I don't understand this comment, ammonia is in cigarettes, and it is there specifically to fast stream the nicotine into the bloodstream, thereby making it more addictive
- Status
I don't understand this comment, ammonia is in cigarettes, and it is there specifically to fast stream the nicotine into the bloodstream, thereby making it more addictive
It causes the nic to have a freebase effect. Remember Richard Pryor? Remember his little issue he had one evening while enjoying himself? Well adding ammonia to cigs causes the chemicals to have the same effect as what he was trying to do when he had his little misstep. We aren't allowed to discuss this type of thing here. We must be very cautious as to the language we use.
I'll jump in with a couple of pennies worth...
I believe the addition of ammonia makes the nicotine absorb better and/or faster into the bloodstream.
I do not, however, believe that this necessarily increases addictiveness.
I believe what it DOES do is causes more of a spike in nicotine in the bloodstream as it is absorbed more quickly and/or effectively.
In that respect it is really just a way to make their product more effective at what it was intended to do.
No real harm in that when you look at it that way.
It could also be a good thing from the perspective of harm reduction in that you might need to smoke fewer cigarettes.
See the whole "light cigarette" debacle for more information on THAT topic.
On the other hand, if this quicker absorption of nicotine is followed by a quicker crash, you might want another cigarette sooner.
And that could be described as increasing addiction potential of the product, as well as being bad for harm reduction.
I would assume that the improved performance of the product was the initial goal.
And that the potential for "increased addictiveness" was an unintended side effect that did not exactly bum them out.
I believe the addition of ammonia makes the nicotine absorb better and/or faster into the bloodstream.
I do not, however, believe that this necessarily increases addictiveness.
I believe what it DOES do is causes more of a spike in nicotine in the bloodstream as it is absorbed more quickly and/or effectively.
In that respect it is really just a way to make their product more effective at what it was intended to do.
No real harm in that when you look at it that way.
It could also be a good thing from the perspective of harm reduction in that you might need to smoke fewer cigarettes.
See the whole "light cigarette" debacle for more information on THAT topic.
On the other hand, if this quicker absorption of nicotine is followed by a quicker crash, you might want another cigarette sooner.
And that could be described as increasing addiction potential of the product, as well as being bad for harm reduction.
I would assume that the improved performance of the product was the initial goal.
And that the potential for "increased addictiveness" was an unintended side effect that did not exactly bum them out.
Both your points are valid and agreeable, however the goal, IMO is MORE MORE MORE.
Oh, I blame no one for my starting to smoke but myself, it's more that I have a hard time trusting BT to not mess up the whole vaping thing for everyone (either by forcing out the little companies, or by adding worse things to Eliquid in their loophole ways) it will surely be interesting to see how it all plays out
I would worry less about them adding stuff to the liquid, there's no reason for it really, none whatsoever, the problem with cigs is that your customer base is either dying, or trying to quit, the great thing about vaping is your customer base is content, and will live as long as the rest of the population, so it would make bad business sense to risk bad publicity, that would only serve to drive your customer base away.
The 2nd thing you bring up is a worry, a big worry for me, but as this grows, the more likely it is that big money wants a piece of the pie, and for their faults, Big Tobacco is a big business, no worse than the vast majority of the fat cats on Wall Street, big business is dirty a cross the board, not just big tobacco, look at Walmart, or Tyson, the oil companies, Haliburton, hell big tobacco is small potatoes to these guys.
There is a much greater risk of Big Pharma and their ANTZ shills messing up "the whole vaping thing for everyone" than BT doing it.
No doubt smaller companies will be forced out - ones who can't compete, can't innovate and grow, can't meet basic safety standards, etc. That's basic supply and demand and capitalism.
Again I ask - what is it everyone is afraid BT will add to e-cigarettes that the think they'd be able to hide in the 4-5 ingredients currently found in e-liquid? What would motivate them to put anything dangerous in them in the first place? Why do they even need to make something that very few customers plan on quitting "more addictive?" It maybe made sense with cigarettes - hide bad stuff in the 2,000 ingredients in smoke and make them more addictive because most smokers supposedly "want" to quit - but it makes no sense for them to do it with e-cigarettes that most smokers switch to so they DON'T have to quit.
Wouldn't it make more sense for BT to make e-cigarettes even more awesome tasting and better working so people don't go back to smoking (thereby killing their customers) or switch to NRT? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to NOT give the FDA any reason to ban them (they are already under close scrutiny and now the FDA regulates tobacco products) by adding toxic chemicals that could easily be detected among 4-5 non-toxic ingredients? Knowing their own reputation, wouldn't they do everything in their power to gain consumer confidence from customers trying to get away from dangerous smoke so people actually BUY them?
It makes no sense to give BT credit for being so brilliantly devious that they could come up with so many sneaky ways to make a profit with cigarettes but they are so stupid that they'd ruin everything good about e-cigarettes that would make them profits. If people think that BT only cares about profits, then the smartest thing they could do to continue to make those profits with e-cigarettes would be to leave the door open for growth and advanced technology, gain public trust and give the customer what they want. Limiting themselves and the whole industry to a low-end, entry-level products, raising prices to cigarette levels and adding dangerous ingredients would only result in LOSING profits.
Remember, all of the stuff the tobacco industry got away with 30 years ago was before the FDA had oversight of the tobacco industry, before the industry was making an effort to come up with safer products, before people distrusted the industry at the level they do today and before the internet got bad word-of mouth out to the public almost instantly. They'd have a hard time hiding much these days and would be pretty stupid to even try to.
No doubt smaller companies will be forced out - ones who can't compete, can't innovate and grow, can't meet basic safety standards, etc. That's basic supply and demand and capitalism.
Again I ask - what is it everyone is afraid BT will add to e-cigarettes that the think they'd be able to hide in the 4-5 ingredients currently found in e-liquid? What would motivate them to put anything dangerous in them in the first place? Why do they even need to make something that very few customers plan on quitting "more addictive?" It maybe made sense with cigarettes - hide bad stuff in the 2,000 ingredients in smoke and make them more addictive because most smokers supposedly "want" to quit - but it makes no sense for them to do it with e-cigarettes that most smokers switch to so they DON'T have to quit.
Wouldn't it make more sense for BT to make e-cigarettes even more awesome tasting and better working so people don't go back to smoking (thereby killing their customers) or switch to NRT? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to NOT give the FDA any reason to ban them (they are already under close scrutiny and now the FDA regulates tobacco products) by adding toxic chemicals that could easily be detected among 4-5 non-toxic ingredients? Knowing their own reputation, wouldn't they do everything in their power to gain consumer confidence from customers trying to get away from dangerous smoke so people actually BUY them?
It makes no sense to give BT credit for being so brilliantly devious that they could come up with so many sneaky ways to make a profit with cigarettes but they are so stupid that they'd ruin everything good about e-cigarettes that would make them profits. If people think that BT only cares about profits, then the smartest thing they could do to continue to make those profits with e-cigarettes would be to leave the door open for growth and advanced technology, gain public trust and give the customer what they want. Limiting themselves and the whole industry to a low-end, entry-level products, raising prices to cigarette levels and adding dangerous ingredients would only result in LOSING profits.
Remember, all of the stuff the tobacco industry got away with 30 years ago was before the FDA had oversight of the tobacco industry, before the industry was making an effort to come up with safer products, before people distrusted the industry at the level they do today and before the internet got bad word-of mouth out to the public almost instantly. They'd have a hard time hiding much these days and would be pretty stupid to even try to.
Like X 100.
There is a risk of e-cigarettes being corrupted by greedy people no matter what industry starts making them - even with the "e-cig industry." There is nothing special about BT that makes it more likely. At least BT would want us to keep using and enjoying their e-cigs recreationally. If Big Pharma got a hold of them first, they'd have turned them into a nicotine cessation product that you'd be expected to quit. The concept of recreational nicotine use is completely foreign to them.
Last edited:
Well, the stuff will hit the fan as competition heats up, already has in this thread. However, regarding a couple of points:
BT will experiment with e-juice formulas. It's a given, IMO. However, I don't have any problems with them making cigs consistent and uniform. Nor with "spiking nic"... since the added nic probably reduced the # of cigs for me. Ammonia is another issue that's a bit "iffy", but it may have even resulted in my smoking slightly less if all it did was make the nic more effective. Who knows. The real criminals are the ones behind the FSC crap IMO. And most of them were legislators.
On the other hand... I judiciously avoid tobacco as much as I can in practicality while admittedly using nic base that is extracted from it. I'd be willing to try synthetic nic but it's way too expensive/impractical. So, I use the nic base from tobacco. However, I choose to avoid things like WTA and even TA. My choice. I don't want to get into the combustion vs non-combustion issues, since even chew and snus have higher risks than using nothing at all. I just avoid as many chemicals as I reasonably can. Who knows. The flavorings will probably kill me 1st now. Or maybe the VG.
My guess is that BT will experiment with WTA, ammonia, or other such additives. Should they? Probably. I'd like to avoid as many "extras" as possible though, simply because we don't have 20 years of vaping data with good controlled studies yet.
The operative issue is "what do vapers want?" If BT were to publish e-jucie and vapor analysis results, would vapers pay attention? Would they get better sales from "the cleanest" or from "the most tobacco flavored" or from "the most effective MAOI/WTA"?
Hmmmmmm..... IDK. For me ... "The cleanest" would win. For others, not so; just look at all the "WTA is the ultimate" threads. Maybe it is and I'm missing out. IDK. Can't say for sure. Nobody really can for sure.
Another question to ask yourself is... What would you do if you were them? Market to those that feel they need WTA's effects as a sub-set market? Just include it? Make options available? What about TA? What about other additives that are not flavorings? What about unflavored? lol.
The ANTZ will get it wrong no matter what. "Flavorings attract kids" or "They contain DEG" or whatever.
BT will experiment with e-juice formulas. It's a given, IMO. However, I don't have any problems with them making cigs consistent and uniform. Nor with "spiking nic"... since the added nic probably reduced the # of cigs for me. Ammonia is another issue that's a bit "iffy", but it may have even resulted in my smoking slightly less if all it did was make the nic more effective. Who knows. The real criminals are the ones behind the FSC crap IMO. And most of them were legislators.
On the other hand... I judiciously avoid tobacco as much as I can in practicality while admittedly using nic base that is extracted from it. I'd be willing to try synthetic nic but it's way too expensive/impractical. So, I use the nic base from tobacco. However, I choose to avoid things like WTA and even TA. My choice. I don't want to get into the combustion vs non-combustion issues, since even chew and snus have higher risks than using nothing at all. I just avoid as many chemicals as I reasonably can. Who knows. The flavorings will probably kill me 1st now. Or maybe the VG.
My guess is that BT will experiment with WTA, ammonia, or other such additives. Should they? Probably. I'd like to avoid as many "extras" as possible though, simply because we don't have 20 years of vaping data with good controlled studies yet.
The operative issue is "what do vapers want?" If BT were to publish e-jucie and vapor analysis results, would vapers pay attention? Would they get better sales from "the cleanest" or from "the most tobacco flavored" or from "the most effective MAOI/WTA"?
Hmmmmmm..... IDK. For me ... "The cleanest" would win. For others, not so; just look at all the "WTA is the ultimate" threads. Maybe it is and I'm missing out. IDK. Can't say for sure. Nobody really can for sure.
Another question to ask yourself is... What would you do if you were them? Market to those that feel they need WTA's effects as a sub-set market? Just include it? Make options available? What about TA? What about other additives that are not flavorings? What about unflavored? lol.
The ANTZ will get it wrong no matter what. "Flavorings attract kids" or "They contain DEG" or whatever.
Ok, I give, I give. You raise some excellent and logical points. I think I'll still be "looking over my shoulder", just cause of their past infractions, but you are very right when you say that BT is on the watch list, also that they have the opportunity to make more money because their customers will live longer so they would do well not to mess with that
. Thank you for that, I feel better now
. Thank you for that, I feel better now
we'll know if BT starts to add anything extra when people start say tings like, "i've tried the lavatube and the provari, but i just can't seem to get through the day without my blu cig!"
proprietary, pre-fllled carto's. highly taxed, highly addictive. blu cig for all newbies! the wave of the future! lol
proprietary, pre-fllled carto's. highly taxed, highly addictive. blu cig for all newbies! the wave of the future! lol
Everyone I feel is making really valid points, thank y'all for those great opinions, when it comes to analogs and chemical additives, I believe it I smoked for 15 years and for my last four I smoked roll your own analogs, I noticed even switching to them at first I was missing something and that was the additives. I think it would depend on the analogs also if you buy non filtered they do not put as much in because they know you are not going to quit, however if you by ultra lights they put as much junk in it as possible to keep you hooked.
I have to agree, when I started smoking cigs they were mostly unfiltered, they were really not that hard to put down. I quit many many times and was a social smoker for years and years. Then used filtered for many years on and off, then went to ultra lights. The ultralights were the hardest to quit, they must have had alot of additives in them. I was totally hooked on them and hated smoking for the last 15 yrs. Thank goodness for ecigs! They finally got me off them. bnrk
One thing I think the vaping community needs a lesson in is business. Big tobacco is a business. If you think they are bad, look into Walmart and workman's comp, or watch Food Inc. and see for yourselves the horrors of the food we eat, you will think big tobacco is mild.
I honestly see some very huge positives
1. BT has big money, big money that will speak volumes on Capitol Hill.
2. Competition, I love some of our vendors, but if they go out of business it will likely have to do with 2 factors, 1 being prices, in order to drive others out of business you will have to be cheaper than the competition, the 2nd being quality, the tobacco companies have money to throw at R&D, to make our PVs, and our juice safer. Logic dictates this.
3. Widespread acceptance.
They will move in to bigger battery devices, or better yet, make smaller devices that can do what our bigger battery devices can do now. There is battery tech that hasn't reached us yet, that blows away anything that we currently know, expect that to hit us faster.
Also, understand, BT is not responsible for the price of cigs, look to your local, state, and federal governments for that, here in TN a pack of igs will cost you about $5 a pack, $3+ of that price goes to the government.
I'm not defending than, I just think that all the doomsday stuff is foolish. I do feel as though BT has been painted with a brush, unfairly, and uncalled for. They make a legal product, deadly, but everyone who uses it, does so voluntarily.
Btw when was the last time you saw a warning label on a Pepsi? Is it not addictive? How about beer? They advertise on TV, and all of that stuff, but how many people die because of alcohol?
I honestly see some very huge positives
1. BT has big money, big money that will speak volumes on Capitol Hill.
2. Competition, I love some of our vendors, but if they go out of business it will likely have to do with 2 factors, 1 being prices, in order to drive others out of business you will have to be cheaper than the competition, the 2nd being quality, the tobacco companies have money to throw at R&D, to make our PVs, and our juice safer. Logic dictates this.
3. Widespread acceptance.
They will move in to bigger battery devices, or better yet, make smaller devices that can do what our bigger battery devices can do now. There is battery tech that hasn't reached us yet, that blows away anything that we currently know, expect that to hit us faster.
Also, understand, BT is not responsible for the price of cigs, look to your local, state, and federal governments for that, here in TN a pack of igs will cost you about $5 a pack, $3+ of that price goes to the government.
I'm not defending than, I just think that all the doomsday stuff is foolish. I do feel as though BT has been painted with a brush, unfairly, and uncalled for. They make a legal product, deadly, but everyone who uses it, does so voluntarily.
Btw when was the last time you saw a warning label on a Pepsi? Is it not addictive? How about beer? They advertise on TV, and all of that stuff, but how many people die because of alcohol?
Would like to ask both kwalka and jkmtwo to stop now. Deleted some posts and will go further if this continues. Thanks.
Last edited:
Here is the classic case of the "pot calling the kettle black". Hypocrisy is alive and well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
