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

[Nate760]

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.

I don't see the need for such a distinction, but I also don't feel like playing semantics, so I'll just say this: I think we should take great care when we dismiss certain brands or products as "worthless" or "inferior" or whatever. As experienced vapers with extensive product knowledge, I think we're often too quick to forget what it was like when we were neophytes and didn't know a damn thing about any of this stuff. When we start trashing BT products, or cigalikes in general, it's the type of talk that could potentially dissuade an uninitiated person from trying vaping and thus potentially quitting smoking.

As far as their attempts to destroy the free market and be gifted a monopoly on the e-cig industry, BT's behavior is fair game and absolutely should be criticized in the most vociferous terms. But we should, IMO, stop short of railing against certain products just because of who makes them. The fact of the matter is that BT-owned products are the introductory devices for a large percentage of people who are first trying to get off cigarettes and onto vaping. Hardly anyone continues to use them on a long-term basis, because people naturally migrate to better products as their level of knowledge and experience increases. Whether or not we want to admit that BT products might be having a positive impact on public health, they probably are, because this is one case where the "gateway effect" might be a real thing. These products seem to be a very real gateway out of smoking and into vaping.

 

[AndriaD]

I guess I feel like a lot do, apparently, that BT isn't to be trusted. Whatever "v-liquid" they put in their product now, however "pure" it may be... down the road, if they do manage to get control of the market, what will they add to that liquid then, to keep people addicted? They did it with cigarettes, so how can they be trusted with anything else? I think a lot of folks are rightfully angry about that, especially when they try vaping with a plain-nicotine ejuice and find it just doesn't do the trick, so they have to go the WTA route just to be able to stay off the cigarettes. The WTAs don't supply the MAOIs and whatnot, but they supply a lot more than just nicotine, which helps a lot with the emotional dysfunctions that withdrawal from the MAOIs bring on. If BT hadn't added those MAOIs, then a lot of the NRTs might be a great deal more effective, not just in helping people quit, but helping them STAY quit.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/2...ing-.html?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0&referrer=
This is probably the best mainstream article I've read on vaping yet. Could it be? People are actually starting to see through BT's war on the real e-cig industry and as a result, seeing through the ANTZ as well? BT's plan to give e-cigs a bad rap on purpose (The TV commercials for Blu for example are obviously ANTZ bait) is going to backfire at them with more articles like this!

ANTZ hit pieces are amongst the best mainstream articles you've read on vaping?

I don't see BT giving eCigs a bad rap, but do see this article doing so. Interesting that you spun it the other way.

 

[Jman8]

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.

I'd love to see this last statement backed up with a source that is non-ANTZ. And by non-ANTZ, I mean that if you cite a source and I can point to their policy on eCigs, then will you accept them as 'entirely credible?'

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

 

[zoiDman]

...

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

Wow... Talk about "Doom and Gloom" scenario!

Do you think Anyone is Actually Doing this?

 

[pamdis]

Wow... Talk about "Doom and Gloom" scenario!

Do you think Anyone is Actually Doing this?

Not yet. But it's the main reason I will never buy BT's eliquid products ever in the future, as I think it's a given that they eventually will. Whether others will take up the practice too remains to be seen.

 

[zoiDman]

Not yet. But it's the main reason I will never buy BT's eliquid products ever in the future, as I think it's a given that they eventually will. Whether others will take up the practice too remains to be seen.

I think in Todays 24-7, Instant Access, Internet world that it would be Difficult do much with an e-Liquid that Wasn't found out Very Quickly. Compound that with all the Scrutiny that e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids have Attracted, it makes it More Unlikely.

But Hey, I guess Anything is Possible.

 

[Kent C]

Much has been made about the 'additives' in cigs and the latest was nicotine because the light, ultralight stuff they were forced into earlier also dropped nicotine as well as tar but made people smoke more - another 'unintended consequence' of gov't regulation - one they should have known, but they only look at their 'intent' rather than reality - so they continue to make those type of 'rookie' mistakes.

The last refrain of all of these 'well intended' 'caring' people in the wake of the disasters that they create is only "We meant well." And that's supposed to exonerate them. I'd be good with that, IF it were their last words before hanging.

 

[Steamix]

On a personal note - BT and BP can go and have airborne intercourse with a franchised bakery product...

All that jostling for the best spots on the feeding trough is transparant, pathetic and - understandable:
BT and BP are in it for the money. Period.

And when it comes to protecting their turf, their behaviour pattern difffers only marginally from that of street gangs.
Pinstripes and name tags instead of muscle shirts and tattoos.

So they can spare their crock - legislation will take a while and a little while more till it becomes binding. Enough leeway to stock on the things *I* want, not the things *they* want me to want...

Maybe there'll be enough funds left over .... to buy them ANTZ a donut too

 

[AndriaD]

Much has been made about the 'additives' in cigs and the latest was nicotine because the light, ultralight stuff they were forced into earlier also dropped nicotine as well as tar but made people smoke more - another 'unintended consequence' of gov't regulation - one they should have known, but they only look at their 'intent' rather than reality - so they continue to make those type of 'rookie' mistakes.

The last refrain of all of these 'well intended' 'caring' people in the wake of the disasters that they create is only "We meant well." And that's supposed to exonerate them. I'd be good with that, IF it were their last words before hanging.

I suppose some people smoked more, after switching to light or ultra-light cigs. I didn't, but the ill effect for me was that it enabled me to keep smoking -- I switched to ultra-lights from lights, because with my asthma, even the lights made me cough with every puff, but ultra-lights did not. If the ultra-lights had not been available, I suppose I might have kept on trying to quit, even knowing how miserable that was.

What I've also found is that while I was getting less nicotine, I probably wasn't getting less of the other stuff, the other alkaloids and the additives; though I get quite sick with any nic level over 10mg, 10mg plain nic ejuice wasn't sufficient to stop the cravings; it was only after I added some WTA that the cravings disappeared.

I see it here a LOT, when people have cravings, bunches of people start with the "up your nic level," but for some of us, that's simply not an option -- we are the people most benefitted by WTAs.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I suppose some people smoked more, after switching to light or ultra-light cigs. I didn't, but the ill effect for me was that it enabled me to keep smoking -- I switched to ultra-lights from lights, because with my asthma, even the lights made me cough with every puff, but ultra-lights did not. If the ultra-lights had not been available, I suppose I might have kept on trying to quit, even knowing how miserable that was.

Andria

I did the same and when I 'backed up' on occasion I could really notice the difference. That happened when there were just 'lights' and again when 'ultralights' became available. When I went RYO, I did blind tasting on about 25 different mainly premium tobaccos and found the right mix for me - D&R Rowland Light and McClintock (yum!).

 

[Nate760]

The lights/ultralights thing was a great example of the government's attitude toward smokers: "They are inveterate drug addicts, every last one of them, they have no control over their own behavior where smoking is concerned, and we know their hypothetical future behavior much better than they ever could."

Anecdotal note: my wife has smoked ultralights for like 20 years, rarely more than five a day. Why does she prefer ultralights? Get this. Because they're lighter.

 

[sqirl1]

ANTZ hit pieces are amongst the best mainstream articles you've read on vaping?

I don't see BT giving eCigs a bad rap, but do see this article doing so. Interesting that you spun it the other way.

It really didn't seem like a hit piece to me. It seemed as though they were criticizing BT for sticking it's nose into the industry and trying to use regulations in a way that's unfair to small vendors, and also the fact that they say it's laughable that they put worse warnings on e-cigs than they do on combustables when it should obviously be the other way around, presumably in order to get the deeming regulation through. Then again maybe it was naïve of me to assume that's how they meant it.

 

[Jman8]

Wow... Talk about "Doom and Gloom" scenario!

Do you think Anyone is Actually Doing this?

Technically they already are, and/or have.

Nicotine would be prime example of doing it now. Adding this to eLiquid so people keep buying it, for it is quite plausible to have eLiquid without the nicotine.

And have done this via the diacetyl issue. People like flavors. Diacetyl aids with flavors. But has a side effect (gasp), and so let's tell all our customers that we are diacetyl-free, even though we actually aren't, but they'll keep buying our wonderfully flavored products. Especially if they have nicotine in them.

 

[readeuler]

Technically they already are, and/or have.

Nicotine would be prime example of doing it now. Adding this to eLiquid so people keep buying it, for it is quite plausible to have eLiquid without the nicotine.

Yes, it is - ask a Canadian how they feel about it.

Nicotine, for me, is an additive in the sense that salt for my steak is an additive.

 

[zoiDman]

Technically they already are, and/or have.

Nicotine would be prime example of doing it now. Adding this to eLiquid so people keep buying it, for it is quite plausible to have eLiquid without the nicotine.

And have done this via the diacetyl issue. People like flavors. Diacetyl aids with flavors. But has a side effect (gasp), and so let's tell all our customers that we are diacetyl-free, even though we actually aren't, but they'll keep buying our wonderfully flavored products. Especially if they have nicotine in them.

Maybe I have this All On Backwards?

But I thought the Reason Nicotine was in e-Liquids was because That was what People Wanted in e-Liquids? Kinda the Entire Reason they are Buying e-Liquids.

Kinda a Stretch to say that Retailers are putting Nicotine into e-Liquids to keep People buying them. When that is he Reason that people buy Non-0mg e-Liquids in the First Place.

---

The Diacetyl issue I could Almost agree with you. Almost that is, if Diacetyl was shown to be Addictive. But I haven't seen anything that says it is. Please post a Link if you have some Information on Diacetyl Addiction. I would like to Look at it.

There is No Place for Diacetyl in e-Liquids in my Opinion. But I can't See the Correlation between Diacetyl and what you Suggested in Post #24

 

[DaveP]

I have to believe that Big Tobacco is out to stomp down the competition with regulations they can withstand, while imposing standards that currently aren't met by the small ecig market suppliers. Juice in bottles is being pushed around by BT's effort to help in imposing standards that allow only sealed cartridges to be sold. That ensures that a cartridge contains exactly what was injected into it at the factory unless it's cracked, broken, or otherwise tampered with. The CDC and FDA will love that angle, since it makes their job easier and offers some semblance of standardization, just like the sealed containers we buy at the grocery store and the pharmacy.

In order to take over an industry that is reported to be approaching $4B a year, BT has to weed out competition and win the public over to their brand. They are good at doing just that and will stop at nothing to gain market share to replace their paper tube product.

Does anyone want to see refillable atomizers go away? I thought not ... If you use an RBA/RDA or refillable tank you want your juice in squeeze bottles, glass containers, or in bulk.

This is what they are saying about their product? Wait, theirs comes in a sealed cartridge, alleviating the likelihood of skin contact.

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.”

 

[Jman8]

Maybe I have this All On Backwards?

But I thought the Reason Nicotine was in e-Liquids was because That was what People Wanted in e-Liquids? Kinda the Entire Reason they are Buying e-Liquids.

There are many consumers buying eLiquids without nicotine. So not the 'entire reason' for buying eLiquids. It is a chemical that is known to be addictive. Post #15 of this thread shows just how horrible BT was for 'lying' that nicotine is addictive. It is that bad of chemical and to knowingly put it in, even if consumers claim they desire it, is just, plain awful (from the ANTZ perspective).

Kinda a Stretch to say that Retailers are putting Nicotine into e-Liquids to keep People buying them. When that is he Reason that people buy Non-0mg e-Liquids in the First Place.

Not a stretch at all. It is a chemical additive in eLiquid that doesn't need to be in there. Whether consumers desire it, is besides the point of 'how safe is this really?' as one could, rather easily, make the case that AFTER all the horrible reports of what's in a combustible cig was put out, consumers still had, or have, high demand for the product. So, can't really be all that awful what BT is up to if consumers are buying the product in the millions per day.

The Diacetyl issue I could Almost agree with you. Almost that is, if Diacetyl was shown to be Addictive. But I haven't seen anything that says it is. Please post a Link if you have some Information on Diacetyl Addiction. I would like to Look at it.

Changing the goal posts? Does diacetyl add to the experience of making for a better product, that compels people to want more of it? I say yes, given that eCig flavors were in a noticeable boom during the years that diacetyl was allegedly in all these flavored products. Let's see how well the vaping industry performs with diacetyl free products. And then let's see also what is the substitute product (synthetic, no less) that industry goes with, and what science has to say about that years from now. I predict ANTZ (scientists) will have a field day with that, and industry will continue to jump around the playing board so it can keep the profit ball rolling.

 

[zoiDman]

There are many consumers buying eLiquids without nicotine. So not the 'entire reason' for buying eLiquids. It is a chemical that is known to be addictive. Post #15 of this thread shows just how horrible BT was for 'lying' that nicotine is addictive. It is that bad of chemical and to knowingly put it in, even if consumers claim they desire it, is just, plain awful (from the ANTZ perspective).



Not a stretch at all. It is a chemical additive in eLiquid that doesn't need to be in there. Whether consumers desire it, is besides the point of 'how safe is this really?' as one could, rather easily, make the case that AFTER all the horrible reports of what's in a combustible cig was put out, consumers still had, or have, high demand for the product. So, can't really be all that awful what BT is up to if consumers are buying the product in the millions per day.



Changing the goal posts? Does diacetyl add to the experience of making for a better product, that compels people to want more of it? I say yes, given that eCig flavors were in a noticeable boom during the years that diacetyl was allegedly in all these flavored products. Let's see how well the vaping industry performs with diacetyl free products. And then let's see also what is the substitute product (synthetic, no less) that industry goes with, and what science has to say about that years from now. I predict ANTZ (scientists) will have a field day with that, and industry will continue to jump around the playing board so it can keep the profit ball rolling.

I think you are Really Grasping at Straws here.

Nicotine Not Needed in Non-0mg e-liquids? WTH? People buy Non-0mg Because there is Nicotine in the e-Liquid.

I don't even know why I am Trying to Explain this to you?

---

No One Wants Diacetyl in their e-Liquids. Just like No One wants BPA in there Plastic Bottles. There are Perfectly Expectable Diacetyl-Free Flavorings.

And if there is No Diacetyl-Free Substitute, then Retailers should be Responsible Enough to Not Offer a that Flavored e-Liquid.

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

 

[AndriaD]

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