Nearing disaster in New York - please take action NOW to prevent e-cigarette ban.

[kristin]

Honestly, I think tobacco companies would be smart to get into ecigs and I think it could benefit us.

As a tobacco product, they'd be basically untouchable. BT would bend over backwards giving us the best devices, liquid, etc to get our business. Sure, flavors may have to be bought on the side and mixed in, but big deal.

Actually, BP is already getting into "reduced harm" by advertising their NRTs as an alternative when you can't smoke. Sound familiar? And they have all sorts of dandy flavors. BT would have the money and power to push for ecigs as reduced harm also and even keep our flavors because of it. We already know they helped write the tobacco laws - how do you think their #1 "flavor" of menthol didn't get banned?

At least the guys at BT would treat us like valuable customers and not addicted pariahs that need their help. Even if they get hit with tobacco tax, they'd still be cheaper than what BP would charge for their ecig "treatment." NRTs are 3x more expensive than cigarettes.

OK, so I'm being more than a bit facetious, but just sayin'....

 

[Hudsonkm]

Honestly, I think tobacco companies would be smart to get into ecigs and I think it could benefit us.

As a tobacco product, they'd be basically untouchable. BT would bend over backwards giving us the best devices, liquid, etc to get our business. Sure, flavors may have to be bought on the side and mixed in, but big deal.

Actually, BP is already getting into "reduced harm" by advertising their NRTs as an alternative when you can't smoke. Sound familiar? And they have all sorts of dandy flavors. BT would have the money and power to push for ecigs as reduced harm also and even keep our flavors because of it. We already know they helped write the tobacco laws - how do you think their #1 "flavor" of menthol didn't get banned?

At least the guys at BT would treat us like valuable customers and not addicted pariahs that need their help. Even if they get hit with tobacco tax, they'd still be cheaper than what BP would charge for their ecig "treatment." NRTs are 3x more expensive than cigarettes.

OK, so I'm being more than a bit facetious, but just sayin'....

Likely end up being a little more costwise but I wouldn't care at this point. As long as I don't go back to traditional tobacco cigarettes.

As a side note I think we broke the open legislation comment system

 

[Hudsonkm]

OK I didnt watch the video the first time WTBFH!
A 14 year old can easy purchase one of these? what 14 year old has 160 to drop at the mall? or a credit card?

You know I was talking to my little sister the other day, there is a gas station literally across the street from the highschool in our home town. Ten years ago, its where I started purchasing cigs...and they STILL to this day sell cigs one at a time for .25cents to teens.
Yet e-cigs are easily accessible!?

............rants some more

got a few emails to write

Not to mention that all online E-Cig suppliers will not knowingly sell to anybody under the age of 18 in the first place.

 

[natura]

Kristen- RJ and Morris test marketed e-cigs about 10 years ago in test markets and let it go..Go to PBS for details. One was basically the same as the ones we vape now.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cigarette/anat_text.html

This is why it drives me crazy... they had no problem with their test marketing and selling it..IT's NOT ANYTHING NEW here

 

[natura]

My faxes have all been received..Don't forget people there are fax services online that give you free trials!! It's not too late..It's only too late if we give up and don't do anything.

Even a short fax saying
Please I want to live a long life
PLEASE OPPOSE S7234 & A9529 as written.
If you don't ..I'm an addict and your sending me right back to a known early death

hahaha anything people come on let's rally some more

Ok so swearing might not be soo good hehe BUT maybe better then nothing! HA!

 

[timothymass]

does this mean that you can still use your ecig or is that illegal to If any body from NY needs me to ship them something let me know

 

[timothymass]

do these .......s think theyre god thats how they always think they know whats best for us you arent my f ing father quit interfering with my life i pay your salary you .......s thats fine that you want to limit the age i dont see a problem with that but im a legal tax paying law abiding citizen so get off my freakin back. This is ridiculous I hate bureaucrats the guy didnt even know what an e-cig was before entering the confrence i mean that is crazy also they were talking about how there was an undisclosed amount of nicotine and other carcinogens in the product if they are going to use that as a piece of evidence why they should be banned then they should have the specifics cause the nicotine levels are very evidently posted on every bottle of e liquid that i have purchased also the test they found carcinogens in where at such a small level that they were barely over registerible levels since the company of liquid that they found that in only one of there juices and no others has since fixed the issue i mean this is sad how they have the power to dictate this stuff to us when they have no real knowledge of what it actually is and skew the evidence to meet their wants I say again screw these .......s i hope no other states follow suite its time to vote these liberal .......s out of office

 

[D103]

Kristen- RJ and Morris test marketed e-cigs about 10 years ago in test markets and let it go..Go to PBS for details. One was basically the same as the ones we vape now.

NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | Anatomy of a Cigarette (nonFlash)

This is why it drives me crazy... they had no problem with their test marketing and selling it..IT's NOT ANYTHING NEW here

Actually if you google U.S. Patents electrical cigarettes you'll be amazed!
Phillip Morris had Patents on electrical cigarettes in 1979!! (similar to what we're using now but not as sophisticated in terms of the micro-chip and sensors, etc) but otherwise similar and certainly the same basic concepts.
When you look through all the various patents you won't believe it.

 

[D103]

Honestly, I think tobacco companies would be smart to get into ecigs and I think it could benefit us.

As a tobacco product, they'd be basically untouchable. BT would bend over backwards giving us the best devices, liquid, etc to get our business. Sure, flavors may have to be bought on the side and mixed in, but big deal.

Actually, BP is already getting into "reduced harm" by advertising their NRTs as an alternative when you can't smoke. Sound familiar? And they have all sorts of dandy flavors. BT would have the money and power to push for ecigs as reduced harm also and even keep our flavors because of it. We already know they helped write the tobacco laws - how do you think their #1 "flavor" of menthol didn't get banned?

At least the guys at BT would treat us like valuable customers and not addicted pariahs that need their help. Even if they get hit with tobacco tax, they'd still be cheaper than what BP would charge for their ecig "treatment." NRTs are 3x more expensive than cigarettes.

OK, so I'm being more than a bit facetious, but just sayin'....

Wow Kristin does the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell! Let me see if I get this: The very companies that have been supplying my tobacco cigarette habit for the past forty years (I know...I am responsible for my choice to smoke, no one made me do it) but more importantly, the very companies that have been systematically adding, painstakingly tested chemicals, specifically designed to "ENHANCE the addictive qualities of nicotine, to their cigarette products (this was never publically disclosed until someone busted them on it - (it should be actionable legally) These are the companies I want to get into-and probably take over-the e-cigarette industry?!?!?!??!
Just being ornery - no offense intended - you are probaly right in your observations. Big Tobacco likely will get into the e-cig industry and there are some benefits to that. I would be concerned about the almost unavoidable issue of Monopoly, seedy reputation and unseemingly practices, raised prices, and the very real danger they will tamper with nicotine "enhancers" in our e-liquids and cartridges. Anyway just some thoughts.

 

[kristin]

Wow Kristin does the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell! Let me see if I get this: The very companies that have been supplying my tobacco cigarette habit for the past forty years (I know...I am responsible for my choice to smoke, no one made me do it) but more importantly, the very companies that have been systematically adding, painstakingly tested chemicals, specifically designed to "ENHANCE the addictive qualities of nicotine, to their cigarette products (this was never publically disclosed until someone busted them on it - (it should be actionable legally) These are the companies I want to get into-and probably take over-the e-cigarette industry?!?!?!??!
Just being ornery - no offense intended - you are probaly right in your observations. Big Tobacco likely will get into the e-cig industry and there are some benefits to that. I would be concerned about the almost unavoidable issue of Monopoly, seedy reputation and unseemingly practices, raised prices, and the very real danger they will tamper with nicotine "enhancers" in our e-liquids and cartridges. Anyway just some thoughts.

LOL! Like I said - I was being more than a bit facetious!

 

[Johnny Blaze]

Contacted all those on NY Senate Health Committee. I'm in Jersey, but I figured it couldn't hurt to let them know my thoughts. Keep up the good fight.

 

[sherid]

Wow Kristin does the phrase "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell! Let me see if I get this: The very companies that have been supplying my tobacco cigarette habit for the past forty years (I know...I am responsible for my choice to smoke, no one made me do it) but more importantly, the very companies that have been systematically adding, painstakingly tested chemicals, specifically designed to "ENHANCE the addictive qualities of nicotine, to their cigarette products (this was never publically disclosed until someone busted them on it - (it should be actionable legally) These are the companies I want to get into-and probably take over-the e-cigarette industry?!?!?!??!
Just being ornery - no offense intended - you are probaly right in your observations. Big Tobacco likely will get into the e-cig industry and there are some benefits to that. I would be concerned about the almost unavoidable issue of Monopoly, seedy reputation and unseemingly practices, raised prices, and the very real danger they will tamper with nicotine "enhancers" in our e-liquids and cartridges. Anyway just some thoughts.

BT could not introduce a safer cigarette or e cigarette or any other alternative that claimed it was safer without claiming that cigarettes themselves were unsafe. To do so, would have bankrupted them as the health NAZIS would have gone even more lawsuit crazy. Had the health NAZIS worked with BT back in the 1950's.

In the 1950s, Philip Morris researchers already saw the potential of a "healthy" cigarette and had even begun to suggest that the company could capitalize on health concerns by admitting that cigarettes were harmful. "Evidence is building up that heavy smoking contributes to lung cancer," wrote a Philip Morris scientist in July 1958. He then suggested that the company have the "intestinal fortitude to jump to the other side of the fence," and that the company would have a "wealth of ammunition" to attack competitors who did not have safer cigarettes.

But several factors have stood in the way of the development of a safer smoke. Taking the toxins out of cigarette smoke has turned out to be a technological challenge. The biggest problem has been maintaining the taste and smoking sensations that smokers crave—so far, no company has overcome those obstacles. And industry lawyers have balked at the suggestions that cigarette makers embark on research to make safe cigarettes out of fears of the tricky legal problem such research would create for the entire industry. Patrick Sheehy, the former chief executive of British American Tobacco, wrote in 1986 that safe cigarette research would be tacit admission that cigarettes are dangerous. "In attempting to develop a "safe" cigarette you are, by implication, in danger of being interpreted as accepting the current product is unsafe, and this is not a position that I think we should take," he wrote.
NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | "Safer" Cigarettes: A History

So, really, if you are looking for someone to blame, look to the people who tied the hands of BT.

 

[the_antisheep]

NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | "Safer" Cigarettes: A History

I agree that the tobacco companies are less to blame than our screwed up legislative system, but this should raise some concern for us:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Sans-Serif]When burned, glycerin is known to be carcinogenic. It also remains unclear whether the FDA will attempt to regulate Eclipse if RJR launches it nationally.

[/FONT]With some of the reports I have seen about burnt atomizers, I believe we need to make sure we are not getting burnt glycerin. Reading over the hurdles that the tobacco companies have not been able to escape due to our government, I see that this "hobby" is in for one hell of a struggle to survive.

Good info and great link though.

 

[D103]

BT could not introduce a safer cigarette or e cigarette or any other alternative that claimed it was safer without claiming that cigarettes themselves were unsafe. To do so, would have bankrupted them as the health NAZIS would have gone even more lawsuit crazy. Had the health NAZIS worked with BT back in the 1950's.

In the 1950s, Philip Morris researchers already saw the potential of a "healthy" cigarette and had even begun to suggest that the company could capitalize on health concerns by admitting that cigarettes were harmful. "Evidence is building up that heavy smoking contributes to lung cancer," wrote a Philip Morris scientist in July 1958. He then suggested that the company have the "intestinal fortitude to jump to the other side of the fence," and that the company would have a "wealth of ammunition" to attack competitors who did not have safer cigarettes.

But several factors have stood in the way of the development of a safer smoke. Taking the toxins out of cigarette smoke has turned out to be a technological challenge. The biggest problem has been maintaining the taste and smoking sensations that smokers crave—so far, no company has overcome those obstacles. And industry lawyers have balked at the suggestions that cigarette makers embark on research to make safe cigarettes out of fears of the tricky legal problem such research would create for the entire industry. Patrick Sheehy, the former chief executive of British American Tobacco, wrote in 1986 that safe cigarette research would be tacit admission that cigarettes are dangerous. "In attempting to develop a "safe" cigarette you are, by implication, in danger of being interpreted as accepting the current product is unsafe, and this is not a position that I think we should take," he wrote.
NOVA Online | Search for a Safe Cigarette | "Safer" Cigarettes: A History

So, really, if you are looking for someone to blame, look to the people who tied the hands of BT.

"...tied the hands of BT." Give me a break....while I get your argument re: not realistically being able to produce a 'safer' cigarette' I was not Blaming them for that. I was and am blaming them for continuing to put specific chemicals into cigarettes with the specific and sole purpose of enhancing the addicitve quality of nicotine. That is unconscionable!!

 

[kristin]

I agree that the tobacco companies are less to blame than our screwed up legislative system, but this should raise some concern for us:



[/SIZE][/FONT]With some of the reports I have seen about burnt atomizers, I believe we need to make sure we are not getting burnt glycerin. Reading over the hurdles that the tobacco companies have not been able to escape due to our government, I see that this "hobby" is in for one hell of a struggle to survive.

Good info and great link though.

It's all about the levels.

The tobacco-specific nitrosamines found in FDA-approved NRTs are also carcinogenic AT SIGNIFICANT LEVELS.

So the question is - how MUCH burnt glycerine would one have to be exposed to before it is an actual risk?

 

[the_antisheep]

It's all about the levels.

The tobacco-specific nitrosamines found in FDA-approved NRTs are also carcinogenic AT SIGNIFICANT LEVELS.

So the question is - how MUCH burnt glycerine would one have to be exposed to before it is an actual risk?

That's a good question? Do we have an answer?

We do have an answer for the former. I have researched enough to know the answer to #1 is the FDA is "blowing smoke."

I suppose the second question, if our devices are correctly working, shouldn't be a concern at all, in theory, right?

 

[trukinlady]

I found some good info in another thread: e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/88059-why.html.

It makes you wonder.

 

[whiskey]

That's a good question? Do we have an answer?

We do have an answer for the former. I have researched enough to know the answer to #1 is the FDA is "blowing smoke."

I suppose the second question, if our devices are correctly working, shouldn't be a concern at all, in theory, right?

Somewhere in here there's a chemist that helps out with these types of questions. Maybe he or she can help us out with the Glycerin issues?

 

[kristin]

From what I found, burned glycerine creates Acrolein, which some claim causes cancer, but that is contested:

Biodiesel sites often describe acrolein as a known carcinogen. However this CDC site indicates that: "There are no definitive studies on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in people or animals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that acrolein is not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity." also: "HIGHLIGHTS: Exposure to acrolein occurs mostly from breathing it in the air. Cigarette smoke and automobile exhaust contain acrolein. Acrolein causes burning of the nose and throat and can damage the lungs." However it also says: "There is very little information about how exposure to acrolein affects people's health. The information we have indicates that breathing large amounts damages the lungs and could cause death. Breathing lower amounts may cause eye watering and burning of the nose and throat and a decreased breathing rate." Now clearly breathing acrolein is not healthful but I would bet the carbon monoxide (from burning glycerin) would get you before the acrolein would. That is, there are many reasons you should not breath in combustion products, acrolein is just one of them. Why is there such a focus on acrolein in regards to glycerin and SVO? Also acrolein is produced from burning many (most? all?) carbon containing fuels such as gasoline, wood, leaves (tobacco!), and charcoal. Does glycerin produce more acrolein than most? I have not seen any data to indicate that it does, has anyone else? (My guess is the "smokier" the burn the more acrolein and other bad stuff you produce.) Burning glycerin may be no more dangerous than burning wood.

Considering the tiny amount of emissions from burnt propylene glycol (which I'm not even sure behaves EXACTLY the same way as ALL glycerines) that vapers MAY get, it's still probably 98% safer than smoking tobacco. As soon as people get that "burnt taste" they refill or change their atty.

Keep your atty wet and it shouldn't even be an issue.

 

[kristin]

IMPORTANT!! http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-sign-petition-raise-awareness-ecig-bans.html