Big Tobacco: Champions of E-Cigs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

wv2win

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Feb 10, 2009
11,879
9,045
GA by way of WV
I take it a lot of people posting on this thread haven't been following this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/290817-lorillard-purchases-blu-e-cigs.html

Most of the fears of what Lorillard/Big Tobacco will or won't do have been covered there. But I will summarize:

1) It is illogical to think that the tobacco industry, which is seeing declines in cigarette sales and has been expanding into the tobacco harm reduction/smoke-free products, would buy into e-cigarettes and then attempt to halt any and all innovation and options that would basically stall and then kill the e-cigarette market. These are companies that have been around for a couple hundred years, have adapted to changing social attitudes and already attempt to offer dozens of options for tobacco consumers. It would make no sense for them to limit themselves to mass-market, pre-filled, tobacco-only flavored devices.

2) The selling points of e-cigarettes are A) lower cost than smoking B) 99% safer than smoking. It would make no sense for BT to support regulations and taxes that would make e-cigarettes as expensive as cigarettes and to add toxic chemicals that make them dangerous, which would lose consumer confidence in the product. Especially since there are a lot of other options for tobacco users to move to if they have no confidence in the e-cigarettes - some are even being developed by Big Pharma. SO it is completely illogical to think that BT will go happily along with taxes on e-cigs or add toxins (really, how would they do that with a product that contains only 3-5 ingredients??) that will make their products LESS desirable to their customers? The very reason people give that BT will ruin e-cigs (greed) is the same exact reason why BT would want to make e-cigarettes better, more appealing to smokers, offer more variety, retain customers from switching to another brand of e-cig or gums/patches. Contrary to popular opinion, BT doesn't want it's customers diseased or dying (that's the ANTZ/ BP wet dream). E-cigarettes are a win-win for BT - people who switch to e-cigs mostly don't really WANT to quit nicotine or the habit, they just don't want to die. Most e-cig users, unlike smokers, have no intention of quitting, so BT wouldn't have any reason to try to make them "more addictive" or lure in kids.

3) Most important point. EVERYTHING you THINK you know about big, bad, evil tobacco companies came from the same ANTZ who are now telling us and the public that e-cigarettes are targeting youth, contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens and aren't any safer than smoking. We all know those are lies and trust me - they aren't just "misunderstanding." So, how can we now believe anything we've been told by them about tobacco and tobacco companies? We know now how much they twist the truth and even lie outright. They will say any lie to get people to quit all tobacco or recreational nicotine - they've PROVEN that with the lies about e-cigarettes, low-risk smoke-free tobaccos and the "effectiveness" of their crappy gums and patches. How do we know that what we've been told about tobacco companies adding ammonia to make them more addictive, targeting kids, etc. aren't all twisting of the facts to achieve their prohibitionist agenda? What proof do we have - other than claims from the ANTZ - who we know lie?? Tobacco companies have been making much safer, low risk products for YEARS now and the ANTZ have been telling us that they aren't any safer and relying on the fear, loathing and distrust they created of BT to keep us in line (and smoking instead of switching.)

Who benefits most from everyone distrusting BT? The ANTZ and Big Pharma. who benefits if we get sick from smoking? Big Pharma.

How ironic that the only industry that supports the right for adults to use recreational nicotine, has been developing much safer alternatives and has bought into e-cigarettes as tobacco harm reduction products is Tobacco and the groups who have been telling us BT is the evil one are the ones who actually benefit more if we keep smoking, keep trying to quit and keep getting smoking-related diseases.

4) BT will target kids with e-cigs? First, see above points. Second - why would they even need to when they have 450 million existing adult smokers?? The kid targeting is a myth created by ANTZ. Ask yourself - did you start smoking because of ads by BT? No - none does, but the ANTZ want us to believe it to perpetuate the "evil tobacco" image so they can continue to treat smokers like crap, while collecting their taxes and money for their Big Pharma products. If Big Tobacco ever targeted youth with their Joe Camel-style ads it was to get youth who were already smoking to switch. Research shows that kids start smoking because their friends or family are smokers, not because of ads. So Big Tobacco doesn't even need to target kids to get them to START - parents and friends are doing it for them.

Really folks - don't fall for the idea that BT is somehow special in it's ability to be corrupted by greed. They didn't do anything that the ANTZ and Big Pharma are doing right now - by relying on this myth they perpetuated that Big Tobacco and all its products are evil, so you should trust BP and the ANTZ. It's just another tactic to get you to buy THEIR products instead.

Very good points, Kristin. I hope you are right. I hope that vaping is established enough to not allow companies with deep pockets to stymie competition. I still have my doubts that Lorrilard will make real improvements to Blu or allow anything other than prefilled carts. But I hope you are right and not me.
 

Mediaguy

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Jan 17, 2012
80
65
57
MontrealQuebecCanada
Big Tobacco's "incursion" is really precautionary...

After all, the law is out to ban their product's use if not their product (FDA somehow can't reverse certain decisions; in some legalities, prostitution itself is not illegal).

When you think about it, Big Tobacco is out to kill their customers... what more logical way do they have to preserve the bottom line than to switch to electronic cigarettes? They keep the junkies, get rid of the undertaker...

:D
 
Last edited:

kwalka

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Jan 23, 2012
3,581
4,536
Clearwater, Florida
walkers-finest.com
Big Tobacco's "incursion" is really precautionary...

After all, the law is out to ban their product's use if not their product (FDA somehow can't reverse certain decisions; in some legalities, prostitution itself is not illegal).

When you think about it, Bgi Tobacco is out to kill their customers... what more logical way do they have to preserve the bottom line than to switch to electronic cigarettes? They keep the junkies, get rid of the undertaker...

:D

If BT was out to kill their customers they would of been out of business a long time ago cuz everyone would of been dead.
 

Mediaguy

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Jan 17, 2012
80
65
57
MontrealQuebecCanada
Nah... I mean think of the turnover.

Current customers won't die for X-number of years, and the "next" batch will still be hooked. It's not that clear-cut, much more fluid, but they've known for years what tobacco does. They may not be out to kill the customer, but the timelines are predicated. They've worked this out like an insurance company over decades...
 

Uncle Willie

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 27, 2011
2,395
101,447
Meet Me in St Louie Louie
And when I see Kristin post I have the exact opposite reaction...
So my question to you would be which part of what she says do you disagree with?

I agree with her .. it's the length and frequency of the info popping up that I'm mentioning .. I believe in brevity
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,264
20,289
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Nah... I mean think of the turnover.

Current customers won't die for X-number of years, and the "next" batch will still be hooked. It's not that clear-cut, much more fluid, but they've known for years what tobacco does. They may not be out to kill the customer, but the timelines are predicated. They've worked this out like an insurance company over decades...

Just remember that all of those estimates of how many people die or get sick from tobacco come from the ANTZ (Anti Tobacco and Nicotine Zealots.) Most of them are guesses or even just made up. For example, if an 89 year old ex smoker dies from pneumonia, they count that as a "smoking-related death" even if there is no proof whatsoever that the smoking 20 years ago had anything to do with it. They blamed smoking for cervical cancer for years until they finally discovered the HPV. They still claim that snus and other low-risk tobacco is just as dangerous as smoking - which is the exact opposite of the scientific facts. People still believe they have a greater chance for getting oral cancers from smoke-free tobacco than smoking when exactly the opposite is true and even then oral cancer is extremely rare.

People assume the saying that smoking is more addictive than (that illegal drug) is based on scientific research, when really it was just a survey of some ex-users who said they were still smoking. Rather than assume someone with an addictive personality who just gave up crack wouldn't really be greatly motivated to also quit smoking, they made the claim that it must mean smoking is more addictive. And we simply believed them because they were looking out for us, right?

Insurance companies charge you just as much even if you use a low-risk tobacco product like snus, which has had no evidence of significant health risks. And you can be sure you'll get hit for using e-cigarettes, too, since the test is nicotine-based, not risk based.
 
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,264
20,289
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I agree with her .. it's the length and frequency of the info popping up that I'm mentioning .. I believe in brevity
Trust me - I wasn't looking forward to having to write all that all over again, but someone asked me to and I needed to condense several posts from the other thread into one post. I realize brevity isn't one of my traits, but the topic isn't exactly a simple one if someone isn't as familiar with tobacco harm reduction history and facts. And a lot of people aren't on the forums or see my posts as frequently as you apparently do. Sorry to make you suffer through it, but CASAA's mission is to educate people about tobacco facts and that is what I'm trying to do - even if it means I have to keep repeating myself over and over for new folks. ;)
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,973
San Diego
I agree with her .. it's the length and frequency of the info popping up that I'm mentioning .. I believe in brevity
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
:)

Trust me - I wasn't looking forward to having to write all that all over again, but someone asked me to and I needed to condense several posts from the other thread into one post. I realize brevity isn't one of my traits, but the topic isn't exactly a simple one if someone isn't as familiar with tobacco harm reduction history and facts. And a lot of people aren't on the forums or see my posts as frequently as you apparently do. Sorry to make you suffer through it, but CASAA's mission is to educate people about tobacco facts and that is what I'm trying to do - even if it means I have to keep repeating myself over and over for new folks. ;)
Because, yeah, what she said.

With all of the new people coming into this forum every day, these things can never be said enough.
And they can never be explained in too much detail either.

I just wish Kristin could post in the New Members subforum!!
:)
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,264
20,289
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I still have my doubts that Lorrilard will make real improvements to Blu or allow anything other than prefilled carts. But I hope you are right and not me.

In the video interview with Lorillard's CEO (who came from a smoke-free tobacco company and believes in tobacco harm reduction) he stated that in talking with blu's president, the thing that excited him most about e-cigarettes was being told that the technology was "15% there." He was very excited about the huge development potential. Pre-filled, tobacco-flavored carts are low end and one solution to them has already been developed - refills and optional cart styles. But that doesn't mean that is the only solution. Who knows? With all of the funds available to them, even if they decide to stick with pre-filled carts they may actually develop ones that address and fix all the things we currently hate about them.

I hope that some day we'll be able to get a whole new category accepted - recreational nicotine - which won't be hampered by the same regulations to which tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine products must adhere. Products like pre-filled e-cigarette cartridges, nicotine water, nicotine pops, nicotine hand gel and bottles of flavored e-cigarette liquid would be in this category. If we can get the concept of recreational nicotine accepted, then that would open a whole lot of opportunities.

In the meantime, we just need to keep making noise and letting them know that we feel that for e-cigarettes to remain acceptable, effective replacements for smoking, they need to have more available to smokers than pre-filled tobacco carts.
 

Matthew1980

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
May 26, 2012
73
22
48
A, A
www.flavourcrafters.biz
I would think that the purchase for Lorrilard; is going to result in a few good things:

1. First and foremost research in to the product could only do one thing: Help us in the goal and the concept that we are already know, that e-cigs are 99% safer then traditional. They have billions of dollars that will and could be used for this purpose. We need research and lots of it now.

2. They have extensive knowledge on research and development, again we need this; and need it now.
3. They know how to market, and advertise better then anyone; we need this to get our message across that e cigs are not only enjoyable. but safer 99% safer.
4. to provide quality control for E Liquids, and products we use. Again billions can be spent; they know this very well.

I welcome the industry to us; we need their help; in product and development, and safety research now. The time is now; to ask for there help. I am hoping more will join soon.
 

jkmtwo

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,457
1,113
Lebanon TN
I think they played part of his interview on the Vapeteam, at least I think it was the Vapeteam. I was very surprised that he gave a lot of ground in essentially admitting how harmful cigs are. If I were a gambling man, and I am, I'd bet that Lorilard s on its way out of tobacco within the next decade.

In the video interview with Lorillard's CEO (who came from a smoke-free tobacco company and believes in tobacco harm reduction) he stated that in talking with blu's president, the thing that excited him most about e-cigarettes was being told that the technology was "15% there." He was very excited about the huge development potential. Pre-filled, tobacco-flavored carts are low end and one solution to them has already been developed - refills and optional cart styles. But that doesn't mean that is the only solution. Who knows? With all of the funds available to them, even if they decide to stick with pre-filled carts they may actually develop ones that address and fix all the things we currently hate about them.

I hope that some day we'll be able to get a whole new category accepted - recreational nicotine - which won't be hampered by the same regulations to which tobacco and pharmaceutical nicotine products must adhere. Products like pre-filled e-cigarette cartridges, nicotine water, nicotine pops, nicotine hand gel and bottles of flavored e-cigarette liquid would be in this category. If we can get the concept of recreational nicotine accepted, then that would open a whole lot of opportunities.

In the meantime, we just need to keep making noise and letting them know that we feel that for e-cigarettes to remain acceptable, effective replacements for smoking, they need to have more available to smokers than pre-filled tobacco carts.
 

jkmtwo

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
1,457
1,113
Lebanon TN
If da Feds don't outlaw 'bakky in the US before then and Lorillard still exists, I'll take your bet!


Companies don't stick around as long as they have and not be willing to adapt. So they'll still be in business. As for the feds outlawing tobacco, keep dreaming my friend, that would cause another civil war if they did. Hell the dems got the most liberal guy they could find and he's a smoker, it ain't going anywhere.
 

Iffy

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 3, 2011
9,626
79,411
Florida Suncoast
As for the feds outlawing tobacco, keep dreaming my friend, that would cause another civil war if they did.

Hey, I'm taking your bet based on what you said! In other words, I say Lorillard will still be in da 'bakky business in 10 years. Bring it on...
spar.gif



toothy.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread