Do you have any misconceptions about e-cigarettes?

At the end of last year, Juul, a three-year-old E-Cigarette company in the US with an estimated value of $38 billion, became a "company owned by someone else" after its news of a $2 billion year-end bonus hit the social media. (As one of the early members of Juul, I had already left to start my own business by the time I spotted the trenchant news in my Moments.)

The "other people's company" may have to think twice about its year-end bonuses this year, as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to ban the sale of e-cigarettes citywide, requiring that e-cigarette products not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) be banned from being sold in the city, and that online shopping platforms not be allowed to ship to city addresses. The ban will take effect in early 2020.

Since no e-cigarette products have been officially approved by the FDA, this is effectively a ban. Juul, the No. 1 brand in the U.S. with 70% of the e-cigarette market, is the biggest target of the ban.

San Francisco is where Juul is headquartered. In response to the government's new ban, Juul said it was committed to preventing people under 21 from buying its products, and that "adults need a healthier alternative to tobacco, and a blanket ban could lead some e-cigarette consumers to switch back to traditional tobacco products." They are seeking signatures for a public vote to reject the ban.

This is what Juul has known since it was founded. I worked for Juul at the time, and I remember Juul deliberately avoiding young models in the early stages of its marketing to make it less appealing to teenagers and non-smokers. But Juul's extensive use of Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms where teenagers are gathered, and the creation of a number of popular hashtags related to Juul, have made it onto the radar of teenagers in a big way. In the later stage, Juul's marketing images may be younger in order to meet the marketing needs of social networks, thus deviating from the early route, which has become the most criticized part of Juul later.

With a strong marketing push, Juul soon became an unexpected hit with teenagers with a mango-flavored vape product.

It's an "accidental hit" because Juul is priced out of the typical range of American teens: the cheapest basic set costs $50, and the follow-on bombs are $16 for four. Such an expensive product is clearly not an everyday product aimed at teenagers, which reflects that Juul was not targeting teenagers in the first place, but rather inappropriate use of social networks used by teenagers.

But Juul misses the point that there are rich people among teenagers (manually add a crying face to Juul). The "shopping effect" of wealthy teenagers is evident, and more and more teenagers are becoming users of Juul. Teenagers are also at a psychological stage where they want to imitate adult behavior in every way to become "more adult". The compact and portable Juul stick design and the absence of annoying second-hand smoke smell of e-cigarette oil, two advantages of the original product over traditional cigarettes and positive features of the product to gradually switch away from cigarettes, have become the "accomplice" of teenagers secretly using in school and at home.

But Juul quickly made adjustments. Last November, Juul announced that it was shutting down all of its Facebook, Instagram and other social media accounts. In addition, Juul announced that it would stop offering e-cigarettes in four flavors -- mango, fruit, cream, and cucumber -- at more than 90,000 retail locations. These flavors are available only through Juul's website. To avoid selling to people under 21, Juul requires buyers to provide their name, date of birth, permanent address and the last four digits of their social security number, and works with Jumio, a Silicon Valley technology company, to verify their identity to ensure they are at least 21 years old.

But judging by the results so far, the city of San Francisco is not buying Juul's efforts. This is despite Juul's revolutionary introduction of a nicotine-salted e-cigarette product, which has helped increase e-cigarette conversion rates five-fold among American smokers and changed the way 30% of Americans smoke. But San Francisco's city government has selectively ignored the positive effects of e-cigarettes on smokers. (I'll write more about why the invention of nicotine salts has significantly increased the rate at which smokers quit.)

In contrast to San Francisco's deeply biased city government, the UK's attitude to e-cigarettes is far more objective and scientific. Public Health England published an experiment last year showing that using traditional cigarettes is far worse than vaping. The experiment looked at what happens to a clean cotton ball when 16 packs of cigarettes are compared to the same amount of e-cigarette smoke. The results showed a striking change in cotton balls from white to brown and very greasy, while the latter barely changed. This is a graph of the results, which I'm sure many of you have seen:

A comparison of e-cigarette vapor (left) and cigarette smoke (right) injected into a container

Public Health England said it hoped the findings would help dispel misconceptions about e-cigarettes, which are 95% less harmful than conventional cigarettes. "Some 44% of smokers believe e-cigarettes are as harmful as conventional cigarettes, not realising they are healthier. We want to encourage more smokers to try e-cigarettes and to quit completely with the help of e-cigarettes."

So Public Health England's conclusion that e-cigarettes are a solution for smokers that could significantly improve their chances of quitting is consistent with what I've been saying.

Presumably sensing good will from the UK, I saw that Juul recently launched its first large-scale advertising campaign in the UK. Having been criticized for marketing on social networks in the past, Juul has apparently been smart this time. It only places its ads offline near tobacco stores, and carefully chooses where and when to place them -- at least 200 meters away from schools, for example -- to avoid being seen by teenagers. Instead of young models, the AD shows five regular smokers' experiences of completely quitting smoking using Juul e-cigarettes, which clearly emphasizes that Juul is an e-cigarette that provides regular smokers with an alternative to smoking cessation.

In a departure from previous show-product marketing, Juul is marketing "switch" to the 7.4 million smokers in the UK.
I have to say, Juul's use of that keyword is pretty accurate, because "smoke replacement" is exactly what e-cigarettes were invented for in the first place. Traditional tobacco in the process of burning, will produce including carbon monoxide, smoke tar and other harmful carcinogens. Smokers are not smoking 50 percent of the time when they light a cigarette, but the cigarette they are holding is still burning, while everyone around them is forced to breathe in second-hand smoke.

When a smoker takes a puff of smoke, only 30 percent of the nicotine produced by the burning cigarette in the course of the breath is inhaled into the smoker's mouth and lungs through the main air stream, while most of the rest of the smoke escapes directly into the air through the lips. That is to say, only about 20% of a cigarette about 80 mm long can be effectively inhaled by smokers, and the remaining 80% will become second-hand smoke that everyone avoids.

The vaporizer is activated only when the user breathes in. There is no second-hand smoke from the burning process. Users also know exactly how much nicola they are ingesting -- the nicotine content is listed in the e-cigarette kit. And because of the design of the vape and the minimum amount of breath required to activate the atomizer, the user's mouth shape when vaping is different from smoking, with almost no electronic smoke escaping from the mouth.

I'd like to use this chart to compare the ingredients of traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes and the smoke they produce. It's easy to see which product is less harmful. In addition to the simple comparison of ingredients, the table also includes smoking cessation gum, which has been approved by the FDA as a smoking cessation drug. The ingredients of e-cigarettes are as simple as smoking cessation candy, but they can provide smokers with the head-feeling, throat-thumping and visible smoke that smoking cessation candy cannot provide. Therefore, e-cigarettes can more physically and psychologically compensate smokers for the loss of quitting cigarettes. That's why e-cigarettes were developed as an option for smokers to quit smoking.

The city of San Francisco, apparently mindful of this trend from the perspective of caring for the next generation, has selectively ignored the need of adult smokers to stop smoking and those around them to go smoke-free, which is why it is so determined to ban the sale of e-cigarettes.

But, oddly, traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products are not banned.

Ironically, in early 2018, Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana, went into effect in San Francisco.

That means the sale of e-cigarettes is banned in the city, but the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products, as well as marijuana, is legal. San Francisco's attitude to e-cigarettes and their ilk has been mixed. While the Juul trend has stopped many low-quality e-cigarettes from cashing in, the brutal blanket ban has also closed off regular smokers' access to new, high-quality products. Despite the dangers of marijuana as a gateway drug and its controversial medical benefits, a large proportion of marijuana products on the market are manufactured by unlicensed manufacturers without testing them. Products that can lead directly to drug overdose are still freely available, but e-cigarettes, cigarettes' cousin, are labeled "forbidden."

San Francisco's ban on e-cigarettes reminds me of Prohibition in the US in 1920. At that time, the U.S. banned alcohol because the society believed that drinking led to domestic violence and social crime, and affected labor discipline and productivity. However, after the implementation of prohibition, not only did not get the expected effect, but also brought serious social problems. The underground black market was rampant, and the smuggling and trafficking were repeatedly banned.

As a result, the underworld in the United States developed and grew, which was accompanied by the rising drug and crime rate. The domestic brewing industry in the United States was also devastated. Prohibition was repealed in 1933 amid a wave of opposition, but its effects were far-reaching and disastrous for the nation.

Next, I'd like to introduce some of the most famous vape products from our company. He can effectively relieve smoking, and is not addictivehttps://www.healthy-cigarettes.com/3500-puff-disposable-vape/62830070.html