Are e$-$cigs$/$vaping devices good or bad? This seems to be a much debated question that is coming from a variety of players across our society. The FDA put out a statement $($see reference below$)$ that describes the use of e$-$cigarettes among teens as an "epidemic". They state that nicotine can have a negative impact on teens' brains as they develop. Nicotine itself, while much less dangerous than the cigarettes they often are contained in$,$ is not totally benign.

U$.$S$.$ News and World Report add to the debate that e$-$cigs are much less harmful than cigarettes and can be used to help many smokers quit traditional smoking.

Most parties involved, businesses, governments, consumers, etc. can look at this issue as nuanced and agree it has its pro's and con's. When used properly, it can provide a public benefit, but when targeted toward children, some say it causes a net negative to society.

Here in lies the ethical dilemma: Juul $($and several other major e$-$cig companies$)$ have been under scrutiny by the FDA and other local governments for marketing specifically to children. Juul's CEO, Kevin Burns made it clear that $"$it was never our intent for the youth to use JUUL." He and the company's management decided to take down some of its social media accounts, in response to the data that mostly young people use social media, stop the sale of many flavored Juul pods, and work with local businesses to ensure age verification. Do you think e$-$cigs are an overall net benefit or overall net loss to society?

Do you believe Burns that JUUL "never intended the youth to use JUUL"?

Is the PR of children using JUUL more detrimental than the profits that JUUL $($and the other companies$)$ could make?

Are the FDA and other government agencies overstepping their authority? Aren't they violating a business's autonomy in our free market society? Alcohol, painkillers, and guns also have a very harmful effect on our society $($particularly children$)$; are they getting special treatment?