this isn't about juul failing -

it's about regulating the vaping industry so that entry /certification costs are so high that only incumbents can afford to certify their products and therefore capture market share from the small/independent players

this will be done by:

1) a draconian 'ban everything' scare-tactic that everyone knows is ridiculous (where we are now)

2) followed up by the 'reasonable compromise measure' (coming soon to a media spectacle near you)

Those of us who are annoyed by people vaping around us would benefit from less vaping. I won't claim to know or believe that Juul specifically failing would actually lead to less vaping, but it can't hurt.

Are you annoyed by people using juul sticks, or just the big cloud blowers using big battery mods? If someone were using a juul in the next cubical I doubt I would even notice.

Philip Morris. IQOS is about to hit US markets

The government. There is big money from cigarette taxes. Juul/vaping pays none. Juul IS big tobacco.

Basic credibility of the rule of law would certainly benefit, which indirectly benefits all of society.

It has been proven over and over again that when you ban an addictive substance, the black market and similar-but-still-legal options will rush in to fill the void.

Pushing for transparency, research and more data so adults can make better informed decisions about what to do with their own bodies is the answer. Treating adults like children who aren't mature enough to make their own decisions is not.

The massive, decades-long decline in tobacco usage, particularly amongst young people, serves as a strong and highly relevant counterpoint.

Restrictions on advertising, access, and efforts to increase the cost etc. have been quite effective there.

Yes, but unless you tell us how we can profit from that, that's not an interesting answer.

We can't profit from reducing national healthcare costs for things like lung disease?