90
The FDA reverses its ban on Juul e-cigarettes (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Food and Drug Administration announcedThursday that it has reversed its ban on Juul e-cigarettes while it reviews new court decisions and considers updated information provided by the vape maker.

The FDA first ordered the company to stop selling its products in 2022, but they have stayed on shelves pending an appeal. Juul has maintained its status as the No. 2 e-cigarette maker in the U.S. during this time.

Now, the FDA says Juul's products are back under agency review — although it emphasized that this new status was not an indication they would be fully cleared.

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Damage already done. My cousin who vapes switched from Juul to those convient gas station pens where you throw the whole thing, battery included, in the trash once its done. Worse quality, worse for the envrioment, more unknowns in the liquid. The FDAs ban on Juul did nothing but fill the market with worse products they couldn't give a rats ass about because the initial juul ban was bullshit and they knew it. They actively, and I'd wager knowingly, made Americans less safe.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 42 points 5 months ago

Definitely. Disposables need to be banned, and everything should have to move to either a refillable or cartridge system. The E-waste alone is a nightmare, not to mention who knows what's in those thousands of brands of sketchy gas station vapes.

[-] romano@lemmy.shtuf.eu 21 points 5 months ago

As a vaper I support this notion. Disposable vapes should go. Pods with replaceable cartridges and preferably also replaceable batteries (yes, those exist) should take their place. I'm mostly a RBA guy, so my only waste is a bit of cotton, some glycol/glycerin and a bit of wire. Batteries will also need replacing, but not for another few years. Personally I hate pointless waste. Throwing away something that's usable is a sin in my eyes. If you won't use it at least let somebody else use it instead, that includes the perfectly good components in disposables that get thrown away like trash.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

I don't even like having to throw away the bottles my juice comes in. I wish I could just take it back for a refill.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

I used to vape before I dropped nicotine but like even the pods were problematic enough when it came to environmental issues but hoooly we went in the wrong direction.

[-] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

And now that the big tobacco companies have caught up, of course the "free market" can resume

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

It's a big club. And now thanks to a large stake of Juul being owned by a tobacco company, they're in it.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

E-cigarettes are so awful for the planet (and probably their users). They shouldn't be sold until some better waste management system for them is developed. Something similar to a beer can deposit may work.

Each vape has a $2-3 deposit. All stores that sell vapes must accept old vapes and refund the deposit. This concentrate the waste to go to landfills or a recycling process and should help reduce litter from discarded vapes.

The litter from the discarded vapes can be hazardous to the environment because they contain plastics, batteries, heavy metals, and addictive chemicals like nicotine. These same materials make the vapes difficult/expensive to recycle.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 17 points 5 months ago

I disagree, that just adds more red tape to the process. IMO, they should just stop making disposables altogether. A proper mod kit is way better for the environment, and significantly less expensive than disposables, in the long run.

[-] romano@lemmy.shtuf.eu 4 points 5 months ago

Yep. While mods them self don't cost nothing, in general I'd say (compared to what a cigarette smoker would spend) this activity is relatively cheap. Biggest cost for me is flavoring and nicotine. The rest is negligible.

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Teaching engineering through the magic of addiction lmao

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

A complete ban would be ideal

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago

Incredibly dumb take, that's how you get the dangerous shit on the black market killing people.

Legal, taxed, regulated, not so hard to get you're better off going to someone on a corner and losing a lung.

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Even without the deposit, just requiring shops that sell them to accept them back for recycling would make a huge dent.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

People need an incentive to justify bringing them back to the store instead of tossing them out their window when they stop working.

[-] TheBigBrother@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Business it's business..

this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
90 points (96.9% liked)

News

23274 readers
3282 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world