Ruh roh! This article could have a prime target for eventual removal of comments if it had mentioned the use of THC in vaping apparatus!
Which 39 states’ AGs are filing this action? Only a few are listed. Are they the most liberal, most conservative, or mixed? It might be easier to list the states’ AGs who haven’t joined the action.
Will the youths who may be impacted by the outcome of the suit be more willing or less willing to support their state’s politicians who are behind the AGs in taking this action (…. when they are old enough to vote)? In other words, will the youths who want to vape, but no longer are allowed to vape, be willing to support politicians who want greater control over, and lesser freedoms for, us (US) citizens?
The article is about Juul and their marketing practices. Considering that Juul does not currently offer or manufacture THC products, it would have been really weird for them to mention anything related to THC.
Fourth option: too busy deleting off-topic comments and spats:)
Fifth option: Confidentiality laws that bar some states from disclosing ongoing investigations.
February 28, 2020 at 11:40 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
I see a bunch of my comments have been deleted recently, Andrew.
Sorry I’ve been contributing to those off-topic spats. I’ll try to be better
February 28, 2020 at 12:22 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
9
But Andrew, your explanation means Rosenblatt’s original comment was just trolling after all. There was nothing to “google”.
And yet you STILL leave Rosenblatt’s comment up while deleting my comments pointing out how it was the writer’s responsibility to identify the states – or if your explanation is valid – explain why they weren’t listed.
Ruh roh! This article could have a prime target for eventual removal of comments if it had mentioned the use of THC in vaping apparatus!
Which 39 states’ AGs are filing this action? Only a few are listed. Are they the most liberal, most conservative, or mixed? It might be easier to list the states’ AGs who haven’t joined the action.
Will the youths who may be impacted by the outcome of the suit be more willing or less willing to support their state’s politicians who are behind the AGs in taking this action (…. when they are old enough to vote)? In other words, will the youths who want to vape, but no longer are allowed to vape, be willing to support politicians who want greater control over, and lesser freedoms for, us (US) citizens?
The article is about Juul and their marketing practices. Considering that Juul does not currently offer or manufacture THC products, it would have been really weird for them to mention anything related to THC.
This entire article was a copy/paste from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-juul-ecigarettes-investigation/juul-under-scrutiny-by-39-state-attorneys-general-idUSKBN20J2JL
“Which 39 states’ AGs are filing this action?” Is your google-alternative not able to answer this question for you?
Apparently, the author wasn’t able to locate the list of 39.
Troll on, trollsenblatt!
Wasn’t able to, or presumed he was writing an article for people who knew how to use the internet and find some basic information themselves?
Got anything to add to the conversation aside from personal attacks?
Third option: too lazy to put it in the article, or link to it.
Fourth option: too busy deleting off-topic comments and spats:)
Fifth option: Confidentiality laws that bar some states from disclosing ongoing investigations.
I see a bunch of my comments have been deleted recently, Andrew.
Sorry I’ve been contributing to those off-topic spats. I’ll try to be better
But Andrew, your explanation means Rosenblatt’s original comment was just trolling after all. There was nothing to “google”.
And yet you STILL leave Rosenblatt’s comment up while deleting my comments pointing out how it was the writer’s responsibility to identify the states – or if your explanation is valid – explain why they weren’t listed.
Typical.