Lorillard purchases Blu E-Cigs

[kristin]

I dont know if that was referring to my post or not, but just to be clear I never said or meant more lethal, I meant more addictive. I agree 100% killing outright is not a profitable business model.

Unfortunately, some people DO believe that Big tobacco would purposely add toxins and carcinogens to e-cigarettes.

Honestly, if it's a product that has low health risks and most people who buy it have no intention of quitting nicotine anyhow - what's the point of making them "more addictive" and who would care much if they did? UNLESS it increased health risks, ie., "more lethal."

Personally, based on the diversity of e-cigarette use (different flavors, different strength needed to switch completely, some people still finding "something missing") we've seen develop over the past few years, I don't believe that nicotine addiction is as big of a player as Big Pharma wants us to believe. That's something else the ANTZ have "sold" us so we believe we need to be nicotine free or we are somehow lower life forms.

Think about it - how different is them saying "OMG! There's carcinogens and anti freeze in e-cigarettes!" compared to "OMG! They added stuff to cigarettes to make them more addictive!" Sure, we know for a fact that Big tobacco did that, but do we really know how effective it really was or how much the ANTZ twisted that fact to manipulate us?

They can't have made them that much more addictive, because millions of people have quit smoking since they started doing it and we have less smokers now than ever before in history. But the ANTZ would have us believe that Big tobacco managed to make cigarettes 1000 times more addictive - just like they'd have us believe that e-cigarettes are just as carcinogenic and toxic as cigarettes because they found those tiny traces in one test. How much of what we believe to be true about tobacco and the tobacco industry do we really know wasn't twisted to manipulate us in the same way?

Seriously - I no longer trust ANYTHING the ANTZ told us about tobacco and that seems too perfect a thing for the ANTZ to latch onto and twist around to further vilify Big Tobacco for their own profit.

That doesn't mean I have faith that the tobacco industry wouldn't ever do anything underhanded again. I know there is still unethical behavior in the name of profits, so I don't "trust" them per se. But I just don't see them as the root of all evil anymore after what I've seen Big Pharma and the ANTZ have been doing all of these years.

It more like finding out that what you thought was the Devil is just another one of his subservient demons. The worse thing is that what you thought was an angel is really an even bigger demon that has just been deceiving you all along.

 

[kwalka]

Making it harder to quit is gauranteeing long term profits. It has been proven that there are the same additives in cigs as in things this forum will not allow us to speak about.
Imo people are quitting and not even starting for many other reasons. When we were kids we were walking around with our parents smoking everywhere we went. It was the norm. Now the norm is dont even think about it. Smoking is considered the same as, and even worse than certain illegal drugs. Between that, the price, and the exclusion we are becoming a nonsmoking culture. Chemicals or not the numbers will continue to plummet.
I agree with you, to an extent, about the brainwashing from all the other sources. They just took advantage of a preexisting condition and ran with it.

 

[rothenbj]

I can't believe anyone actually spends money to buy True cigarettes. Unless they changed a lot over the years, they felt like you were inhaling air.

 

[Petrodus]

I can't believe anyone actually spends money to buy True cigarettes. Unless they changed a lot over the years, they felt like you were inhaling air.

Reminds me of dropping down from 36mg to 8mg

 

[kristin]

It has been proven that there are the same additives in cigs as in things this forum will not allow us to speak about.

There are also the same additives in cigarettes as can also be found in e-cigarettes (glycol, glycerin, food flavorings.) What are these additives and who provided us with the "proof" that they made cigarettes so much more addicting? When you say "it has been proven" I have to say "Wait. Proven how? The same way they continually point to the FDA press statement as "proof" that e-cigarettes are dangerous because they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals?"

Since I last posted, I've been searching online for the origin of the "fact" that tobacco companies put additives in cigarettes that successfully made them "more addictive." It hasn't been easy. Nowhere did I find anyone who claimed that tobacco isn't already very addictive and nowhere did anyone disclose just HOW much more addictive the additives made cigarettes.

I found that they add "sugars," which create acetaldehyde when burned. The way the articles put it, they "believe" that acetaldehyde "may" make tobacco more addictive, because tests on rats showed that acetaldehyde is "extremely addictive" in it's own right. (Could be the "something missing" for some who switch to non-tobacco nicotine? And maybe why many crave sweets after they quit?)

Another is chocolate and cocoa, which create theobromine. Theobromine "facilitates cigarette smoke inhalation, allowing the nicotine to reach the deepest recesses of the lungs. Cocoa also smooths the smoke."

Finally, through the addition of ammonia, "cigarette smoke's pH is altered, turning the nicotine molecules into a vapor air “freebase.” This vapor nicotine is more readily absorbed into the smoker's bloodstream and brain. The blood-brain barrier is more easily compromised, allowing for the quickest hit of nicotine."

Here's the thing - do those things really make cigarettes "more addictive" or "more effective" as a delivery system? What does "more addictive" even mean?? Unlike the addictive drugs-that-shall-not-be-named that are often compared to nicotine, users are not chasing a "high" that requires a continuous increase of the chemical in order to achieve that high.

Nicotine's effect is more like caffeine - you consume just what you need and the needed dose isn't usually very high to get the desired effect. It's more like quenching a thirst than chasing a high. While consumption can (very rarely) get up to 4-5 packs a day, most people are satisfied with around 1-2 packs per day. Realistically, many smokers would probably smoke even less if they weren't paying so much for the product - they don't want to waste a cigarette, so they smoke the whole thing, even though they would have been "satisfied" with less than the whole cigarette. Seriously - if nicotine is so much worse than or as bad as those illicit drugs it is often compared to, why don't we hear about people overdosing? Because, unlike those other drugs, you eventually reach a point of satiation with nicotine - it levels off for most people. So, "more addictive" can't mean "using more and more," it has to mean "more difficult to give up." The thing is, many people don't want to give up nicotine or even the motions of smoking - they just don't want to kill themselves doing it. It's the ANTZ that insist we must quit all nicotine use and therefore, anything that makes nicotine consumption harder to quit is bad.

But let's consider what that they say make cigarettes "more addictive" and look at it from a different angle. Remember, this is coming from the geniuses who think severely reducing the nicotine in cigarettes will make them less appealing to smokers rather than making smokers smoke more cigarettes (and therefore expose themselves to more of the actual harmful chemicals in smoke) to get enough nicotine. This theory means they'd have to also reduce or eliminate the sugar additives, too, right? Because burning sugar is so addictive? Anyhow, wouldn't it seem logical that more efficient delivery and higher levels of nicotine per cigarette would mean less cigarettes need to be smoked and therefore, less harmful smoke exposure?

But, their goal isn't to reduce the harm of tobacco/nicotine consumption. The goal is complete tobacco and nicotine abstinence regardless of the health risks for the ANTZ and keep 'em smoking and trying to quit with NRT for Big Pharma. God forbid there would ever be an accepted a low-risk tobacco or recreational nicotine product - it would ruin the whole scheme.

 

[Petrodus]

One of my first memories of cigarette commercials was
"Winston tastes good like a cigarette should"

The first BP advertisement I remember was
"Better Living through Pharmaceuticals"

BIG Difference

I don't blame BT for my addiction.
I chose to start smoking (50 years ago) because it was "Cool"
and smoking made me feel like I was grown-up. If current information
was known then ... Knowing me ... It wouldn't have made any difference.

The future of smoking is e-smoking
BP and their drugs are here to stay

BP reminds me of Microsoft releasing a new Operating System
before all the bugs are worked out. Let the public trouble shoot it.
Microsoft will come out with patches
BP will add disclaimers

 

[kristin]

Reminds me of dropping down from 36mg to 8mg

I'm curious - what kind of cigarettes did you smoke and how many per day?

I smoked Marlboro Lights and about a pack a day. I started vaping 18mg, but they were off-brand mini pre-filled. Now I use 10mg and drip on a 510 atty on an eGo VariVolt.

I just think smoking addiction has so many variables between people and e-cigarettes are proving that it's not about any one chemical or habit. It's so very different for everyone. If those additives were so effective at addicting smokers "more," why is it so easy for one PAD smoker to use 0mg e-cigs, another PAD smoker to use 10mg and yet another needing 36mg?

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Perhaps my post was misundstood. I don't believe I mentioned, "thread."

Well then:

1. Unsubscribe to this thread

2. Suggest it is closed and get a pile of votes to back you up

 

[Petrodus]

I'm curious - what kind of cigarettes did you smoke and how many per day?

I smoked Marlboro Lights and about a pack a day. I started vaping 18mg, but they were off-brand mini pre-filled. Now I use 10mg and drip on a 510 atty on an eGo VariVolt.

I just think smoking addiction has so many variables between people and e-cigarettes are proving that it's not about any one chemical or habit. It's so very different for everyone. If those additives were so effective at addicting smokers "more," why is it so easy for one PAD smoker to use 0mg e-cigs, another PAD smoker to use 10mg and yet another needing 36mg?

Hi Kristin
I seldom have short stories ... especially when talking about smoking and e-cigarettes


I smoked 2-3 PAD for over 40 years and switched to vaping 4 years ago.

I started smoking Winstons and tried several brands. Later when in college
switched to Pall Mall unfiltered. Why did I switch to Pall Mall unfiltered?
Well, I didn't have a lot of money and quickly discovered few smokers
wanted to bum a Pall Mall ... They would say thanks anyway and ask others
for a Winston or a Marlboro.


A number of years before I found e-cigs ... I was smoking Salem light 100's.
Big switch...but one day I came down with a sore throat and found
menthols didn't hurt my throat ... Never went back.

Found e-cigs while surfing the Net. I clicked on a link by mistake and up
popped an e-cig video. WOW ... I can continue to smoke and stop smoking
cigarettes. I loved smoking (the act of smoking...not the tars and junk)

I spent a ton of time researching and watching videos. Found a vendor that
sounded friendly and trustworthy ... Called them on the phone and answered
the few remaining questions that I had. I ordered the 510 and the 801 Pen Style
along with 2 bottles of each nic level ... 0mg through 36mg. Why 2 bottles of
each nic level? I was taking no chances and wanted all levels on hand not knowing
in advance which level I would prefer. I also knew that smoking increased or decreased
based on anxiety levels ... So, it only made sense to have choices available.

To tell you the truth ... I also initially ordered 4 extra 510 and 801 batteries,
extra attys, and carts. I had made up my mind that I was switching and would
never smoke again ... Even if vaping was only half as satisfying as my mental image.
Money was not a factor ... I was buying 2 cartons at a time.

When I used the 510 18-24mg was satisfying ... With the 801 24-36mg was
satisfying. Just for fun I vaped 18mg. All fit at one time or another depending
on this and that.

Later I upgraded to a standard eGo and then jumped to a Monster atty/cart and
the 1000 mAh battery. I'm a happy camper. However, my nic satisfaction level
with the eGo is at 36mg. I don't inhale as often as I used to, however, 36mg
gives the thicker "body" of vape that I prefer. I could easily drop to 24mg but
not to 18mg.

Oh by the way ... I've always preferred dripping to filling the carts. However,
now that I'm using the monster atty/cart ... Sometime I will load up the cart
when driving for a distance ... Just easier and safer than messing with dripping
while driving.

I really never stopped chain vaping which at first was a concern but the vendor
said it was normal because my body was craving everything in cigarettes and the
chain vaping would dwindle off in time. Still chain vaping. Recently I found a vendor
offering WTA Juice and I'm waiting for a call back to place an order. I've been told
WTA will give me the Aahhh feeling that I really haven't experienced since I stopped
smoking. If I got that Aahhh feeling again (at least from time to time) I wouldn't
be chain vaping. I'm going to experiment starting with just adding a few drops
of WTA juice and gauge the results.

You are 100% correct when saying "smoking addiction has so many variables between
people and e-cigarettes". One main contributing factor for switching is "personal
commitment" to stop smoking. I was motivated ... Some never make the transition
and many of those don't make the jump because they are really not ready to quit.
E-cigs are a wonderful alternative ... but one needs to experiment in order to know
which e-cig, flavor, and nic level is their best fit.

I enjoy vaping and have absolutely no intentions or goals to cut down to 0mg
and give up the habit.

I hope several choices of e-cigs, e-liquids, flavors, and nic levels are in our future.
Smokers need choices in e-cigs, taste and nic comfort levels. There is no such thing
as "one size fits all"

 

[kwalka]

Petrodus :
Holy Crap! Finally the man has more than a 3 line phrase. Well good for you man! I mean it. I was in the same boat and I did almost the same exact thing, word for word. Except I'm not chasing that aaah. I sucked so many kr808d-2s dry in the first 2 weeks its silly. But I did figure out how to pop the ends off and refill them within a few days thanks to ECF. Unfortunately like so many others I made the leap before I found ECF. Luckily ECF still came riding in and helped set me straight.

Kristin:
It was 60 minutes or 20/20 where I remember clear as day watching the results of the testing. Am I wrong for believing one of those supposedly non-biased programs, I dont know. I can tell you this conversation has reached its ECF limits (at least on my end). I dont pretend to hold half the info or experience that someone such as yourself holds when it comes to these issues. I also am not an angry closed minded person who makes up their mind and that is that. If I feel strongly about something to the point where I will debate with what I consider to be a credible source, there is a reason other than just for the fun of it.

 

[rolygate]

But, their goal isn't to reduce the harm of tobacco/nicotine consumption. The goal is complete tobacco and nicotine abstinence regardless of the health risks for the ANTZ and keep 'em smoking and trying to quit with NRT for Big Pharma. God forbid there would ever be an accepted a low-risk tobacco or recreational nicotine product - it would ruin the whole scheme.

I don't think many of them are actually in favour of a complete ban on tobacco, or complete tobacco abstinence. That may be the impression we get from the 'noise', but then it's extremely well-managed. In my view that is just part of the propaganda and not a real objective - it makes no sense at all for their paymasters. Luckily it is not achievable, so it's one of those ideals that everyone supports but is not realistic.

It seems to me that the antis are split between idealogists and those who are pharma-funded, along with some who are both. At a guess, maybe 20% are idealogists with no pharma payoff and 80% derive their funding or employment in some way from pharma and aren't really too worried about the morality; including those who are employed by an institution which gets pharma funding and therefore restricts employees whose activities conflict with pharma's aims.

The agenda of the pharmaceutical industry is to maintain smoking-related morbidity at current levels since any reduction hits them hard. Their worst nightmare is the Sweden scenario: an eventual reduction of 40% in smoking-related mortality, since the accompanying reduction in morbidity equals a massive income reduction for the pharmaceutical industry. Correction: their worst nightmare would be a situation where ecigs prove even more popular than Snus; which is becoming increasingly likely in some places.

All pharma's efforts are dedicated to maintaining the status quo. There are almost certainly many academics and medics on the payroll who are so naive they haven't realised this. The last thing their funders would want is a ban on tobacco or a severe reduction in use, as that would be suicide for pharma. Therefore, current regulatory efforts are perfect, since they don't work, and make it look as if something is being done while in fact everyone is just jogging on the spot.

There is at least one example of a tobacco company and a pharmaceutical company being co-owned - the perfect arrangement. Next will come co-ownership of pharma, tobacco and ecig companies - a win-win situation, one reason being that when sales dip for one arm, they rise for another.

I don't personally believe that tobacco companies are intrinsically evil. It's just an unfortunate fact that the product kills - I'm sure that if there was some way around that, they'd be much happier, as it doesn't do anything for their image or their business. And if they didn't sell cigarettes, well, someone else would - it's just business, and if it's legal, it's legal. They are subject to the same commercial pressures as anyone else and if they can improve brand loyalty, they will. Cigarettes are nasty things that come with a high risk of illness and even death, but as long as it's legal to engineer the ingredients to the maximum 'loyalty profile' (as I'll call it) that they can arrange, than that's what they'll do. You all know the consequences of signing the contract (buying a pack) and don't try to tell me otherwise.

On the other hand, I wouldn't argue that they have been run by the most incompetent buffoons in the past. The idea of lying about the addictiveness of cigarettes or the health consequences is ridiculous - far better to admit it and take the hit. Or even market it in some way, of course. And then leaving all the documentation around to prove they were lying - just how incompetent can you get? In fact the incompetence of their management was on such a scale that it almost makes you wonder if that can really be possible.

Buffoons - yes. Evil murderers - no, because you well know what the deal is. They would much rather you didn't get sick, or die, as it doesn't make any business sense at all. Perhaps there is some trade-off for brand loyalty, but not enough to make any significant difference, most likely.

In contrast, the intention of the pharma industry is to make you sick, keep you sick, and the sicker the better; and they will suborn governments and buy legislation in order to effect that agenda. They include the world's biggest criminal fraudsters and would break many other records in that area if they weren't protected. No pharma company CEO will ever face charges for murder, but in a perfect world some would receive 10,000 consecutive life sentences because that's what they are responsible for; and no lobbying spend of any kind would be legally permitted. Some chance of that

Luckily there is a balance between the lives saved and/or improved by pharma products, and the lives lost or ruined due to their business practices. No doubt that is called a free market. You just need to be on the benefit side, is all.

 

[Petrodus]

In contrast, the intention of the pharma industry is to make you sick, keep you sick, and the sicker the better; and they will suborn governments and buy legislation in order to effect that agenda. They include the world's biggest criminal fraudsters and would break many other records in that area if they weren't protected. No pharma company CEO will ever face charges for murder, but in a perfect world some would receive 100,000 sequential life sentences because that's what they are responsible for; and no lobbying spend of any kind would be legally permitted. Some chance of that

CORRECT
Truth is often a difficult pill to swallow.
BP is not in the Health Wellness Business
they are in the "Drug Maintenance Business"

BP is not in the business of curing anything. If they were ... They would be in
the business of putting themselves out of business, and that doesn't make any sense.

If ya don't think your dependent on BP drugs ... Here's a test
Try thinking of any ailment or discomfort without a drug coming to mind.

Difficulty going to sleep at night ... Drug
Difficulty getting going in the morning ... Drug
Got a headache ... Drug
Runny nose? ... Drug

Sleep, Diet, and Exercise is not the first thing that comes to mind ... Drug

I'm not apposed to all drugs ... but give me a break
A drug for every ailment or discomfort known to man-kind ???

The "Ultimate Drug" ... A drug to help ya get off another drug


Disclaimer: The first thing I think about when having a headache ... Drug

 

[Cool_Breeze]

The prevailing perspectives on the phramaceutical industry are understood.

Where do we go from here?

 

[TennDave]

Okay, so this thread is about Blu being bought by a tobacco company right?

From what Volatek said (if they are genuine), here is what I'd like to see:
1. Improvements and them getting into better/bigger PV's with good attys (even if they are proprietary for their product) because this would help legitimize more than the small e-cigs which appears to be more of the "standard," out there.
2. Produce the e-juice for their products and eventually allow others to buy it (I really don't think they are going to .......ize this- all eyes are on them)...this would allow for competition- and we'll see what BT is capable of doing in OUR market- if you get my drift.
3. Use their influence and attorney's, lobbying groups to fight the FDA on nic levels, availability of nic juice for the masses and flavors (surely they'll fight to keep menthol- so what's the difference between it and others?), and debunk the "for the children myth....
4. Become part of the larger Vaping community and thoroughly research and put into practice what works best for varied vapers- mg levels, power on batteries/attys, etc. - in other words, keep things flexible...possibly a chart or something for selecting their products, depending on what type of smoker you've been, etc.

I'm sure there are other things I'd like to see them do, but that's a start- anyone else want to add to the list?

Evidently The Blu company Prez (or was it Lorillard) is reading this thread, so any input from our community will help- After all- they COULD become part of OUR community very soon!!

 

[kwalka]

I believe they are deeply rooted in our community already. They would be stupid to make such an investment and not want to know whats being said on the inside. This is there prime chance to be a fly on the wall. Or a spider on the web. Yes thank you I thought of that all by myself just now.

 

[TennDave]

Personally, I hope they STIR IT UP!! and reek havoc on the FDA and put the ANTZ in a Tail Spin!!!
All said and done, we all can be very much on the same side in this fight for Alternative methods of nicotine ingestion that doesn't have the same consequences as smoking!!!

 

[Petrodus]

Evidently The Blu company Prez (or was it Lorillard) is reading this thread, so any input
from our community will help- After all- they COULD become part of OUR community very soon!!

It would be in Lorillard/Blu best interest to be monitoring the ECF
There will eventually be others jumping in the market and they will
be interesting in supplying products that Lorillard/Blu doesn't offer.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I suspect others in addition to Lorilloid/Blu, others in the tobacco industry, as well as the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry are monitoring ECF.

 

[DC2]

It would be in Lorillard/Blu best interest to be monitoring the ECF
There will eventually be others jumping in the market and they will
be interesting in supplying products that Lorillard/Blu doesn't offer.

Exactly.

Lorillard has made the first step, and they have some advantages right now.
They bought the sexiest and probably most popular brand.
And they have time to cement their foothold.

They would be wise to embrace the future, and continue to stay a step or two ahead of their eventual competition.
Anything else would be stupid of them.

And I seriously doubt they are collectively that stupid.

 

[Myk]

2. Produce the e-juice for their products and eventually allow others to buy it (I really don't think they are going to .......ize this- all eyes are on them)...this would allow for competition- and we'll see what BT is capable of doing in OUR market- if you get my drift.

I don't think that would be a good thing. To me dropping Johnson Creek is saying they're not willing to fight for fill your own juice sales. As long as Johnson Creek's name is helping Blu sales they have to at least consider fill your own juice as being worth something.