I think the idea or understanding of this is what pushed people - or in some cases groups of people - to test juice independently of what manufactures say...this is how some of juice companies got "in trouble" (some people didn't really care) with saying they had clean juice and then turning out they did not
- Status
all you did is ask me like 3 or 4 questions. all were just questions, with nothing else said. must of missed the point. can't you just say your point again, if there is one?
why not just say what you are trying to say? who supposed to be dancing again?
Sadly a lot of people don't view it as a smoking cessation device - which is part of the negative view of vaping; then others, like you and me and alot of vaping stores, view it as smoking cessation device but yeah
That is not true.
Plenty of people have stopped smoking by vaping zero nicotine from the start.
And many more keep from smoking after reducing to zero nicotine but continuing to vape.
Far too many people in this world think it's all about the nicotine.
And they don't consider the habitual, ritual, or psychological aspects of the smoking/vaping process.
And I'm willing to bet that the latter are as strong, if not stronger factors in MOST vapers than the former.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people reading this think not.
But would be wrong, and might even prove it to themselves by dropping the nicotine altogether right now.
But then again, I'm sure there are some people as "addicted to nicotine" as they think they are.
Just don't forget about the rest of us, who really aren't anymore, if we ever were.
Legally, it is not the case. Vaping exists as an alternative to smoking, not a cessation tool. That to me is the right course, and makes the most sense. If a time comes about (which is IMO inevitable) where never-smoking vapers outweigh ex-smoking vapers, then this notion of "why vaping exists" will no longer be framed from the medical model. Right now, I'll grant that you can get away with saying that despite the fact that legally it is not that way (for industry).
I also said you could put nic into non-nic sold juices. That was the previous point. The political one. If we advocated for that, then ANTZ would still attack us, love us for siding with them on the anti-nic position, and attack vaping for looking like smoking and taking money away from all that they currently make money on with regards to smoking / treatments.
But we could still add nic to our products as may be desired. Therefore, not necessary right now for vendors to do that for us. And by continuing to do that for us, it guarantees that anti-smoking or ANTZ types will always wish to wage a battle against us. So, we continue to be okay on that end, knowing it hurts us politically, but also realizing it is very good for the market and survivability of vaping as we choose to understand it.
well maybe for some, a car with no engine DOES serve a purpose.
maybe they like it and think it's pretty. maybe they want use it as lawn art. who knows?
doesn't change the reality that a car with no engine is silly, and they shouldn't manufacture them.
Good points. Addressing the last item first. It's all chemicals. It'll always be that way. Any product (and I do mean any) that is under scrutiny would have all possible chemicals in it scrutinized and then shown to have degree of harm associated with it. Water can / does kill people. Therefore, if thinking through these items, you gotta realize that politically, if opposition exists and science is willing to prostitute itself to highest bidder, there will always be a way for opposition (on any side) to come up with benefits/harms of chemicals, and report findings, hopefully smearing the other side into submission or more likely taking them to court, using up as much of their funds as necessary, and reducing their capital.
Currently, I don't know who is credible to do the tests. Dr. F. is seen as "paid and bought for by eCig industry" from our opposition. We think we know better, that he is neutral. But look at any study on smoking. If that industry comes out with something that downplays / refutes previous data on smoking and the study was paid for by BT, do we or average people give it equal weight to whatever say CDC studies? I would say no (though personally I give more weight to BT funded studies than CDC). But larger point is that credibility of science has gone way down. The theoretical version of what science is, is fine. The practical version of what science is up to in our current world, I literally find, incredible.
I think it costs pennies to make a ML of juice. So, I estimate that it costs around $1 to make 30 ml of juice, and perhaps that is high, but just being conservative.
Yet, it takes time to make it. So, if I were to go work for a company that wants me to be mixologist for them (or fancy name for guy who puts the ingredients together and bottles it), I'd know that it costs us $1 for a 30 ml bottle. Yet, they pay me $18/hr to do that work. I could do some math and likely figure out that they are ripping off consumers. But also realize that they are paying a whole bunch of expenses besides putting juice together. Hence, the previous points in this thread about overhead. Every business has them. There's no way an iPhone costs $500 to make. No way a car costs $10,000 to make. I could go on, but I'm pretty sure we all know this stuff. I sometimes wonder how the businesses that make items that cost $19.95 are able to advertise (often) on national TV, given all other aspects of overhead. But advertising is the type of overhead that if it works out, you make a killing, and if not well that was a complete waste of money.
Vendor I most often go with charges me $9 for 30 ml bottle. So, when I see anything over say $15 in discussions like this, I'm like who you all paying for your juice?
I agree, having done competitive debate I know this all too well - you can basically find an article somewhere saying anything you want...I think the question comes down to what you were saying, is who should do the studies? I think that in general, if someone - anyone, were to do a study and release what ever findings they come up with - we would shortly afterwards see another study come out on the same topic...It almost seems like no one wants / will do this type of study now, but you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as someone does one another one will come out shortly
All I got from this is there's a good chance that the anti-DA crowd has no idea what the cause of death was, but to help bolster their points, they are going to suggest it had to be B.O. and then say no one knows as way to support their argument.
I agree with this, but thats why if you want to be successful as a juice company you don't just make one bottle at a time...yes I agree they have overhead, but that is just part of the business - practically everything has overhead - the objective though is to be so successful that you are making more money then what your overhead cost is ect ect ect...
Vendor I most often go with charges me $9 for 30 ml bottle. So, when I see anything over say $15 in discussions like this, I'm like who you all paying for your juice?[/QUOTE]
Gotcha, I was just curious - I usually pay around $10 - $15, more then that doesn't seem to worth it to me....granted I have tried juices that come in at the $20 -30 range for 30ml, but I personally don't pay for those myself
Agreed. Though I think saying you had clean juice was the mistake, and not whether or not your juice was clean (or not). I think it became PC to make that claim, and then was thought of as something that consumers would want. Not saying that was mistaken, but do think it would be better with looming FDA intervention to just leave well enough alone. If another business wants to take the steps to appease that customer type, let 'em, and let them do as well as they can. All part of free market. To be clear, I do not see it as being irresponsible to have it in there, and if concerned for consumer, a simple warning on your site, or perhaps on a label, could be "this product may contain diacetyl." Therefore you've done disclosure and let concerned consumers know to shop elsewhere. And if that then in the under regulated market led to all those businesses doing incredibly poor business, so be it. But I think it either didn't, or wouldn't, because I don't think a majority are that concerned. I think given some time and anti-type indoctrination and there could be a majority that were that concerned. But not likely pre-FDA deeming.
Your probably right, it really does sound pretty harmless, probably even less when it's heated to vapor form.
Sore throat. Cough. Burning sensation. Shortness of breath. Laboured breathing. Symptoms may be delayed use breathing protection.The substance is corrosive to the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract.
There are sufficient biopsies done on a year to year basis to know the
misdiagnosis theory doesn't hold water. From the FDA ´s point of view
everything from each part of the hardware and every chemical
in the juice is potentially harmful and will be regulated as such.
Regards
Mike
Ah ........ the pulmonary specialist have been studying BOS for 15 years, they can tell the difference, it's not 1967 cigarette science or I ate too much popcorn anymore......
Diagnosis and treatment of constrictive bronchiolitis
Vaping without nic is like a car with no ability to play music. I could see being in such a car, but I don't know how long I could tolerate it. I surely wouldn't enjoy getting into that car.
Vaping unflavored is like a car that plays only country music. LOL.
ETA: The engine analogy for vaping is the battery. Would be interesting to see how one vapes without a battery.
if you bother to read my posts, you will already see that my thoughts on nicotine removal vs D/AP removal is:
that one is needed, and one is not. nic needs to be in eliquid in order to help smokers quit D/AP does not.
so, again.....what's your point? why don't you just say what you are trying to say? what is your view?
DA is no worse than PG/VG? interesting. havn't heard that one before.
any evidence to back that up?
- Status
Similar threads
