> Smokers on average are addicted and would need to smoke some time during the school day and during their time at home.

My wife when she was smoking would go all day without smoking only to smoke at home. Also one of my school grade friends was a smoker at 13 or so, and he only smoked at home.

Also vape’s have a smell, it’s just not as pungent.

What you’re really saying is you can’t watch your kid 24/7, you don’t trust them, didn’t teach them why smoking is bad and now you want everybody else to suffer.

What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir. They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking. I don't think this is something we can just fine and move forward. If I walked into a school and shot several of the children I would be universally despised and strung up if the people could get their hands on me but if I market a product which leads to excess mortality of millions down the way the connection is sufficiently indirect that it is deemed somehow acceptable.

I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

> What I'm saying is that on net allowing juul to exist implies that the entirety of society is harmed including the people who pay taxes for the medical care required by people's vices as has been true of the industry to which they are heir.

I don't even know what to make of this. How many other things do humans do that are dangerous that we all have to pay for?

> They have clearly marketed themselves to young people who otherwise wouldn't have taken up smoking.

Why do you think this? Is it because of flavors? Do you not realize how many adults prefer flavored vape liquid? Or is it cause they ran commercials?

> I think the entire industry ought to be taxed out of existence like boiling a frog not because I want other people to "suffer" but because I don't want people to suffer.

So then you naturally try to force your opinion onto others. Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want? Do you think banning vapes will keep people from returning to cigarettes? Do you think addiction is just a switch one can easily turn on and off? You will cause more damage than good "taxing them out of existence like a boiling frog" (seriously wtf with that statement?) than realizing they are helping people and just minding your own business.

> Why has society devolved into forcing others to do what we want?

Because the only way to provide for the health of a society is with socialized medicine. Most of the civilized world has settled on this conclusion and even we have basically half and half.

In that context allowing people to be stupid as they want to be is ultimately allowing the stupid people to spend everyone's money.

So then this devolves into no drinking and heath police. Too much sugar in your gum? Fine. Too many carbs, fine. Overweight? Fine. Drink alcohol, fine. Light incense in your house, fine. Don’t eat the required 3 meals a day, fine. Don’t eat the menu prepared by the health and nutrition czar, fine.

Is this a country you want to live in?

Also we don’t yet have, and hopefully will never get, socialized medicine. Why do we prepare society by starting to implement the boot on the neck when we’re not even sure if it’s needed yet? Seems a bit assumptive and preemptive no?