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

[zoiDman]

I definitely want nicotine in my ejuice. If at some point I'm forced to buy flavored vaping stuff that has no nicotine... well, that's why I'm starting this nicotine stash. I'm really no great shakes at DIY, though learning... but if, in the regulated years ahead, all I can buy as far as flavored ejuice is 0mg, I'll go along with it, and add my own nicotine. Until I get better at DIY, then I'll just make my own start to finish and they can kiss the same anatomical part I invite the FDA to kiss.

They won't stop me from vaping as I choose to vape; I will never buy another BT product. They can also kiss that same anatomical part. They raped my pockets for 39 yrs, but no more.

Andria

Yeah... You, Me and About Every Other person who buys Non-0mg e-Liquids.

It's Kinda the Whole Point of Non-0mg e-Liquids.

LOL

 

[DC2]

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.”

This statement is quite clearly intended to support their position that "open-system" electronic cigarettes must be banned.
And this position will logically be supported by everyone who stands opposed to us.

 

[Jman8]

I think you are Really Grasping at Straws here.

I think you are mistaken and misunderstanding the point. Chemicals are put into eLiquid that make it more appealing and has lead to a boom, or high demand for the product. Nicotine would be prime example of this.

If no one made eLiquid but BT, and nicotine was being put in, it would be spun way way way different than it is today. But because BT wasn't first to market for eLiquid with nicotine, then suddenly, we live in a world where not everyone hates on people that manufacture a product solely so that this addictive chemical can be inhaled.

No One Wants Diacetyl in their e-Liquids.

I'm okay with diacetyl in my eLiquid. I'm aware of the risk. I'm okay with that, and believe it to be okay for vast majority. But I realize a segment of vaping community would like it gone and wants to believe that its substitute will be fine and dandy and that science (on all counts) will give it a ringing endorsement. I beg to differ and believe we will be right back here in a few years discussing the 'avoidable risk' that comes from that substitute.

Diacetyl in e-Liquids is a No Win for Everyone.

Then vaping for the last 3 or so years has been a no win for around 75% of consumers who though they were 'winning' by vaping.

 

[DC2]

I am no longer addicted to nicotine, if I ever even was while smoking around 7 cigarettes per day for 27 years.
And I could easily switch to zero nicotine liquids if I wanted to or had to.

But I refuse to do so, because I don't want Parkinsons or Alzheimers, so I have 10 years worth of nicotine in the freezer.
My hope is that it stays in my freezer forever, without me ever having to open it.

But I am quite certain that Big Pharma would much rather I take a pill if I want to take nicotine for medicinal purposes.
And I have no doubt they will continue to push for the destruction of any market for cheap nicotine that is not under their control.

What I find interesting is that the ANTZ are caught between a rock and a hard place.
But their mantra of "nicotine is evil unless supplied by Big Pharma" kind of gives them a completely illogical way of pursuing their agenda.

It constantly amazes me that the entire world is buying the crap they are spewing in that regard.
It's so incredibly transparent that even a journalist should be able to see through it.

 

[zoiDman]

I think you are mistaken and misunderstanding the point. Chemicals are put into eLiquid that make it more appealing and has lead to a boom, or high demand for the product. Nicotine would be prime example of this.

If no one made eLiquid but BT, and nicotine was being put in, it would be spun way way way different than it is today. But because BT wasn't first to market for eLiquid with nicotine, then suddenly, we live in a world where not everyone hates on people that manufacture a product solely so that this addictive chemical can be inhaled.



I'm okay with diacetyl in my eLiquid. I'm aware of the risk. I'm okay with that, and believe it to be okay for vast majority. But I realize a segment of vaping community would like it gone and wants to believe that its substitute will be fine and dandy and that science (on all counts) will give it a ringing endorsement. I beg to differ and believe we will be right back here in a few years discussing the 'avoidable risk' that comes from that substitute.



Then vaping for the last 3 or so years has been a no win for around 75% of consumers who though they were 'winning' by vaping.

Whatever you say Jman. And I can just see the Headines now.

NEWSFLASH: e-Liquid Manufactures are Lacing e-Liquids with Nicotine to keep Vapers using e-Cigarettes. Film at 11:00.

What's stopping any vaping company from lacing eCigs with chemicals so you keep buying THEIR product?

As to you being OK with Diacetyl in my e-Liquid. That's Great.

I Imagine you Don't have a Problem with the Added Chemicals they put in the Cigarettes you are Currently Smoke Either.

 

[AndriaD]

I am no longer addicted to nicotine, if I ever even was while smoking around 7 cigarettes per day for 27 years.
And I could easily switch to zero nicotine liquids if I wanted to or had to.

But I refuse to do so, because I don't want Parkinsons or Alzheimers, so I have 10 years worth of nicotine in the freezer.
My hope is that it stays in my freezer forever, without me ever having to open it.

But I am quite certain that Big Pharma would much rather I take a pill if I want to take nicotine for medicinal purposes.
And I have no doubt they will continue to push for the destruction of any market for cheap nicotine that is not under their control.

What I find interesting is that the ANTZ are caught between a rock and a hard place.
But their mantra of "nicotine is evil unless supplied by Big Pharma" kind of gives them a completely illogical way of pursuing their agenda.

It constantly amazes me that the entire world is buying the crap they are spewing in that regard.
It's so incredibly transparent that even a journalist should be able to see through it.

But the "journalists" are not really journalists any longer; there is no such thing as a "free press"; all the major "news" outlets are owned by some gargantuan consortium of big-money interests (who own large pieces of BP and BT, too!), and those so-called "journalists" will only EVER report what they are told to report, by those who sign their paychecks. Anyone who believes differently... wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Cheap!

If we want non-smokers/non-vapers to hear what we have to say, we're gonna need a "reality TV" show to get them to pay attention -- they LOVE that crap! and really believe it, too!

Andria

 

[zoiDman]

But the "journalists" are not really journalists any longer...

This is Kinda what I have seen over the Last 15 Years or so.

News "Journalists" no longer see their jobs as Reporting News. But see their Role as those Who Invent the News.

Everything seems to have become Op-Ed.

 

[Nate760]

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.”

The word usage is crucial here, because they say "nicotine" instead of "e-cigarette liquid." Technically, it's a correct statement except for the first part. I sure as hell wouldn't want to rub pure nicotine on my skin, or swallow it.

I wonder if this might be calculated to further the belief (which is already rather widespread among ignorant simpletons and/or ANTZ) that e-cigs contain pure nicotine, so only "closed systems" should be allowed. You know, to minimize the danger of your child finding one of your Halo bottles and chugging it like a beer. Because that's just what toddlers do.

 

[Kent C]

The word usage is crucial here, because they say "nicotine" instead of "e-cigarette liquid." Technically, it's a correct statement except for the first part. I sure as hell wouldn't want to rub pure nicotine on my skin, or swallow it.

I wonder if this might be calculated to further the belief (which is already rather widespread among ignorant simpletons and/or ANTZ) that e-cigs contain pure nicotine, so only "closed systems" should be allowed. You know, to minimize the danger of your child finding one of your Halo bottles and chugging it like a beer. Because that's just what toddlers do.

skin = nicotine patch
swallow = Nicorette gum.

 

[Davey59]

skin = nicotine patch
swallow = Nicorette gum.

That's a good one (chuckle) but he wrote "pure nicotine" which I don't want it on me or in me either.

 

[Kent C]

That's a good one (chuckle) but he wrote "pure nicotine" which I don't want it on me or in me either.

A bit tongue in cheek there but yeah, you're right. I should have added a smiley

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Just more semantics to make e-cigarettes look bad by using the truth, all my e-liquids contain USP grade pure nicotine. Mine all have .8% pure nicotine in them. They're telling the truth, just not all of it.