Just to show you that making "healthier" claims does attract unwanted attention

[TropicalBob]

Kate is 100% correct. Igetcha, your ideas are not based in reality. Any supplier who stated such a thing would invite demand for proof from an agency like the FTC. Common sense, beliefs, hopes, dreams, even personal success stories .. none apply here.

Besides, since when did reason overule rage? Angry antis will not be "won over" by happy arguments.

Besides, look at the reality of e-smoking and say with a straight face that you know it's safe. You can't say that. No one can assure anyone of that. We think so. But that's not enough to prove an advertising claim. Don't make such claims.

 

[sherid]

Sherid said what needed to be said very well I think, hopefully the message will get through.

Thanks. Of course I have not gotten a response, but who would have thought I would? I will continue to post and respond to those lies. Perhaps I will even join the group under an alias.

 

[katink]

What if, with almost all claims that suppliers and manufacturers are making, they would simply add one word: tobacco. So 'quit smoking tobacco with e-smoking' for instance.
Wouldn't that both get the messages across that the suppliers want to get across; and be not something the FDA or WHO could fall over?

Not sure on this; but I'm thinking about if this wouldn't solve a lot of issues on all sides... what do others think about this? Might it be one option to get quite a few difficulties/isues out of the way?

 

[sherid]

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but I do know that smokers have all along been simply too compliant. We simply played along with a little grumbling and did what they told us to do each time a new restriction appeared. Then, the anti smokers simply got CRAZY with it, and some smokers still just wrung their hands and said ok. I won't do that anymore. I will not do it where smoking is concerned, and I refuse to even consider doing it with e cigs. The louder they get, the more defiant I become. No freedom worth having (including doing things that may be harmful) was ever attained by wringing hands and saying, "may I please" I need to fight with truth, but I and many others need to fight aggressively before these people try to make me start asking if I may please take a second bathroom break. We have let this go WAY too far already.

 

[OutWest]

Let's face it....smokers might as well be lepers as far as antis are concerned. . . when banning in bars was just coming out, some posters first suggested allowing the bar owners themselves to decide to be smoking/non-smoking, rather than the government. Of course, that was shot down.

They don't care....they don't want smokers anywhere. . . A more closed minded group would be hard to find.

Absolutely spot on, unfortunately. It's been my contention all along that it should be up to the business owner as to whether smoking should be allowed in their shop. After all, they own the place. That a "Warning: Smoking Allowed Here" sign at the entrance should suffice. However, that's not good enough for the anti-smoking nazis.

And, the crazy thing is that they want rid of us, but they want to enjoy our tax dollars we spend on analogs. There's a township in Calif that passed a "no smoking outside" ordinance and I emailed their city counsel, telling them that if they dont want smoking in their city they need to stop allowing the sale of cigarettes and thus stop receiving the tax monies. Of course they replied with the typical tripe about how it's for the good of the children and the health of the populace, etc etc.


On an aside - hello all I saw my first e-cig back in july of '07, but the fellow that had it told me you had to get them from China. And, when googling to try to find out more, I didnt find anything. Admittedly, though, I didnt look real hard because he gave it mediocre reviews (he had a pen-style and apparently it wasnt a very good one because he said it barely helped and when he demonstrated it, it had very little vapor)

However, last night I happened to stumble across a thread on slickdeals.net where someone had posted about e-cigs from the dreaded SmokingEverywhere being on sale on Amazon and someone else on the thread mentioned this forum.

A little research here and I found out what a lousy reputation the company and their products have. So, I now have a black 901 on its way from VaporGuys thanks to this forum and all of you. I would have opted for one that's more cigarette-sized but figure the bigger capacity would be better for my needs (long work hours) and that by not being a look-alike, less chance of getting grief from those unfamiliar with e-cigs.

Already spent at least 6 hours reading here (if not more) and looking forward to spending more time here

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Welcome OutWest... you will find lots of good people and some lively debate around here... hold onto your bootstraps there cowboy(girl?)... it's gonna be quite a ride When you feel like being all activisty... head on over to Right To Vape... Some good things going on over there too...

 

[OutWest]

thanks for the welcome, Lacey

re: righttovape - ack! Not more reading!! 8-o *laf* Will check it out, thanks

 

[ZambucaLu]

Absolutely spot on, unfortunately. It's been my contention all along that it should be up to the business owner as to whether smoking should be allowed in their shop. After all, they own the place. That a "Warning: Smoking Allowed Here" sign at the entrance should suffice. However, that's not good enough for the anti-smoking nazis.

Not only was that not good enough, but the mere suggestion of having one (just one, mind you) smoking bar/restaurant/establishment/whatever per town/city was totally dismissed. They were not willing to give an inch....and that's why I don't like 'em.

Then what followed: smokers should not smoke in their car with a child in it; they should not smoke in their yard if a neighbor complains they could smell the smoke (as I understand it, some apartment complexes already have this rule....but these people were talking about actual homeowners); they should not smoke in their own homes if children are present; it just went on and on but the best was....no smoking in any public area, even walking down the street because they can still smell your smoke and are exposed to it if they happen to pass by you!

Needless to say, that thread took a very ugly turn . But keep in mind that there was only a handful of smokers and triple that of non-smokers participating in that thread. The animosity was truly astounding.

Lu

 

[eLiciafay]

This is also another reason why we need to call these Personal Vaporizers instead of cigarettes.

I call mine my "nicotine fog machine".

 

[igetcha]

Kate is 100% correct. Igetcha, your ideas are not based in reality. Any supplier who stated such a thing would invite demand for proof from an agency like the FTC. Common sense, beliefs, hopes, dreams, even personal success stories .. none apply here.

Besides, since when did reason overule rage? Angry antis will not be "won over" by happy arguments.

Besides, look at the reality of e-smoking and say with a straight face that you know it's safe. You can't say that. No one can assure anyone of that. We think so. But that's not enough to prove an advertising claim. Don't make such claims.

i suggest you re read my post bob. i stated the simple facts that every e-cig smoker knows as they have experienced it for themselves. i merely am pointing out that because of the fear of government reaction people are trying to change what are in fact the best reasons not to ban e-cigs.

read the thousands of posts on this forum alone from users who have experienced everything that i wrote then tell me its not reality.

i respect you bob as you have a lot of knowledge in just about every aspect of e-cigs, law, health etc but i think that maybe too much knowledge is clouding your own view and not putting things into perspective.

look outside the box mate and see things for what they are, not for how they need to be to please a government or health organisation.

as for the health side, i did state clearly that we dont know the long term effects of vaping. yes, i cant say for certain that short term use is not dangerous but again please read the thousands of posts from people who have experienced improved health since taking up e-cigs over smoking.

granted, they would have no doubt seen improved health if they had just quit cigarettes anyway without starting e-cigs.

im NOT saying suppliers should advertise them as a stop smoking NRT etc..........im merely saying that we all know its true, regardless of the political correctness that follows.

go back to the very 1st time you had a drag on a e-cig........can you honestly say your 1st thoughts were of the politcal, legal and health implications? i would wager your 1st thought was "wow, i could easily quit fags with this!"

as i said bob, i fully respect your knowledge. but i cant help but feel that your knowledge is clouding your own judgment of reality.

try viewing my previous post thru the eyes of the regular e-cig user rather than thru the eyes of a user who fears political correctness.


hypothetically, if there was no government, fda etc and people were allowed to do whatever they wanted without fear..........would you percieve e-cigs as a safer smoking alternative and as an excellant NRT device that does aid in quitting cigarettes? or would you still be insisting its the opposite?

besides, cigarettes kill millions more people from smoking related deaths than ...... yet the government has not banned them! a doctor once said that he would rather see people smoking lead than a ...!

i would bet my life that e-cigs will NEVER be found to be more dangerous than cigarettes.

 

[surbitonPete]

A product like the e-cigarette might have been ignored if it was just a small fad but it's fast growing way beyond a fad.....and I think it probably doesn't really matter how they are advertised because these things are going to have the authorities running around like headless chickens......E-cigarettes might be a great 'safer' alternative for all of us 'addicts' who couldn't give up smoking ......but the dilemma for the authorities will be that if they don't do anything to ban them or control them and they are allowed to become socially acceptable ....they could end up with a whole new generation of people taking up and becoming addicted to vaping.

 

[Lithium1330]

I know what you are saying igetcha and you are right, empiric knowledge says this things are healthier, but there is no scientific knowledge of it, if we conduct our lives just for empiric knowledge we will be chassing witches and thinking the earth is a flat disc carryed by 3 big turtles, some control (in the good sense) is needed, I don't know from where gov't, FDA, health agencies, consumers or whatever, but we need control if we gonna ihanle poison, or do you know exactly what are you inhaling? what will happen if people die for a mistake made by a unknown manufacturer in china?

Are this cigarettes? they are just for the design resembling a real cigarette, a lot of people hate real cigarettes and that is reality too, for A LOT of people this is a cigarette:

A cigarette (French "small cigar", from cigar + -ette) is a product consumed through smoking and manufactured out of cured and finely cut tobacco leaves and reconstituted tobacco, often combined with other additives,[1] then rolled or stuffed into a paper-wrapped cylinder (generally less than 120 mm in length and 10 mm in diameter). The cigarette is ignited at one end and allowed to smoulder for the purpose of inhalation of its smoke from the other.

And for A LOT of people this is a vaporizer:

A vaporizer (or vapouriser) is a device used to sublimate the active ingredients of plant material, commonly cannabis, tobacco, or any of many other therapeutic or medicinal herbs or blends (phyto-inhalation; see also: aromatherapy). Vaporization is an alternative to smoking. Rather than burning the herb, which produces irritating, toxic, and carcinogenic by-products, a vaporizer heats the material in a partial vacuum so that the active compounds contained in the plant boil off into a vapor. No combustion is evident. Therefore no smoke or taste of smoke is evident. The vapor ideally contains virtually zero particulate matter or tar, and significantly lower concentrations of noxious gases such as carbon monoxide.

aromatherapy:

Aromatherapy is a form of alternative medicine that uses volatile liquid plant materials, known as essential oils (EOs), and other aromatic compounds from plants for the purpose of affecting a person's mood or health.

So to ME this devices just LOOK like a cigarette but they are not cigarettes at all, the design could be an onion and it will function just the same, why we want to complicate things associng this great alternative with a really bad alternative like cigarettes? is it that smart to do so?

We need scientific prove not just empiric knowledge.

surbitonPete: They WILL end up with a whole new generation becoming addicted to SMOKING just because real cigarettes are NOT banned.

 

[deewal]

i respect you bob as you have a lot of knowledge in just about every aspect of e-cigs, law, health etc but i think that maybe too much knowledge is clouding your own view and not putting things into perspective.

look outside the box mate and see things for what they are, not for how they need to be to please a government or health organisation
as i said bob, i fully respect your knowledge. but i cant help but feel that your knowledge is clouding your own judgment of reality.

try viewing my previous post thru the eyes of the regular e-cig user rather than thru the eyes of a user who fears political correctness.

I don't know where you've been for the last year or so but before you talk about reality i'd take a look at the amount of country's that have Banned the E-Cig out of hand because it did not "please a government or health organisation"
I'm sure TBob has taken a good look outside, inside and all around the box and is very, very aware of "how things are"
I'm very sure that Tbob would be the last person i would call " a user who fears political correctness " In fact he is the exact opposite.
Please don't insult someone by first saying " i respect you but..."
You obviously don't.
Here are the last words of Trumpybloke in his post on the Australian Ban.

"I do not want to admit defeat on this matter in Australia and wont , but PLEASE you lot overseas, dont think it wont happen to you , plan, prepare,organise , and work towards legitimising vaping if you want to keep doing it?"

He and his fellow Vapers were made Criminals overnight.
That's Reality.

 

[igetcha]

as i said before, read the thousands of posts from forum users on here who have stated every word i said.

the word "reality" was 1st thrown in my direction by TBob who basically said he was right, im wrong....full stop. thats no better an attitude from the very people who would like to ban e-cigs and if anything was insulting to me.

besides, im sure TBob is big enough to fight his own battles.

if you DONT think they are safer than a cigarette, if you DONT think they help you stop smoking and if you DONT think they are a great nrt device..............

WHY THE BLOODY HELL DO YOU USE THEM! why not just stick to analogues!!!!!!!!!?????

my whole point is that we ALL use them because we ALL think they are a safer option in the help to quit smoking.

im not saying they are.........im just saying that if we didnt think it, we wouldnt use them!

regardless of what ANYONE says, the truth is that these e-cigs have stopped thousands of people smoking tobacco with ease.......FULL STOP!

every bit of proof is written in this forum.

 

[Vince1]

Years ago when the FDA questioned the big tobacco companies as to whether or not they could prove their product was safe , I believe their response was something like "We know it's safe, we don't have to prove s**t" As long as full blown cancer causing tobacco cigarettes are still being sold I'm not worried. When they start pulling them off the shelf we have a problem.

 

[deewal]

my whole point is that we ALL use them because we ALL think they are a safer option in the help to quit smoking.

im not saying they are.........im just saying that if we didnt think it, we wouldnt use them!

regardless of what ANYONE says, the truth is that these e-cigs have stopped thousands of people smoking tobacco with ease.......FULL STOP!

every bit of proof is written in this forum.

In your original post you say that your whole point is

regardless of what the government or the FDA will say or think about it we shouldnt all bow down in fear of them and start changing the facts proven by us. instead we should all be getting together to defend them with every self proven piece of evidence we have. there are probably thousands of posts on this forum alone from users who have only experienced totally positive things since switching to vaping. there are probably just as many posts from users who have said that they quit cigarettes with the use of e-cigs as well.

just about all the evidence we need to prove the government or FDA wrong is contained within the walls of this forum and all the other forums out there. personal experience stories gathered together i think would be a very powerfull tool should the pen pushers ever decide to stick their noses into our business

"Every piece of evidence we have" is Anecdotal and is not Scientific Evidence which is required by The FDA or any other Regulatory Body.
You cannot prove Scientificly any of the claims made within the walls of this Internet Forum and until you can, you cannot use these claims as "proof" no matter what You or I think or believe.

Also if you read Everything on this Forum you will also find a lot of Information which indicates that our Devices and Liquid are not as safe as the Manufacturer's would have us believe.

We are after all dealing with a very dangerous Drug which if misused can be Fatal.

 

[TropicalBob]

Igetcha, let me say I was not calling you out. I was going after your idea.

I was saying today's regulatory reality is such that unproven claims cannot be used to advertise and promote a product. If some get-rich-quick newbie seller makes wild claims, we all get hurt. And it's happening. You see it for yourself.

The e-cigarette is wonderful. In my own opinion, e-smokers might well prove healthier than even non-smokers. Why do I believe that? Read the germ-killing vapor thread and you'll find my reasoning there. But no matter what I believe, I can't claim it as a fact, or as truth.

The regulatory rules are reality. Our beliefs, hopes, dreams, stories are not. You are right in all you say ... but I didn't want anyone new to e-smoking to pick up those claims and use them to try to sell e-cigs.

Sorry if what I said was disturbing to you on a personal level. I didn't mean it that way and maybe was too blunt, as I can be.

 

[Lithium1330]

I use them because I think they are healthier BUT I don't have any SCIENTIFIC prove of my beliefs, and I can be complety wrong, period.

 

[dc2k08]

just to show you that making false claims can cost you $37 Million....

 

[igetcha]

Igetcha, let me say I was not calling you out. I was going after your idea.

I was saying today's regulatory reality is such that unproven claims cannot be used to advertise and promote a product. If some get-rich-quick newbie seller makes wild claims, we all get hurt. And it's happening. You see it for yourself.

The e-cigarette is wonderful. In my own opinion, e-smokers might well prove healthier than even non-smokers. Why do I believe that? Read the germ-killing vapor thread and you'll find my reasoning there. But no matter what I believe, I can't claim it as a fact, or as truth.

The regulatory rules are reality. Our beliefs, hopes, dreams, stories are not. You are right in all you say ... but I didn't want anyone new to e-smoking to pick up those claims and use them to try to sell e-cigs.

Sorry if what I said was disturbing to you on a personal level. I didn't mean it that way and maybe was too blunt, as I can be.

hi bob,

thank you very much for your well thought, respectfull and friendly reply. despite what the other guy said, i do have the utmost respect for your knowledge on everything e-cig related and i read all your posts with great interest. i also fully appreciate all the research you do in order to try and prevent the banning of e-cigs, and im sure everyone else on this forum appreciates it too.

when i write a thread or reply to a post i always write as though im talking directly to a real person. but as all they see are words on a screen i find that sometimes people take what i say in the complete opposite to what i meant!

i fully agree that we DONT know the truth about the health aspects with regards to e-cigs but i will always maintain that i think they must be healthier than a cigarette...........anything is healthier than a cigarette! lol

i do fully understand the reasons why its very important for suppliers to advertise e-cigs in a very carefull manner. i do fully understand that nothing e-cig related has ever been medically or scientifically proven. i never meant to imply it had been. i only ever meant to point out that pretty much everyone of us on here has experienced all the positive apects of e-cigs with regards to cutting down, totally quitting and improved health.

but i do fully accept that no matter how many people say it, its worthless without the scientific and medical proof to back it up. i should have made that clearer in my original post so i apologise to everyone on here!

if i offended you in anyway bob with my replies, then please accept my full apology.

much respect to you,

scott