blu eCigs owner Jason Healey repeatedly refers to vaping as "smoking", endorses FDA deeming reg (which would ban all e-cigs)
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Letters: E-cig truths lost in political smoke - Philly.com
Article by Jason Healy.... regarding treating vaping like smoking....
"Why would a smoker switch to an e-cigarette if he or she must go outside to vape with cigarette smokers? Why would they switch if electronic cigarettes are being treated the same as combustible cigarettes?
"Our elected officials must come to understand the distinct differences between electronic cigarettes and traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes are not combustible cigarettes and have more differences than they do commonalities - specifically having no tobacco smoke, ash or smell - as well as the option of non-nicotine varieties. And while most consumers and manufacturers expect some form of regulation, it doesn't make sense to regulate the products in the same manner...
"In the meantime, public officials should be held accountable for making misleading statements that bear no proof to support them, just as we are subject to before we make claims as an e-cig manufacturer. The truth: E-cigarettes are more analogous to an exit strategy than they are to a gateway to smoking tobacco."
(the article ran just yesterday 3/19, so it is possible that he used 'vape' as a response to some criticisms regarding it from the video on 3/10...)
Article by Jason Healy.... regarding treating vaping like smoking....
"Why would a smoker switch to an e-cigarette if he or she must go outside to vape with cigarette smokers? Why would they switch if electronic cigarettes are being treated the same as combustible cigarettes?
"Our elected officials must come to understand the distinct differences between electronic cigarettes and traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes are not combustible cigarettes and have more differences than they do commonalities - specifically having no tobacco smoke, ash or smell - as well as the option of non-nicotine varieties. And while most consumers and manufacturers expect some form of regulation, it doesn't make sense to regulate the products in the same manner...
"In the meantime, public officials should be held accountable for making misleading statements that bear no proof to support them, just as we are subject to before we make claims as an e-cig manufacturer. The truth: E-cigarettes are more analogous to an exit strategy than they are to a gateway to smoking tobacco."
(the article ran just yesterday 3/19, so it is possible that he used 'vape' as a response to some criticisms regarding it from the video on 3/10...)
Last edited:
I know that there were some pointed comments in this thread about Healy's performance on the original post's video. Honestly, I cut him some slack, the hosts were obviously ANTZ and were overly-aggressive in my opinion (not to mention ignorant to what e-cigs really are). Specifically, the female host....well, somewhere a village is missing their idiot.
But, this letter is quite well-written, I think, and changes my opinion a bit. He presents a good argument and asks good questions about the expectations of our legislators.
Thanks for sharing....
I haven't looked at the interview but in answer to just the surface.
Blu and any other manufacturer who got sued by dragonite,who INVENTED the ecig,will be grandfathered in pre-2007. If they got sued,their product is the SAME pre-2007 original design.
Blu and any other manufacturer who got sued by dragonite,who INVENTED the ecig,will be grandfathered in pre-2007. If they got sued,their product is the SAME pre-2007 original design.
@Kent C.:
Good link, thank you!
Letters: E-cig truths lost in political smoke - Philly.com
Well said, indeed
"Protecting consumers" is nothing but politco-speak for "protecting my own pocketbook and my buddies in big industry".
For those who are interested, here is a nice attempt to "protect consumers" from Europe, May 2013:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ps-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html
Thankfully, it was too obvious, and it failed.
Good link, thank you!
Letters: E-cig truths lost in political smoke - Philly.com
Oh, yeah, we must trust in the FDA, Big Pharm and BT because there have been so many deaths and illnesses in the last 7 years for the millions who vape. It has nothing to do with money, power and control, only safety and health, lol.
Well said, indeed
"Protecting consumers" is nothing but politco-speak for "protecting my own pocketbook and my buddies in big industry".
For those who are interested, here is a nice attempt to "protect consumers" from Europe, May 2013:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ps-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html
Thankfully, it was too obvious, and it failed.
Last edited:
This is beyond transparent....
Big Tobacco: "Hey Blu eCig guy, how about we give you xx% of profit once we put your garbage product under our mega tobacco umbrella?"
Puppet: "Fair enough"
Big Tobacco: "Hey Blu eCig guy, how about we give you xx% of profit once we put your garbage product under our mega tobacco umbrella?"
Puppet: "Fair enough"
Win Win for Big tobacco! Ban them and they continue to sell the sick sticks. Regulate them and they can come out ahead with the huge infrastructure to comply blocking out the little guys. They don't care which side of the fence they are on.
And - if anyone is concerned about what goes into e-juice now, if BT kills the "competition" - anyone want to bet on what will go into the e-juice then? It's scary. After all, all those ingredients in cigarettes are approved.
People change some of their views. Many notables here when they were on the anti-smoking side (pre-ecigs) gave smokers much grief with the regulations that they researched and supported. They had the same or similar views of today's ANTZ. But, things changed - those who were truly for harm reduction rather than just going after BT because they didn't like big anything, except for government, saw the possibilities of ecigs for harm reduction.
I praise them for that and frankly only for that, since I'm have a libertarian view for gov't and they, while with us on this issue, are still operating from 'the public good' - a collectivist notion, not for our right to vape or smoke, but they do it with more intelligence than ANTZ to see that ecigs are in fact, for the public good. That their positions also help uphold our right, is just a by-product, without any intention of doing so (notable exceptions apply).
I praise them for that and frankly only for that, since I'm have a libertarian view for gov't and they, while with us on this issue, are still operating from 'the public good' - a collectivist notion, not for our right to vape or smoke, but they do it with more intelligence than ANTZ to see that ecigs are in fact, for the public good. That their positions also help uphold our right, is just a by-product, without any intention of doing so (notable exceptions apply).
The people who are most opposed to e-cigs are statist socialists. You have to read between the lines in what they say.
They care about power and nothing else. Any issue, no matter the subject, that can earn them power, they support. Or oppose. Whichever works. Their most successful angle has been "think of the children!".
Money is power.
Jason Healey's craptastic $6 non-rechargable, non-refillable e-cigs don't cause them any pain, because they're prepared to cut him a deal where he charges the same amount and remits 25% of the cost directly to their pockets. They see the dollar signs, and that calms them. Healey's a bargain-basement crap merchant who's already making out like a bandit, and thus he's willing to accept the writing on the wall.
The e-liquid gives them fits. Because it's non-taxed and enables a regular citizen to vape without cutting them in on the deal.
They care about power and nothing else. Any issue, no matter the subject, that can earn them power, they support. Or oppose. Whichever works. Their most successful angle has been "think of the children!".
Money is power.
Jason Healey's craptastic $6 non-rechargable, non-refillable e-cigs don't cause them any pain, because they're prepared to cut him a deal where he charges the same amount and remits 25% of the cost directly to their pockets. They see the dollar signs, and that calms them. Healey's a bargain-basement crap merchant who's already making out like a bandit, and thus he's willing to accept the writing on the wall.
The e-liquid gives them fits. Because it's non-taxed and enables a regular citizen to vape without cutting them in on the deal.
The simple fact is this: They have bought all companies who could possibly have the resources to fight this ban and now they are working on getting vaping banned all together.
Tobacco companies are terrified that this technology will put them out of business in the near future. If they get the technology banned (and have to spend a few hundred million to do so) in the long term it's a really good investment, even if you're just investing to throw it away.
Tobacco companies are terrified that this technology will put them out of business in the near future. If they get the technology banned (and have to spend a few hundred million to do so) in the long term it's a really good investment, even if you're just investing to throw it away.
Why wouldn't Big Tobacco simply develop their own e-cigs, if that is where the market is going? I'm sure Marlboro Red e-juice would sell quite well- and to plenty of people on this forum who see BT as the enemy...
I don't think BT is allowed to rebrand any of their cigarette products anymore.
Didn't we once have a revolution based on those issues?
Seems to me, and has for a long time now, that it's about high time for another one.
Andria
Sure they can. It just cant be called Marlboro Flavored. I may be off base on this, tho I believe these types of restrictions were put in place some years back. I don't recall seeing all of the "branded gear" they used to promote either. They DID just buy Green Smoke.
I think they may be waiting to see how legislation and the e-cig market develops. I imagine through clever marketing and ad campaigns they could get around restrictions, while making it obvious Red e-juice is the liquid version of a Marlboro Red...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
