First of 8,000 lawsuits against Big Smoke for addicting consumers to a deadly product - Page 3 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

Schroedinger's cat · 12-06-2008, 05:56 AM

I am actually surprised that sellers feel comfortable selling 24 and 36 mg nicotine juices, and most do so without any warning label or security cap. The amount of nicotine itself seems likely to make them liable if someone gets nicotine poisoning from it, and the lack of warnings and security caps (on any level of nicotine, actually) would leave them open to lawsuits if some child gets their hands on them. Nobody can claim ignorance about nicotine's toxicity. Even if they post the warning on their website, it seems insufficient. I personally am glad I have no children and no pets in the house (and basically could not sleep one night that I left my 11 mg liquid in the office overnight)....

Kimmiegrif · 12-06-2008, 06:15 AM

Kate hit it right...I also agree that selling/buying high doses of nic is heading in a unhealthy direction...not that health is the topic...but why not try and enjoy this new device that you can also cut down on the nic. Sorry...but I think its the young people that need to be monitored in nic use. Most (I know from past experience) look for extremes. Balance comes with life experience and maturity...sorry those that are "mature" in age for what I said...but why expose yourself to high doses of nic??????

Frankie · 12-06-2008, 04:22 PM

Unfortunately, it also seem(ed) to be trendy in this forum. When I came in to learn about things, I quickly got the idea that higher nic is much better and that any rough guy should be vaping 36 day and night. Fortunately, the "worst headache..." thread cured me rather quickly, so I actually dilute under the lowest 11 mg... Somewhere around 7-9 mg... And it works for me very nicely.

So I am quite happy with Kate linking that thread everywhere. Newbies might notn be aware of the danger even if they are sort of mature. I started smoking somewhere around 1982 and I had the idea that I did know what nicotine is all about. WRONG!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertrand

"it's just the poor and blacks who smoke these days." Tobacco company folk are evil.

Ouch. Being neither poor nor black, this gets me thinking... Well, he omited the stupid from his list

TropicalBob · 12-07-2008, 01:39 AM

There are numerous separate ad campaigns for "black areas" and magazines with emphasis on menthol cigarettes, highly favored by black smokers. I've seen reports of how much Big Tobacco revenue would be lost if menthol joins other "flavors' in being banned, as is currently proposed.

NOTE: I was answering an earlier post and didn't see those immediately above this. Jumped off the current topic under discussion ...

dc2k08 · 12-07-2008, 02:27 AM

74% of black smokers choose menthol according to one Philip Morris study i was looking at, the dominant brand being Newport. the percentage is around 20% for whites, asians and "other", 30% for hispanics. because of the cooling effect of menthol, it can be held in the lungs longer which causes more damage = higher lung cancer rates among blacks.

ALL ETHNIC GROUPS HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE USE... (mep96a00)

check this out though, Philip Morris tried once to launch a cigarette called "Menthol X". The brand was marketed in the African-American community, but was removed from the marketplace after protests occurred.

MENTHOL X (eyp28d00)

keys · 12-07-2008, 05:30 AM

The tobacco companies actually marketed a cigarette called "Life" back in the early 70s....

But aside from lawsuits re health, affecting this fledgling e-cig industry, I would be much more concerned about the big pharm companies. When I was quitting a couple of years ago I went through various pharm nic replacements. Nasal spray, inhalers and of course that Godawful gum. (The warning alone on a script of some pills they were peddling -- something before Chantix -- scared me half to death and I never took a single one.)

The nasal spray was the only one that really had a good nicotine uptake (a little slower than a real cig, but it definitely did the trick). However, it was like snorting Ajax; damn, that was some really horrible crap. And, since the US is a third world country when it comes to health care, without a prescription insurance plan the price of a tiny bottle was something like $125 bucks!

When those evil weasals get this e-cig business on their radar scopes (and realize it will cut into their phenomenal mark-up profits on nic replacment) you can be sure that all of the congressmen, that they have bought and paid for with cold hard cash, will put pressure on the FDA to ban them with some mealy-mouth excuse that "they should be banned until further testing," or some such other crap.

Frankly, addictive as it is, they should hand these damn things out for free! 500,000 people a year die from smoking (or some similar riduclous number). If they could put a solid dent in that, the money saved from health care costs, related to analog smoking, would be an absolutely stunning reduction in overall health care costs.

We can only hope that the powers that be, see the big picture.

And, I suspect, when wind of this kind on political corruption starts, it will be up to people like us on this board, to launch an all out attack on the particular paid-for congressmen who will try to slide it in when no one is paying attention. At least they hope nobody will be paying attention, as they pocket huge campaign contributions.

TropicalBob · 12-07-2008, 04:05 PM

I fear it's beyond campaign bribery. Fact is, smokers of any kind do not have public support. Florida is proposing a 300% increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Reaction? Major newspaper support!! Pass it. Cut down on smoking. SAVE THE CHILDREN. We have NO friends. Not for smoking, not for smokeless, not for something that looks like smoking. We will have no support in Congress or elsewhere in government. It is laughable to think we can influence the ultimate outcome. We are addicts and the sooner we reform, the better, in their eyes. Enjoy today.

keys · 12-07-2008, 05:00 PM

I beg to differ with my favorite poster on these boards, but alas, I must. Although the last decade has been rather depressing, I have never given up on the basic Jeffersonian principle that in a democracy, there is a marketplace of ideas and that as messy as it is, the better ideas will, however long it takes, rise to the top like creme. And so here we find ourselves again.

Since this has none of the aftereffects of tobacco -- any kind of tobacco: basic cancer, second hand smoke, throat cancer from chewing, unpleasant effects on fellow diners, workers, etc. The only hit on e-smoking is the addictive nature. So what? I am also addicted to coffee for a morning stimulant (which I am drinking now along with my morning e-smoke).

Point is, people don't jump out against e-smoking, I have noticed. I have smoked in front of my pharmacist, in stores, federal buildings. As long as my rap is pretty quick with: "there is no tobacco, this is not smoke, it's flavored vapor only. They have been receptive. This will be an educational process for sure.

The thing I am worried about is someone making the argument that this will hook people on nic and then they will move on to analog or that "there are unknown risks that we just can't allow" (so go out and smoke real cigarettes and die). Which is silly, but you watch, it will be made.

Like the Godfather said to Michael: "whoever comes to you with this deal will be the traitor." And this what to watch for because they (either an FDA spokesman, a congressman/senator, or lobbyist of some kind under the banner of a health group) will be talking about "health." . .. as they try to put the legislative knife in e-smoking.

They will be lying.

They will be the traitors.

They will be talking about protecting a financial interest. Mark my words.

They only win when nobody is looking. I say we keep our eyes open. Don't give up on democracy. It can be pretty powerful stuff. These weasels run scared when they see anything larger than a lemming. Of course, the other thing is that they will will desperately be looking for revenue in two years and this will be a target like everything else.

keys · 12-07-2008, 06:04 PM

Apparently it has begun:
dubya dubya dubya
kvue.com/news/top/stories/112108kvue_ecig-folo-eh.1d415e303.html
When the time comes, we are going to have to be ready to fight. We'll need the names and email addresses of those involved and make it miserable for them. They will try to do it when they think nobody cares. The lobbyist system in this country is so out of control. So corrupt. It's unbelievable.

TropicalBob · 12-07-2008, 08:39 PM

Thanks, Keys. We have a thread on that story (nearly all press accounts are in Law and the E-Cigarette). We also have a lengthy thread on I Talked With The FDA or something like that.

When I demo e-smoking to people near me, the demo is usually very well received. They smile, love the idea. When I showed it to my former boss, and demo'd it, he was fine for me to e-smoke at my desk. BUT .. the non-smokers were not fine at all. From across the room, they'd wave hands in front of their faces (the univeral You Stink, Smoker gesture). This told me a lot about perception. Sure, up theirs, but they're the majority, you must understand. They rule. We don't.

Yes, there's a battle coming, but it won't be e-smoking foot soldiers carrying the banner. It must be the big manfacturers who can present scientific studies showing our safety, lack of impact on anyone near us, the health benefits. That will be countered by arguments (behind the scenes) by both Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Big Pharma will say this drug-delivery device for highly addictive nicotine needs as much study as any NRT device; Big Tobacco will say to level the playing field by taxing small carts $1 each and liquid at $5 per 10ml. It's ... only fair ... to them.

Get ready.

12-07-2008, 01:39 AM	#24
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	There are numerous separate ad campaigns for "black areas" and magazines with emphasis on menthol cigarettes, highly favored by black smokers. I've seen reports of how much Big Tobacco revenue would be lost if menthol joins other "flavors' in being banned, as is currently proposed. NOTE: I was answering an earlier post and didn't see those immediately above this. Jumped off the current topic under discussion ... Last edited by TropicalBob; 12-07-2008 at 01:42 AM.

12-07-2008, 02:27 AM	#25
dc2k08 4mer 4um Addict Join Date: May 2008 Location: .ie Posts: 1,815 Tweet this post!	74% of black smokers choose menthol according to one Philip Morris study i was looking at, the dominant brand being Newport. the percentage is around 20% for whites, asians and "other", 30% for hispanics. because of the cooling effect of menthol, it can be held in the lungs longer which causes more damage = higher lung cancer rates among blacks. ALL ETHNIC GROUPS HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE USE... (mep96a00) check this out though, Philip Morris tried once to launch a cigarette called "Menthol X". The brand was marketed in the African-American community, but was removed from the marketplace after protests occurred. MENTHOL X (eyp28d00) __________________ E-cig News \| On Twitter \| On Reddit Last edited by dc2k08; 12-07-2008 at 02:33 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-06-2008, 05:56 AM	#21
Schroedinger's cat ECF Veteran Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: North Carolina, USA Posts: 163	I am actually surprised that sellers feel comfortable selling 24 and 36 mg nicotine juices, and most do so without any warning label or security cap. The amount of nicotine itself seems likely to make them liable if someone gets nicotine poisoning from it, and the lack of warnings and security caps (on any level of nicotine, actually) would leave them open to lawsuits if some child gets their hands on them. Nobody can claim ignorance about nicotine's toxicity. Even if they post the warning on their website, it seems insufficient. I personally am glad I have no children and no pets in the house (and basically could not sleep one night that I left my 11 mg liquid in the office overnight)....

12-06-2008, 06:15 AM	#22
Kimmiegrif ECF Veteran Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Maryland/Florida USA Posts: 606	Kate hit it right...I also agree that selling/buying high doses of nic is heading in a unhealthy direction...not that health is the topic...but why not try and enjoy this new device that you can also cut down on the nic. Sorry...but I think its the young people that need to be monitored in nic use. Most (I know from past experience) look for extremes. Balance comes with life experience and maturity...sorry those that are "mature" in age for what I said...but why expose yourself to high doses of nic??????

12-07-2008, 05:30 AM	#26
keys ECF Veteran Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: US Posts: 48	The tobacco companies actually marketed a cigarette called "Life" back in the early 70s.... But aside from lawsuits re health, affecting this fledgling e-cig industry, I would be much more concerned about the big pharm companies. When I was quitting a couple of years ago I went through various pharm nic replacements. Nasal spray, inhalers and of course that Godawful gum. (The warning alone on a script of some pills they were peddling -- something before Chantix -- scared me half to death and I never took a single one.) The nasal spray was the only one that really had a good nicotine uptake (a little slower than a real cig, but it definitely did the trick). However, it was like snorting Ajax; damn, that was some really horrible crap. And, since the US is a third world country when it comes to health care, without a prescription insurance plan the price of a tiny bottle was something like $125 bucks! When those evil weasals get this e-cig business on their radar scopes (and realize it will cut into their phenomenal mark-up profits on nic replacment) you can be sure that all of the congressmen, that they have bought and paid for with cold hard cash, will put pressure on the FDA to ban them with some mealy-mouth excuse that "they should be banned until further testing," or some such other crap. Frankly, addictive as it is, they should hand these damn things out for free! 500,000 people a year die from smoking (or some similar riduclous number). If they could put a solid dent in that, the money saved from health care costs, related to analog smoking, would be an absolutely stunning reduction in overall health care costs. We can only hope that the powers that be, see the big picture. And, I suspect, when wind of this kind on political corruption starts, it will be up to people like us on this board, to launch an all out attack on the particular paid-for congressmen who will try to slide it in when no one is paying attention. At least they hope nobody will be paying attention, as they pocket huge campaign contributions.

12-07-2008, 04:05 PM	#27
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	I fear it's beyond campaign bribery. Fact is, smokers of any kind do not have public support. Florida is proposing a 300% increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Reaction? Major newspaper support!! Pass it. Cut down on smoking. SAVE THE CHILDREN. We have NO friends. Not for smoking, not for smokeless, not for something that looks like smoking. We will have no support in Congress or elsewhere in government. It is laughable to think we can influence the ultimate outcome. We are addicts and the sooner we reform, the better, in their eyes. Enjoy today.

12-07-2008, 05:00 PM	#28
keys ECF Veteran Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: US Posts: 48	I beg to differ with my favorite poster on these boards, but alas, I must. Although the last decade has been rather depressing, I have never given up on the basic Jeffersonian principle that in a democracy, there is a marketplace of ideas and that as messy as it is, the better ideas will, however long it takes, rise to the top like creme. And so here we find ourselves again. Since this has none of the aftereffects of tobacco -- any kind of tobacco: basic cancer, second hand smoke, throat cancer from chewing, unpleasant effects on fellow diners, workers, etc. The only hit on e-smoking is the addictive nature. So what? I am also addicted to coffee for a morning stimulant (which I am drinking now along with my morning e-smoke). Point is, people don't jump out against e-smoking, I have noticed. I have smoked in front of my pharmacist, in stores, federal buildings. As long as my rap is pretty quick with: "there is no tobacco, this is not smoke, it's flavored vapor only. They have been receptive. This will be an educational process for sure. The thing I am worried about is someone making the argument that this will hook people on nic and then they will move on to analog or that "there are unknown risks that we just can't allow" (so go out and smoke real cigarettes and die). Which is silly, but you watch, it will be made. Like the Godfather said to Michael: "whoever comes to you with this deal will be the traitor." And this what to watch for because they (either an FDA spokesman, a congressman/senator, or lobbyist of some kind under the banner of a health group) will be talking about "health." . .. as they try to put the legislative knife in e-smoking. They will be lying. They will be the traitors. They will be talking about protecting a financial interest. Mark my words. They only win when nobody is looking. I say we keep our eyes open. Don't give up on democracy. It can be pretty powerful stuff. These weasels run scared when they see anything larger than a lemming. Of course, the other thing is that they will will desperately be looking for revenue in two years and this will be a target like everything else.

12-07-2008, 06:04 PM	#29
keys ECF Veteran Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: US Posts: 48	Apparently it has begun: dubya dubya dubya kvue.com/news/top/stories/112108kvue_ecig-folo-eh.1d415e303.html When the time comes, we are going to have to be ready to fight. We'll need the names and email addresses of those involved and make it miserable for them. They will try to do it when they think nobody cares. The lobbyist system in this country is so out of control. So corrupt. It's unbelievable.

12-07-2008, 08:39 PM	#30
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Thanks, Keys. We have a thread on that story (nearly all press accounts are in Law and the E-Cigarette). We also have a lengthy thread on I Talked With The FDA or something like that. When I demo e-smoking to people near me, the demo is usually very well received. They smile, love the idea. When I showed it to my former boss, and demo'd it, he was fine for me to e-smoke at my desk. BUT .. the non-smokers were not fine at all. From across the room, they'd wave hands in front of their faces (the univeral You Stink, Smoker gesture). This told me a lot about perception. Sure, up theirs, but they're the majority, you must understand. They rule. We don't. Yes, there's a battle coming, but it won't be e-smoking foot soldiers carrying the banner. It must be the big manfacturers who can present scientific studies showing our safety, lack of impact on anyone near us, the health benefits. That will be countered by arguments (behind the scenes) by both Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Big Pharma will say this drug-delivery device for highly addictive nicotine needs as much study as any NRT device; Big Tobacco will say to level the playing field by taxing small carts $1 each and liquid at $5 per 10ml. It's ... only fair ... to them. Get ready.