I do wonder why

[Dusif]

I was just thinking about all the false claims you hear about e-cigs and how bad they are for both you and the concrete floor in the gym 400 miles away from you grandparents first house... The thing that is confusing me a bit is why Anonymous hasnt taken a look at this discussion yet, surely there must be some dirty politicians involved in this affair since all the real science i can find about e cigs states that theyre a safer alternative to analogs, but still the govs around the world wants to see them banned but analogs proven to be dangerous are still legal and the govs are only taxing them not banning them...

Isnt it time we tried to get Anonymous' attention over here since this reaks of bribes and bad intentions for the general population?

They might be able to dig up some truths about the reason for all the banning attempts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[JonnyB88]

Although I DO agree with most of Anonymous' videos/leaks/protests/statements etc, I personally think that most of the population sees them as nothing more than some hackers who want to cause trouble or stir the pot.
When news breaks about something that Anonymous has done, they're generally reported as "the bad guy."

So, I think them jumping in to help us would actually make vaping look worse to the general public.

But, that's just MY theory.

 

[suspectK]

Why would tobacco and pharmaceutical companies allow e-cigs to be banned? They are the way of the future. No one is going to let the money making potential of e-cigs slip through their grasp. Just ask yourself, would you rather they be controlled by pharmaceutical or tobacco companies. Even though your voice won't factor into that decision...

 

[Robino1]

Why would tobacco and pharmaceutical companies allow e-cigs to be banned? They are the way of the future. No one is going to let the money making potential of e-cigs slip through their grasp. Just ask yourself, would you rather they be controlled by pharmaceutical or tobacco companies. Even though your voice won't factor into that decision...

View attachment 246469

Neither one of those has our best interest in mind. Their only concern is money and see vaping as taking away too much of their piece of the pie.

So I would say neither.

 

[XeniaMike]

Well it may just be a 'manufactured crisis' getting everyone to panic then lo and behold!! We're suddenly grateful when they slap a huge tax on them and tell us we can vape on and come out looking like heroes. I have several other conspiracy theories, but that one fits my current whim.

 

[suspectK]

^Word. That's been my thoughts since seeing all the banning propaganda.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Although I DO agree with most of Anonymous' videos/leaks/protests/statements etc, I personally think that most of the population sees them as nothing more than some hackers who want to cause trouble or stir the pot.
When news breaks about something that Anonymous has done, they're generally reported as "the bad guy."

So, I think them jumping in to help us would actually make vaping look worse to the general public.

But, that's just MY theory.

I hear this sort of thing all the time. I do understand the sentiment. On one thread I saw we don't want smokers or BT on our side because it makes us look bad. I saw that we don't want to work with the NRA cause they will make us look bad. Now, we don't want Anonymous chiming in (independently-without our requesting it or endorsing it) on our side?

Guys, if we reject help from every group we have a gripe with, its gonna be just us alone versus the FDA their cronies. We really think we can do this without occasionally working with BT, smokers, or whoever else is sympathetic to our cause? That is the kind of divide and conquer crap that allows these clowns to keep us divided and weak. When we have common cause with these groups, we allow their help. That does not mean we endorse Anonymous, the NRA, or BT. It just means we don't reject working with them as a matter of policy without considering the issue.

Just a Lion's opinion, so I could be misguided....

 

[Dusif]

Bt and pharma wants it banned because they would profit from it... Pharma would almost stop selling conventional smoke stop aids and bt would have to compeed with pv's if they were branded as safe to use... But if they are banned bt can claim to have invented the safe pv through years of research and suddenly own the market and support pharma by making only ONE nic strength with several adictive additives in it, pharma would then be able to react to this new cancer threat and make a special vape stopping gum/patch or whatever... All while the gov is taxing the f'ing H out of the pv market making you all pay 4x more than you are now for a lower quality product since the market would be near to impossible to enter due to restrictions and demands for several safety tests and whatnot that will more than surely cost a bunch of money... There will be close to no mod development...

We dont need an image boost we need to stop the propaganda and get some actual research results in the media... And who else can uncover some shady people than anonymous?... No matter how you look at them you cant question what they do, they bring the truth to the public...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[suspectK]

Research requires money, but regardless that the other side will be having their own form of "research," our argument will be easily shot down by the balance of funding on either side. They will easily discredit real research.

 

[Dusif]

Research requires money, but regardless that the other side will be having their own form of "research," our argument will be easily shot down by the balance of funding on either side. They will easily discredit real research.

Thats the problem... The ones that want vaping to be banned got the money... But a group like anon would even out the playing field by making it close to impossible to lie... And i think they would join the cause if one or more asked them since it involves things they believe in and things they want to stop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Jayvon633]

Has anyone questioned the source of all the "research" on the news and what not? I recently saw an article that said gaping was bad because you get particles of metal and silica in your lungs from smoking but any caper who gets products from vendors (endorsed?) by ecf and other quality vapor sites seems to know how to wash out rba's before you use them and get quality silica or whatever material you use as wick. the general public, many of whom seem to be in the fence with these products, will see that bs and view them as negative. I wonder where they get there test materials and if they follow the warnings and such that are all over about the products. I would like to see where they get the stuff they test that might shed some light on a little of there propaganda.

 

[ScottP]

Why would tobacco and pharmaceutical companies allow e-cigs to be banned? They are the way of the future. No one is going to let the money making potential of e-cigs slip through their grasp. Just ask yourself, would you rather they be controlled by pharmaceutical or tobacco companies. Even though your voice won't factor into that decision...

Yes it will never get "banned". They want it regulated to the point that we will only have cig-a-likes manufactured in clean labs that only Big-T or Big-Pharma can afford to build. They will also try to regulate flavors down to regular and menthol, just like they did with analogs.

 

[ScottP]

Has anyone questioned the source of all the "research" on the news and what not? I recently saw an article that said gaping was bad because you get particles of metal and silica in your lungs from smoking but any caper who gets products from vendors (endorsed?) by ecf and other quality vapor sites seems to know how to wash out rba's before you use them and get quality silica or whatever material you use as wick. the general public, many of whom seem to be in the fence with these products, will see that bs and view them as negative. I wonder where they get there test materials and if they follow the warnings and such that are all over about the products. I would like to see where they get the stuff they test that might shed some light on a little of there propaganda.

Sometimes I think a lot of the media has their research done by "Steve the intern". He does the research between fetching the morning coffee and lunch.

 

[suspectK]

Yeah...but I'm too punk-rock to be a slave to the man/machine/giant douche or turd sandwich. I'll do nicotine extractions on my own if it comes down to that.

 

[Pentarth]

Fear tactics.... scare all the sheep back to he "beneficial shepherd" (who really is the wolf -our government), Make spurious claims about how dangerous electronic cigarettes are, and then put forth a bunch of legislation against them before anyone can prove the allegations false (which is what the FDA is doing in October). It's about money, control, and politics. The government doesn't care about our health.... only it's own.

 

[redeyes24321]

I'm so sick of the FDA BS. They can go .... themselves IMHO.

 

[GameDesigner]

Why would tobacco and pharmaceutical companies allow e-cigs to be banned? They are the way of the future. No one is going to let the money making potential of e-cigs slip through their grasp. Just ask yourself, would you rather they be controlled by pharmaceutical or tobacco companies. Even though your voice won't factor into that decision...

View attachment 246469

Big Tobacco is highly interested in the market, and if it is to match the profits it has traditionally obtained from cigarette sales, it must sell only prepackaged cartridges at brick-and-mortar retailers in a market without competition from the liquids, mods, and non-proprietary hardware. The thinking is clearly: "If e-cig users can't buy from anyone else, we're free to use whatever inefficient and nontransparent - though more profitable - approaches we want." Inefficiency and profitability here are not at odds. While it is inefficient to use raw resources on disposable cartridges from a high level, it is profitable at the low level for a big tobacco company, provided the alternative is potentially losing its sales in an economic environment where e-cig users have other options.

 

[GameDesigner]

I recently wrote the FDA and received the following response, which makes it certain that regulation is incoming:

"Thank you for your email. I work with Les Weinstein, and he asked me to follow up with you. As you may know, FDA currently regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. FDA has the authority to regulate “tobacco products,” which is defined, in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product. However, the Center for Tobacco Products does not regulate electronic cigarettes.


FDA has announced its intent to issue a proposed rule deeming products meeting the definition of “tobacco product” to be subject to regulation by FDA under the Tobacco Control Act, which permits FDA to deem other “tobacco products” subject to the Act’s general controls by regulation. The first step would be for FDA to issue a proposed rule or guidance. If that happens, I would urge you to send in your comments (such as what you have said in your email) during that comment period. We must consider all the comments before issuing a final rule or regulation.



To know when the comment period for any proposed rule or draft guidance begins and ends, I suggest you sign up for automatic notification about what CTP is doing at: (Sign Up for E-mail Updates on Tobacco Products). You can find all current comment opportunities here: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm198169.htm."

 

[redeyes24321]

Just something interesting I found....

After his resignation from his post as Commissioner of the FDA in December 1969, Herbert L. Ley, Jr., in an interview with the New York Times, warned the public about the FDA’s inability to safeguard consumers. People were being misled, he believed: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them - it isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day,” he said. The agency, in his opinion, did not have the motivation to protect consumers, faced budget shortfalls, and lacked support from the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare . Ley was critical of Congress, the Administration and the drug industry; he stated that he had "constant, tremendous, sometimes unmerciful pressure" from the drug industry and that the drug company lobbyists, combined with the politicians who worked on behalf of their patrons, could bring “tremendous pressure” to bear on him and his staff, to try preventing FDA restrictions on their drugs. The interview concluded with Ley stating that the entire issue was about money, “pure and simple”.

And this was going on over 40 years ago... Imagine how much worse it is now.

 

[suspectK]

^Based on your name and the state you're in, I can imagine another FDA debate that gets to you.