My first kit was a ProSmoke, and it sucked all kinds of suckage, but it got me started vaping.
have you seen the new blu commercial??
- Thread starter caligirlINky
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- evic smokeless image
- Status
I understand your point but if it wasn't for that Blu commercial and the display at the gas station I would still be smoking analogs. If people truly want to quit and Blu isn't doing it for them then they will find another way or research for better products. Like many of us did. I would love to go stand at said gas station all day everyday and tell people about real vaping but that isn't going to happen. We just need to embrace more of the new people in the New Members Section and keep the encouragement going for them. Tell everyone who asks about your mod/pv about it or just tell 1 random smoker a day you see that there are better and safer options out there for them.
I hate to sound this way... But ALL my First PV's Sucked.
The BSE-109, The Blu, The Crappy No-Name KR808 with Cartos that Tasted like Old Socks Smell.
But they got me into e-Cigarettes. And they got me Off Analogs.
So as e-Cigarettes, Yes, they did Suck compared to what I use Right Now. But for something that got me Off Analogs, which I couldn't seem to do otherwise, they were ALL Priceless.
The BSE-109, The Blu, The Crappy No-Name KR808 with Cartos that Tasted like Old Socks Smell.
But they got me into e-Cigarettes. And they got me Off Analogs.
So as e-Cigarettes, Yes, they did Suck compared to what I use Right Now. But for something that got me Off Analogs, which I couldn't seem to do otherwise, they were ALL Priceless.
Interesting fact this reminded me of: Ever notice that all Big Pharma commercials don't talk about how harmful smoking is or encourage people to quit smoking? Wouldn't that be an obvious selling point??
Watch closely - all of the commercials are directed at people who already intend to quit smoking. They are very careful not to say, "Hey! Smoking is bad for you! It causes cancer and heart disease! You should use our product to quit!" It's always, "If you're trying to quit..." or "If you're thinking of quitting, this could help."
BP supplies the tobacco companies with their cigarette filters. They've had a backroom alliance since NRT were first marketed. BP agreed not to tell people to quit smoking or talk about the health risks!
Stop the ANTZ: The sweet deal between Big Pharma and Big Tobacco
But how are the other 500 brands of crappy pre-filled, stick batteries sold by e-cig companies not owned by a tobacco company any different? I'd estimate that 90% or more of the members on ECF started with one like that. It's because they were all looking for something that "looks, tastes and feels like my brand of cigarette." Most people who buy an advanced model tried a low-end model first, saw promise and then started looking for other options.
Hopefully, a company that sells advanced models will get big enough to start running commercials and we'll see more people starting with those. But there will forever be a market for smokers looking for a clone of their cigarette (at first.) Some will see the wisdom of moving past the "cig-a-likes" and others will go back to smoking. It's exactly what happened before tobacco companies ever got into the market. That won't change unless the tobacco industry is able to legislate or regulate advanced models out of existence - which CASAA fights aggressively. But don't be fooled - big e-cig companies were organizing and seemed happy to do the same thing to protect their business model, too!
Last edited:
Yeah, I thought that was what TVECA was all about...
But I just looked at their website today and noted that Smokeless Image and FlavourArt are now members.
That left me feeling quite confused, and I'm not sure what to make of it now.
...
But how are the other 500 brands of crappy pre-filled, stick batteries sold by e-cig companies not owned by a tobacco company any different? I'd estimate that 90% or more of the members on ECF started with one like that. It's because they were all looking for something that "looks, tastes and feels like my brand of cigarette." Most people who buy an advanced model tried a low-end model first, saw promise and then started looking for other options.
...
I think you Pretty Much Nailed It in this One Paragraph.
When I switched, I had my choice of Something that looked like a Screwdriver, Something that Looked like a Garage Door Opener or something that Looked like an Analog with a Cool Blue LED on the end. And it came with a PCC that Looked like a Pack of Smokes. What do you think I picked?
Blu has Always Targeted the Entry e-Cigarette Market. It's what they Know. And what they do Best.
I can absolutely see Blu expanding their offerings to include an Ego type model some day.
I'm not sure I see them expanding their offerings much more than that, but hey, you never know right?
I'm not sure I see them expanding their offerings much more than that, but hey, you never know right?
I can't see them doing it in an Unregulated, "Free" Market. But I could see them Expanding their Product Line in a Smaller, Regulated Market.
And the Key is to get that Name out there. Like with TV Commercials.
BTW - Blu has been Very Profitable just selling Kits to 1st Timers. Think if Much of the Competition was Somehow Eliminated?
this was my point to begin with in starting this thread. regardless of who owns blu. regardless of the quality of the ecig its self, the commercial works. i think its a step in the right direction. it wont be long before the government places some unwarranted advertising ban on ecigs. the other ecig manufacturers need to take advantage of this window to get the message out.
how many members have loved every ecig they have purchased or are even still using the 1st one. i started yrs ago with a crappy disposable. i gave up and went back to smoking because there wasnt much else. now there is. i dont know anyone that started vaping that didnt research the subject to find out anything they could about it even after they already bought one.
ALL ECIG MANUFACTURERS ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY. they are not giving their products away for free and they arent selling them at cost. its always about profit and product competition. commercials like this get the idea of giving up cigs for something that actually might work. we need advertising like this to get ppl used to the idea so we dont get tappex on the shoulder because some uninformed person thinks we are drug addicts or contine to get glaref at because ppl think we are smoking.
several years ago i read that not one illness that anti-smoking organizations say smoking directly causes can be proven to be directly caused by cigarette smoking. of course not everything i read is true and i dont even remember what site or article it was in. it was basically saying that those illnesses MAY be made worse by smoking but that if smoking directly caused them (including cancer) then every smoker would have/get them. not every smoker does which seemed to give the atticle some validity. i dont know if all that is true but i have had several drs tell me that if im susceptible to those illnesses/diseases (as in family history) then smoking can instigate it.
anyone read or know about an article or research like that.
anyone read or know about an article or research like that.
They almost did in New York City but we (CASAA )and other vapers were there to fight it. CASAA will continue to fight any legislation that tries to treat low-risk tobacco and tobacco-derived products the same as smoking.
And you are right about diseases "caused" by smoking. If smoking caused lung cancer and heart disease then more than 10% of smokers would get lung cancer, for one. "Smoking-related diseases" is a misnomer because all of those diseases can happen without smoking - especially heart disease. More and more they are finding other links to things they blamed on tobacco - like oral cancer and HPV. That's not an argument that smoking doesn't significantly increase the risk of the diseases, but it doesn't CAUSE them. Just like swimming doesn't CAUSE drowning, but it increases the risk. But like smoking, never going swimming doesn't guarantee you'll never drown.
However, in their effort to get smokers shamed and banned from society (to further their prohibitionist agenda and because smoke annoys them), the ANTZ have felt the end justified the means when they hugely exaggerate the risks/numbers and lie about second- and third-hand smoke or claim smokeless use is a high risk (that one angers me the most!)
Last edited:
Kristin, why is it you're always right? And your insights are always so ehm... insightful? Beware, there are people who don't like that. Watch out for black vans with tinted windows parked in your neighborhood for days, with the letters BP and BT cunningly hidden in their license plates. Noticed that strange blip when you pick up the phone? And that it takes a little longer for your emails to be sent?
JK of course. Keep up the good work!
JK of course. Keep up the good work!
Purely a Hypothetical Analogy...
Say you saw a Commercial with Tanned Girls, in Skimpy Bathing Suits, for some Skin Lotion. So you pick up a Tube and as you read the Label it says that it is "Safe" to use and Doesn't Cause Cancer. Cool.
But later on, some Studies start to emerge that suggests that the Active Ingredient in the Skin Lotion helps to Promote the Growth of Squamous Cell Skin Cancer. It doesn't Cause the Cancer. But if the Active Ingredient is used by a person who has Early Stage Squamous Cell Skin Cancer, that the chances of the Cancer Growing Dramatically Increases verses those who Do Not use the Active Ingredient.
Once again, It doesn't Cause the Cancer. It just helps the Cancer Grow if a person has this type of Cancer in its Early Stage.
Would then the Active Ingredient be considered "Safe" to use?
Say you saw a Commercial with Tanned Girls, in Skimpy Bathing Suits, for some Skin Lotion. So you pick up a Tube and as you read the Label it says that it is "Safe" to use and Doesn't Cause Cancer. Cool.
But later on, some Studies start to emerge that suggests that the Active Ingredient in the Skin Lotion helps to Promote the Growth of Squamous Cell Skin Cancer. It doesn't Cause the Cancer. But if the Active Ingredient is used by a person who has Early Stage Squamous Cell Skin Cancer, that the chances of the Cancer Growing Dramatically Increases verses those who Do Not use the Active Ingredient.
Once again, It doesn't Cause the Cancer. It just helps the Cancer Grow if a person has this type of Cancer in its Early Stage.
Would then the Active Ingredient be considered "Safe" to use?
Well, that means the increased risk would only affect a very small portion of the population, ie. people who already have or are already at risk of that skin cancer. (In 2009, heart disease caused 599,000 deaths, while skin cancer caused 9,100.)
If the product was say, Chantix, the FDA would probably just require a warning on the label and say it was otherwise "safe." Think of the gazillion products on the market that say right in the ad not to use it if blah blah. Heck - tanning beds are still legal and those expose people to a known carcinogen! Or consider peanut butter. It could kill about 1% of the population if they ate it, yet it is still considered safe.
Well, that means the increased risk would only affect a very small portion of the population, ie. people who already have or are already at risk of that skin cancer. (In 2009, heart disease caused 599,000 deaths, while skin cancer caused 9,100.)
If the product was say, Chantix, the FDA would probably just require a warning on the label and say it was otherwise "safe." Think of the gazillion products on the market that say right in the ad not to use it if blah blah. Heck - tanning beds are still legal and those expose people to a known carcinogen! Or consider peanut butter. It could kill about 1% of the population if they ate it, yet it is still considered safe.
All Good Points...
OK, let me change it a Tad.
Say New Studies start to surface that seems to show that the Active Ingredient in the Skin Lotion not only Promotes Cancer Growth in Skin Cancers, But in Most Cancers. Especially those Cancers that are seen in Current and Xsmokers.
Once again, it doesn't cause Any Cancer. But it Promotes Growth in Most Cancers.
Would it still be Considered Safe for the General Public? How about for Smokers or Xsmokers?
I suspect that the point you are getting at is that something can be unsafe just because it exacerbates a disease, rather than "causes" the disease. In that case, it increases risk and that is what people need to know. (It would be highly unlikely that one ingredient could increase the risks for "most" cancers.)
All risk is relative which is why smoking is considered unsafe, because it seems to increase the risks so much. It's not unimportant that over 85% of lung cancer victims are smokers. Although, that number is questionable because they only looked for smoking (and maybe asbestos exposure) when someone got lung cancer. Now it seems exposure to diesel emissions and radon also significantly increases the risk of lung cancer. How do they eliminate those folks who are exposed to all of those risks? What about a smoker who drove a diesel truck that hauled asbestos insulation and lived in a house with radon? Guess what he would have been classified as if he got lung cancer? Another victim of smoking-related disease.
I would say it would be considered unsafe for those with a family history of cancer, but unknown for those without a history risk. In 2006, researchers did a study to determine if a family history of lung cancer increased a person's risk of getting lung cancer and they determined it did. Interestingly, as a side note the study also found an even stronger link associated with the risk of squamous cell carcinoma. So a familial link has been found and people should consider that. I'm actually at high risk for skin cancer, so I avoid too much sun. I spent my early years looking like a ghost next to my bronzed friends, but the benefit today is people often remark that I look about 5-10 years younger than those who were sun-worshippers, LOL!
Either way, chances are the publicity of the increased risk would probably kill demand for the product anyhow. There are plenty of skin lotions available without that risk, right? Now, if that "active ingredient" was capable of making most people look decades younger and there was a potential to make billions of dollars, I suspect those increased risks wouldn't seem so bad to a lot of people. Like I said - risk is relative.
Last edited:
Kristin, why is it you're always right? And your insights are always so ehm... insightful? Beware, there are people who don't like that. Watch out for black vans with tinted windows parked in your neighborhood for days, with the letters BP and BT cunningly hidden in their license plates. Noticed that strange blip when you pick up the phone? And that it takes a little longer for your emails to be sent?
JK of course. Keep up the good work!
not meaning to step on your toes kristen but... its time and effort in research. its the only way to sift thru the bulls**t and find the truth. the truth is out there but they try to cover it up with things that sound plausible and give the antismoking community what they want to hear. if any of them were really unbiased and wanted to find the truth, they could, just like kristen or you and me. but they dont want the truth. they want proof in what they believe. its not the same thing.
just like statistics, you could constantly change that scenario around to give you the response youre looking for. what it comes down to is no one knows whether something they use or used could possibly cause problems with something in their family history.
for lack of a better word, i am a mutant. i say this because as far as any of the drs know or anyone in my family knows, im the first person in my family that has ehlers-danlos syndrome. without going into too much explination (you can look it up on the net) it is a defect in my collogen caused by a mutated string of my dna. its a soft tissue disorder that is the basis for all my joint problems. they didnt find out i had it til i was 35. there are several types of the disorder that until 5 yrs ago or so, the geneticists didnt think had crossover symptoms. that has changed. since veins are soft tissue, eventhough i dont have the type that affects veins, mine are still affected. i have had high blood pressure and extremely bad vericose veins since i was 18 caused by this disorder.
since the standard info for smoking is that it CAUSES hbp that causes strokes many drs attributed my hbp to the fact that i started smoking at 14. which would lead me an them and everyone else to believe if i quit smoking my bp would normalize. i couldnt quit until 2months ago so there was no way to tell if that a true statement. my bp has come down but i will be on meds for it the rest of my life because smoking didnt cause it. the dna mutation did. there is no dna test to find the mutation so no one knew i had it. if they had thought the bp was caused by something else, that along with my other symptoms might have alerted them to check for a differnt cause much earlier in my life so that i might have been able to sliw down some of the damage caused by the disorder but they automatically assumed it was the smoking and didnt look further.
since the drs and i didnt know about this until i was 35 they kept telling me if i didnt quit i was going to have a stroke... going to not might. in reality, it actually would have been caused by the disorder since that is a problem in someone with this type of ehlers-danlos syndrome. my veins are weak by nature. also, even though my veins are week and i have hbp (largely uncontrolled since i found out when i was 18) i havent had even one stroke. so that also shows even in a person likely to have one, smoking cigarettes still didnt CAUSE one.
for lack of a better word, i am a mutant. i say this because as far as any of the drs know or anyone in my family knows, im the first person in my family that has ehlers-danlos syndrome. without going into too much explination (you can look it up on the net) it is a defect in my collogen caused by a mutated string of my dna. its a soft tissue disorder that is the basis for all my joint problems. they didnt find out i had it til i was 35. there are several types of the disorder that until 5 yrs ago or so, the geneticists didnt think had crossover symptoms. that has changed. since veins are soft tissue, eventhough i dont have the type that affects veins, mine are still affected. i have had high blood pressure and extremely bad vericose veins since i was 18 caused by this disorder.
since the standard info for smoking is that it CAUSES hbp that causes strokes many drs attributed my hbp to the fact that i started smoking at 14. which would lead me an them and everyone else to believe if i quit smoking my bp would normalize. i couldnt quit until 2months ago so there was no way to tell if that a true statement. my bp has come down but i will be on meds for it the rest of my life because smoking didnt cause it. the dna mutation did. there is no dna test to find the mutation so no one knew i had it. if they had thought the bp was caused by something else, that along with my other symptoms might have alerted them to check for a differnt cause much earlier in my life so that i might have been able to sliw down some of the damage caused by the disorder but they automatically assumed it was the smoking and didnt look further.
since the drs and i didnt know about this until i was 35 they kept telling me if i didnt quit i was going to have a stroke... going to not might. in reality, it actually would have been caused by the disorder since that is a problem in someone with this type of ehlers-danlos syndrome. my veins are weak by nature. also, even though my veins are week and i have hbp (largely uncontrolled since i found out when i was 18) i havent had even one stroke. so that also shows even in a person likely to have one, smoking cigarettes still didnt CAUSE one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
