+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
Why can't BT embrace the e-cig? in Campaigning; If Big Tobacco actually took their heads out of their asses and marketed their own e-cig, not only would they ...
  1. #1
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Buffalo and NYC
    Posts
    336

    Default Why can't BT embrace the e-cig?

    If Big Tobacco actually took their heads out of their asses and marketed their own e-cig, not only would they make a killing, but everyone would also enjoy a wealth of benefits from it.
    -Better PR: PV's are massively healthier than analogs, no marketing a product responsible for so many deaths a year.
    -No ban: enough said.
    -Better equipment? I'm sure if they wanted, with their large wealth, they could easily fund R&D to create a new product that out classes what we have now for a fraction of the price.

    The world is truly backwards, it's beginning to disgust me.

  2. Advertisement
  3. #2
    Super Member ECF Veteran Overlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Stony Plain, AB
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Agreed.

    If I was the CEO of some Tobacco cig company, i'd be all over these things like stink on shat.

    Imagine if ... remember im Canadian ... DuMaurier, Players ... and for you American folk ... Winston, Marlboro etc came out with their own ecigs, this industry would take off, products would be vastly improved and they'd be more rich.

    I'm sure the prices would skyrocket, but hey, would be easier to get supplies. Would be nice to run to the local convenience store and get an atty and a bottle of juice. Although i'd imagine they wouldn't take that route. More like carts that couldn't be refilled but that would be hard to accomplish if there were still juice vendors out there. I would imagine those companies would do cartomizers.
    Tobacco Free Since July 21st 2009.
    Currently using the Omega

  4. #3
    Super Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Menasha, WI
    Posts
    618

    Default

    you would think it would stand to reason by marketing a product that doesn't kill their customers and harm the people around said customers they would greatly increase not only their profit but their reputation....something which BT sufferes greatly

  5. #4
    Super Member ECF Veteran boxhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chico, california
    Posts
    695

    Default

    hehehe. Their are laws against that sort of thing.
    well i know its here some place that BT cant have drug/device combo something like that...
    ladyraj has some info.
    my thought is BT wont have a safer cig because it would open them to 'what do you mean safer cigarette?' and lawsuits would just about be filed untill every smoker was accounted for...
    SD with 901 lots, 801 often, and 510 some....AND now I am a TankDriver yeah!

  6. #5
    Ultra Member ECF Veteran sherid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canton, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by boxhead View Post
    hehehe. Their are laws against that sort of thing.
    well i know its here some place that BT cant have drug/device combo something like that...
    ladyraj has some info.
    my thought is BT wont have a safer cig because it would open them to 'what do you mean safer cigarette?' and lawsuits would just about be filed untill every smoker was accounted for...
    If it is an alternative product, then that admission would be irrelevant. Besides, just as e cig companies cannot make that claim, neither would BT.
    "Deja Moo : The feeling you’ve heard this bull before !"

  7. #6
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Buffalo and NYC
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sherid View Post
    If it is an alternative product, then that admission would be irrelevant. Besides, just as e cig companies cannot make that claim, neither would BT.
    True, Camel and Marlboro don't even attempt that for their snus products, which if they were made like real snus as I would like to believe, they very well could.

    But regardless, even if they did take off with e-cigs, the clientele would do their own share of marketing them as safer. They wouldn't have to do anything. And if they market it as an alternative for committed smokers, I'm sure there wouldn't be too many problems with the law. If so, they could always create a new shadow corporation that could sell these without the typical brand name.

    As far as non-refillable carts go, as long as you can see your atty, you can always drip. Then again though, they might take Ploom's style and stick us with capsules.
    Last edited by umop apisdn; 11-12-2009 at 12:39 AM.

  8. #7
    Mac
    Mac is offline
    Registered Supplier - Offline
    a.k.a. Dr. Morbid
    ECF Veteran Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hampton Roads, VA (come see me live and in person at a mall near you)
    Posts
    1,873
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If I recall correctly LegalOne stated in the SEvsFDA thread that BT is forbidden from offering reduced harm or cessation products by law. If that is true, I would say the real bad guys here aren't the BT tycoons but the government funded ones. Disturbing to say the least.
    Chasing the tail of dogma..

  9. #8
    Registered Supplier ECF Veteran NanoVapor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Western Canada
    Posts
    223

    Default

    Theres also the fact Big Pharma has been given the respective nicotine-alternative markets. Id say BP is pulling more weight with the FDA than BT. I dont think the FDA would ever let BT advance into those markets simply to protect turf they gave to BP (it makes the FDA look better if they pander to BP than BT, public opinion-wise).

  10. #9
    Super Member ECF Veteran boxhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chico, california
    Posts
    695

    Default

    look to, at some of shireid`s posts about BT and FDA, and idea and an a product, that changed how tobacco is used would give the momentem that already caving in BT a final blow to what is fast becoming the new scarlet letter in the world at large...
    BP on the other hand is on an edge that will go with the money first, people third...
    who would argue that well people makes us money. us being the nameless entity
    SD with 901 lots, 801 often, and 510 some....AND now I am a TankDriver yeah!

  11. #10
    Super Member ECF Veteran Antebellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Madison, GA
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Another thing to remember about the FDA is that big pharma is their client. I saw that in direct quote where an FDA official was talking about a company - she called it at one point "our client." The FDA sees their role, apparently, as servicing big pharma. The American public is NOT their client.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO