Great NY times article exposes what BT is REALLY trying to do.

Status
Not open for further replies.

sqirl1

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 10, 2011
823
328
St. Louis, MO

defdock

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 15, 2011
1,897
2,786
Dark Forest
Any product that helps you quit smoking is a good product. It makes no difference who the manufacturer is.

you are right on that, but whos to say, when everything "settles down" and vapes become the norm - whats stopping BT from starting to lace their ecigs with chemicals keeping you buying THEIR product? even CIGS WAAAAAAAY back in the day - didnt have all these chemicals - it was BT adding them to make them "absorb quicker" and keep you hooked on THEIR products.
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Any product that helps you quit smoking is a good product. It makes no difference who the manufacturer is.

If it competes on its own merits... not if the company that makes it is doing everything possible to put their competition out of business. The only ethical way to put your competition out of business is to make a better product -- we've already seen that BT's e-cigs are definitely not a better product, they're very old tech, but they're trying to put their competitors out of business so they can succeed with 2009 technology.

Andria
 

csardaz

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
May 29, 2014
169
147
Pennsylvania
not intended for persons “who have an unstable heart condition, high blood pressure, or diabetes; or persons who are at risk for heart disease or are taking medicine for depression or asthma.”

Those persons are better off with a cigarette or nicotine withdrawl than with ejuice?


At the bottom - "read insert for more safety information".


I have a box of V2 cartridges from May 2014 with basically the same warnings on it.

I do wonder how Lorillard did all those Blu commercials - like 80% of all ecig TV budget but politicians and media point at all ecigs instead of Lorillard?
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
not intended for persons “who have an unstable heart condition, high blood pressure, or diabetes; or persons who are at risk for heart disease or are taking medicine for depression or asthma.”

Those persons are better off with a cigarette or nicotine withdrawl than with ejuice?

Seriously. It's taken a while, but my asthma is definitely improving; I don't wake up sounding like a water pipe [EDIT: or a gurgling T3S! ;)]. I am so glad I've had this opportunity to "self-medicate" with vapor -- I asked my doc about the Nicotrol inhaler when they first came out, thought it might have potential, and he told me couldn't prescribe it to me, because I have asthma. I said, how is it better if I just keep smoking? He just shrugged, said that's the law. Total freaking lunatics.

Andria
 
Last edited:

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,145
SoCal
One warning, from Altria, maker of Marlboros, reads in part: “Nicotine is addictive and habit forming, and is very toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin, or if swallowed.”

Another, from Reynolds American, maker of Camels, says the product is not intended for persons “who have an unstable heart condition, high blood pressure, or diabetes; or persons who are at risk for heart disease or are taking medicine for depression or asthma.”

Priceless. ;)
 

sqirl1

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 10, 2011
823
328
St. Louis, MO
What's important about this article is:
1.) it implicitly if not explicitly acknowledges that e-cigs aren't nearly as bad as combustibles

And more importantly

2.) it acknowledges that what BT is doing is obviously an unfair ploy to rub out smaller manufacturers and puts an actual FACE to our side of the industry. If you ask me this is HUGE.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
The title of this thread misses the entire point (as did the NY Times reporter) of the new e-cig warnings by large tobacco companies.

First of all, the NY Times article hypocritically criticized tobacco companies for repeating the same false and misleading fear mongering claims (on e-cig labels) about nicotine and e-cigs that have been deceitfully reported as facts by Obama’s DHHS, by Big Pharma funded e-cig prohibitionists, and by many previous NY Times articles and editorials.

But the NY Times article also failed to report (and the reporter didn't even realize) that the tobacco companies included those warnings on e-cigs to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits filed by greedy lawyers and by the several dozen duped State AGs that repeated many of those same false claims when urging the FDA to regulate e-cigs at
http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FINAL_AG_FDA_Comment_Re_Deeming_Regulations.pdf
and discussed at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nt-letter-fda-29-state-attorneys-general.html

Nothing like pathological liars (i.e. NY Times reporter Matt Richtel and the ANTZ he interviewed for this article) criticizing tobacco companies for repeating their lies.
 
Last edited:

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
I think the main point of this article should be that anytime gov't agrees with tobacco companies, they are on the wrong side. IMO the article failed by not looking at the ecomonics and lobbying efforts from the tobacco companies.



I don't think this article made anything clear for the reader who probably has no experience and limited interest in ecigs.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
I think the main point of this article should be that anytime gov't agrees with tobacco companies, they are on the wrong side.

But the government isn't agreeing with tobacco companies in this situation.

Rather, its the tobacco companies that have decided to agree with the lies told by Obama appointed ANTZ at DHHS, and their allied Big Pharma funded ANTZ.

Tobacco companies are simply trying to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
 

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,952
68
saint paul,mn,usa
you are right on that, but whos to say, when everything "settles down" and vapes become the norm - whats stopping BT from starting to lace their ecigs with chemicals keeping you buying THEIR product? even CIGS WAAAAAAAY back in the day - didnt have all these chemicals - it was BT adding them to make them "absorb quicker" and keep you hooked on THEIR products.

with all fairness to BT they where required to prove the amount of nicotine and absorption rates in each brand and in each
and every cigarette they produced.this required them to process the tobacco,some times to increase the nicotine,some times to decrease the nicotine and to insure an equal distribution of nicotine in the tobacco. having processed the tobacco that way they didn't have to get it approved leaf by leaf.

this of course probably increased the addictive qualities over all of the tobacco.
in the course of all this they had to further process the tobacco to try to get the
flavor of the original tobacco. hence the roughly 4000 chemicals in burning tobacco.
this along with modern farming techniques gives you the product on the market today.
google: Dr. C. Everett Koop-radiation-tobacco.
regards
mike
 

Nate760

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2014
1,301
4,541
San Marcos, CA, USA
If it competes on its own merits... not if the company that makes it is doing everything possible to put their competition out of business. The only ethical way to put your competition out of business is to make a better product -- we've already seen that BT's e-cigs are definitely not a better product, they're very old tech, but they're trying to put their competitors out of business so they can succeed with 2009 technology.

This is kind of insulting to people (myself included) who quit smoking with BT-owned products. It's also, frankly, ANTZ-style dogmatism. "I want you to quit smoking, but only if you use products of which I approve, made by manufacturers whose behavior I find acceptable."
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
Some of the many fear mongering claims made by the 29 State AGs about e-cigs (in their comment urging FDA to not only impose the deeming regulation, but make it even worse) at http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FINAL_AG_FDA_Comment_Re_Deeming_Regulations.pdf are below.

So nobody (including NY Times reporters and their allied ANTZ) should be surprised that cigarette companies have posted lawsuit protecting warnings on their e-cig products.


First, e-cigarettes contain and deliver nicotine—a well-recognized addictive chemical—in amounts comparable to traditional cigarettes. Accordingly, e-cigarettes should be assumed to be both harmful and addictive. Second, youth are “particularly vulnerable” to nicotine’s adverse effects on the central nervous system. As recently determined by the Surgeon General in the latest Report, nicotine exposure during adolescence adversely affects cognitive function and development, potentially resulting in “lasting deficits in cognitive function.” As a result, “the potential long-term cognitive effects of exposure to nicotine in this age group are of great concern.”

Other harms relating to the use of e-cigarettes are also likely to exist beyond their growing use by youth. For example, the vapor from e-cigarettes has been found to contain formaldehyde and propylene glycol. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Propylene glycol when heated and vaporized can form propylene oxide, also a known human carcinogen.

E-cigarettes have furthermore been found to deliver particulate matter, in the same number and size as traditional cigarettes. The inhalation of such particles—e.g., through tobacco smoke or air pollution—has been found to contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death. The particles from e-cigarettes have also been found to contain metals, such as tin and nickel, in amounts two to 100 times higher than those found in a traditional Marlboro cigarette smoke. These metal nanoparticles can deposit into the lungs, causing adverse respiratory effects.

The liquid nicotine used in e-cigarettes also presents increasing dangers. The number of phone calls made to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids, has increased dramatically over the past four years—from one per month to 215 per month nationwide. As CDC Director Tom Frieden has explained, “[e]-cigarette liquids as currently sold are a threat to small children because they are not required to be childproof, and they come in candy and fruit flavors that are appealing to children.” Indeed, over half of the phone calls made to poison centers during the past four years regarding e-cigarettes involved young children under the age of five.

Finally, there is a widespread misperception among youth about the safety of e-cigarettes. As the FDA has already noted, young adults often “mistakenly think non-cigarette tobacco products are safe alternatives to cigarettes.” Indeed, although no manufacturer of e-cigarettes has yet applied to have its product considered a nicotine replacement therapy, over 85 percent of e-cigarette users reported in an international survey that they assumed such products would help them quit smoking. For additional discussion regarding the harmful effects of nicotine, see Section III.C.2, infra.

Given these facts and those set forth in the Proposed Rule, we agree with the FDA’s conclusion that regulation of e-cigarettes is appropriate for the protection of the public health.

and

Section III.C.2. The need for more effective warnings is justified by the substantial number of harmful consequences that result from exposure to nicotine, especially among youth

The last decade has seen numerous experiments on the effect of nicotine exposure on the brain. Researchers have focused on the effects of nicotine exposure on the adolescent brain in particular because, “most likely owing to its ongoing development, the adolescent brain is more vulnerable to the effects of nicotine than the adult brain.” The adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to nicotine addiction. Adolescents are also less susceptible to withdrawal symptoms, creating an all-reward, no-regret system for psychostimulant use. Exposure to nicotine, particularly in adolescence, permanently alters the physical structure and gene expression of the brain, lowers adult impulse control and attention performance, and causes other structural changes.

Multiple studies have found significant permanent cognitive effects from exposure to nicotine during adolescence. Adolescent brains exposed to nicotine lose memory accuracy and show long-term reductions in impulse control and short-term reductions in verbal memory during withdrawal.

Another consequence of adolescent exposure to nicotine is the increased likelihood of psychiatric illness. Repeated studies over tens of thousands of adolescents have shown nicotine use as an adolescent leads to and predicts psychiatric disorders, in particular depression, in adolescents and adults.

Nicotine has other significant dangers associated with contact and exposure. Nicotine can affect the body if it is inhaled, comes in contact with the eyes or skin or is swallowed.

Overexposure to nicotine in the short term may cause such symptoms as vomiting, ........, headache, lack of physical coordination, and cause the heart to beat irregularly or even stop. Nicotine also has increased health risks for pregnant women, with research showing adverse effects on a fetus’s lungs, heart, and central nervous system. As e-cigarettes increase in popularity, calls to the nation's poison control centers about exposure to the liquid nicotine used in many of the devices have surged, according to the CDC.

More than half of the calls to poison control centers recorded by the CDC concerned children age five and younger who had been exposed to toxic levels of nicotine. In many states, the cartridges of liquid nicotine used to fill or refill e-cigarettes are not required to be childproof, and some packaging and point of sale displays for e-cigarettes and nicotine refill cartridges lack any warnings about nicotine toxicity.
 
Last edited:

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
This is kind of insulting to people (myself included) who quit smoking with BT-owned products. It's also, frankly, ANTZ-style dogmatism. "I want you to quit smoking, but only if you use products of which I approve, made by manufacturers whose behavior I find acceptable."

If you see an insult to anyone other than BT in my remarks, you're really reaching, since it wasn't aimed at anyone BUT BT, with the shoddy way BT is trying to get their competitors off the market so they can have it to themselves. Maybe you should have said "whatever product a person uses that helps them quit and stay quit, that's the right product for that person." But just saying that it's a good product because it helped them quit... eh. An eRoll helped me quit; I consider it a good product because it let me choose my own flavors AND recharge... but I wouldn't call it, BLANKET, a good product. It's a workable product for those attached to the cigarette form factor -- and usually that person soon sees the limitations and goes on to -- good products -- products that help him/her STAY quit -- lots of people quit using regular NRT -- but they don't STAY quit, so those really aren't "good products."

Andria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread