For you viewing pleasure. Some facts and some interesting aspects of the industry. Your comments are welcome. 
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
The Rise of The E-Cigarette
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It was an interesting video indeed. The host in particular wanted to disagree with everyone; the shop manager's safety claims, and the widow wondering if ecigs gave her husband lipid pneumonia.
I honestly wouldn't mind if advertising was severely restricted. Most ads seem to be a bunch of differently branded, functionally equivalent cigalikes and eGos vying for market share, and it just seems futile to me.
I think vaping has always been pretty grassroots, and consequently word-of-mouth advertising will always be more effective. I also can't imagine a future in which I'll ever hear an ad on the radio for a svoemesto kayfun 6.1
It seemed pretty two-sided, but I am sick of hearing about the need for long term studies. I'm ready to find out how I can be a lab-rat for vape science...
I honestly wouldn't mind if advertising was severely restricted. Most ads seem to be a bunch of differently branded, functionally equivalent cigalikes and eGos vying for market share, and it just seems futile to me.
I think vaping has always been pretty grassroots, and consequently word-of-mouth advertising will always be more effective. I also can't imagine a future in which I'll ever hear an ad on the radio for a svoemesto kayfun 6.1
It seemed pretty two-sided, but I am sick of hearing about the need for long term studies. I'm ready to find out how I can be a lab-rat for vape science...
Last edited:
That was an interesting segment. In the meantime, vaping for me is a viable solution to harm reduction.
I agree, that is all I ever hear is that we need more studies. ECF needs an army of scientists, I'd gladly sign up for a study or 12.
Why not let us decide our own fate for what we put in our bodies? Why do things need to be regulated? If e-cigs do become regulated to my disadvantage (ie, Big tabacco wanting to pass laws banning everything except non-refillable cartridges), of course I'll continue to go as I am now, and start making my own juice.
I just need to add that if everyone keeps referring to them as e-cigarettes its jist giving WHO more ammunition to connect them to stinkies, I think as the HUGE community ECF is we need to get everyone to start calling them Personal vaporizers or just vaporizers. the further we can get them away from cigarettes the better.
Sorry seen the title of the thread and had to add my 2c
Sorry seen the title of the thread and had to add my 2c
We do. That example of useless e-cig is similar to the no.1 brand of e-cig. Just $6.99 for one cartomizer.
Brits eh? They think they are clever, but get ripped off believing anything.
Kim I agree. That's seen as a Libertarian view and one I agree with. In fact there are few Libertarian views I don't agree with. It's a shame that party has such a small percent of the general public on it's side. We sure could use those views in today's politics more.
Oh yes I agree completely ..advertisements of e-cigs and the perceived marketing to teens is what got us in the mess we are in with deeming regulations by the FDA.
Ya just can't keep a good secrete now a days can ya?
I enjoyed the take on it from the UKs perspective. On the studies regarding teen usage of ECs though, I don't see how that they can quite compare the US to the UK in that regard giving the population difference.
or is that $6.99 for one battery? (LOL)
HELP.
I haz confusions..
LOL..Good 18650s are around $9 here in the US.
The view is definitely slanted, but I think it represents the larger media view of the industry. There are challenges to shop owners for relaying observed benefits of use, but no challenges to the WHO's comments. Nonetheless I wouldn't get on them too hard for the piece - it's about as fair as I would expect. Balanced journalism is a hard thing to find these days. FWIW I think the majority of vapers would not care if marketing and age restrictions were introduced. I tend to think some of the rhetoric around the safety could use some ratcheting down given that long-term studies simply aren't possible because the data doesn't exist. That said it's an obvious catch 22 that you won't get the data or the studies if use is not wide enough to justify the expense of the research. People who suggest that a product shouldn't be sold until it can be verified safe with long-term studies are either not seeing the contradiction or have ulterior motives.
Just how many thousands of people are these anti's willing to let die during the "long term" studies? How long IS "long term"? Why don't they study the studies already out there? Why don't they interview vapers and their health histories that have been vaping 5-7 years? Why do they put out misinformation when they say they don't know ANY information?
Think you are correct, scratchtheweasel. "Ulterior motives" hits the spot!
Think you are correct, scratchtheweasel. "Ulterior motives" hits the spot!
With you on that one 100%.
Problem is : gubmint stands to loose a LOT of $$$. Our health is but a lame excuse to ban this and allow that.
You can vape a bucket a day and still walk straight , talk straight and 'function'.
Same doesnt hold true alcohol. Yet, the only attempt to ban it outright backfired badly.
On top of that, brewing your own hooch is easier than rewicking a reo
And latest by the end of college almost everyone has figured out the individual tolerance for ingesting. No sweat. Provided you leave cars and machinery alone when pasted. Gubmint has no issue as public is sort of 'educated' bout it.
And what bugs me no end is that every vaper's intelligence gets constantly insulted by bugmints all over the planet.
Why not take the same 'educated' stance ?
Like , look, current research says its far less damaging than tobacco, but there is no long term research yet ( as it's too new ), so you vape at your own risk.
Just don't come running with the lawyers when it turns out to do some hitherto unknown damage.
Clear and simple.
But I reckon there's simply too much dough and cushy jobs at stake.
Case in point : In Texas, local honchos decided to shelve a motion to increase the age limit for tobacco consumption to 21.
Prime argument were the forecast losses in tax revenue.
Last edited:
Just how many thousands of people are these anti's willing to let die during the "long term" studies? How long IS "long term"? Why don't they study the studies already out there? Why don't they interview vapers and their health histories that have been vaping 5-7 years? Why do they put out misinformation when they say they don't know ANY information?
Think you are correct, scratchtheweasel. "Ulterior motives" hits the spot!
Glad you enjoyed the video Chooch!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
