ecigs front page on foxnews.com

[Lithium1330]

you can't get a non-cigarette shaped e-cig lithium?

Yes dc but now I have a problem with the post office, they saw a chance to get some money because the shipments were comming from overseas and the US, and that call a lot of atention in a small town like this, so I think they assume I can't find this products in my country and they sutily asked me to give them some money, but I didn't accept, because then everytime that a shipment arrive to me they will ask for money, and I can't make a large order because customs could seize it (with the e-cigarette word all over the package dispites the form of the device), so I'm in a corner right now, can't get supplies and you know that this devices need a lot of replacement.

As for the sadness on this thread about using a rudimentary vaporizer, well it is better to be prepared for everything and by mentioning other alternatives I think we are being realistic and matures about it, if eventually somebody has to use those devices for keep away from analogs, then it is fine to me discuse this devices no matter for what are they been used for right now.

 

[rickstar009]

oOps! <Posted in Wrong thread> sorry guys

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Along with the Black Market idea, I really feel that everyone on this forum needs to start slamming our local and national politicians with letters and phone calls about our support of the Personal Vaporizer. The squeeky wheel gets the grease, and our cause is in need of a lot of grease! I don't want my government to force me into a criminal PV operation, but damn it, I will do my part to keep the device supply flowing anyway I can (By Any Means Necessary)! I won't refer to this potential market beyond this post anymore, because I'm serious about this. If you are interested in playing a part, you all know where to PM me.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Tribble - Can I make a suggestion? Would you be willing to put together a form letter that we can all proof, then download, add our own experiences to and shoot off?

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Tribble - Can I make a suggestion? Would you be willing to put together a form letter that we can all proof, then download, add our own experiences to and shoot off?

I will see what I can do, and I will get back to you all. To be honest with you, I have never cared about anything enough to write a letter like that, but this is one subject that I care enough about to try.

 

[TropicalBob]

Realistically, it is hardly your politicians' fault that an unapproved and potentially dangerous product made in China is being sold in the United States without proper approvals. Think again about who is to blame and who should take appropriate actions to legalize our practice.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Realistically, it is hardly your politicians' fault that an unapproved and potentially dangerous product made in China is being sold in the United States without proper approvals. Think again about who is to blame and who should take appropriate actions to legalize our practice.

I don't want to blame them, I want to Beg them to help us out. If they do nothing for us after begging them, then I will blame them.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I will see what I can do, and I will get back to you all. To be honest with you, I have never cared about anything enough to write a letter like that, but this is one subject that I care enough about to try.

Well... if you can get it started, we are all more than happy to help you get it finished. And something like that deserves its own thread. If you want, visit RTV (Right To Vape - Index). The About Us page you will find lots of good stuff, summarized from a bunch of people both active here and there.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Well... if you can get it started, we are all more than happy to help you get it finished. And something like that deserves its own thread. If you want, visit RTV (Right To Vape - Index). The About Us page you will find lots of good stuff, summarized from a bunch of people both active here and there.

I will check it out.

 

[TropicalBob]

Tribble: Persuade them. Certainly don't blame them. And there's no reason to beg. That won't help.

We do not have the numbers to be a force, so we must have logic and facts on our side in letters asking that they allow these devices to be sold without regulation. I can't write that letter for you -- because, to me, it flies in the face of regulatory responsibility. I know they have the right to regulate for protection of the American consumer, whether any of us feel we need that protection or not. In fact, of course we do; we're thankful for it each time a doctor prescribes a new medication for us and we trust an approval process that brought it to market.

The tone of your first post is what triggered my response. Anyone writing angry letters will get absolutely nowhere. In fact, that could set back the cause. All this "they'll get my e-cig when they pry my cold, dead fingers off it" macho posturing in an invitation to a speeded-up investigation of e-smoking.

And so is any implication that this could be used for banned substances or we just might turn to those if e-smoking is banned. Making those who must pass judgment on you angry is not a recommended tactic.

It might be too late to stop that, given recent publicity, but you certainly should make every effort to persuade politicians to your point of view. Get your arguments in line and present them intelligently. Good luck.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

TB makes very good points and also check by Tobaccoharmreduction.org because the tobacco harm reduction argument IS the way to go.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Tribble: Persuade them. Certainly don't blame them. And there's no reason to beg. That won't help.

We do not have the numbers to be a force, so we must have logic and facts on our side in letters asking that they allow these devices to be sold without regulation. I can't write that letter for you -- because, to me, it flies in the face of regulatory responsibility. I know they have the right to regulate for protection of the American consumer, whether any of us feel we need that protection or not. In fact, of course we do; we're thankful for it each time a doctor prescribes a new medication for us and we trust an approval process that brought it to market.

The tone of your first post is what triggered my response. Anyone writing angry letters will get absolutely nowhere. In fact, that could set back the cause. All this "they'll get my e-cig when they pry my cold, dead fingers off it" macho posturing in an invitation to a speeded-up investigation of e-smoking.

And so is any implication that this could be used for banned substances or we just might turn to those if e-smoking is banned. Making those who must pass judgment on you angry is not a recommended tactic.

It might be too late to stop that, given recent publicity, but you certainly should make every effort to persuade politicians to your point of view. Get your arguments in line and present them intelligently. Good luck.

I dig you, Bob, and I understand what you are saying. I have no intention of starting off angry with any letter that I compose. I do know that you can catch more flies with honey as opposed to vinegar . But, at the same time, it does frustrate me to no end that we have to worry about this at all. Why can't we have protective regulation and personal freedom at the same time? Holland is very protective of their citizens well being, but also very protective about insuring their citizens personal freedoms at the same time. This Personal Vaporizer subject has motivated me to learn more about Libertarianism. I want the government to look out for me, I just cannot stand the idea of them being my nanny any longer.

 

[TropicalBob]

I do see e-smoking as harm reduction, Lacey. I wish agencies did.

I'm a nicotine addict, and have no desire to quit my favorite substance. But I'm sure you've noticed what they mean when they say something is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. It's smokeless tobacco, of all varieties, all the things I've written on this forum that I use daily. That's "harm reduction."

Now Big Tobacco used to snub the harm reduction movement. They wanted people to smoke cigarettes. But with smokers on the decline, and smokeless tobacco enjoying a rapid rise, they've had a change of heart. Not only do they now embrace smokeless, but they've bought the companies making those tobacco products.

Win-win for them. Quit cigs, move to another tobacco product. Keeps the money in the family, so to speak. As I write this, I have a Camel snus pouch in my mouth. That came on the national market just last week. Next month, RJR will put dissolvable tobacco tablets and strips on the market. Our Big Tobacco companies have bought and continue to try to buy all the makers of Swedish snus.

Harm reduction is New Money. New Money from a New Market got their attention, didn't it? Will they embrace e-smoking? Not as long as Americans buy Chinese products to use instead of a tobacco product, that's for sure.

The money? Big Tobacco is betting on smokeless tobacco. They're supporting harm reduction now.

I'd think Big Pharma would be more interested in controlling the future nicotine market ... for harm reduction, of course. The magic new phrase is becoming more accepted as more money can be made.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Well... and who can't get behind tobacco harm reduction? We all know that abstinence and prohibition does not work. Bristol Palin said it best "Absitence does not work" LOL. It will be interesting to see if our meager little grassroots campaign can work against big tobacco and pharmaceutical. So many factors at play, I could go on for hours.

I wait patiently for Wednesday to see what happens with tobacco and the FDA and the powers that be. I do not disagree with you at all that we have two very powerful groups gunning at us in both directions. But you know me... I am optimistic even after I have jumped! There is always a bright side, we just all have to find it.

Off to check my user CP and then I am having a cocktail, my ecig and off to bed! Have a good nite TB!

 

[TribbleTrouble]

I do see e-smoking as harm reduction, Lacey. I wish agencies did.

I'm a nicotine addict, and have no desire to quit my favorite substance. But I'm sure you've noticed what they mean when they say something is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. It's smokeless tobacco, of all varieties, all the things I've written on this forum that I use daily. That's "harm reduction."

Now Big Tobacco used to snub the harm reduction movement. They wanted people to smoke cigarettes. But with smokers on the decline, and smokeless tobacco enjoying a rapid rise, they've had a change of heart. Not only do they now embrace smokeless, but they've bought the companies making those tobacco products.

Win-win for them. Quit cigs, move to another tobacco product. Keeps the money in the family, so to speak. As I write this, I have a Camel snus pouch in my mouth. That came on the national market just last week. Next month, RJR will put dissolvable tobacco tablets and strips on the market. Our Big Tobacco companies have bought and continue to try to buy all the makers of Swedish snus.

Harm reduction is New Money. New Money from a New Market got their attention, didn't it? Will they embrace e-smoking? Not as long as Americans buy Chinese products to use instead of a tobacco product, that's for sure.

The money? Big Tobacco is betting on smokeless tobacco. They're supporting harm reduction now.

I'd think Big Pharma would be more interested in controlling the future nicotine market ... for harm reduction, of course. The magic new phrase is becoming more accepted as more money can be made.

Bob, there is still harm in smokeless tobacco, any smokeless tobacco. If I wanted to dip snus or chew tobacco, then I would be doing that instead of e-vaping already. You seem really high on the snus stuff now. Are you giving up on our Personal Vaporizers?

 

[TropicalBob]

I'm using it ALL, Tribble. Why choose one?

E-smoking isn't a complete answer for me. Neither is snus. But the movement here is not called "harm elimination". It's only "harm reduction". Read about harm reduction and you'll read that smokeless use is about 1,000 times safer than smoking cigarettes. Not safe. No. But a thousand times better than smoking cigarettes.

I would never use chew, for the damage it does to teeth and mouth. But snus are very different and they have a century-old track record among Swedes. E-smoking has a year of use history.

I'm not giving up any of them. But if one falls by the wayside due to a run-in with the law, I'll still have my others to prop me up and keep me off tobacco cigarettes.

 

[Mungo]

Absolutely concur with that sentiment. Despite my earlier posturing i just splashed out on an expensive i-inhale vaporiser. If all else fails or goes to the wall [Something i think less likely here in the UK] i can vape tobacco in it. Still got 2 pouches of the filthy stuff sitting on the table.

 

[OutWest]

The most chilling development we've seen in awhile is the story about the upcoming House vote to give authority over tobacco products to the FDA. A day long feared is less than a week away. If you want to mark a day as "the beginning of the end of tobacco products," it will be the day the President signs this into law. And, no, this isn't just about cigarettes. The FDA will quickly regulate the "poisonous and addictive" nicotine in all products sold to the public.

There has been a lot of silly and ignorant skywriting here and elsewhere about all this, but earth-altering shakes are underway for smokers and nicotine addicts. Tallulah, you got it right.

The only good news is the move toward smokeless alternatives. I use them. I cannot live without them. If you're thoroughly addicted to nicotine, you owe it to yourself to become educated on snus and dissolvable tobacco products. They can quickly and easily help you satisfy addiction -- and even live without an e-cig. A lot of information on them is in the Alternatives section of this forum.

The door is closing. What does your stash look like?

Some more info about that bill from: Congress Renews Push To Regulate Cigarettes - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

Congress Renews Push To Regulate Cigarettes

New Regulations Could Bring Menthol, Sweet Cigar Ban


POSTED: Monday, March 2, 2009

​

WASHINGTON -- With support from President Barack Obama, whose been trying to kick the habit himself, lawmakers have renewed their efforts to require government regulation of cigarettes.


While in the Senate last year, Obama co-sponsored legislation that would have given the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products, to reduce the harm from smoking.
The legislation passed the House last summer but faced a veto threat from then-President George W. Bush and didn't get a vote in the Senate.
Rep. Henry Waxman has announced plans to reintroduce the legislation Tuesday.
Sen. Edward Kennedy plans to reintroduce a Senate version in coming weeks.
Under the legislation, the FDA could demand the reduction or elimination of cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke. It would ban candy-flavored cigars and cigarettes, and would give the FDA authority to ban menthol.

 

[jasonb]

this will be a lot of promotion for ruyan

 

[katink]

Some interesting sentences in this: Tobacco foes change strategy
Might be another route to reckon with...