That should'nt stop them, they never had any good evidence that second hand smoke was all that terrible. They'll just keep repeating how bad second hand vape is to the public, repetition is the most basic form of brainwashing.
Is Big Tobacco behind Anti-Vaping sentiment?
- Thread starter teamhypoxia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- baker
- Status
That should'nt stop them, they never had any good evidence that second hand smoke was all that terrible. They'll just keep repeating how bad second hand vape is to the public, repetition is the most basic form of brainwashing.
I really don't doubt it, but personally I think its just people in general who fear new things. Its people who don't understand ecigs and make a big deal out of it cause for all they know it could be 10 times more dangerous.
a while back me and a friend were talking about ecigs and he brought up there was this woman he knows who was crazy suspicious about the dangers and when he tried to educate her about how it uses vg and pg and how safer it is than tobacco she kinda spaced it all out and was still skeptical about it.
a while back me and a friend were talking about ecigs and he brought up there was this woman he knows who was crazy suspicious about the dangers and when he tried to educate her about how it uses vg and pg and how safer it is than tobacco she kinda spaced it all out and was still skeptical about it.
The banning of flavored e liquid is probably driven by big tobacco companies. The majority of people would stick to cigarettes most likely if all there was only unflavored eliquid.
absolutely. Big tobacco wants them gone, I mean it is very possible, that generations to come would have drastically more vapers than smokers. I'm sure its already killing profits for them.
I hate to say though, I imagine the government is the only reason they aren't banned yet.
The government stands to make a fortune off the vaping market if they can manage to tax them. I doubt they would ever agree to an outright ban.
Sad part is if either of them win ( and one will unfortunately ) we lose.
Following the slight tangent....
Among Buddhists, for example, the traditional "Five Precepts" forbid drinking alcohol. Some Buddhists have interpreted this to forbid any intoxicant, and some of those have also interpreted it to forbid non-intoxicating but addictive substances as well. Of course, not all Buddhists think the same ways about the meaning of the five precepts-- some Buddhists drink alcohol moderately, some Buddhists smoke, etc. But the interpretation exists among some of them. Why? Sobriety, self-control, and detachment are very important values within Buddhism, making a better rebirth or even liberation easier to attain.
Among Mormons, to choose another example, the "Word of Wisdom," which Mormons believe to be a revelation of their Heavenly Father through Joseph Smith, governs their thinking regarding tobacco: "thus saith the Lord unto you: ...I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation— ....tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill." As among Buddhists with the Five Precepts, Mormons differ among themselves somewhat regarding how they understand and apply the Word of Wisdom, but I think most of them would probably consider this a ban not only on tobacco smoking/chewing/etc. (the somewhat obvious interpretation) but also on other nicotine use (the prohibition of hot drinks, for example, is applied to any drink containing caffeine, no matter how cold it's served).
Among Catholics, in contrast, use of tobacco is not forbidden. Instead, moderation is encouraged. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" reasons "The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine." It's not an absolute prohibition, as above, and yet I think it expresses some shared concerns. Like Buddhists, Catholics esteem sobriety and self-control as virtues. As among Mormons, concern for health is a factor: "Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good," (Catechism again). This admonition falls under the broader heading "You shall not kill."
Southern Baptists have, if I am not mistaken, a very conflicted history with tobacco. Tobacco use is often condemned among Baptist preachers and their flocks, but tobacco is also a major cash crop in Southern Baptist country. The 1984 resolution of the SBC regarding cigarette smoking shows signs of that historical tension: "WHEREAS, We as Christians know that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we should therefore refrain from defiling our bodies.... Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer and coronary heart disease, as well as other diseases, and is the leading cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema.... Therefore, be it RESOLVED.... That we encourage parents by personal example to teach abstinence from cigarette smoking.... That our churches, associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention take leadership in encouraging our people, pastors, and SBC leaders to refrain from using tobacco in any form, including cigarettes; and Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage Southern Baptists presently engaged in the growing of tobacco, which has no use except for cigarettes and related products, to cease such agriculture and, where feasible, to switch to another cash crop in order to make such products less accessible; and Be it finally RESOLVED, That we encourage the Congress and Senate to terminate all agricultural funding and subsidies to those who plant, grow, or sell any tobacco products." (Sorry for the length, but I thought it would help to show some of the reasoning as well as a number of the resolutions.)
So, anyway, those are some examples of how different religious communities think about tobacco....
I have an example from today, in fact. My devout Evangelical Protestant friends have been very gracious regarding my smoking, never pestering me about it, but I know they were extremely opposed to me smoking. They were (I think quite rightly) concerned about my health. When I told them I'd taken up vaping and not smoked all week, they were thrilled. When I visited with them today, they wanted to see my kit and even asked me to demonstrate. I offered to do it outside, since I would never have smoked in their house, and they said, "No, go ahead. Right here. We want to see it." They're totally psyched that I've started vaping.
Just as beliefs regarding smoking vary from one religious group to another, so do reasons for opposition among those who are opposed.
Among Buddhists, for example, the traditional "Five Precepts" forbid drinking alcohol. Some Buddhists have interpreted this to forbid any intoxicant, and some of those have also interpreted it to forbid non-intoxicating but addictive substances as well. Of course, not all Buddhists think the same ways about the meaning of the five precepts-- some Buddhists drink alcohol moderately, some Buddhists smoke, etc. But the interpretation exists among some of them. Why? Sobriety, self-control, and detachment are very important values within Buddhism, making a better rebirth or even liberation easier to attain.
Among Mormons, to choose another example, the "Word of Wisdom," which Mormons believe to be a revelation of their Heavenly Father through Joseph Smith, governs their thinking regarding tobacco: "thus saith the Lord unto you: ...I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation— ....tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill." As among Buddhists with the Five Precepts, Mormons differ among themselves somewhat regarding how they understand and apply the Word of Wisdom, but I think most of them would probably consider this a ban not only on tobacco smoking/chewing/etc. (the somewhat obvious interpretation) but also on other nicotine use (the prohibition of hot drinks, for example, is applied to any drink containing caffeine, no matter how cold it's served).
Among Catholics, in contrast, use of tobacco is not forbidden. Instead, moderation is encouraged. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" reasons "The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine." It's not an absolute prohibition, as above, and yet I think it expresses some shared concerns. Like Buddhists, Catholics esteem sobriety and self-control as virtues. As among Mormons, concern for health is a factor: "Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good," (Catechism again). This admonition falls under the broader heading "You shall not kill."
Southern Baptists have, if I am not mistaken, a very conflicted history with tobacco. Tobacco use is often condemned among Baptist preachers and their flocks, but tobacco is also a major cash crop in Southern Baptist country. The 1984 resolution of the SBC regarding cigarette smoking shows signs of that historical tension: "WHEREAS, We as Christians know that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we should therefore refrain from defiling our bodies.... Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer and coronary heart disease, as well as other diseases, and is the leading cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema.... Therefore, be it RESOLVED.... That we encourage parents by personal example to teach abstinence from cigarette smoking.... That our churches, associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention take leadership in encouraging our people, pastors, and SBC leaders to refrain from using tobacco in any form, including cigarettes; and Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage Southern Baptists presently engaged in the growing of tobacco, which has no use except for cigarettes and related products, to cease such agriculture and, where feasible, to switch to another cash crop in order to make such products less accessible; and Be it finally RESOLVED, That we encourage the Congress and Senate to terminate all agricultural funding and subsidies to those who plant, grow, or sell any tobacco products." (Sorry for the length, but I thought it would help to show some of the reasoning as well as a number of the resolutions.)
So, anyway, those are some examples of how different religious communities think about tobacco....
anyone who is losing money on us vaping is behind it.. everyone who has any kind of clout that doesn't believe in what we are doing is behind it..
This is pretty much my take on the question.
I'm old enough to remember when the VW Bug was still a rare thing on American highways in the late 50s/early 60s. My family had two of them. My father used to have to answer questions like "Doesn't the thing roll over when you make a turn?" because it was egg shaped. Or "Doesn't it do a wheelie every time you shift to a higher gear?" because of the rear mounted engine. It was like me answering questions about "smoking anti-freeze" today.
Yeah. But I hope that if we can win most of the average Joes who oppose tobacco smoking, which I'm currently doing with a number of my friends, we'll gain some of our own clout.
Good point they see the potential growth in this market look how many people make juice
Big Pharma- they stand to lose lottsa $$ if less people have a need for their low success rate NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy).
They also stand to lose even more $$ if there are less lung cancer patients to treat with their pain meds, etc.
They are already selling a Nicotine oral spray....about as close as one can get to marketing an Ecig IMO.
"Non Profit" Anti Smoking groups. Not really non profit as the execs within these orgs make some serious salaries. Without a steady stream of smokers they really have no biz model and are at risk of becoming extinct. I would imagine these execs would then have to look for a real job.
Government- Taxes. Even though the number of smokers per capita within the U.S. has generally gone down taxes as of 2010 were 17+ Billion...an all time high.
FDA- a group that is generally controlled by Big Pharma. Most of the drugs within the FDA are approved by Healthcare Professionals that are being compensated by Big Pharma. Up here in Canada we had a Dr. resign form Health Canada (equivalent to the FDA) because he believed HC was too reliant on funding from Big Pharma. He believed HC should distance itself from BP.
Big Tobacco- They've given up the fight on banning Ecigs as they are now investing within the industry.
From Lorillard's recent earnings report:
“With more than a 40% share of the retail market in the second quarter, blu eCigs continues to be the clear category leader in electronic cigarettes,” stated Jim Raporte, President of blu eCigs."
and are moving forward at break neck speed.
They are in favor of regulation as they already have the facilities and, more importantly, the connections within the FDA and Government and have in fact admitted they have been in talks with the FDA. Next "rung on the ladder" profit wise is to be one of the very few regulated and FDA approved Vendors. There have been hints that online sales may eventually be deemed illegal...
"for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013,expansion of blu Ecig retail distribution into an additional 30,000 retail outlets and strong repeat purchases."
Money, money, money...if there was ever a time to become active this it it.
Takes 1 minute to join and it's free...donations are accepted for this truly non profit org:
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Edit:Although I quit vaping about three weeks ago it doesn't mean I can't or won't be involved and passionate about this issue.
They also stand to lose even more $$ if there are less lung cancer patients to treat with their pain meds, etc.
They are already selling a Nicotine oral spray....about as close as one can get to marketing an Ecig IMO.
"Non Profit" Anti Smoking groups. Not really non profit as the execs within these orgs make some serious salaries. Without a steady stream of smokers they really have no biz model and are at risk of becoming extinct. I would imagine these execs would then have to look for a real job.
Government- Taxes. Even though the number of smokers per capita within the U.S. has generally gone down taxes as of 2010 were 17+ Billion...an all time high.
FDA- a group that is generally controlled by Big Pharma. Most of the drugs within the FDA are approved by Healthcare Professionals that are being compensated by Big Pharma. Up here in Canada we had a Dr. resign form Health Canada (equivalent to the FDA) because he believed HC was too reliant on funding from Big Pharma. He believed HC should distance itself from BP.
Big Tobacco- They've given up the fight on banning Ecigs as they are now investing within the industry.
From Lorillard's recent earnings report:
“With more than a 40% share of the retail market in the second quarter, blu eCigs continues to be the clear category leader in electronic cigarettes,” stated Jim Raporte, President of blu eCigs."
and are moving forward at break neck speed.
They are in favor of regulation as they already have the facilities and, more importantly, the connections within the FDA and Government and have in fact admitted they have been in talks with the FDA. Next "rung on the ladder" profit wise is to be one of the very few regulated and FDA approved Vendors. There have been hints that online sales may eventually be deemed illegal...
"for the three and six months ended June 30, 2013,expansion of blu Ecig retail distribution into an additional 30,000 retail outlets and strong repeat purchases."
Money, money, money...if there was ever a time to become active this it it.
Takes 1 minute to join and it's free...donations are accepted for this truly non profit org:
CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Edit:Although I quit vaping about three weeks ago it doesn't mean I can't or won't be involved and passionate about this issue.
Last edited:
I don't know about you guys, but I personally don't want BT to have any control or large stake in Ecigs/vaping. "If I had a dream", it would be that the people would finally have control and make demands on what we expect with PV's(parts), nicotine and juices if by chance it all starts to get regulated.
BT, BP and Big Bro (and I believe FDA because their pockets get lined by the previous) could give a rats ... about any of us. I don't want to see BT putting unnecessary chemicals in ejuice like we all know they did with analogs-both for the money and for Creating even further addiction. Don't trust BT under any circumstances..they are basically legal drug dealers.
Here's a few interesting reads re: dear ol BT and i know there's a ton more out there.
Freebase nicotine - SourceWatch
And here's how BT worries about the people's health:
Project XA - SourceWatch
BT, BP and Big Bro (and I believe FDA because their pockets get lined by the previous) could give a rats ... about any of us. I don't want to see BT putting unnecessary chemicals in ejuice like we all know they did with analogs-both for the money and for Creating even further addiction. Don't trust BT under any circumstances..they are basically legal drug dealers.
Here's a few interesting reads re: dear ol BT and i know there's a ton more out there.
Freebase nicotine - SourceWatch
And here's how BT worries about the people's health:
Project XA - SourceWatch
Last edited:
The government makes big bucks off of cigarettes too.
It only cost 9.4 cents a pack to make big big money being made .
Look at the state tax ???
It only cost 9.4 cents a pack to make big big money being made .
Look at the state tax ???
I keep reading and hearing about "Bans" without the mention of what is being banned. Duluth, MN just created a law restricting vaping in public places and people keep saying "Duluth banned e-cigarettes". It's ridiculous. Here's the real story:
"In Duluth, people puffing on electronic cigarettes will face the same restrictions as those smoking their traditional, tobacco counterparts. The City Council on Monday approved laws prohibiting e-cigarettes in public places, further flaming an already heated debate about how to regulate the quickly growing industry."
Duluth says no to e-cigarettes; state says it will consider options | Star Tribune
It doesn't sound like a ban to me. People are free to own e-cigs. Vapers are simply asked to limit their public vaping.
"In Duluth, people puffing on electronic cigarettes will face the same restrictions as those smoking their traditional, tobacco counterparts. The City Council on Monday approved laws prohibiting e-cigarettes in public places, further flaming an already heated debate about how to regulate the quickly growing industry."
Duluth says no to e-cigarettes; state says it will consider options | Star Tribune
It doesn't sound like a ban to me. People are free to own e-cigs. Vapers are simply asked to limit their public vaping.
This is one reason I don't lung inhale. Mouth and nasal passages only for my vapor.
That and they want you buying nicoderm, chantix etc. Fast forward 5 years and juices will be prescribed by your doctor and Pfizer etc will only manufacture them for legal distribution from the pharmacy.
Just my.
I doubt Big Tobacco wants it banned, they probably just want it regulated as severely as possible so that they are the only companies who can afford to comply with those regulations, thereby owning the market with their junk products that will turn people off to vaping and force them to buy cigarettes again.
Big Pharma would benefit from it being banned because, for every person who wants to quit smoking and transitions to vaping instead of buying NRTs, fewer nicotine patches, packets of nicotine gum and prescription pills will be sold.
Anti-Smoking organizations want it banned because (a) it looks like smoking, and (b) it encourages kids to transition to smoking tobacco (which is utter garbage, since I have yet to meet anyone who tried a quality vaping setup and and decided that cigarettes tasted better). Also, if smoking rates start dropping due to e-cig use that means their funding will decrease.
The medical and health insurance companies don't have any interest in supporting e-cigs because they make more money when more people are sick and need chemo treatments, surgeries, etc.
Local, state, and federal goverments can't support e-cigs because that would mean less tax dollars coming in from tobacco sales. Unless they can tax the hell out of it like they do with tobacco don't expect any government bean counters to support it.
The only people who support vaping are vapers themselves, vapers' family members, and medical professionals who don't make any money from the aforementioned industries. That's why supporting the work of organizations like CASAA is vitally important.
Well Said! IMO 100% correct!
I hope your right and it continues down this path of only restricted area concerns. My concern is Antz, Big Bro, BT, BP, FDA...will keep adding "restrictions" to gain control. Restrictions on nic juice (already talks on that), restricting PV's, restrictions on Internet sales...
Next thing you know cuz we've all been "asleep" and comfortable in our own vape worlds and "they can't ban, relax all's cool..." that vaping is now only allowed in your home in an indoor closet w/a special ventilation fan to keep Antz happy, with 4 mg or less of nic that FDA deems safe, in a flavor of horse crap so teens won't want it, only sold by BT but they added some "special sauce" AKA chemicals to make the delivery better of the little nic that is allowed and taxed 20% by Big Bro and only can vape on a PV device that ALL of them agree on that is deemed safe.
Then it becomes black market and half the people don't want to mess with this, start analogs again and guess who wins..BT, BP, FDA, BIG BRO and well, sorry ANTZ , you guys will still be S.O.L.
I totally agree w/the last part if your quote because, personally, I'd like to know more about the effects of inhaling PG, VG, artificial flavors, heat from plastic tanks, silica wicks...but my problem is these kind of studies take big cash and the big cash are in the hands of groups I personally don't trust: BT, BP, Big Bro, FDA.....they are all out for the almighty dollar so if a "tweaked" report makes them more money, we'll never know the truth, good or bad.
Too bad we can get our own wealthy group that includes actors, singers, Warren Buffet (let's get him hooked on vaping!LOLOL) and other deep, pocketed big wigs to get an unbiased study! Then we can change whatever we need to change to make it safe and again, we had control. Would be nice...
- Status
Similar threads
