Just to show you that making "healthier" claims does attract unwanted attention

[TropicalBob]

Kate is 100% correct. Igetcha, your ideas are not based in reality. Any supplier who stated such a thing would invite demand for proof from an agency like the FTC. Common sense, beliefs, hopes, dreams, even personal success stories .. none apply here.

Besides, since when did reason overule rage? Angry antis will not be "won over" by happy arguments.

Besides, look at the reality of e-smoking and say with a straight face that you know it's safe. You can't say that. No one can assure anyone of that. We think so. But that's not enough to prove an advertising claim. Don't make such claims.

[sherid]

Sherid said what needed to be said very well I think, hopefully the message will get through.

Thanks. Of course I have not gotten a response, but who would have thought I would? I will continue to post and respond to those lies. Perhaps I will even join the group under an alias.

[katink]

What if, with almost all claims that suppliers and manufacturers are making, they would simply add one word: tobacco. So 'quit smoking tobacco with e-smoking' for instance.
Wouldn't that both get the messages across that the suppliers want to get across; and be not something the FDA or WHO could fall over?

Not sure on this; but I'm thinking about if this wouldn't solve a lot of issues on all sides... what do others think about this? Might it be one option to get quite a few difficulties/isues out of the way?

[sherid]

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but I do know that smokers have all along been simply too compliant. We simply played along with a little grumbling and did what they told us to do each time a new restriction appeared. Then, the anti smokers simply got CRAZY with it, and some smokers still just wrung their hands and said ok. I won't do that anymore. I will not do it where smoking is concerned, and I refuse to even consider doing it with e cigs. The louder they get, the more defiant I become. No freedom worth having (including doing things that may be harmful) was ever attained by wringing hands and saying, "may I please" I need to fight with truth, but I and many others need to fight aggressively before these people try to make me start asking if I may please take a second bathroom break. We have let this go WAY too far already.

[OutWest]

Let's face it....smokers might as well be lepers as far as antis are concerned. . . when banning in bars was just coming out, some posters first suggested allowing the bar owners themselves to decide to be smoking/non-smoking, rather than the government. Of course, that was shot down.

They don't care....they don't want smokers anywhere. . . A more closed minded group would be hard to find.

Absolutely spot on, unfortunately. It's been my contention all along that it should be up to the business owner as to whether smoking should be allowed in their shop. After all, they own the place. That a "Warning: Smoking Allowed Here" sign at the entrance should suffice. However, that's not good enough for the anti-smoking nazis.

And, the crazy thing is that they want rid of us, but they want to enjoy our tax dollars we spend on analogs. There's a township in Calif that passed a "no smoking outside" ordinance and I emailed their city counsel, telling them that if they dont want smoking in their city they need to stop allowing the sale of cigarettes and thus stop receiving the tax monies. Of course they replied with the typical tripe about how it's for the good of the children and the health of the populace, etc etc.


On an aside - hello all I saw my first e-cig back in july of '07, but the fellow that had it told me you had to get them from China. And, when googling to try to find out more, I didnt find anything. Admittedly, though, I didnt look real hard because he gave it mediocre reviews (he had a pen-style and apparently it wasnt a very good one because he said it barely helped and when he demonstrated it, it had very little vapor)

However, last night I happened to stumble across a thread on slickdeals.net where someone had posted about e-cigs from the dreaded SmokingEverywhere being on sale on Amazon and someone else on the thread mentioned this forum.

A little research here and I found out what a lousy reputation the company and their products have. So, I now have a black 901 on its way from VaporGuys thanks to this forum and all of you. I would have opted for one that's more cigarette-sized but figure the bigger capacity would be better for my needs (long work hours) and that by not being a look-alike, less chance of getting grief from those unfamiliar with e-cigs.

Already spent at least 6 hours reading here (if not more) and looking forward to spending more time here

[LaceyUnderall]

Welcome OutWest... you will find lots of good people and some lively debate around here... hold onto your bootstraps there cowboy(girl?)... it's gonna be quite a ride When you feel like being all activisty... head on over to Right To Vape... Some good things going on over there too...

[OutWest]

thanks for the welcome, Lacey

re: righttovape - ack! Not more reading!! *laf* Will check it out, thanks

[ZambucaLu]

Absolutely spot on, unfortunately. It's been my contention all along that it should be up to the business owner as to whether smoking should be allowed in their shop. After all, they own the place. That a "Warning: Smoking Allowed Here" sign at the entrance should suffice. However, that's not good enough for the anti-smoking nazis.

Not only was that not good enough, but the mere suggestion of having one (just one, mind you) smoking bar/restaurant/establishment/whatever per town/city was totally dismissed. They were not willing to give an inch....and that's why I don't like 'em.

Then what followed: smokers should not smoke in their car with a child in it; they should not smoke in their yard if a neighbor complains they could smell the smoke (as I understand it, some apartment complexes already have this rule....but these people were talking about actual homeowners); they should not smoke in their own homes if children are present; it just went on and on but the best was....no smoking in any public area, even walking down the street because they can still smell your smoke and are exposed to it if they happen to pass by you!

Needless to say, that thread took a very ugly turn . But keep in mind that there was only a handful of smokers and triple that of non-smokers participating in that thread. The animosity was truly astounding.

Lu

[eLiciafay]

This is also another reason why we need to call these Personal Vaporizers instead of cigarettes.

I call mine my "nicotine fog machine".

[igetcha]

Kate is 100% correct. Igetcha, your ideas are not based in reality. Any supplier who stated such a thing would invite demand for proof from an agency like the FTC. Common sense, beliefs, hopes, dreams, even personal success stories .. none apply here.

Besides, since when did reason overule rage? Angry antis will not be "won over" by happy arguments.

Besides, look at the reality of e-smoking and say with a straight face that you know it's safe. You can't say that. No one can assure anyone of that. We think so. But that's not enough to prove an advertising claim. Don't make such claims.

i suggest you re read my post bob. i stated the simple facts that every e-cig smoker knows as they have experienced it for themselves. i merely am pointing out that because of the fear of government reaction people are trying to change what are in fact the best reasons not to ban e-cigs.

read the thousands of posts on this forum alone from users who have experienced everything that i wrote then tell me its not reality.

i respect you bob as you have a lot of knowledge in just about every aspect of e-cigs, law, health etc but i think that maybe too much knowledge is clouding your own view and not putting things into perspective.

look outside the box mate and see things for what they are, not for how they need to be to please a government or health organisation.

as for the health side, i did state clearly that we dont know the long term effects of vaping. yes, i cant say for certain that short term use is not dangerous but again please read the thousands of posts from people who have experienced improved health since taking up e-cigs over smoking.

granted, they would have no doubt seen improved health if they had just quit cigarettes anyway without starting e-cigs.

im NOT saying suppliers should advertise them as a stop smoking NRT etc..........im merely saying that we all know its true, regardless of the political correctness that follows.

go back to the very 1st time you had a drag on a e-cig........can you honestly say your 1st thoughts were of the politcal, legal and health implications? i would wager your 1st thought was "wow, i could easily quit fags with this!"

as i said bob, i fully respect your knowledge. but i cant help but feel that your knowledge is clouding your own judgment of reality.

try viewing my previous post thru the eyes of the regular e-cig user rather than thru the eyes of a user who fears political correctness.


hypothetically, if there was no government, fda etc and people were allowed to do whatever they wanted without fear..........would you percieve e-cigs as a safer smoking alternative and as an excellant NRT device that does aid in quitting cigarettes? or would you still be insisting its the opposite?

besides, cigarettes kill millions more people from smoking related deaths than ...... yet the government has not banned them! a doctor once said that he would rather see people smoking lead than a fag!

i would bet my life that e-cigs will NEVER be found to be more dangerous than cigarettes.