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

[molimelight]

If you want to have a discussion about the addictive properties of nicotine, I am game.[/url]

I can also go out on the web and find studies to support my position:

Serotonin receptors as potential targets for modulation of nicotine use and dependence.

Fletcher PJ, Lê AD, Higgins GA.
Author information

• Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Paul_Fletcher@camh.net

Abstract

Nicotine use carries considerable health risks and plays a major role in a variety of diseases. Current pharmacological treatments to aid in smoking cessation include nicotine-replacement therapy and non-nicotinic strategies such as bupropion and varenicline. While these treatments benefit some individuals there is still a need for better and more effective treatment strategies. Nicotine is the major psychoactive substance in tobacco. Some behavioural effects of nicotine, including its reinforcing efficacy result in part from activation of mesolimbic dopamine neurons. Modulation of dopamine function is one potential treatment strategy that could treat nicotine dependence. Serotonergic neurons modulate the functioning of dopamine neurons in a complex fashion. Much of this complexity arises from the fact that serotonin (5-HT) exerts its effects through multiple receptor subtypes, some of which even act in apparent functional opposition to each other. This article reviews evidence, primarily from animal experiments, using behavioural procedures relevant to nicotine use on the potential for 5-HT receptors as targets for treating nicotine dependence. The 5-HT(1A, 2A, 2C, 3, 4, 6) receptor subtypes have received most experimental attention, with the 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(2C) receptors being the best studied. Several studies have now shown that 5-HT(1A) receptor antagonists alleviate some of the behavioural signs induced by nicotine withdrawal. Electrophysiological and neurochemical studies show that stimulation of 5-HT(2C) receptors reduces the function of the mesolimbic dopamine pathway. 5-HT(2C) receptor agonists block the stimulatory action of nicotine on midbrain dopamine function. They also reduce several behavioural effects of nicotine including its discriminative stimulus properties and reinforcing effects. Although more work remains to be done, 5-HT(2C) receptor agonists perhaps hold the most promise as potential therapies for smoking cessation.

By stating that nicotine is addictive, I don't think I said that cigarettes, due to the additives in them aren't more addictive.

 

[Jman8]

Those people do not know about the lobbying that is taking place here in the EU (BP is also involved, because it is ALSO threatened) against our devices. So much misinformation, so much distortion of scientific facts (See for example: http://dropproxy.com/f/5C4 and The European Commission has misinterpreted my scientific research on nicotine in e-cigarettes) just to scare the genearal people into believing that the e-cig is a terrible thing and should be heavily restricted...! All of it stricly because of lost profits !! Because some powerful organizations have been making good money at the expense of our health, and they want to keep it that way !

What do these links have to do with BT getting into eCig business?

BT is NOT our friend! It's a powerful organization, COULD be a powerful ally, IF it did not spend it's time looking EXCLUSIVELY for itself!
As we have seen here in Europe, NOTHING good can come from those two (BP and BT). They are the ones who have been losing with our change. Why, oh my, would they 'support' us now ??

Because they came around and are now wanting to adapt to a viable market rather than remain on the sidelines?

(Take the example in the posts above: why would a company that sells tobacco almost exclusively, have the need to amass such quantities of liquid nicotine? Except to get rid of competition?)

I don't see it as possible to get rid of all competition as there is ways to DIY the 2nd of 2 main components that deal with vaping nicotine. And with the first main component, it would be a long while like several decades from now, for BT to entirely corner that market. What they could do in short term is take all the major players and buy them out, i.e. BT buys out V2. Which would be risky proposition for both sides.

Cause what I think is continually missing in these rants is the power of ANTZ. That's not just a citizenry group of maybe 15 people, but a worldwide movement that has managed to control the dialogue to point where (ex)smokers are convinced smoking kills and/or is involuntary cause of death, and majority of non-smokers believe that 2nd hand smoke also kills. Even some are convinced that third hand smoke can kill. I don't think all people who are convinced that 'smoking kills' are full fledged ANTZ, but I do think the influence / power of ANTZ is more powerful than current influence of BT, possibly more than government, and about on par with BP.

I would NEVER buy anything from BT. I had no need of them in the past five years, because they only sold tobacco. And now that they are in the the e-cig business, I would not DREAM of buying some overpriced, poor 'cig-alike' when there are thousands of vendors out there who have the experience, the product quality and the market knowledge of people that actually KNOW what they're doing. For the last years until now.

The other thing I don't get in this conversation, and have already brought up, is that if eCigs are allowed to continue essentially as is, how people think BigE, which currently is relatively SmallE, will magically be able to avoid all the pitfalls, scrutiny and lawsuits not just from ANTZ, but from ex-vapers who feel they were lied to / mistreated by vendors/manufacturers who did know / should've known the harm their products deliver to consumers. Currently, we don't live in that world. So, I do speak with speculation. But as sure as some are that BT will muck things up, I am as confident that the more (biased) science that comes out and the more cessation from eCigs is preached (and not just vaping at 0 mg), the more vapers that will come to a new understanding (next chapter) whereby that vaping company that now makes 300 billion a year is only in it for themselves, only made up of greedy CEO's who don't care, even a little bit, about the harm their products undoubtedly deliver.

Again, thank goodness BT is getting in now so that 10 to 30 years from now we'll be able to have our boogeyman CEOs to point to for daring to push a product on us that they knew would harm us. I mean when I started back in 2014, it was clear that 'we did not know' what was in these things, but they knew. They knew! And therefore, I blame them entirely. Who's with me?

 

[Jman8]

Three things.

1) What I see in your statements is the behavior of an addict. Say what you say about "willingly." If you want to believe you're exercising free choice in knowingly consuming toxins at a lower rate than you did before, due to vaping, be my guest. I see it every day when people talk about their drug use.

People that drink alcohol, even once, are knowingly ingesting a toxin, at lower rate than others. Does this make them an addict? Methinks you barely understand addiction even while you'll claim that because you work daily with abusers, it gives you superior knowledge on the subject. Again, I'm glad to enter into debate on actual topic, or side topic if you are willing, and honest.

2) You like to put words in people's mouth's and then pass sweeping judgments on them.

And of course, you would never do this.

Where did I say "My hands are clean, cept for some nicotine stains?"

Where did I say you said this?

I put forth my position that it is an 80/20 split on responsibility when it comes to smokers and thus users of BT's main product line (to date). Feel free to add in what you feel is the responsibility split and why. From yours, and others on this thread, I am hearing it as a 10/90 split, whereby BT is 90% to blame for users addiction and undue harm. I am willing to be updated on what you and others are actually saying / mean to say here on this thread. I will maintain the 80/20 for now and those that come in far more lopsided (i.e. anything less than 50/50, are ones I'd like to continue to discuss this with, as I think it has everything to do with vaping going forward.

I think I clearly stated that I take responsibility for my taking up smoking and continuing to smoke when I knew it was bad for me. If you can't see the deception and the enormous effort to make cigarettes more addictive that BT engaged in as more than 20% of the equation, then it makes no sense to continue this conversation.

If you could kindly point me to your post in this thread where you clearly stated the bolded part, I'd appreciate it. After just searching on your posts in this thread and doing word search on "responsibility," I only came up with post #96 where you said:

If you mean personal responsibility for taking up something that I know is addictive? I never said (and I challenge you to quote me where I have) that holding BT responsibility for their criminal behavior absolves me of the consequences of my actions.

Which I addressed with speaking directly to the criminal behavior assertion as that could plausibly relate to user in this discussion. Though you are saying that you have clearly stated, presumably on this thread, elsewhere that you take responsibility for taking up smoking and for continuing to smoke when you knew it was bad for you. That strikes me as new information being admitted to the record. Cause that would fit very well with my 80/20 proposition in this discussion. For you knew it was bad for you, but you continued to do it and you take responsibility for doing it. My 20% assignment of responsibility towards BT doesn't let BT off hook entirely, but does squarely put 80% of alleged criminal behavior on the person who knowingly does harm to own self.

Thing is, I don't see it as criminal or if I were to see it that way, I don't see it as warranting additional harm/punishment. Would seem enough harm is already done, and that punishment isn't solution to the predicament for user. But we (on this thread) aren't exactly at that point of discussion and instead are saying: whereby I don't deserve further punishment for willingly harming myself, BT for sure does, for having some responsibility in invoking that harm upon me, perhaps as much as 20% of responsibility in that undue harm. Some have said, "a slow agonizing death would be too good for Big Tobacco."

Whereas BT would plausibly like to get into business BigEcig and perhaps get all the benefit, and redemption that some nicotine addicts have found, this would not be seen as good from its former 'allies.' Instead, they are criminals and must be treated only as that regardless of any desire they have to change their business model and products that they offer for public consumption.

For users who will hopefully exercise personal responsibility.

 

[jpargana]

(...)
Because they [BT] came around and are now wanting to adapt to a viable market rather than remain on the sidelines?
(...)

Oh, if only it was true! Then, maybe BT could come up with something actually better than the competition (That would be the market actually working, without cheating...)

But no. If you look at the new Tobacco Directive that is being currenty discussed in the EU, you can see that the ONLY e-cigarettes permitted by law would be exactly the kind of those BT is preparing to sell...! (That's another thing hard to understand: one of the arguments used to heavily regulate e-cigs it's "because it re-normalizes smoking"... so, it really makes sense to only allow the disposable, proprietary cig-alikes, right ? Right... )

So, BT is NOT trying to 'adapt to a viable market rather than remain on the sidelines'... no. It is actively lobbying, discussing behind closed doors in the Parliament to adapt the market to suit itself. Under the new Directive, you can forget about mods, Egos, or even refillables! The links I provided earlier were about proper scientists, (rather than 'people who practice junk-science' you usually see overly attached to ANTZ's groups), complaining about their studies being completely misinterpreted to justify an irrealistic limit in the nic strength of e-juice... who has a not-so-covered interest in making sure the only e-cigs available in the market will be so crappy as to probably send new vapers back to smoking??


ETA: And, of course, Governments, the decision makers, have a tendency to look after BT, because tobacco generates big profits... see the 'flavour' ban in the US, "because it appeals to young smokers" (But they did not touch menthol, which is actually the flavour used by many young smokers)

Despite every 'efforts' of the 'health' organizations in the past years, only now there is a visible decline in smoking rates...

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: If Electronic Cigarettes are a Gateway to Smoking, then Why Were Youth Smoking Rates at an All-Time Low in 2013?

...and that has already made some people nervous in Europe (even before the attempted e-cig bans):

Written question - Tax revenue from electronic cigarettes - E-004672/2013

 

[Baditude]

I have been paying very careful attention to the BT naysayers and continually looking for / asking for links, but alas they can't be produced. Or if they are, the links are akin to why gun rights advocate feels justified in stockpiling noting the economy will be collapsing any day now. Here, read this link. This link helps you understand everything you need to know.

The link you provided describes yourself to a T. I've provided links of what the FDA, local/state governments, and Big Tobacco have planned to regulate e-cigarettes that are not in the best interests of vapers.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/479971-action-alert-urge-congress-prevent-fda-banning-e-cigarettes-again-stop-fda-giving-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html

The FDA & Deeming Regulations of E-cigarettes

State & Local Issues

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/513980-california-assembly-bill-ban-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html

BT will try to monopolize or gain profits, but IMO they won't succeed in obtaining actual monopoly. Simply not possible in today's world.

If Big Tobacco is successful in swaying the FDA to limit liquid nicotine sales in cartridge-only form for "child safety issues", it will indeed create a monopoly for BT. The easy availability of nicotine in flavored e-liquids in bottled form as we now know and enjoy it will no longer be available for sale or import in the US. There is also talk of banning all e-cig products for sale online. This would so restrict the vaping industry that it would put most current vendors out of business. It would also drastically change the way we can vape, and not for the better.

If you envision vaping a Blu or NJoy and enjoy them with only a generic "tobacco or menthol" flavor, then you've got nothing to worry about because that and others like them will be all that is available.

If you enjoy using cartomizers, clearomizers, or RBA's with your Banana Nut Bread or Pomegranite Smoothie flavors with 12mg nicotine, then you're going to be out of luck.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

But it's a free market, and there's no legal way to deny big tobacco the right to profit from e-cigarettes. That's why vapers - who are mostly ex-smokers, well aware of what tobacco does to them - should take matters into their own hands: vote with your wallets. Boycott mods and juices sold by tobacco companies, however good and attractive they may become.

Fully agree.

However, there's a problem.. How do you know who owns what?

Doesn't even have to be a full subsidiary, like blu/Lorillard... Even a minority stake, with promise from BT to support them in various ways (financial, research, distribution, marketing, etc.), can lead down a dangerous path -- all in stealth mode, with most if not all consumers unaware of what's going on behind closed doors

Earlier in the thread somebody mentioned something about BT owning a nic base supplier. Doesn't that concern anybody a little?

 

[Giraut]

Fully agree. However, there's a problem.. How do you know who owns what?

There are attorneys who are very good at deconstructing opaque financial setups. I'm not one of them, but I'm hoping some of these talented lawyers will be sympathetic to the cause and take it upon themselves to expose tobacco companies hiding behind honest-looking vaping products.

Doesn't even have to be a full subsidiary, like blu/Lorillard... Even a minority stake, with promise from BT to support them in various ways (financial, research, distribution, marketing, etc.), can lead down a dangerous path -- all in stealth mode, with most if not all consumers unaware of what's going on behind closed doors

I have a feeling tobacco companies will not try very hard to hide their stakes in vaping companies, because they'll think consumers won't care. They might try to setup holdings and offshore companies to hide behind if the backlash proves more important than they thought though, in which case the aforementioned lawyers' contribution will be necessary.

Earlier in the thread somebody mentioned something about BT owning a nic base supplier. Doesn't that concern anybody a little?

I can't believe all the nicotine on the market is produced by tobacco companies, simply because certain pharmaceutical products contain it. There must be nicotine coming from honest growers and labs that don't also manufacture cigarettes, just like medical opioids aren't made from cocaine base out of Medellin and smuggled in on go-fast boats.

 

[Penn]

The link you provided describes yourself to a T. I've provided links of what the FDA, local/state governments, and Big Tobacco have planned to regulate e-cigarettes that are not in the best interests of vapers.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/479971-action-alert-urge-congress-prevent-fda-banning-e-cigarettes-again-stop-fda-giving-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html

The FDA & Deeming Regulations of E-cigarettes

State & Local Issues

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/513980-california-assembly-bill-ban-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html....

I think we translate Jman8's question in a different way from each other.

I have been paying very careful attention to the BT naysayers and continually looking for / asking for links, but alas they can't be produced. Or if they are, the links are akin to why gun rights advocate feels justified in stockpiling noting the economy will be collapsing any day now. Here, read this link. This link helps you understand everything you need to know....

I read that as "what is BT CURRENTLY doing to bring about the changes many here fear?".

Proving ownership connections for larger holdings companies of smaller businesses should be something you can link to.

Even a member of the very organization you linked to has stated the closest thing vape rights advocates have to an ally is BT. They also clarified, as I am doing now, BT isn't our friend, just the closest thing to an ally.

I have talked to a higher up in one of the cigalike makers and have indirectly heard from a higher up in one of the three BT companies that the reason they are doing cigalikes is market research shows the majority of people want them. Disposable cartomizers are simple and consistent, even if it is consistently inferior. People also want something that simulates smoking. Big money market research shows we "advanced users" are the minority. I don't think BT cares about our market share the same way they don't care about roll you own and pipe users. If that changes I find it easier to believe they would rather make advanced stuff than to lose market share. And they are losing market share to vaping as well as people quitting nicotine all around. If they can offer an alternative to smoking instead of them quitting they will go for it but right now that is cigalikes (in there minds).

Being that this is the internet I will have to point out - that last bit is partially conjecture by me but so is the paranoia that some have about BT trying to influence a division of the government that doesn't truly care about their interests.

 

[StevenServo]

i dont see this as a good thing at all... a push for regulations will ensue to clamp down on a free market... its all about $$$$

 

[Baditude]

Proving ownership connections for larger holdings companies of smaller businesses should be something you can link to.

I don't have a clue as to how to research that. If it is something easy to do, why not do the work for the benefit of ECF? I'm already convinced, apparently you are not.

Even a member of the very organization you linked to has stated the closest thing vape rights advocates have to an ally is BT. They also clarified, as I am doing now, BT isn't our friend, just the closest thing to an ally.

My info about the well-known e-liquid manufacturer (NicoTicket) who had to find another supplier for his liquid nicotine supply was an indirect source, too. My source told me the reason there was a lapse in the availability of this manufacturer's e-liquids was because a cigarette manufacturer had bought out the company he had previously gotten his supply from and was now charging an arm-and-a-leg, so he had to find another supplier to stay competitive with his own prices. Sounded like a reasonable and honest statement to me, and I had no reason to question the validity of it. Big Tobacco certainly has the financial resources and the rationale to buy out the majority of the liquid nicotine suppliers to their benefit to thin out the competition. Happens all the time in America.



Big Tobacco is split between two camps. Those who are joining the bandwagon to re-coop some of their lost market share by adding e-cigs to their product line, and those who would rather see e-cigs banned altogether because they see e-cigs only as competition to their tobacco cigarettes. One could consider the first group to be an ally to the e-cig market, but my personal feeling is if they have an opportunity to corner the market by influencing the FDA to prohibit liquid nicotine for sale in bottled form to the general public that they would pursue that to the fullest extent possible.

 

[Vermonster13]

Put BT in charge of the patch and the meds for quitting too while you're at it. The government will love the taxing of it all and cig sales will stay strong so the cash flow will too.

 

[Claudia P]

There are still some of us alive what would disagree that we were aware of the addictive qualities of cigarettes. By the time we found out we were addicted and then BT made them even more addictive.

I don't think anyone would disagree that any of us were unaware of the addictive qualities of cigarettes - I started smoking of my own free will, I own that. But, what I have against Big Tobacco is how they have engineered that product to make the addiction more severe, to boost profits. I could have researched it, but I didn't. I own that too. But like most smokers, I thought they were just selling me chopped up tobacco in a paper tube, not all of the other nasty crap they put in there. That's on them, 100%.

That does not bar me from having issues with them now, now that I'm aware of it.

 

[AegisPrime]

In my opinion, two (and only two) good things can come of BT involvement in e-cigs:

1) They'll fight some of our legal battles for us (caveat: only the ones that protect the market they're interested in i.e. disposables and cigalikes with disposable cartos).

2) The moment Phillip Morris has an e-cig product it has enough confidence in to brand 'Marlboro' the floodgates will open and millions of smokers will try their first e-cig - hopefully leading them eventually to better products.

Other than that, I can't see any good from BT being involved in the e-cig business - but neither can it be stopped. One thing's for sure, they don't want the DIY e-liquid/mods market to exist - it's not something they can make any money in so if there's a way for them to destroy it, you can bet your ProVari they will.

 

[Jman8]

I've provided links of what the FDA, local/state governments, and Big Tobacco have planned to regulate e-cigarettes that are not in the best interests of vapers.

You have provided links of what BT has planned to do to regulate eCigs? Where are these links?

I do not see these in post #125.

If Big Tobacco is successful in swaying the FDA to limit liquid nicotine sales in cartridge-only form for "child safety issues", it will indeed create a monopoly for BT.

And/or create a black market for where there is clearly a demand. Yet, this would be another thread where we just have to wait to see what FDA will do in terms of regulating/restricting eCig market. In meantime, I am up for considering links that provide evidence that BT and BT alone is swaying FDA to limit liquid nicotine sales in cartridge-only form. As if ANTZ or others aren't doing swaying of their own to restrict/decimate the industry.

The easy availability of nicotine in flavored e-liquids in bottled form as we now know and enjoy it will no longer be available for sale or import in the US. There is also talk of banning all e-cig products for sale online. This would so restrict the vaping industry that it would put most current vendors out of business. It would also drastically change the way we can vape, and not for the better.

If you envision vaping a Blu or NJoy and enjoy them with only a generic "tobacco or menthol" flavor, then you've got nothing to worry about because that and others like them will be all that is available.

If I go to the big vendors that are not BT bought and owned (yet), I see some info that they are moving towards or have moved towards FDA compliance. As in, they are being proactive on this front, and yet, the deeming regulations aren't public yet. At least I don't think they are.

I attribute regulations mostly to ANTZ and those charged with following letter of the law that is TCA. That act doesn't do favors for BT, yet BT either adapts to what that says, or is decimated for going against it. Of course, they have global reach where TCA is not enforced, yet eCigs, as we all know, isn't an American only business venture. Nor will it be going forward in this 21st century.

If you enjoy using cartomizers, clearomizers, or RBA's with your Banana Nut Bread or Pomegranite Smoothie flavors with 12mg nicotine, then you're going to be out of luck.

I disagree. Black market will prevail if gray market turns into heavily regulated market that makes it challenging, if not impossible, to obtain product legally. I'd rather not go black market and will continue to fight the good fight with CASAA, but don't feel it is anywhere near the point (as in won't occur in 2014) where there is no legal option to obtain all these items you named. That day may come upon us, and it'll be because of TCA foremost. How a vaper would conclude otherwise is mind boggling to me.

 

[Jman8]

Big Tobacco is split between two camps. Those who are joining the bandwagon to re-coop some of their lost market share by adding e-cigs to their product line, and those who would rather see e-cigs banned altogether because they see e-cigs only as competition to their tobacco cigarettes. One could consider the first group to be an ally to the e-cig market, but my personal feeling is if they have an opportunity to corner the market by influencing the FDA to prohibit liquid nicotine for sale in bottled form to the general public that they would pursue that to the fullest extent possible.

I mostly agree with this. I think though that BT wouldn't need to pursue the prohibition you cite to fullest extent possible, and instead just sit on sidelines and let ANTZ types do all the work. I would expect BT (or any big business) to do this.

It is clear to me / us that eCigs compete directly with traditional cigs. And it is clear that (some of) BT is hedging bets by getting into this market. Investing lots of money. Yet, some see that as a process to destroy / decimate / restrict the market in the long run, so that somewhere down the line, BT will allegedly have customers who can only legally buy their tobacco products (aka smokes). I admit that is plausible, but consider it unlikely myself. For TCA isn't written, even a little bit, to help BT out. In fact, it is written as an act that amounts to "War on BT." Yet, we are talking about a product that when compared to other 'wars' isn't altering people's minds, even while it does have possibility of devastating their lives (via heavy use/abuse).

If there is such a thing as shady business tactics here in eCig world, and BT is in the market, I think it is possible for BT to be engaged in that. Yet, to conclude that they can only be in this as shady business people is something I think sets vapers up as we are truly and completely on our own. BT could get entirely out of the market and between BP, government and ANTZ, the vaping industry will be annihilated - just a matter of time. Black market likely would live on, but legal market all but eliminated. With BT as an ally, who is in it to win it, the industry stands a chance both in short and long term. And I just don't see it as something they can reasonably monopolize anytime soon (read as next 5 years). Also consider that entire industry in last 2 or so years has been in a bit of a stand still waiting on deeming regulations. How many reading this would love to open local vape shop right now? With ideas on how it could be massively successful? But also with reality that deeming regulations and other local politics would doom your business to a closing very shortly after you opened? Yet, if you could get in now, and know that you are doing everything you possibly can to be compliant with government and common sense politics (not turning kids onto your product via promotions), wouldn't you open it sooner than later?

At any rate, there are those amongst us that regardless of what BT does, they simply can't win. Stay out of the market when they could've gotten in and helped on legal front, and they deserve blame. Get into market and sell product they think will sell, and they deserver blame.

I just hope we are all a little more forgiving when BigE comes along and practices similar shady tactics to guarantee their enormous profits moving forward.

 

[Chicken Menudo]

I have talked to a higher up in one of the cigalike makers and have indirectly heard from a higher up in one of the three BT companies that the reason they are doing cigalikes is market research shows the majority of people want them. Disposable cartomizers are simple and consistent, even if it is consistently inferior. People also want something that simulates smoking. Big money market research shows we "advanced users" are the minority. I don't think BT cares about our market share the same way they don't care about roll you own and pipe users. If that changes I find it easier to believe they would rather make advanced stuff than to lose market share. And they are losing market share to vaping as well as people quitting nicotine all around. If they can offer an alternative to smoking instead of them quitting they will go for it but right now that is cigalikes (in there minds).

Glad to hear someone understands BT's strategy with minis. Like I stated... oh, 100 posts ago (has it been that long?), if the market share for mid-sizes is viable, BT will move into it.

Oh, and I completely forgot to add when I started this thread, let's stay away from the ad hominum attacks. Just 'cause someone disagrees with you doesn't make them shortsighted, naive, etc. Really, when you go that route instead of actually providing a solid argument it gives the impression that you don't actual know what you are talking about.

 

[DC2]

Just 'cause someone disagrees with you doesn't make them shortsighted, naive, etc.

Actually, yes it does.

I am always right, just ask my wife.
Okay, no, don't ask my wife.

 

[Penn]

I don't have a clue as to how to research that. If it is something easy to do, why not do the work for the benefit of ECF? I'm already convinced, apparently you are not.



My info about the well-known e-liquid manufacturer (NicoTicket) who had to find another supplier for his liquid nicotine supply was an indirect source, too. My source told me the reason there was a lapse in the availability of this manufacturer's e-liquids was because a cigarette manufacturer had bought out the company he had previously gotten his supply from and was now charging an arm-and-a-leg, so he had to find another supplier to stay competitive with his own prices. Sounded like a reasonable and honest statement to me, and I had no reason to question the validity of it. Big Tobacco certainly has the financial resources and the rationale to buy out the majority of the liquid nicotine suppliers to their benefit to thin out the competition. Happens all the time in America.



Big Tobacco is split between two camps. Those who are joining the bandwagon to re-coop some of their lost market share by adding e-cigs to their product line, and those who would rather see e-cigs banned altogether because they see e-cigs only as competition to their tobacco cigarettes. One could consider the first group to be an ally to the e-cig market, but my personal feeling is if they have an opportunity to corner the market by influencing the FDA to prohibit liquid nicotine for sale in bottled form to the general public that they would pursue that to the fullest extent possible.

Nice side step.

What exactly do you consider big tobacco to be? The antz that coined that term referred to the top 3 in the US. Some would say that one from the UK should be in there since they are second biggest in the world. All 4 either have or are working on their own ecigs making them part of the first group. Unless you are saying they want to invest the money and lose it.

And I will reiterate one of those points for those of you who hate antz and big tobacco. ANTZ coined the term BIG TOBACCO. We know for certain antz are the enemy of free market vaping.

 

[Baditude]

Nice side step...What exactly do you consider big tobacco to be? The antz that coined that term referred to the top 3 in the US. Some would say that one from the UK should be in there since they are second biggest in the world. All 4 either have or are working on their own ecigs making them part of the first group. Unless you are saying they want to invest the money and lose it.

And I will reiterate one of those points for those of you who hate antz and big tobacco. ANTZ coined the term BIG TOBACCO. We know for certain antz are the enemy of free market vaping.

To me, Big Tobacco is the group of tobacco companies producing tobacco cigarettes. Does it really need to be further defined for our purposes?

Who do you think helps fund ANTZ? Certainly Big Pharm plays a role there. Where does the FDA get a large margin of their funding? Again, Big Pharm.

Tobacco has notoriously gotten a pass by the government and the FDA because tobacco makes money for the government. Sin taxes makes a lot of money for the government; eliminating tobacco would put thousands of US workers on the unemployment lines and cost the government money, not make money.

 

[Penn]

To me, Big Tobacco is the group of tobacco companies producing tobacco cigarettes. Does it really need to be further defined for our purposes?

Who do you think helps fund ANTZ? Certainly Big Pharm plays a role there.

Yes it needs defining. I don't think the FDA cares what big tobacco says but elected official receiving campaign contributions do. The only ones I think could influence anything are the biggest 3 American companies but I don't think that would work in today's environment since the majority of districts would gain more support by being antz or staying out of the debate all together.

Who could influence the FDA, I agree, is big pharmaceutical. You will get no disagreement there. In fact, the closest you get to disagreement from me at all is I don't see anything tangible or logical to link BT to regulations other than appeasement by pretending to agree with whatever the FDA decides to do on their own. Even that I isn't a firm belief - Thus the fact that, like jman, I have asked for tangible connections.