-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors
- Thread starter BigEgo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If People want to bring the Courts into things, or Make Litigations an Issues, have an Agent of Five Pawns accompany the Notary and the Bar Member in Post [HASHTAG]#1019[/HASHTAG].
Then Five Pawns could Wiggle out of Things. And they Also would have a Hard Time playing the "Chain of Custody" card..
But that Only Works if Five Pawns wants people to Really Know what Da and AP levels are in their e-liquids.
And by virtue of their Actions, I Don't Think Five Pawns does.
but what you don't do is supply juice to a company who won't deal with those that don't have test results showing no da/ap and make it clear they will test themselves if said test results aren't provided. Then threaten legal action because that company finds ap in the juice?
Voluntary, involuntary, I don't care. This train has already left the station.
Had 5P never made any claims as to the safety of their products, this wouldn't have become the issue it has. But now, it has. And it's going to get worse, or better, depending on your perspective.
Many more vapers today want this info from their vendors. Many more than last week anyway.
You can tell people all day long that if their vendor isn't coughing up the info, then shop somewhere else.
It isn't that easy. People develop favorite vendors because they like the flavors, service, prices, whatever.
They don't want to pull up stakes and go through all the hassle of finding another vendor and having to start over trying the different flavors to find what suits them.
It is far more convenient for them to just ask and/or demand this info.
Vendors are either going to supply it, or make their customers wish SOMEONE would make them supply it.
And we know who that Someone wants to be.
So if they're sincere about fending off any more government intervention than what is absolutely necessary, I think they better start listening to their customers.
You can all obfuscate and split hairs all you like.
But you better believe there is a movement underway.
And you can lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
Had 5P never made any claims as to the safety of their products, this wouldn't have become the issue it has. But now, it has. And it's going to get worse, or better, depending on your perspective.
Many more vapers today want this info from their vendors. Many more than last week anyway.
You can tell people all day long that if their vendor isn't coughing up the info, then shop somewhere else.
It isn't that easy. People develop favorite vendors because they like the flavors, service, prices, whatever.
They don't want to pull up stakes and go through all the hassle of finding another vendor and having to start over trying the different flavors to find what suits them.
It is far more convenient for them to just ask and/or demand this info.
Vendors are either going to supply it, or make their customers wish SOMEONE would make them supply it.
And we know who that Someone wants to be.
So if they're sincere about fending off any more government intervention than what is absolutely necessary, I think they better start listening to their customers.
You can all obfuscate and split hairs all you like.
But you better believe there is a movement underway.
And you can lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
e.g. 5P led C9 to believe they had tests results showing no da/ap
Consumers pushing vendors to voluntarily test and disclose the presence of potentially risky components sounds like consumers telling the market what they want. Seems like a free market doing what it normally does. Vendors respond best to consumer demands, whether it be for a particular flavor or more thorough ingredient disclosure.
Labeling normal consumer behavior as ANTZ and FDA-like comes off as a tactic to end an open discussion and an attempt to dismiss the diketone concern and those people who have it. Just like labeling those who don't share those concerns as apologists or spin doctors, both types of labeling really have no place here.
I'll keep asking my vendors for more information, and those that understand and/or share my interest and concern will get my business. It looks like quite a few vapers will be doing the same going forward. Market demand and open discussion should push the vendors toward better disclosure with time. Label me consumer.
Labeling normal consumer behavior as ANTZ and FDA-like comes off as a tactic to end an open discussion and an attempt to dismiss the diketone concern and those people who have it. Just like labeling those who don't share those concerns as apologists or spin doctors, both types of labeling really have no place here.
I'll keep asking my vendors for more information, and those that understand and/or share my interest and concern will get my business. It looks like quite a few vapers will be doing the same going forward. Market demand and open discussion should push the vendors toward better disclosure with time. Label me consumer.
I wonder if anyone else has the courage to stand up to them? Too bad VaporShark doesn't sell 5P; they're not a mom & pop and probably wouldn't fold quite as easily. Of course 5P is probably revising its distributor/reseller agreement as we speak to prohibit any reseller from doing it, so it would have to be an existing reseller...
For Retailers, at this stage of the Game, with FDA Deeming looming, I doubt it.
For Individuals, People like Dimitri, Russ or maybe even a Phil Busardo come to mind.
Face it zoiDman, when anyone disagrees with you, you make outlandish and unsubstantiated claims about the persons, not the ideas up for discussion.
It's not like this is a big secret.
People Disagree with Me on Many Things. Doesn't Bother me in the Lest.
But the Difference is I don't Call people ANTZ if they Do. Or if they are Critical of some Aspect of the e-Cigarette Market, I don't Accuse them of Supporting FDA Deeming.
And you're wrong to mention "free market". Cause there you're free to take the offer or not. There's no hollering back.
I thought your argument regarding Cloud 9 was a bit of a stretch.
How is it a stretch? They are advertising liquid with 0 nic. If it contains any nic, then they are lying.
I don't get how this is any different than the current issue. They could rather easily link every sales page to the page where they mention (and imply) that zero doesn't mean zero. That they don't is deception. That they don't publish the exact amount of nicotine (whatever the trace amount is) on zero nic liquid, is very akin to the arguments on DA / AP.
Would be more accurate / transparent to call those zero nic liquids. .02% nicotine or lower. Short of that, and they are engaging in same logic that 5P is currently using. But seemingly getting a free pass, cause of the hoopla around the current issue.
Last edited:
I have seen at least one person demand involuntary disclosure. This is not something I can agree with. A company not making a claim to be diketone free should be enough, you don't see the claim, you don't buy, if that concerns you. Demanding that a company put "not tested for diketones" is akin to forcing smokeless tobacco to have the warning "not a safe alternative to cigarettes." At least until there is a confirmed risk from diketones.
I think I agree.
But would you accept the claim "diketone free" without test results?
I sure won't, not anymore.
Any corporation/business/individual that is making and selling anything for human consumption is responsible to know each and every ingredient that is in their product and disclose/warn consumers if their product contains ingredients that are known to/potential to pose a serious health risk... why should eliquids be exempt from this...because they can get away with it? If anyone is pushing for regulations it would be those in the industry that are exhibiting business practices like 5P knowingly selling a product with high levels of Da/AP and denying it even exist in any of their products. Seriously I don't know of one consumer that would stand for this with any other things they bought to consume yet this is somehow acceptable because it's eliquid? Makes no sense to me what so ever....
I'll also just add that on C9 website they say: Nicotine is classed as a poison in its pure form, taken in high enough doses, can kill and we are required to supply advice and warnings with this product
Acknowledging it is poisonous and then also advertising some product as "zero" when it may actually have some (trace) amount, means that C9 is selling poisonous products to customers, but claiming / advertising that it contains zero amount of the poison.
Just gotta overlook the dosage amount and focus on the poison part for this to equal high level of deception. Which, I'm thinking is not a stretch for some in this thread.
If that were something that concerned me, no, I would not accept that claim without proof. If you're making the claim, you should have evidence.
First, they aren't KNOWN to pose a serious health risk, they are BELIEVED to, and with good reason, but they are not KNOWN.
Next time there's a bake sale, ask the person selling the muffins if they know whether or not their muffins are diketone free. It may be perfectly logical to know if your product contains a whole constituent, such as walnuts as an example. Does this contain walnuts? Yes, no, could contain trace amounts... But for something that is somewhat ubiquitous in the flavoring industry, and can also be created as the result of a reaction between two other chemicals, I don't find it unreasonable that someone might not know.
However, if you don't know, don't claim to know.
Now you are being silly! That is not just their liquid - by your logic you can say the same about every single person who sells 0%. I think I need a break
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
