Lorillard purchases Blu E-Cigs

[TennDave]

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.

I agree with you...Thus, there should be a collaboration w/ J.C....I had forgotten about them. Possibly Lorrilard can supply the pure nicotine that J.C. needs (if that's what they need)... Just know that there are farmers growing tobacco for Lorrilard in the U.S. (not sure about J.C.), and possibly elsewhere- certainly there should be a collaboration... "We're all on the same side" is the message I'm hoping comes through!!!

 

[panachronic]

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.

What makes you think Johnson Creek is helping Blu's sales? I see no reason at all to believe that.

Cripes, they're selling Blu at Walmart. Do you think many Walmart shoppers have heard of JC? Do you think it would affect their buying decision even if they had?

I would offer that most people who know enough about vaping to either like or dislike Johnson Creek have already moved on from Blu's products.

 

[Petrodus]

Blu insists on e-juice that is "Made in the USA"
There's reasons ...

 

[DC2]

Blu insists on e-juice that is "Made in the USA"
There's reasons ...

Exactly again, this has to be why Blu is using Johnson Creek.


And if Johnson Creek would make an 80/20 or 70/30 blend of Tennesee Cured, I'd be all over it.
But 100% PG juice isn't ever going to cut it in my house.

 

[Myk]

I agree with you...Thus, there should be a collaboration w/ J.C....I had forgotten about them. Possibly Lorrilard can supply the pure nicotine that J.C. needs (if that's what they need)... Just know that there are farmers growing tobacco for Lorrilard in the U.S. (not sure about J.C.), and possibly elsewhere- certainly there should be a collaboration... "We're all on the same side" is the message I'm hoping comes through!!!

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. The backing of BT tobacco labs and their FDA experienced lawyers into an established US juice maker.
Couple that with Blu coming out with something like an eGo or a Vea level e-cig would make it extremely difficult for the antis to force things to change too much.

What makes you think Johnson Creek is helping Blu's sales? I see no reason at all to believe that.

Cripes, they're selling Blu at Walmart. Do you think many Walmart shoppers have heard of JC? Do you think it would affect their buying decision even if they had?

I would offer that most people who know enough about vaping to either like or dislike Johnson Creek have already moved on from Blu's products.

It's the whole reason Blu uses Johnson Creek from what I've heard. If it didn't matter Blu wouldn't bother mentioning JC.

I'm also on JC's FB page and see how many Blu vapers go there. It's not that the tie in creates new sales, as you said they don't know about JC. But the tie in does create loyalty to Blu.
Both of them benefit from the partnership.

Also as a loyal JC fan if it came down to it I would buy a Blu product in an emergency. Hopefully I end up with enough of a backup plan that emergency never happens.

 

[GregH]

Cripes, they're selling Blu at Walmart. Do you think many Walmart shoppers have heard of JC? Do you think it would affect their buying decision even if they had?

Most likely not. But what will attract their attention is the 'Made in the U.S.A.' insignia. What would keep them coming back is the quality of JC's liquid. (Note that I'm not a fan of Blu; I have never tried their devices. So I have no opinion on them either way.)

I don't think they would be nearly as successful as they have been without a quality liquid. A while back, I noticed my local QT had started selling e-cigs. I bought one out of curiosity. There were no indications where the device and the liquid in the carto came from, but it was obviously of foreign origin based on the broken English in the "user's guide". At first use, I immediately hoped that no smoker curious about making the switch tried one of these God-awful things as their first exposure. The liquid was nasty. So yeah.... JC (or any quality supplier) is definitely helping Blu's sales IMO.

 

[NC_Fog]

I'm quite sure that tentative plans were in the making before Lorillard plunked down $135 million for Blu. All we can hope is that they don't compromise with the FDA for sealed cartos and mg limits. I believe in the long run that this will hurt them badly. We may only compromise of about 5% of total e cig users however we will be the ones that ultimately make a difference. There are some pretty talented and determined folks here. Who knows, we may look back in 10yrs at what we have now and laugh our butts off that we used to suck on these things. More than one way to skin a cat. Just ask Kodak...lol. It won't be the industrial chemist or engineers that find a way, it will be you and me!

Marty

 

[Petrodus]

Interesting ... Before April 25, few here even gave Blu a 2nd thought
beyond giving some helpful suggestions to a new member.

The future for "main stream" e-cigarettes is the "mini" with sealed cartos,
few flavors, and limited nic levels. E-cigs will be in many stores so there
really won't be any necessity to buy on-line.

Don't hold your breath for Blu to come out with a Blu eGo or any other
e-cigarette "on steroids".

Sooner or later ... Another player will jump into the market. I suggest
they will have their own similar mini but will not offer bottled e-juice
with several flavors and nic levels.

The future of e-cigs are brand names. Not so much for customer loyalty
but just for conversation. When someone asks what kind of e-cig is it...
They are looking for a company brand name IE Blu ... Not "DSE 801"
or even eGo … Who makes an eGo? (rhetorical question)


Blu (today) really doesn't care if they loose some customers who
want more and find the ECF and then buy an eGo. The e-cig market
is no where near a saturation level for any concern on their part.
So ... Blu really isn't that concerned about alternative e-cig vendors.
Future regulations will reduce those numbers.

We will, for some time to come, have an open Internet market to
supply our preferences. My only "long term" concern is availability
of bottled e-juice.
_______________

By the way: The terms Personal Vaporizer (PV) and Vaping are
our sub-culture terms ... I understand the reasoning ... I "get it".
Never caught on with the public or even with venders, including Blu
Refer to your e-cig in public as a Personal Vaporizer ...
People look at you like you have 2 heads.

 

[DC2]

The reason that Blu/Lorillard will come out with an Ego model is to prevent loss of customers.
All those people for whom a mini doesn't work, who go back to smoking, are lost business that doesn't need to be lost.

We all sit around trying to estimate how many mini users quit using electronic cigarettes and think they are a scam or a joke.
But I feel quite confident that the numbers, whatever they may be, are more than high enough to justify coming out with a Blu Ego version.

And if they don't do it, Johnson Creek will, and in fact already is.

 

[Petrodus]

The reason that Blu/Lorillard will come out with an Ego model is to prevent loss of customers.
All those people for whom a mini doesn't work, who go back to smoking, are lost business that doesn't need to be lost.

We all sit around trying to estimate how many mini users quit using electronic cigarettes and think they are a scam or a joke.
But I feel quite confident that the numbers, whatever they may be, are more than high enough to justify coming out with a Blu Ego version.

And if they don't do it, Johnson Creek will, and in fact already is.

For benefit of smokers ... I hope your right
But I just seriously doubt a Blu eGo is part of their business plan

 

[Randyrtx]

I can't help thinking that a company like Smokeless Image might be on someone's radar. They have a "mini" in the Volt that is one of the best around, a great PCC, good flavors (available prefilled and liquid), and their own Ego-like model with filler-less cartomizers as well. The only thing they lack is marketing to go mainstream.

 

[kristin]

The prevailing perspectives on the phramaceutical industry are understood.

Where do we go from here?

Honestly? We (the community as a whole) have to get past the belief that Big Tobacco is inherently "evil" and wishes to harm us before we can move forward. So long as we don't recognize who the real opposition is - who REALLY wants to hurt us - then we will be incapable of taking the necessary steps.

Hitler caused the unnecessary deaths of over 30 million German people by convincing them that the rest of the world was a threat to them. The true threat was the one who claimed to be their savior. He counted on playing off their fears, using propaganda, lies and truth twisting. Were some of the people Hilter killed bad or evil? Sure, some pretty bad people were probably killed, too and Hitler would have made a big showing of that to prove his point - but far more innocents died.

This community has to gain perspective and know who the real enemy is before we can move forward and win this "war."

 

[kwalka]

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?"

I have been thinking about this and I agree with you, just because I "said" so, dosen't make it true or fact. My point is I wouldn't say so if I didnt feel I obtained my info from a credible source. I am always preaching to my kids about how you cant believe anything you see on tv and most of what you read without doing some serious research on the source. So it is not right of me to come in here and start throwing my opinions around without sources to back them up. I will see what I can find to back these statements up.

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.

More addictive in my dictionary means that the product was specifically manipulated to interact with brain chemistry, so that after an hour or so without the product all other functions shut down and one must seek out the "fix" to "get right" again. Science or not we all know this to be fact.
I agree with you again about them creating a more effective or efficient delivery system. But that is just one part of what they did, yes we prob could of got away with cigs half as long as they are.
Nicotine's effects are like caffeine, but were not talking about nicotine here, were talking about all the things that are not in e cigs. Ammonia, to get the freebase effect, is a biggie in my book.
When I decided I was going to lower my nic levels in my vapiong I was at 24mg of heavy chain vaping. When I dropped to like 12 all at once it was too much too fast, but I wasn't ready to kill. I definetly noticed the need for something that was missing, but it was nothing like going more than an hour without a smoke. It only took me a couple of weeks to get down to mostly 0 with some 6 and 8 mixed in throughout the day. I tried that several times with smoking and we all know how this story ends.
I was going to let this go and last night I watched Cigarette Wars from CNBC on Netflix. It got me thinking again and I reread a bit of this thread. I'm sure you guys have seen it but if not its worth watching and hearing the Kentucky Tobacco growers saying how the tobacco industry in America is dead. They are going global as they cant even sell their crop here anymore. Also to hear their take on the health side of the debate. Some of the largest growers are actually switching to raising livestock as they cant make any money on thier tobacco anymore.
Kristin were on the same team here. I was not trying to disrespect all the work you do to actually base your posts on fact and I come and start throwing opinion around as fact. Over the years as I collected small bits of info here and there and decided what I believed and didnt, I formed my own beliefs about what I was into and it is not right that I try to pass off 15 years of knowledge as fact summed up in a few paragraphs. We all appreciate what you do for us. Please dont let hard headed meatheads such as myself take anything away from what you do.

 

[kristin]

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.

Well, think about it. Has the media been a credible source at all about e-cigarettes? Or have most of them just parroted what they have been told by those who want to see e-cigarettes banned?

I am not an "angry, close-minded person" about this, but I am now generally a cynic with just about everything. It took me a long time to believe my eyes and see the truth about tobacco harm reduction and to understand that I must now question EVERYTHING - big government, big corporations and big movements that supposedly are "real people" who represent my best interests. ALL are capable of corruption, greed and the desire for power. I no longer take anything at face value.

If you want to read how Jeff Wigand's (the Big Tobacco whistle-blower) story finally made it onto 60 Minutes, read this article: Jeffrey Wigand: The Man Who Knew Too Much | The Magazine | Vanity Fair

It shines some light on how the media was VERY influenced by the powers-that-be in telling Jeff Wigand's story. They are neither unbiased nor infallible.

I also found it very interesting that Jeff Wigand worked for Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer before he went to B&W.

 

[kristin]

Kristin were on the same team here. I was not trying to disrespect all the work you do to actually base your posts on fact and I come and start throwing opinion around as fact. Over the years as I collected small bits of info here and there and decided what I believed and didnt, I formed my own beliefs about what I was into and it is not right that I try to pass off 15 years of knowledge as fact summed up in a few paragraphs. We all appreciate what you do for us. Please dont let hard headed meatheads such as myself take anything away from what you do.

You aren't a "meathead." You are the same as most of the population. I was there, too. Getting to the point where I am now took a lot of soul-searching and a lot of research.

But really - how could I not start to question everything I thought I "knew" about other things after watching what the media or medical community said about e-cigarettes? Seeing how they manipulated the "science" (or lack of), the double standards, following the money trail, what they presented as "fact" and how the media and public just took it all in at face value?

Once you see all of that, it's hard not to question everything else you have been told by those same people - and then other "truths" start to come out.

 

[kwalka]

Well, think about it. Has the media been a credible source at all about e-cigarettes? Or have most of them just parroted what they have been told by those who want to see e-cigarettes banned?

I am not an "angry, close-minded person" about this, but I am now generally a cynic with just about everything. It took me a long time to believe my eyes and see the truth about tobacco harm reduction and to understand that I must now question EVERYTHING - big government, big corporations and big movements that supposedly are "real people" who represent my best interests. ALL are capable of corruption, greed and the desire for power. I no longer take anything at face value.

If you want to read how Jeff Wigand's (the Big Tobacco whistle-blower) story finally made it onto 60 Minutes, read this article: Jeffrey Wigand: The Man Who Knew Too Much | The Magazine | Vanity Fair

It shines some light on how the media was VERY influenced by the powers-that-be in telling Jeff Wigand's story. They are neither unbiased nor infallible.

I also found it very interesting that Jeff Wigand worked for Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer before he went to B&W.

I didnt mean that you were an "angry, close-minded person", I was trying to say that my thoughts and opinions were coming from more than that type of mindset.
I think very highly of you and what you do. I'm sorry you took that wrong.

 

[kristin]

I didnt mean that you were an "angry, close-minded person", I was trying to say that my thoughts and opinions were coming from more than that type of mindset.
I think very highly of you and what you do. I'm sorry you took that wrong.

Actually, I was worried that I was coming off that way! No offense taken.

 

[kristin]

My whole point in all of this is that we shouldn't be any more concerned about Big Tobacco selling cigarettes than any other industry buying into them. ANY industry is not to be trusted at face value - including the status quo. Even if Big Tobacco or Big Pharma never got into e-cigarettes, the manufacturers and merchants of e-cigarettes would have eventually formed a cohesive "industry" (if they didn't let the FDA get them banned first) and we would have had all of the same concerns - what are they putting in them? Are they safe? Are they being honest about what are in them? Are they using quality ingredients? Are they putting stuff in them to make them more addictive? Is one big e-cig company going to try to get in good with the FDA and get flavors and refilling banned?

EVERYTHING that people are worried about Big Tobacco doing to e-cigarettes was already a huge possibility of happening just within the e-cigarette community. Just because there are a lot of vendors who are vapers and got into the business "to help people" doesn't mean that the industry wouldn't have started having it's fair share of greed and corruption. In fact, without any kind of regulation (self or government) it was practically guaranteed to happen and the FDA is involved now no matter WHO is selling them. So, fretting so much about Lorillard getting into the market seems a little irrational and based simply upon the fears and distrust that the ANTZ have so carefully crafted.

There is simply no scenario where we are not at risk of the e-cigarette market being drastically altered and our worst fears coming true. If the status quo was maintained, it was obvious that the e-cigarette manufacturers had no intention of banding together to fight indoor use bans, flavor bans, higher nicotine strength bans and refill liquids. If Big Pharma bought in - same thing. Big Pharma would be carefully regulated and would be motivated to make e-cigarettes as ineffective as their NRT.

So, if you think about it, the only industry that would possibly have the desire and wherewithal to fight for the things that consumers would want to buy and would enjoy, the only industry that already sells purely recreational nicotine delivery products and would want to make their consumers happy and continue to buy their brand, is the tobacco industry.

But because we have been so convinced by the ANTZ that the tobacco industry is the most evil industry on the planet, we fear and despise the one and only group who has the potential to be our greatest, most powerful ally. Not an ally to be fully trusted, but a true ally nonetheless.

 

[kwalka]

My whole point in all of this is that we shouldn't be any more concerned about Big Tobacco selling cigarettes than any other industry buying into them. ANY industry is not to be trusted at face value - including the status quo. Even if Big Tobacco or Big Pharma never got into e-cigarettes, the manufacturers and merchants of e-cigarettes would have eventually formed a cohesive "industry" (if they didn't let the FDA get them banned first) and we would have had all of the same concerns - what are they putting in them? Are they safe? Are they being honest about what are in them? Are they using quality ingredients? Are they putting stuff in them to make them more addictive? Is one big e-cig company going to try to get in good with the FDA and get flavors and refilling banned?

EVERYTHING that people are worried about Big Tobacco doing to e-cigarettes was already a huge possibility of happening just within the e-cigarette community. Just because there are a lot of vendors who are vapers and got into the business "to help people" doesn't mean that the industry wouldn't have started having it's fair share of greed and corruption. In fact, without any kind of regulation (self or government) it was practically guaranteed to happen and the FDA is involved now no matter WHO is selling them. So, fretting so much about Lorillard getting into the market seems a little irrational and based simply upon the fears and distrust that the ANTZ have so carefully crafted.

There is simply no scenario where we are not at risk of the e-cigarette market being drastically altered and our worst fears coming true. If the status quo was maintained, it was obvious that the e-cigarette manufacturers had no intention of banding together to fight indoor use bans, flavor bans, higher nicotine strength bans and refill liquids. If Big Pharma bought in - same thing. Big Pharma would be carefully regulated and would be motivated to make e-cigarettes as ineffective as their NRT.

So, if you think about it, the only industry that would possibly have the desire and wherewithal to fight for the things that consumers would want to buy and would enjoy, the only industry that already sells purely recreational nicotine delivery products and would want to make their consumers happy and continue to buy their brand, is the tobacco industry.

But because we have been so convinced by the ANTZ that the tobacco industry is the most evil industry on the planet, we fear and despise the one and only group who has the potential to be our greatest, most powerful ally. Not an ally to be fully trusted, but a true ally nonetheless.

I myself are not really concerned because its way too early to have any idea about what they will actually do. We all knew this was coming eventually. As soon as I hear corporation, I instantly think money hungry ceo, and I cant get past that. So, IMO, only time will tell. I am just glad I was able to be apart of this while it was still pure.
As far as the vendors wanting to help people, I dont know about that. You kind of contradicted your own point by saying they would not band together. If they had any interest beyond money at least some of them would of started a dialogue about getting together.
Unfortunately I have to leave I cant even finish this post. I will get back at this later.

 

[kristin]

As far as the vendors wanting to help people, I dont know about that. You kind of contradicted your own point by saying they would not band together. If they had any interest beyond money at least some of them would of started a dialogue about getting together.

Now you're getting it. But it's not me who created the contradiction. It's the people who seem to think that things would be fine and dandy as long as everyone else stays out of the industry, especially Big Tobacco. You have just noticed what they have failed to acknowledge. Big Tobacco is evil and needs to stay out of e-cigarettes because all they care about is profits, but e-cigarette companies are different because...?

That's not to say that there aren't some very ethical and responsible e-cigarette companies out there that care about the community and have been doing what they can to fight indoor bans and such. I don't want to lump them all in together!