I just got a pair of those $10.00 off coupons in the mail. One is for online which makes the Four Pod Kit $9.99+shipping, the other one is for any place that sells the kit and prices will vary. Here's the kicker... juul wants a copy of both sides of your Driver's license and a Selfie before you can buy it online. No dice juul. If I see the kit at a gas station for the same $9.99 deal I'll pick one up but only because I can empty and refill the Pods until the coils blow in them. There is nothing special about the whole thing other than the refillable Pods.
- Status
I can see there is an obvious misunderstanding here. It is not JUUL that requires this. It is the state government requiring this. In this case California, but other states have followed suit. It is obviously not in JUULs best interest to do this and they would not unless legally forced to. Here is the relevant regulation and I have included the link to the regulation so you can do your own deep dive and verification of the issue:
Delivery sales, distribution, or nonsale distribution (e.g., mail, phone, online) through the U.S. Postal Service or any other public or private postal service prohibited unless the age of the product purchaser is verified as 21 years or older at both time of purchase and delivery.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22963 (a),(b) (2019)
This is the same thing with many legitimate online re-sellers from other states of vaping products today with the e-verification program. An alternative is generally available to provide legal federally accepted identification at the time of delivery, although because of USPS, UPS, and FEDEX fee schedules you will have to pay an additional amount for this.
There also is the matter of the device, sans pods, that is deemed a tobacco product. Yes, the hardware is a tobacco product in the eyes of the federal government. How a machined piece of stainless steel of an atty or mod can be construed as a product containing nicotine is mind boggling, but legally true today whether you like it or not.
It's OK to be ...... at having to provide age verification, but at least understand who you should be ...... at and not misplace your anger. The best course of action for you, as you stated, is to buy locally where you still stand a good chance of having to flash a drivers license to procure your product. Not great, but less invasive overall.
originals are non refillable, at least not officially. You can try to refill but in most cases they start to leak after and even if not, they don't last more than 2-3 refills as far as I know.
We don't count. We're former smokers.
The context (that I may not have properly expressed) to my somewhat rhetorical question was youngsters who vape, but have never smoked. My thesis is that many of them don't smoke and never have or will because vaping is available, but if it had not been invented and didn't exist, many of them would have taken up smoking.
I still, honestly, do not see the problem with vaping nicotine as a teen. I realize the politics on this will probably never change. And yet, teens will be vaping nicotine today, tomorrow, a year from now and unless all new tech comes out, 10 years from now.
So many of us smoked at that age. Smoked! And 30 to 60 years later, we're here to discuss it. I guess I'm really really tired of ANTZ BS. Wanna believe teens are wrong to vape nic, goodie for you. You strike me as ANTZ if you truly think they should not. Think kids shouldn't smoke, and yet when you were a kid you smoked, I'd be extra careful with your judgments on that. Sure, it could kill you, but that murder may take a good hundred years to play out.
So many of us smoked at that age. Smoked! And 30 to 60 years later, we're here to discuss it. I guess I'm really really tired of ANTZ BS. Wanna believe teens are wrong to vape nic, goodie for you. You strike me as ANTZ if you truly think they should not. Think kids shouldn't smoke, and yet when you were a kid you smoked, I'd be extra careful with your judgments on that. Sure, it could kill you, but that murder may take a good hundred years to play out.
That's only because the ones that aren't here to discuss it....aren't. Of course the ones that are left are the ones discussing it. But there's plenty of people that died before age 50 and smoking contributed to many of them. Heart attack probably most common, but cancer and copd too, and let's not forget 50% of house fires. Then there's the medical costs that we ALL pay since insurance works like that, even if there's an extra premium for smokers.
I think (and hope) you're right that nic is less dangerous, but we won't know that either for a long time. I think it contributes to reduced circulation and other things.
It's best they don't get addicted. But I'm not freaking out, unlike my governor.
I think (and hope) you're right that nic is less dangerous, but we won't know that either for a long time. I think it contributes to reduced circulation and other things.
It's best they don't get addicted. But I'm not freaking out, unlike my governor.
And yet, there are still many that are here to discuss it. I get the people have died. Even non-smokers have died before age 50. Yeah, I know, big news, right?
I'm highly tempted to start a post asking who here believes 480,000 people die from smoking annually? Mainly cause I highly doubt anyone can back that data up. I've tried, and I cannot. I see it as a made up stat. And find it fascinating that the number hasn't fluctuated in a really long time.
I also think if vapers buy into idea that 480,000 die from smoking, then those same people will be prone to believe that x-thousand die annually from vaping related illnesses.
I'm highly tempted to start a post asking who here believes 480,000 people die from smoking annually? Mainly cause I highly doubt anyone can back that data up. I've tried, and I cannot. I see it as a made up stat. And find it fascinating that the number hasn't fluctuated in a really long time.
I also think if vapers buy into idea that 480,000 die from smoking, then those same people will be prone to believe that x-thousand die annually from vaping related illnesses.
No, they really shouldn't. But they shouldn't drink, screw, do drugs, or listen to obnoxious music either. A realistic person accepts many of them are gonna do at least some of these things and short of keeping them locked up in padded rooms, there's no way you're gonna stop 'em.
Then you strike me as ANTZ.
One wonders if you think they SHOULD be alive then?
Rhetorical question, yet fits with what you're conveying about what shouldn't happen.
I had 11 kids, but I killed them all because they were listening to obnoxious music.
I didn't actually kill them, cause no, I don't have kids. I realize that does make a difference (having kids one is responsible for), but also realize how hypocritical parents are given the fact that we were all once like them. But now being wiser, we think this time authoritarian control will surely rein in their (ahem) bad habits, and they'll respect us for it.
I still don't see using nicotine, especially via vaping, as a bad habit. Again, that strikes me as "Things an ANTZ might say."
It's generally accepted in the medical profession that the Human body takes time to fully develop. It's generally accepted by those professionals that substances like nicotine and alcohol should not be used until full development of the brain, lungs etc has taken place or there's a greater likelihood of them causing an adverse effect and/or having a detrimental effect in further development. Therefore it has been deemed sensible and responsible to have minimum ages set before allowing people to have legal access to said substances.
There is also an issue of informed consent and how old a person needs to be to be able to make an informed choice to do as they please. Laws preventing the sale of said substances to people below a certain age, help to prevent the exploitation of people deemed too young to be able to make informed choices. It isn't all perfect but few would be happy to see adults selling said substances to youth/children without restriction, and many would indeed sell to children if they could, and still do despite restrictions.
There is also an issue of informed consent and how old a person needs to be to be able to make an informed choice to do as they please. Laws preventing the sale of said substances to people below a certain age, help to prevent the exploitation of people deemed too young to be able to make informed choices. It isn't all perfect but few would be happy to see adults selling said substances to youth/children without restriction, and many would indeed sell to children if they could, and still do despite restrictions.
@Rossum I do have a kid. When he came to me and told me her was smoking cigarettes at the age of 17, I did get him a vape. He was able to quit vaping successfully after a few years.
Would I have wanted him to vape experimentally if he was a non smoker? Probably not, but it would have been the very SHALLOWEST freak outs with my kid, given what ELSE he was doing. I am very thankful he did something SO very dumb (and was caught) and hi s legal consequences an everything else got him on the right path. IMHO he kin d of needed it.
I am against teen vaping unless it's harm reduction like everything else. They break the law (and if my kiddo had flaunted his vape at a cop, say, too) but that is how it works, you pay your money and you takes your chances.
I AM TOTALLY AGAINST all the freaking TEEN lawsuits (I have seen ADVERTISMENTS) for the oh, poor tens who got addicted to their illegal JUULS..
I am CONFOUNDED as to how you SUE a company for using its' product when like, the ONLY way you could have gotten it was by theft, etc.
As far as I am concerned that class action lawsuit (It IS coming) well the settlement should be "You are all going to jai l now, you admit you were UNDERAGE vaping." etc.
But what do I know I am neither a lawyer or a judge, just a rather confused citizen.
I bet the test case will be that insufferable kid, the Jarod of vaping who went to residential treatment to "quit" vaping. Ugh.
Anna
Would I have wanted him to vape experimentally if he was a non smoker? Probably not, but it would have been the very SHALLOWEST freak outs with my kid, given what ELSE he was doing. I am very thankful he did something SO very dumb (and was caught) and hi s legal consequences an everything else got him on the right path. IMHO he kin d of needed it.
I am against teen vaping unless it's harm reduction like everything else. They break the law (and if my kiddo had flaunted his vape at a cop, say, too) but that is how it works, you pay your money and you takes your chances.
I AM TOTALLY AGAINST all the freaking TEEN lawsuits (I have seen ADVERTISMENTS) for the oh, poor tens who got addicted to their illegal JUULS..
I am CONFOUNDED as to how you SUE a company for using its' product when like, the ONLY way you could have gotten it was by theft, etc.
As far as I am concerned that class action lawsuit (It IS coming) well the settlement should be "You are all going to jai l now, you admit you were UNDERAGE vaping." etc.
But what do I know I am neither a lawyer or a judge, just a rather confused citizen.
I bet the test case will be that insufferable kid, the Jarod of vaping who went to residential treatment to "quit" vaping. Ugh.
Anna
You're right about "officially." But no, they're very easy to refill, and never leak. You're basically just removing a rubber stopper, filling, and replacing it. But for me, they lose all punch after one refill. Not much surface area on that tiny coil/wick assembly. Although I do NET - unflavored or something non-gunking likely would allow for several refills.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
