Late at night, heading back to campus after hanging out in downtown Atlanta, my friends and I encountered a “food truck” crowded with seemingly young students. The vehicle was decorated with colorful designs that read ‘strawberry’, ‘mint’, and ‘grapes’. At first, I had no doubt that they were selling some tasty desserts. However, with a closer look, I realized that they were flavors of Juul, a brand of e-cigarettes that is popular among adolescents. Both the person selling Juuls at the truck and the young teenagers in line for those Juuls seemed to be very excited. The question here is, are they okay to be just excited?
Of course they are not. E-cigarettes mimic the taste of real cigarettes, and there is a social perception that they are much less harmful to your body than the real ones. However, Jason Daley from Smithsonian News informs us that, “besides leading to a nicotine addiction, vaping may be exposing teens to chemicals linked to cancer”. Also, nicotine levels in e-cigs can be higher than in traditional tobacco products and can make users more likely to use the real thing, a study from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found. Underage vaping should be strictly prohibited for this reason. Like other drugs such as marijuana or alcohol, nicotine has a different impact on a developing brain than on the brain of an adult. The prefrontal cortex is often at increased risk in teens who use substances because it doesn’t finish developing until around age 25. Brain imaging studies of adolescents suggest that those who begin smoking regularly at a young age have markedly reduced activity in the PFC and perform less well on tasks related to memory and attention compared to non-smokers.
There exists a serious problem for the ‘Juul syndrome’. Adolescents tend to be very sensitive to social media, and the fact that Juul has a strong presence on social media such as Instagram highly contributes to underage vaping. In addition, e-cigarettes are highly accessible to adolescents, which makes them much more exposed to nicotine than they already are. Therefore, an intervention of the government or a stronger authority is necessary. A good news is that the FDA recently stepped in to make an effort in reducing underage vaping. It is sending warning letters to retailers that were caught selling the products to underage customers during an undercover enforcement blitz that took place over the summer.
The original article, The Juul is Too Cool from New York Times and the quoted article FDA Cracks Down on Underage Use of E-Cigarettes from Smithsonian,, are both reliable sources. Appropriate evidence is cited, and the articles are convincing and engaging to the readers.
Ashley Gold stated in the article that the Juul company was trying to combat teen use of their product. This CNBC article supports her statement and challenges the blog post because it provides evidence for the company taking action in making Juuls less accessible for teens. The article goes into the specific measures the company plans on taking. First, they plan on investing 30 million dollars to fund independent research and educate the public. Second, they plan on supporting raising the buying age of tobacco products to 21. Finally, they will ask social media sites to remove content depicting minors using their product and will disseminate information on the negative effects of nicotine on kids. Gold stated that the overwhelming use of juuls by teenagers was uncalled for and that they were trying to take action. This article supports her claim and demonstrates that the company’s goal was not to appeal to adolescents.
Citation: LaVito, Angelica. “Maker of Popular Juul e-Cigarette Says It Wants to Help Stop Teens from Using Its Products.” CNBC, CNBC, 25 Apr. 2018, http://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/25/juul-says-it-wants-to-help-stop-teens-from-using-its-e-cigarettes.html.
Your blog post is very compelling and well-written overall. I like how you started it with a personal anecdote that connected to the article and served as a hook. The personal point of view you were able to establish in the first paragraph is carried through the rest of your post, giving it a unique perspective on the Juul epidemic. It is very clear what your outlook on this topic is. I thought that your writing was very appropriate for your audience of college freshmen because of its level of formality and engaging quality. Although there were a few grammatical errors, all in all, your writing appealed to me due to the specific diction you used and transitions. Furthermore, the additional sources you used to support your claim were credible and appropriate. The study cited in paragraph two was not justified but was a good source to use as it gave scientific evidence for your main point that Juuls are not safe. The Smithsonian article included was extremely well justified and helps provide another perspective on how the government is attempting to end the Juul craze. I thought that your thesis was a little bit hard to find, however, it did directly relate back to the overall article and was concise. The sources you included and elaborated on helped support the thesis and prove it to be true.
I like how you addressed the severity of this problem as an “adolescent syndrome,” because in another article I read by Quartz, Michael J. Cohen explains that he has discovered something more addictive than social media as it relates to teenagers. Juul in particular taps directly into the reward center controlled by the nucleus accumbens and the ventral striatum. The nicotine in the Juul is delivered directly to the brain by the blood and almost instantly releases dopamine. It is shown how vulnerable people become after experiencing “rushes” in their lack of concentration, headaches, irritability, and even depression. This concerns me because as shown in MRI scans, places like the ventral striatum and nucleus accumbens are fully active while the prefrontal cortex is developing–leading to adolescents being more largely lead by reward or Juul in this case. While this elimination of cigarettes pleases Mother Nature it harms the cohort of adolescents as a trade-off. It also seems a little unethical (go capitalism) that inventors of Juul are more concerned with profit than well being. They are completely aware of the harsh withdrawal symptoms and increased usage in high school students, and the increase nicotine content in Juul, but are simply worried about another dollar. “There is no way to get rich off of a drug if there is no abuser. Moderation is not profitable.”
Citation:
Coren, M. J. (2018, October 23). Tech investors have found something even more addictive than social media. Retrieved October 25, 2018, from https://qz.com/1348245/tech-investors-has-finally-found-something-even-more-addictive-than-social-media/
Hi Asiah,
The Coren article you found was an interesting perspective from the side of the investor. “Moderation is not profitable” is such a chilling point of view.
However, best practice (in science atleast) is to cite the people who did the scientific research. So for example, these sentences “Juul in particular taps directly into the reward center controlled by the nucleus accumbens and the ventral striatum. The nicotine in the Juul is delivered directly to the brain by the blood and almost instantly releases dopamine. It is shown how vulnerable people become after experiencing “rushes” in their lack of concentration, headaches, irritability, and even depression. ” should be attributed to a scientific study. I hope that Coren’s article appropriately cites the scientific study!
Hi June,
I really like your blog and the personal experience your relate. I would never have guessed that there are “food trucks” devoted to selling e-cig materials. You make one statement in the blog that seemed to need some evidence “that Juul has a strong presence on social media such as Instagram highly contributes to underage vaping.” What is known about SM and underage vaping? Are there data to support this sentence? My anecdotal experience supports it but I’d like to have experimental data support as well.
KF