A Question of Ethics

[xanderxman]

People who choose to do things they know are bad for them are simply victims of their own stupidity. I was, as was every other former smoker who started within the past 40 years...
The utter lack of responsibility for ones' own actions is why we are becoming a nanny state...

That was not the answer to the question posted by the OP. The OP asked if you would buy something that BT sold. We all know we were stupid to start smoking.

I will not give one further dime to BT. I will also vote out every politician that supports BT. I will not support BT any longer. At any point I can stop supporting BT, I will. I refuse to let some self important douche decide what I can do to myself. The US has not banned cheesecake, ice cream, GMOs or any other number of items that can cause harm when ingested. We are left to make those decisions ourselves. Why? Because $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Follow the $ and you will find the truth.

 

[Tom Servo]

Many of the anti-vaping bills are sponsored by Big tobacco.

Can you point me to some of the bills that are known to have been pushed by tobacco companies? That could come in handy in a debate.

As far as the topic at hand, I know what's in the juice I buy. Do I know what Laramie Cigarette (and now E-Cigarette!) Inc. puts in their stuff? Not for long. Notice that cigarette packaging doesn't have a list of ingredients, which is somewhat unique for a consumable product.

They could work all sorts of chemistry into their e juice to make it feel more potent, and the general public might be fooled into thinking it was better than the stuff we're vaping now. It doesn't really feel like a question of ethics to me so much as simple self-protection.

 

[HauntedMyst]

You missed the whole point about what I was saying about guns. The gun manufacturers at least try to make their product safer. There are options out there. There is no safer cigarette. They actually purposely avoided making a safer cigarette. I and most people know how dangerous cigarettes are now, but can you really say that 10 or 15 years ago? In the modern age of high speed internet and smart devices information spreads like wild fire, but this wasn't always the case. Did I know they were bad for me? Yeah, but so was cheesecake. Did I know there were 4,000 chemicals in them? .... no, and I don't think I'm alone. You also seem to know little of addiction if you think it's just a dumb choice to use drugs. People fall in to addictions it happens so fast you don't even realize it. Drugs and cigarettes are pushed on people through media and in social situations. You completely ignore there use of subliminal marketing, and put full blame on the user. When in fact the user is a victim of greedy evil men who manipulate the system and the minds of people everywhere in order to legally sell addictive poison.

Actually, I got the whole point about gun manufacturers and safeties, it just wasn't in any way relevant which leads me to believe you missed the point I was making. Let me make it a little clearer for you. If you have 6 people playing Russian Roulette and one of them dies playing Russian Roulette, you don't blame the gun or the gun manufacturer. It doesn't matter how many safety features the gun has, if you play Russian Roulette with it, it's your fault. I'm not sure how old you are but my parents grew up in the age before cigarettes were declared dangerous. They smoked and didn't know the dangers. I was a kid when they were declared dangerous and addictive. I smoked and knew the dangers. That you didn't know there were 4000 chemicals in them is some what irrelevant. How many chemicals did you need to know about to know they were dangerous? Would it be 100? 1000? 2000? Or wasn't the warnings all over the side of the pack stating cigarettes cause lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema enough?

When it comes to addiction, I am intimately familiar with it. My own addiction to cigarettes. Multiple family members who are or were alcoholics and a brother who was addicted to [MODERATED]. A brother for who I was part of the intervention. Becoming an addict is easy. Becoming an ex-addict is hard. For the most part, both are a choice. That's the difference between addiction and a true disease. I can't cure myself of cancer but I cured myself of cigarettes, by choice. Media and subliminal advertising is to blame? Sure. Starbucks must draw naked women into their ads. I'm addicted to their mochas. BTW, if you equated the badness of cheesecake and cigarettes, you might want to consider wearing a helmet in day to day life.

 

[leerm8680]

I can't fathom a vaper on ECF that would support anything BT or BP would sell. Guess I am either a misguided idiot or someone who sees the truth. I wouldn't trust my own worst enemy if they offered me a pie so why would I trust anything BT or BP has to offer?

But I guess as long as you can have the next cool thing then why really worry about it?

Whatever BT offers for e-cigarettes will most likely be proprietary in design. Their versions of e-liquids will most likely be as addicting as their 'analogues'. They keep throwing monies into the coffers and then the government bans e-cigarettes that do not meet the XYZ criteria, a criterion that only a Billion-dollar corporation can reach. BT gets their pseudo-monopoly on the e-cigarette market, and reclaims the revenues lost from the 'analogue' market. Government gets their sin taxes and contributions. Everyone wins... except those of us formerly known as vapers.

 

[Fir3b1rd]

I would have no problem buying liquid from them. I'm a libertarian and free market system proponent. If they can make a good product at a good price why not? I knew how bad smoking was when I started and they didn't force me to buy it, light it and smoke it; all they did was provide it. They provided it because there is a demand for it. Now I am in demand for e-liquid a good liquid at a good price if they can provide I'll give them my money. It's an American company with American worker and American worker families benefiting from my money also. Being a separatist benefits no one including myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StephenMulkey]

Actually, I got the whole point about gun manufacturers and safeties, it just wasn't in any way relevant which leads me to believe you missed the point I was making. Let me make it a little clearer for you. If you have 6 people playing Russian Roulette and one of them dies playing Russian Roulette, you don't blame the gun or the gun manufacturer. It doesn't matter how many safety features the gun has, if you play Russian Roulette with it, it's your fault. I'm not sure how old you are but my parents grew up in the age before cigarettes were declared dangerous. They smoked and didn't know the dangers. I was a kid when they were declared dangerous and addictive. I smoked and knew the dangers. That you didn't know there were 4000 chemicals in them is some what irrelevant. How many chemicals did you need to know about to know they were dangerous? Would it be 100? 1000? 2000? Or wasn't the warnings all over the side of the pack stating cigarettes cause lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema enough?

When it comes to addiction, I am intimately familiar with it. My own addiction to cigarettes. Multiple family members who are or were alcoholics and a brother who was addicted to [MODERATED]. A brother for who I was part of the intervention. Becoming an addict is easy. Becoming an ex-addict is hard. For the most part, both are a choice. That's the difference between addiction and a true disease. I can't cure myself of cancer but I cured myself of cigarettes, by choice. Media and subliminal advertising is to blame? Sure. Starbucks must draw naked women into their ads. I'm addicted to their mochas. BTW, if you equated the badness of cheesecake and cigarettes, you might want to consider wearing a helmet in day to day life.

Again with the gun analogys. Again guns are not a addictive substance they are not a relative to the conversation. It isn't about the number of chemicals. I was simply trying to illustrate the point that people haven't always known what was in cigarettes. I started smoking analogs along time ago, and it was a different world. The labels didn't say smoking will kill you. They said something along the lines of may cause lung disease. I compared cigarettes to cheesecake to illustrate there are varying levels of bad for you. It's not like I said Cheesecake is as bad as cigarettes. The point was I knew they were bad for you, but I didn't know how bad until after I was addicted. It's very childish to insult a opponent in a debate, and just makes you look foolish. Have a nice day.

 

[freeatlast!]

They (BT) did everything they could to make it as addictive as possible; they did everything they could to make it as attractive as possible; they denied the facts as long as possible; even after the dangers and the addictiveness became common knowledge and they had to label the packages and pay out the settlement money, they're still making the highly addictive product, a jillion brands marketed to specific groups in some cases, i.e. women, and they are still as readily available as milk....Why would you trust them to make a safe, non-addictive ecigarette/ejuice???

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Not. One. Dime. Yes, I knew cigarettes were bad for me, addictive, etc. What I didn't know, or refused to accept, was the engineering behind cigarettes to make that that much more addictive and feel-good. The laundry list of chemicals. The bills sponsored by RJR to squash anything that didn't give them the upper hand. And yes they do target children. Not so you'd notice in this country, but other countries, yes. I wish I could find that video.

I should trust them to make vape gear? Yeah..... no.

What Glasseye said. If I had to write my own answer there would be so many expletives the whole post would just come up as a string of dots. Never, ever again. Ever. Seriously, some of you would trust them? That amazes me.

 

[newplague]

the ONLY game for big tobacco, is the "perfect product" model that was described as " you make it for a penny, you can sell it for a dollar".
so don't expect them to allow competition that takes away from them...
you provari guys , yep that not gonna be around if big T has it's say.
you reo fans.... big T votes no
got a mod? yea that's no longer acceptable


sorry only batteries that pass the xyz 332.87 test and prefilled cartos that self destruct if refilling is attempted per rule 4634.12 health and safety board.

Good thing I already have a Reo and will never "need" another. They can't come and take mine away.

 

[Kryyptyk]

I'm puzzled at this entire thread.

BT is already in the vaping industry, quite heavily.

Who do you think has popularized vaping?

* Lorillard owns Blu E-cigs, which pushed its way to the #1 best selling ecig on the market, thanks to spiffy marketing. They also own cigarette brands Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold.

* R.J. Reynolds owns Vuse E-cigs, which are battling it out with Blu for the #1 spot. R.J. Reynolds owns cigarette brands Camel, Kool, Winston, Salem, Doral, Eclipse, Pall Mall, Barclay, Belair, Capri, Carlton, GPC, Lucky Strike, Misty, Monarch, More, Now, Tareyton, Vantage, and Viceroy.

* Altria Group owns MarkTen E-cigs and recently bought Green Smoke Vapor. Altria was the slowest to enter the market, but it's gaining steam. Altria Group owns cigarette brands Basic, Benson & Hedges, Bond Street, Cambridge, Chesterfield, L&M, Marlboro, Merit, Next, Papastratos, Parliament, SG, Português, Ritz, Águia, Tabaqueira, Detroit, Kentucky, and Sampoerna.

Big Tobacco Begins its Takeover of the E-Cigarette Market - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

All 3 of these BT companies are taking business from 'clean' vape companies that have never sold a cigarette, such as NJOY, Logic, Fin and Mistic, and leaving them in the dust. Considering a large percentage of current vapers switched initially to one of these brands, like Blu, I find the notion of condemning vapers who choose to use BT vaping products to be hypocritical.

How many of you have used or tried a Blu or a Vuse, and did so without the knowledge that those companies are owned by BT? Did you die when you vaped it? Did you feel you were addicted to that specific brand and just couldn't go on living without it?

No? Hmm...

It's fine to love vaping and take a stance against smoking. But when you take on a holier-than-thou attitude, especially against another vaper, you become no better than an ANTZ.

 

[freeatlast!]

Excuse me, kryyptyc, but I am NOT going against another vaper; I'm going against BT. I actually didn't know that Lorillard owned Blu cigs when I bought one 2 or 3 yrs. ago....and as you said, they are popular because of "spiffy" marketing. Sounds familiar.....

Other people can continue to support BT if they wish, I'm not going to put them down for it. But personally, I'm not much interested in giving them MY support. That's kinda the way I am - right, wrong, good, bad, or indifferent, I just don't give many 2nd chances to those who break my trust or take advantage. Even if I should have known better.

BTW, I don't "love" vaping half as much as I love that it allowed me to stop smoking.

 

[Rickajho]

The ethical dilemma here is:

BT, by selling a product which came about to be a substitute for it's... very product, has to admit to something: That there is a point to replacing cigarettes with something else. Now that would never stretch to admitting liability for smoking related issues, but at the same time that's asking the cigarette industry to admit to way too much. It would be akin to BT coming out with a nicotine gum - and you know that isn't going to happen.

Short term, any BT purchase of an existing e-cig company such as Blu can only be seen as a mad scramble to hedge a bet. They don't know where regulation is going to finally land, and they probably don't have a clear grasp on the potential of e-cigs to make their products obsolete, given enough time. So either try to dumb down the existing products via regulation so they can't compete with tobacco, or get in on the regulation to make it work to their own financial ends as best as possible. Ethics - at least on the part of BT - isn't even on the radar.

If they could ever come up with something I would consider using I wouldn't have a problem buying it. I don't ever see that happening either, so no ethical dilemma on my part regarding a purchase that is never gonna happen. Both BT and the FDA cannot get past the concept that an e-cigarette has the look and feel of a cigarette and must use disposable cartridges, so...

 

[CrazyDamon]

Hell no.

God only knows what chemicals they'll add to that.

Work a few stores and talked with a Marlboro rep, guess they're getting ready to actually release something along these lines.

 

[Kryyptyk]

Excuse me, kryyptyc, but I am NOT going against another vaper; I'm going against BT....Other people can continue to support BT if they wish, I'm not going to put them down for it.

That's great, I commend you for your open mindedness.
I was mostly talking to the folks ITT that think it's okay to ridicule other vapers for saying they'd buy BT vapor products.

 

[beckdg]

This may b the wrong place to post this, but i am curious of other peoples opinion....if marlboro or camel was to get into the vaping business (i.e. liquids or mods) would you purchase their products?...myself, i am torn on one hand, for years they have produced a product that harms/kills people (granted by choice), with no effort to come up with a safer alternative...but it if they were to start it does show an attempt towards helping along the safer alternative...also I'm not to fond of giving my money to a major company like this, but with the kind of money a company like this could use to further the efficiency and safety of the vaping products...at this point id like to say that i would much rather support a smaller home grown business, so i probly wouldn't buy from a major tobacco company...anyway what's ya'alls views on this?

nope. not at all.

these are the same immoral scumbags that purposely added harmful chemicals to tobacco to make it more addictive just to boost revenues.

there's no way in hell they're going to make a safer alternative to what we're currently vaping.

just in case there isn't enough of this in this thread... and since these guys will sponsor those guys to get the market shares back... FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WileECoyote]

By the way they have engineered cigarettes over the years, I wouldn't trust their nic juice. Who know what they would add to that. They would for sure put that crap in liquid I believe.

 

[coalyard]

I don't think there's a whole lot of smokers left (present or former) who can honestly say that they didn't know smoking was addictive and bad for them when they started. I certainly did, and that makes ME responsible for any harm that 36 years of smoking may have caused me.

The slang term "coffin nails" came about long before anybody in the government started making noise about cigarettes being bad for you.

If a company makes a product that is appealing to me, I will use it. The whole idea that "big" anyone lords over me by virtue of being large or wise is an insult to my own intelligence. I am more than capable of making an informed decision about my health and well being. I shop at WalMart when it suits me. I don't wash my hands 4,000 times a day. I eat eggs and bacon and 3/4lb cheeseburgers made with 70% hamburger I cook on my grill.

If anyone wants to get uppity about big anything then put down your e-cigarette that has anything made in China. For the poor little Chinese children in that factory wrapping coils for 10 cents a day. Their poor little fingers get tired...

 

[Loopy1224]

I agree big isn't the issue. If a company big or small, tobacco related or not, develops the best product at the best price i will buy it. Small businesses have been dealing with the big companies taking over for years. Most of us now shop in Home Depot or Lowes instead of our local hardware store right? These mom and pop shops either find a way to differentiate themselves or they are forced to close. I'm not saying that is good or bad its just the way it is. So for me at least my vaping dollars will be spent based on value not ethics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WattWick]

One of the great things about vaping (for me) is that I can find gear tailored to my needs/wants. BT seem to be more focused on the "one size fits all" philosophy.

That... and the fact that I can't think of a single reason why I should pick any product from BT over any other product out there. They can market the "emotional" (makes you feel great) and social status side of using their products all they want... still all they sell is very generic products wrapped in big budget ads and fancy wrappers.

I'll stick to my mechanicals and RBAs. And buy my PG and VG and nic from people who don't inflate the prices just because it comes with a fancy label.

 

[coalyard]

That's my issue with the boogeyman term "big". Yes, I shop a Lowes and WalMart. I also shop frequently at local stores for different things. When people start slinging terms like "ethical" around, they are treading into territory they have no business being in. As in, suggesting that I am unethical if I buy something from so called "big" tobacco? Bite me. I am an adult who earns my own money, and I will determine where I spend it, and what I will spend it on.

I am not a cranky person; really I'm not, but this kind of garbage has become so ingrained in our society it is beginning to make me ill. I don't like group mentality, I never have. I am an individual who is capable of making my own judgements about what is and what is not ethical and base my decisions upon that. You wanna brew your own juice? Fine with me. You wanna shop at nothing but local botique shops? Knock yourself out. My ethics are my business, and suggesting otherwise is starting down a path that has been tread upon before. It doesn't lead to anywhere good.