Big Tobacco and E-Cigs... A Winning Combination

[DC2]

I know that one of the more popular e-liquid suppliers (one that won a lot of awards in the Best Flavors Poll) had to find a new nicotine liquid supplier because the one that he had previously used would no longer sell to him at a competitive price; it had been bought out by a Big tobacco manufacturer. No links as this is not necessarily public knowledge.

And here I was thinking it would be the FDA deeming regulations that would crush free-roaming nicotine.
I guess I wasn't thinking with the capitalist side of my brain.

Either way, I'm glad I've got 10 years worth of nicotine base in my freezer right now.

 

[zelda]

So you don't want any sort of protection for consumers and workers, roads, fire and police departments, aid for people who were devastated by natural disasters, etc? You would prefer a return to the wild west? You know it wasn't really like you see in a John Wayne movie.

I'm talking about ecigarettes not returning to the Wild West.

Though I will admit having a certain weakness for cowboys.

 

[DC2]

How long would nicotine last in a bottle for DIY?
If worst came to worse and that actually did happen, I would have to stock up on A LOT of it.

If you want the best information you can have then read this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/134842-long-term-storage-e-liquid.html

 

[DC2]

the more people who try cig-alikes and dislike them are one google search away from finding us.

This is a HUGE point, but it has two sides...

There are those that tried sub-par products and figured this was a good idea and maybe they can find something better.
And there are those that tried sub-par products and figured this was just another gimmick that doesn't work.

It is pretty tricky to figure out what the big picture on this issue really looks like.

 

[Ed_C]

I'm talking about ecigarettes not returning to the Wild West.

Though I will admit having a certain weakness for cowboys.

AH! You know, after I wrote that it occurred to me that you might be talking specifically and not generally.

 

[molimelight]

While those 'innocent' users of Big tobacco have zero blood on their hands?

I think Ed_C covered it pretty well. It would be one thing if they sold unadulterated tobacco wrapped in unadulterated paper, but they never have and never will. They have done everything possible to market their products to the most people they can, including teens, and have done everything they can to deny the addictive properties of nicotine and to deny what they have done to enhance that addiction. (Again, see the Seven Dwarfs) The more people they get to start the more people they have as "customers" as long as they can enhance the addictive qualities of nicotine.

Or for real insight into the moral compass of Big Tobacco, you could watch this:

Addiction Incorporated | The true story of the Tobacco companies' commitment to addicting the human brain, and how the world came to know about it.

It would be different if it was like alcohol, where some people have a problem with it and some don't. You could try it and put it down and no problem. Almost from the start, nicotine is terribly addictive to everyone who uses it. The OP is a good example of this. He/She used it for a period of stress and found him/her self addicted. Tell me how that's different than a smack dealer and user? (How funny, the board wouldn't let me use the H word!) I can't count the number of addicts that have sat across from me and said they thought they would try something once or twice and found themselves addicted to it. The sale of such substances, in any other language is criminal behavior. But if you want to say "that's just business," go ahead.

And really, I think I see where you're going with this. I could be wrong, I hope I am, but I get the feeling that you want to bring the tireless cause celebre that you have expounded on in other threads to this one. We shouldn't be worried about pending legislation, etc. etc. etc. Please save us from that. Other threads were closed because of it.

 

[DC2]

Yet, we have reached the inevitable turning point of any industry. Either the world powers that be, find way to make it work, or the industry is decimated and goes back to eCigs of 2007 and before. My money is on, it will find way to work, and with a little luck innovation of the quality kind will exist for the foreseeable future.

The only thing that really matters is that all vapers stay informed, aware, and ready to act.
It can go a lot of ways at this point, and speculation is fun, but none of it matters other than my first statement above.

 

[DC2]

Quite possibly they're burning both ends of the candle, pushing for a ban to keep their cigarette profits and entering the e-cig market to cover their rears.

As far as I can tell, this is pretty close to exactly what they are doing.
Close enough, anyway, that I don't feel any need to dissect your statement any further.

 

[DC2]

If FDA was smart they would categorize E-Cigs as a new product and regulate it for quality, not what flavor it is or the fact it contains nicotine. I wonder if we would be having all these problems if caffeine was in it instead of nicotine. or when they first came out they called them E-Foggers instead of E-Cigs.

This.

Except for that the FDA isn't about being smart.
So that is a big concern.

And that the ANTZ don't care what we call it, they hate it no matter what we call it.
And Big Pharma will continue to fund them to hate it, not matter what we call it.

 

[irwink]

So this post will probably ruffle some feathers but yes, I am excited that Big Tobacco has entered the e-cigarette market...

Your thoughts?

Naivety - Naivety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DC2]

I think Ed_C covered it pretty well. It would be one thing if they sold unadulterated tobacco wrapped in unadulterated paper, but they never have and never will. They have done everything possible to market their products to the most people they can, including teens, and have done everything they can to deny the addictive properties of nicotine and to deny what they have done to enhance that addiction. (Again, see the Seven Dwarfs) The more people they get to start the more people they have as "customers" as long as they can enhance the addictive qualities of nicotine.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I would really like to shift the focus to Big Pharma.
As far as I'm concerned, they are far more "evil" than Big Tobacco ever was.

But somehow, they are the good guys in the eyes of the public.
And they are also our biggest foes in this fight.

I'd rather focus on that, but that's just me.

It would be different if it was like alcohol, where some people have a problem with it and some don't. You could try it and put it down and no problem. Almost from the start, nicotine is terribly addictive to everyone who uses it.

I have to disagree here, as you are discounting the MANY social smokers out there.

As for me, I smoked around 6 cigarettes per day on average for over 27 years and never really was addicted to nicotine.
I was FAR more addicted to the habit and the rituals surrounding smoking.

 

[Ed_C]

The hatred for the pharmaceutical industry here really takes me back a bit. While I'd agree that they have brought drugs to the market that should have never been released, it's advances in medicine, including pharmaceuticals, that allows us to live longer and longer. People with HIV are no longer sentenced to death and people survive cancer at a much greater rate than in the past, to name just two examples. If it wasn't for modern medicine, many of us would not be alive today. We live in a capitalist society that promotes development, but this same capitalism is also the cause of some of the abuses. Unfortunately that seems to be the trade off with this type of system.

 

[Claudia P]

Who actually believes that BT won't put carcinogens in e-cigs? The fact is that cancer is by far the biggest money maker for Big Pharma and the medical profession, in existance. Thinking that by not burning tobacco and inhaling smoke you are avoiding carcinogens is definitely a head in the sand way of thinking. If lung cancer were to disappear today Big Pharma would be in trouble and they aren't about to allow that to happen. Just look at all of the new treatment suggestions, give everyone drugs whether they exhibit symptoms or not, to prevent them in the future. Yeah right! Treat cancer with chemo and you have either killed the patient or created a patient for life because even those "cured" will have cancers show up in a few years in even different places, cancers caused by the chemo.

I'm sorry but I don't trust BT or BP or the FDA for one little minute. BT and BP are probably the biggest political contributors in existance and it's all about money and power. None of them care one iota about public safety and well being, they care about how much money they can put in their own pockets.

If I believed for one minute that BT becoming involved with e-cigs would be what they proclaim it to be, or that regulation would be what they claim, I would be all for it. The fact is that anyone who has been around for any length of time knows better, they lie to us to get us to allow them to control us. Get the law in and then start changing things around to suit their needs and wants and nothing we can do about it.

I've also been around long enough to know that eventually they will get what they want because they have the power and money that we don't have to fight them successfully. I am finally grateful that I won't be around to see much more of it.

 

[Ed_C]

I have to disagree here, as you are discounting the MANY social smokers out there.

Don't you just hate those .......s.

 

[DC2]

The hatred for the pharmaceutical industry here really takes me back a bit. While I'd agree that they have brought drugs to the market that should have never been released, it's advances in medicine, including pharmaceuticals, that allows us to live longer and longer. People with HIV are no longer sentenced to death and people survive cancer at a much greater rate than in the past, to name just two examples. If it wasn't for modern medicine, many of us would not be alive today. We live in a capitalist society that promotes development, but this same capitalism is also the cause of some of the abuses. Unfortunately that seems to be the trade off with this type of system.

I probably would have felt the same way before I became a vaper.
But then I discovered that they are no better than any other big corporations.

Read this, and do not take Chantix....
FORCES International - News Portal

Sure, they do good, but not because of any "humanitarian" desires.
They are out for profit like all the rest, and they harm a lot of people in their pursuit of that profit.

It's not really hatred for the pharmaceutical industry so much as it is a recognition that they are not angels in all of this.
And, of course, the fact that they are one of the main funding forces for getting rid of electronic cigarettes.

 

[Steamix]

BT isn't competing.

Did you take a look at their 'e-cigs' ?

Overpriced junk.

But, oh, what a coincidence, their disposable carto sizes and nic content fits exactly what the EU is trying to cement into the new TPD.

Coinicidence, my ar*e, shopped-to-order legislation, that's what they're investing their money into.

'Better' products are usually made by vapers for vapers.

Manufacturers aren't my friends - I am their customer. If their products satisfy me, I'll continue to buy them. If not, I go someplace else.
No need to be friends for a working business relationship...

 

[MTFogger]

This.

Except for that the FDA isn't about being smart.
So that is a big concern.

And that the ANTZ don't care what we call it, they hate it no matter what we call it.
And Big Pharma will continue to fund them to hate it, not matter what we call it.

Absolutely, pharms and medical industries need sick people and not necessarily want to cure disease but prolong the treatments.
Why do you think most doctors are now under the umbrella of the area hospitals. They were driven out of self employment by high prices on supplies, insurance etc and now get a salary from the hospitals and work for them... It's about control at least according to my surgeon. You can bet they still charge the insurance the same amount or more for the surgeons contribution, but the profits go to them not the doctor. This is what my doctor told me at least.

 

[DC2]

Absolutely, pharms and medical industries need sick people and not necessarily want to cure disease but prolong the treatments.

Capitalism does have it's drawbacks.

Well, not really, perhaps.

Maybe it only has drawbacks when the government is lobbied to pass laws that favor what "Big Corporation" wants.
So what if we had a political system where money had no influence?

Yeah, that's the ticket.
Now how do we go about making that happen?

 

[Ed_C]

I didn't read the whole thing, I will when I have more time, but they site WIKIPEDIA for God sakes. I do take exception to when someone claims to know what the desire of "they" are, whoever they are.

Sure, they do good, but not because of any "humanitarian" desires.
They are out for profit like all the rest, and they harm a lot of people in their pursuit of that profit.

We live in a capitalist country and there's abuses as well as innovation. People rail against big government and regulations, but they don't like corporations either. Until we can get government and industry out of bed together I don't see any real answers.

 

[DC2]

I didn't read the whole thing, I will when I have more time, but they site WIKIPEDIA for God sakes. I do take exception to when someone claims to know what the desire of "they" are, whoever they are.

Well, read it and let me know what you think.

We live in a capitalist country and there's abuses as well as innovation. People rail against big government and regulations, but they don't like corporations either. Until we can get government and industry out of bed together I don't see any real answers.

Can't disagree with you there.