look at the deal. Altria is not involved in daily management and is limited to no more than 1/3 of seats on the board of directors. That's not assuming control. Altria also can't buy or sell its stake for six years, so no sudden buyout or dumping of Juul. Altria will assist in getting Juul placement the equivalent of Marlboro, a pretty good position. Of course that's now with "traditional" flavors with untraditonal by online purchase. That's not so terrible for either company as most smokers do start out with a cigalike that's tobacco flavored to initially get started. So if you're not targeting teens, that's theoretically OK. However they don't want to kill flavors because if Juul were the only company to do so users would defect to products that do. And a complete market ban would only decrease total revenue so it's not in their interest.

Altria has also invested in that herb stuff up in Canada. They know the smoking days are coming to an end and are diversifying across the board. If you can inhale something, anything, they want to sell it to you.

Interesting fact is Juul started as a spinoff from Pax. Never knew that before. Here's where that comes from. Tobacco giant Altria takes 35% stake in Juul, valuing e-cigarette company at $38 billion

35% not 36%. Hmmm. That’s interesting. I’ve heard both numbers now. I wish I could remember where I heard the 36% number. Maybe in an article describing how annoyed the FDA was with this development. Not sure.
So Pax is not JUUL.. the specifics of that split interest me. PAX, which did the initial development, apparently is the company with the decent rep. The 6 years thing is also interesting. That’s enough time for the executives to make their personal pile, cash out, and stop caring what happens to everyone else. Also a cash deal, not a stock swap, which is more common. Someone got really really rich.
1/3 of the board means basically that the entire rest of board has to unite against them for them to not get their way. They only need 1/6th plus one to agree with them. The number of people on the board and who they are is starting to matter.

 

[englishmick]

No. To anyone. Period. Personal use is personal use. I for example have given away juice I have made, but I cannot sell it without going through significant state requirements. “Generous donations” was a way for internet prostitutes to work nationwide for a short time but it got quashed. They really mean free now. If you give a cigarette to a minor it’s still illegal, but that’s a different law. Then you’re “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” I believe. Law is complicated and very exact. This is why lawyers make the big bucks and I don’t.

The law they passed in Indiana included giving juice to someone for free. So in theory if you made juice and gave it to a friend you would face the same penalties as a store selling the stuff without meeting the State requirements. I don't think anyone was actually charged though. And the law might have been cancelled anyway.

 

[zoiDman]

...
20% is officially considered working control of a company. ...

Where are you Getting this From?

You also do understand that the term Working Control can have a slightly Different Numerical Meaning when comparing a Corporation that has Publically Traded Stock verses a Privately Held Company? Right?

 

[zoiDman]

No, it was not originally Altria or Juul's idea, but allowing a company to support this crappy idea with no repercussions from their customers WILL eventually lead to the death of vaping as we know it. Consumers have to demand freedom of choice, or it WILL be taken. This is not an IF but a WHEN.

I love Evolv DNA boards, but if they came out in support of a ban on flavors, or a ban on nonDNA devices I would boycott them as well. We have to show these companies that if they side against us, we will side against them.

So if an e-Cigarette or e-Cigarette related company, Hypothetically speaking, was pushing say the FDA to mandate that something like TC had to be a PMTA requirement, that would be something that you would consider Wrong?

 

[bombastinator]

The law they passed in Indiana included giving juice to someone for free. So in theory if you made juice and gave it to a friend you would face the same penalties as a store selling the stuff without meeting the State requirements. I don't think anyone was actually charged though. And the law might have been cancelled anyway.

So dirty tricks state level machinations, which BT has shown they excell at, could still play a role. It would require another years long state by state March though shooting down the subset of vapers who can vape protonated but not unprotonated. And the people they rolled the last time may be wise now. They’d need new and dirtier tricks. They might be able to do it. They also might not. I can see how someone like @ScottP might not be able to take that chance. Either way though, whether BT gets shot down at the cost of cheap protonated juice for his wife, or BT doesn’t get shot down and wipes out everything else instead the cost are going to get annoying for someone. Maybe the FDA can find a Goldilocks solution. They’re rare though.

 

[ScottP]

So if an e-Cigarette or e-Cigarette related company, Hypothetically speaking, was pushing say the FDA to mandate that something like TC had to be a PMTA requirement, that would be something that you would consider Wrong?

Yep. While I personally love TC, not everyone does. I am not going to force my choice on everyone else any more than I would want someone elses choice forced on me.

 

[zoiDman]

Yep. While I personally love TC, not everyone does. I am not going to force my choice on everyone else any more than I would want someone elses choice forced on me.

Gotcha.

 

[bombastinator]

If Vape-Company-X was your ONLY weakness then kill Vape-Company-X is the correct answer. Follow the logic, if you are a vaper then by definition you are already boycotting Altria, so how, as a consumer, can you impact their bottom line (which is the ONLY thing Corporations understand)? Answer, you have to boycott the vaping products that they have a financial stake in, which in this case is unfortunately Juul.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Juul and I would take no pleasure in making them go out of business, but there is no other way to impact Altria. Now if Juul buys back the stake Altria bought then they are off the hook.

...and all they have to do is find 38 billion dollars in cash. Assuming BT would be even willing to sell it back without major concessions of some kind.

 

[Brewdawg1181]

Pax Labs is the original company that's been around for about 10 years. They developed Juul, and submitted the patent info. I believe they were granted multiple patents in 2015. They spun the company off just last year. So until recently, they were the same, and the reputation would be based on the same thing. I don't think they had time to develop much of a reputation between spinoff and Altria. I believe Pax is still heavily involved in vaporizing herbal material, so their rep might now be considered a little less "legitimate." The six year limitation would be a standard investment requirement strategy, to protect Juul. Purchase then sudden dumping of stock could kill them.

 

[bombastinator]

Pax Labs is the original company that's been around for about 10 years. They developed Juul, and submitted the patent info. I believe they were granted multiple patents in 2015. They spun the company off just last year. So until recently, they were the same, and the reputation would be based on the same thing. I don't think they had time to develop much of a reputation between spinoff and Altria. I believe Pax is still heavily involved in vaporizing herbal material, so their rep might now be considered a little less "legitimate." The six year limitation would be a standard investment requirement strategy, to protect Juul. Purchase then sudden dumping of stock could kill them.

Kill them faster than the executives could vest their new stock and convert their shares into cash anyway. Iirc there’s a 5 year limit on the ability of principle share holders to liquidate stock in a new company in some situations. That might only be about initial offerings though. Again I’m getting out of my depth.
Damnit I just want to stay alive and relatively free. I don’t want to be owned by the FDA, but I DEFINITELY don’t want to be owned by BT. I don’t want to be owned by anyone. BT is far and away more evil it’s looking like to me, though no doubt it will be debated. I’ve spent the last what? 16hrs more or less glued to this site? Argh. And I’ve got more time for this than most people.

 

[ScottP]

Damnit I just want to stay alive and relatively free.

That's all I want as well.

 

[bombastinator]

That's all I want as well.

It may not be an available option. I find myself having to put a heck of a lot more faith in a Trump appointee than I’d prefer to even if he does seem better than average for that particular set.