Who the hell knows, what the new Blu will add into their e liquids!!??!! Welcome to BIG juice!
Lorillard purchases Blu E-Cigs
- Thread starter Placebo Effect
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
*sigh*
OK, like what? Imagine the worst possible things they could add. What would be the point to do that? With all of the e-liquid choices available on the market; made with readily-available, harmless ingredients already found in an already popular e-cig liquid and nowhere to hide harmful chemicals; knowing the FDA and ANTZ would LOVE to find something to use as an excuse to ban e-cigarettes; with a ready-made consumer base (former smokers) already using nicotine products...what exactly would they or could they add that would be so horrible and easy to hide? How would it benefit them to lose consumer confidence by altering the liquids in a negative way? All that would accomplish is a decline in sales and a possible banning of them, therefore losing all of the money they invested into the only smoke-free product they sell; in a growing smoke-free market. Why would they ever take that risk??
I'm sorry but it just makes no sense to me for people to say stuff like this.
Because Big Tobacco kills people. They should have no business being in the vaping industry!
Breaking News: Former Bitter Enemies make unusual Bed Fellows-
Okay, it's really not an article to click to view...
My point is, no matter what your experience has been and how you feel- we alienate BT who is getting into the e-cig business now and you'll find your juice and PV banned for sure- it's better to befriend them and let them do the strategic lobbying, etc... if we have any chance of survival. I'm sure others will chime in with more details in favor of my view and/or a rebuttal.
I bet big tobacco used that same logic back in the day...
right before they threw it in the trash and added the chemical soup, addiction boosting substances and filters that are about as useful as olestra is for reducing fat intake...at least olestra gives you osmotic ........, so you know its doing something.
At the very least, why not add something to make it more addictive? The goal is to make money right?
The FDA is not at odds with these people, or interested in your health. They're interested in "profit, my way. and if we get in trouble, you take the hit, ok?" No one is interested in banning anything they just want to maximize their profit.
I resurrect this link every once in a while to try to get people to understand the truth-
http://breathehealthyair.blogspot.c...-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=21
Smoke kills, RATZ just focus all their epidemiology on cigarettes/smoking/tobacco/nicotine.
Last edited:
How did you manage to avoid being taught the evils of tobacco in grade school?
Is Big Tobacco responsible for other informed choices you've made in your life too?
Probably has something to do with smoking sections in my High school on a Military base.
"Double sigh........."
The ANTZ have done their work well. They wanted us to hate tobacco companies...... and abra-ca-dam..... we do. It's amazing how we chose to believe or not believe according to if it's to our advantage. If you need someone to blame for using tobacco...... it must be the big evil tobacco companies.
Their have been lots of rumors about how BT has made cigarettes more addicting, but I have never seen any evidence from a reputable source. I'm not quite sure how they made cigarettes more addictive then it already was. The theory is BT made it more alkaline as nicotine is more effective in a base. My understanding is the nicotine in cigarettes is about 10% effective. There is about 10 mg of nicotine in a cigarette but only about 1 mg is absorbed. Soooo...... if somehow the nicotine absorption is increased to something like 15% to 20%....... I, and everyone else, would simple smoke less cigarettes.
That would be a good thing.
There has never been any logic to idea of BT making cigarettes more addicting, but that hasn't stopped some folks from believing it.
Whatever people THINK they know about Big Tobacco, tobacco products and nicotine - consider the source. The source is the same source that is trying to turn you and the public against e-cigarettes using the very same tactics. They are to elicit fear and distrust. They claimed smokers don't like non-tobacco flavors, so the evil e-cigarette companies are targeting our children. They claimed e-cigarettes were toxic and contained anti freeze. They claimed e-cigarettes were just as harmful as cigarettes because they contained carcinogens. All of these are either half-truth, fact twisting, exagerration or outright lies.
Sure, don't trust Big Tobacco because they lied, but I don't know how anyone can trust a word of what comes from the anti-tobacco "science," either. After seeing the lies and tactics they are using against e-cigarettes, how can people trust everything they ever said was actually true about tobacco? I'm sure some of it is true, but I'm sure a lot of it is the same half-truths, twisted facts and outright lies like they tell about e-cigarettes. That includes the "fact" that the chemicals added to cigarettes actually made them more addictive. As Stubby pointed out, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove those chemicals worked as supposedly intended. All we have are the ANTZ claims that it's true and we believed them because we trusted them. Of course the ANTZ are going to claim it made them more addictive - they certainly weren't going to admit that it made them more a effective nicotine delivery system and that could result in people needing to smoke less. Just as they lie that smoke-free snus and other low-risk tobacco is not a "safe alternative to smoking." Their goal is to get everyone to quit all tobacco and recreational nicotine use - which is why they also hate e-cigarettes so much.
Considering the source, how can we continue to blindly accept as "fact" everything we thought we knew about BT, tobacco and nicotine?
Sure, don't trust Big Tobacco because they lied, but I don't know how anyone can trust a word of what comes from the anti-tobacco "science," either. After seeing the lies and tactics they are using against e-cigarettes, how can people trust everything they ever said was actually true about tobacco? I'm sure some of it is true, but I'm sure a lot of it is the same half-truths, twisted facts and outright lies like they tell about e-cigarettes. That includes the "fact" that the chemicals added to cigarettes actually made them more addictive. As Stubby pointed out, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to prove those chemicals worked as supposedly intended. All we have are the ANTZ claims that it's true and we believed them because we trusted them. Of course the ANTZ are going to claim it made them more addictive - they certainly weren't going to admit that it made them more a effective nicotine delivery system and that could result in people needing to smoke less. Just as they lie that smoke-free snus and other low-risk tobacco is not a "safe alternative to smoking." Their goal is to get everyone to quit all tobacco and recreational nicotine use - which is why they also hate e-cigarettes so much.
Considering the source, how can we continue to blindly accept as "fact" everything we thought we knew about BT, tobacco and nicotine?
For those who believe there's nothing more than a shredded tobacco leaf in cigarettes ...
Sweet Dreams
Sure, but even if you used so-called "organic" tobacco cigarettes, you are still inhaling smoke and still addicted to nicotine.
I'm more inclined to believe that they want us perpetually on the Quit-using-NRT/relapse/quit treadmill. Afterall, if everyone quit, there would be no need for BP's NRTs or the organizations that push them.
who cares if the added substances made anything more addictive in fact?
the point is there are added substances that were not disclosed. Big brother and big tobacco fail.
I don't hate big tobacco. They do what all business people do, make money at all costs. They're no more slimy than the FDA and all bureaucracies IMO.
In consequence I don't won't any of these clowns playing with e juice. In my naive fantasy we should remain free to keep this thing as grass roots as possible and self regulate with our dollars and voices. They can and will hurt us more than we can hurt ourselves, I truly believe that. That's what organized crime wearing the facade of regulation does. At least the mafia is honest about what they do.
now that's not gonna happen, but I can still hold the ideal as the ideal, because that's what the ideal is for.
"life is suffering"
cyrus out
the point is there are added substances that were not disclosed. Big brother and big tobacco fail.
I don't hate big tobacco. They do what all business people do, make money at all costs. They're no more slimy than the FDA and all bureaucracies IMO.
In consequence I don't won't any of these clowns playing with e juice. In my naive fantasy we should remain free to keep this thing as grass roots as possible and self regulate with our dollars and voices. They can and will hurt us more than we can hurt ourselves, I truly believe that. That's what organized crime wearing the facade of regulation does. At least the mafia is honest about what they do.
now that's not gonna happen, but I can still hold the ideal as the ideal, because that's what the ideal is for.
"life is suffering"
cyrus out
For those who believe there's nothing more than a shredded tobacco leaf in cigarettes ...
Sweet Dreams
I smoked High quality RYO cigarettes for over 10 years before I quit smoking with snus. It's about as unprocessed as you can get. I and many smoking friends I knew switched when the tax on cigarettes went through the roof. I can assure you that RYO is just as addictive, and just as harmful, as Marlboro Reds.
There are reasons why 85% of the population falsely believe smokeless tobacco is just as harmful, if not more harmful, then smoking. It's been drilled into our brains for decades. When Brad Rodu came out with studies nearly 2 decades ago showing that smokeless was dramatically less harmful then smoking he was ignored by nearly all public health groups and our own government.
The facts didn't fit into their ideology.
It has been RJR that has petitioned the FDA to allow them to place truthful labeling on cans of smokeless tobacco. I haven't heard a response from the FDA on that one. I have no doubt the alphabet soup gangs would have a hissy fit about the government telling the public the truth about the relative harm of different tobacco products. So who is it that is now lying to the public.
If truthful information had been readily available to the public for the last few decades, how many lives would have been saved from the harm of smoking. I'm guessing the numbers would be in the millions. These days its tobacco companies that are trying to get truthful information out to the public. TC that is doing everything they can to prevent it. Admittedly it is in BT's best interest if the truth is told as they are now heavily invested in smokeless tobacco, and now e-cigs, but so what. I'm not going to play political correctness with my, and everyone else's health.
So the ammonia that is in regular cigs to create the freebase effect, and all the other additives in reg cigs, that are not in RYO bacco, have no effect on the addictiveness. Sorry I dont buy it. Again we have a case of opinion being passed off as fact. I was attacked for doing the same thing. Where's the proof?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
