New Indoor Bans - Please Help!

[Vocalek]

I have been fighting against the enemy since March of 2009. So far, I have not had to refute one word coming from Big tobacco. All of the lies have come from the organizations that have been harranging us to stop smoking since forever: FDA, WHO, ALA, ACS, AHA, CTFK, ASH, AMA, etc. etc. Coincidentally every single one of these organizations receives funding from Big Pharmaceutical companies that make/sell useless smoking-cessation treatments.

Imho, Vocalek, if you(meaning the generic 'you' as in anyone) want to make a clear point the gov will consider and keep vaping, stay healthy/improve your health, you can't unilaterally diss ALL quit smoking products...not in this context.

Those who vape have had no success with other quit-smoking products, however, the reality is many work for many people. Like anything else, no one product works for everyone. If there was no demand (based on this fact) e-cigs would have no supply.

The point was not to "diss" the FDA-approved and AMA-recommended quit-smoking products. I should not have said "useless" because they do have their uses. More precise language would have been "relatively ineffective." In my case, nicotine gum did help me to reduce the amount smoked but was not enough nicotine to get me totally off cancer sticks.

The point was that the organizations that are busting their butts to drive e-cigs off the market have a financial incentive do do so. They get monetary donations (or in the case of FDA, user fees) from Big Pharma. Given how underpowered their recommended nicotine products are, the FDA and other Alphabet Soup Gang members should not be allowed to shove those down our throats as the only available nicotine source.

Science has proven smoking analogs is deadly as is second-hand smoke. That gives others the right to protest ANALOGS. It's irrational to protest e-cigs.

If the goal is to save lives, then yes it is irrational to protest e-cigs. If the goal is to keep Big Pharma donations rolling in, then for those organizations, it is rational to protest e-cigs. Not ethical, certainly, but rational.

Those 4,000 chemicals are not ADDED to cigarettes. They are created by the process of combustion through the chemical changes that occur when vegetation is burned.

I had no idea embalming fluid, rat poison, xyclone-X(used in WW11 gas chambers) and anti-freeze to name 1000x less chemicals than the 4000 in a suicide stick, are made by burning tobacco. It's amazing morticians and car mechanics have any life span, not to mention the people who work in tobacco fields!

If I'm mistaken that the last paragraph wasn't pure sarcasm, then I apologize. On the chance that you were being sarcastic, here is what the Canadian government has to say about the subject. Tobacco: Behind the Smoke - What Happens When Tobacco Burns?

When a cigarette burns, the chemicals in the tobacco are changed into new chemicals!

Many of these new chemicals are toxic.

Chemicals found in tobacco plant
•Sugars
•Minerals
•Water
•Nicotine
•Proteins
•Chlorophyll
•and more...

Chemicals found in dried tobacco
•Sugars
•Minerals
•Water
•Nicotine
•Proteins
•and more...

There are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke including:
•Hydrogen Cyanide
•Tar
•Formaldehyde
•Benzene
•Carbon Monoxide
•Nicotine
•and more...

We have several chemists on this forum. If I am mistaken about combustion making molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen recombine into substances that were not there before the substance was burned, let them speak up now!

My point is, this is all documented, in part, through 1800-NO-BUTTS, a gov sponsored quit smoking program - on paper. BT knows and has known as long as the Surgeon General's warning has been on a box of analogs, what they put in their products.

Couple of questions for you:
1. As soon as the Surgeon General learned that tobacco companies were ADDING formaldehyde, benzine, etc. into the tobacco, why did he do nothing to stop it?
2. What do the tobacco companies have to gain by purposly adding poisons that serve no practical purpose? If they have to go out and buy those chemicals to add in, it costs more to manufacture the products. If they kill off their customers more rapidly, they lose revenue.

Take out e-cigs and bye-bye Big Tobacco. Which has done the most damage to people?

You may have fallen victim to some of the propaganda put out by the Tobacco Control Community. Are you aware of the fact that the required warning labels on smokeless products ("THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING") are so misleading that 85% of the public thinks (erroneously) that every other tobacco product is just as harmful as smoking? If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go to this site and read, read, read: Tobaccoharmreduction.org

Especially read the sections on Harm Reduction, Smokeless Tobacco, and All About Nicotine.

And just like your point that the Big Pharma products fill a need, the smoke-free products manufactured by Big Tobacco fill an important need. Many e-cigarette users have had problems staying off the smokes and have found that adding some snus takes care of the problem for them. Low nitrosamine Swedish snus reduces the risks of smoking-related disease and death by 99%. If the FDA doesn't succeed in outlawing every safer tobacco product first, U.S. tobacco companies will have no choice but to follow in the footsteps of the Swedish companies and reduce the nitrosamines in their products.

The problem is a lack of education about e-cigs amongst the majority of people who look at an e-cig not knowing they aren't at risk. THAT is what is being played on.

We are in agreement here.

If it ends up that BT is permitted to make and sell e-cigs, at least there will be a legal source for us to go to. The FDA has the responsibility to ensure that manufacturing standards are followed, that products are properly labeled, that packaging is safe, etc. They have this authority through the Tobacco Act.

Are you worried about risks of e-cigs cause it sounds more like you are against them than for what is now a peaceful trade agreement w/ China.

You're the one who said you would not trust Big Tobacco to manufacture e-cigs. You then went on about the 4000 poisons that BT adds to tobacco. I was pointing out that you won't need to worry about BT adding 4000 chemicals to your cartridges. The only way BT will ever start making e-cigs is if the FDA agrees to (or is forced to) regulate e-cigs as tobacco products under the Tobacco Act. The FDA would impose regulations to guard against adulteration of the products, regardless of who manufactured them.

Final point: If you can say "it sounds like you're against them" (e-cigarettes) with a straight face, WOW, you are quite unfamiliar with my writings. Try my blog: The Truth About Nicotine.

P.S. You might like this document as well. http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA Position Statement.pdf

 

[westcoast2]

I bleive WOW made this comment

They're all going to shoot themselves in the foot trying to kill off segments of society by not pulling 4000 deadly chemicals soon enough to spare millions of people from too often, unaffordable health care - THEY knowingly caused by exploiting, especially children.

Vocalek answered the 4000 chemical issue.

As documented at Dr Siegel's blog, RJ Reynolds did remove all additives from their Winston brand.

Laboratory studies conducted on the re-formulated Winston cigarettes confirmed that these products were in fact 100% tobacco with no additives.

Anti-smoking groups complained and RJ Reynolds were made to add a disclaimer - "No additives does not mean a safer cigarette."

More at The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary Will World Health Organization Declare that Winston Cigarettes are Safer and/or Less Enticing to Kids than Other Cigarettes?

I think it was North Dakota that introduced a bill to ban all cigarettes from sale in the state. Who objected? The anti-smoking alphabet soup brigade.

As for E-cigs, I believe they can stand on their own merits as a choice, an alternative to cigarettes without the need to bring vitriole or denormalization on people who make different choices.

 

[WOW]

Frankly, you sound more like an anti-smoker than a former smoker converted to e cigs. Are you?

I have no idea how anyone can be pro analogs and pro-e-ecigs at the same time. It's a double hypocrisy that makes you sound harassing.

If you want to rephrase your question, I'll consider giving you a straight answer on a thread where it makes a difference. This thread is not about what you are talking about.

 

[friskyweasel]

This piece of trash written by one of the sponsoring Albany County legislators needs more responses!

Albany County Legislature ban sale of E-cigaret...

An excerpt: "The Albany County legislature finds and determines that these unregulated high tech smoking devices, called e-cigarettes contain vaporized liquid nicotine also contain glycol {the same thing as car antifreeze} substituted by the chinese manufacturing companies.

The Vapors are expelled via a cartridge that is made to look like a cigarette or pipe or cigar.

These vapors blown out by the smoker is the same a traditional cigarette, just as toxic. Indistinguishable!"

"These vapors blown out by the smoker is the same a traditional cigarette, just as toxic. Indistinguishable!"

grrrrrrr.... ... Grrrrrr.... ....GRRRRRRRR

 

[sherid]

I have no idea how anyone can be pro analogs and pro-e-ecigs at the same time. It's a double hypocrisy that makes you sound harassing.

If you want to rephrase your question, I'll consider giving you a straight answer on a thread where it makes a difference. This thread is not about what you are talking about.

I am not "pro cigarettes" I am also not against smoking. I am pro alternative for those who no longer wish to smoke cigarettes. E cigs provide one choice for all who make that decision. I wish to keep that option open. At the same time, I am totally against the prohibition of tobacco sales and use as well as frivolous lawsuits against companies that provided a product you chose to use even after decades of warnings. It is time for some simple personal responsibility for the choices we make, including the decision to continue smoking and the additional choice to use tobacco alternatives like e cigarettes.

 

[WOW]

Thank-you.

THAT IS a good debate stance! THAT is going to make people listen.

(btw, maybe a tad sarcastic but a lay person, isn't going to get the details, only the bottom line, of what is in an analog. That was my intent to point out - think about that cause it's all about public opinion that gains or loses support)

e-cigs being a BP, though? OT but that's like hoping beer is covered by health insurance because of it's benefits. There's not an ethical physician in the nation who wants or has time to listen patients place prescription orders on batt colors and juice flavors and ethical is rational & visa-versa in a free market.

Honestly, my problem with these threads, outside your post here, is the insane amount of fear that doesn't coincide with the law Gov Schwartzeneggar used to keep a safe alt. to analogs available to adults.

Technically, the FDA can't do anything unless the Federal Law changes and if the Federal Law changes, it's the end of BT. The implications are so severe I find it highly unlikely it will happen. I think the harassment of people choosing e-cigs can be addressed through education - like the firm but calm way you posted facts. It's possible to stop the harassment.

That's all.

The point was not to "diss" the FDA-approved and AMA-recommended quit-smoking products. I should not have said "useless" because they do have their uses. More precise language would have been "relatively ineffective." In my case, nicotine gum did help me to reduce the amount smoked but was not enough nicotine to get me totally off cancer sticks.

The point was that the organizations that are busting their butts to drive e-cigs off the market have a financial incentive do do so. They get monetary donations (or in the case of FDA, user fees) from Big Pharma. Given how underpowered their recommended nicotine products are, the FDA and other Alphabet Soup Gang members should not be allowed to shove those down our throats as the only available nicotine source.

If the goal is to save lives, then yes it is irrational to protest e-cigs. If the goal is to keep Big Pharma donations rolling in, then for those organizations, it is rational to protest e-cigs. Not ethical, certainly, but rational.

If I'm mistaken that the last paragraph wasn't pure sarcasm, then I apologize. On the chance that you were being sarcastic, here is what the Canadian government has to say about the subject. Tobacco: Behind the Smoke - What Happens When Tobacco Burns?


We have several chemists on this forum. If I am mistaken about combustion making molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen recombine into substances that were not there before the substance was burned, let them speak up now!

Couple of questions for you:
1. As soon as the Surgeon General learned that tobacco companies were ADDING formaldehyde, benzine, etc. into the tobacco, why did he do nothing to stop it?
2. What do the tobacco companies have to gain by purposly adding poisons that serve no practical purpose? If they have to go out and buy those chemicals to add in, it costs more to manufacture the products. If they kill off their customers more rapidly, they lose revenue.

You may have fallen victim to some of the propaganda put out by the Tobacco Control Community. Are you aware of the fact that the required warning labels on smokeless products ("THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING") are so misleading that 85% of the public thinks (erroneously) that every other tobacco product is just as harmful as smoking? If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go to this site and read, read, read: Tobaccoharmreduction.org

Especially read the sections on Harm Reduction, Smokeless Tobacco, and All About Nicotine.

And just like your point that the Big Pharma products fill a need, the smoke-free products manufactured by Big Tobacco fill an important need. Many e-cigarette users have had problems staying off the smokes and have found that adding some snus takes care of the problem for them. Low nitrosamine Swedish snus reduces the risks of smoking-related disease and death by 99%. If the FDA doesn't succeed in outlawing every safer tobacco product first, U.S. tobacco companies will have no choice but to follow in the footsteps of the Swedish companies and reduce the nitrosamines in their products.

We are in agreement here.

You're the one who said you would not trust Big Tobacco to manufacture e-cigs. You then went on about the 4000 poisons that BT adds to tobacco. I was pointing out that you won't need to worry about BT adding 4000 chemicals to your cartridges. The only way BT will ever start making e-cigs is if the FDA agrees to (or is forced to) regulate e-cigs as tobacco products under the Tobacco Act. The FDA would impose regulations to guard against adulteration of the products, regardless of who manufactured them.

Final point: If you can say "it sounds like you're against them" (e-cigarettes) with a straight face, WOW, you are quite unfamiliar with my writings. Try my blog: The Truth About Nicotine.

P.S. You might like this document as well. http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA Position Statement.pdf

 

[WOW]

I live in IN also, an will do what I can to stop this along with a few of my friends

Right on, mmcall!

 

[WOW]

Thanks sherid! I can 'hear' you here. (having some personal stress right now)

I am against smoking for myself. I am against the very thing I wasn't against while I was doing it. I'm also empathetic to smoker's who don't know about e-cigs and/or don't have the $ upfront to switch to be 'asked' to stand in the snow or rain to get a nic-fix. I think it's awful that people diminish the humanity of a person who smokes to an ameoba(sp?) imply that a smoker doesn't care if they catch pnuemonia because they have an addiction. It's false. It's degrading. It's discriminatory and with an open window and fan, businesses can make indoor smoking areas to treat people with a smoking addiction more humanely.

Now, there's alternatives and the same people who said they cared so much to see smoker's quit, who probably run weed-whackers on Sundays that emit more airborne dust, dirt and gasoline into the environment than an e-cig ever can, are offended by vapor. These same people probably would have a problem with the steam off a cup of hot chocolate being blown out of a straw that looks like an analog. They're as ....-retentive as they come.

I do believe BT has a bigger responsibility for all the advertising they used to do and for making things that kids can buy and put drugs in to smoke, marketed as candy cigars. I'm against anything advertised that lures minors into making choices they are too young to make that can cost them their lives. These are products for adults only. I started analogs when I was 10.

I see BT as needing this ridiculous fight to divert responsibility, which would cost them mega $'s and not caring to define the thin line that makes their products deadly and e-cigs a healthy alternative. I could be wrong on this point as being productive to debate about but, I believe e-cigs are being blamed for the shortcomings (to be civil about it) of BT and despite the facts, some politicians who obviously don't want to be re-elected, are helping what is nothing more than social harassment by a group of .... retentive, bs'ers who never cared about smokers in the first place - they wanted a brawl and will keep looking for one. I don't think that's what gov should waste tax dollars on during a recession and a war. All those resources could help schools and kids in so many ways and prevent them from lures in many areas of society - not only nicotine.

I also wouldn't bet my life on anything you say you would trust about BT. I risked it once and once was enough. just saying. Not to throw a dig at you but, when I switched to e-cigs I meant it for a change in my health for the long term. I just don't see BT as having any redeeming quality about them. I can't say the same about e-cigs. Can you - honestly?

We have, for once, something peaceful going on w/ China. What more do these ...... harassing us over what science can't prove, want? It helps the economy and we're still treated like scum by some who need a major attitude adjustment and some education about what e-cigs are. That's just my opinion.

I couldn't agree with you more about open options. I just wish those making this into a crusade against e-cigs would think about the resources they are provoking a waste of. It's sad, really & it makes me to be sad for doing the right thing for myself and others because of such senseless harassment.



I don't think it helps anyone.

k?

I am not "pro cigarettes" I am also not against smoking. I am pro alternative for those who no longer wish to smoke cigarettes. E cigs provide one choice for all who make that decision. I wish to keep that option open. At the same time, I am totally against the prohibition of tobacco sales and use as well as frivolous lawsuits against companies that provided a product you chose to use even after decades of warnings. It is time for some simple personal responsibility for the choices we make, including the decision to continue smoking and the additional choice to use tobacco alternatives like e cigarettes.

 

[bassnut]

If R. J. Reynolds were to come out with a better e-cig, I'd use it.

 

[t9c]

If R. J. Reynolds were to come out with a better e-cig, I'd use it.

I doubt it'd be any better than what we now have or what else will be out by the time they do. But they'll certainly market it as better. And as someone else stated on ECF, they have 40,000+ storefronts to sell them at. But they'll never be the best. BT will follow BO's campaign as the "leaders" in alternative energy research as soon as the FDA aligns with BT's strategy. Also we'll end up with is a huge black or grey market of foreign competition ala the current cheap pharmaceuticals from India & Malaysia. Successful strategies always seem to repeat themselves.

My anyway.

 

[sherid]

Thanks sherid! I can 'hear' you here. (having some personal stress right now)

I am against smoking for myself. I am against the very thing I wasn't against while I was doing it. I'm also empathetic to smoker's who don't know about e-cigs and/or don't have the $ upfront to switch to be 'asked' to stand in the snow or rain to get a nic-fix. I think it's awful that people diminish the humanity of a person who smokes to an ameoba(sp?) imply that a smoker doesn't care if they catch pnuemonia because they have an addiction. It's false. It's degrading. It's discriminatory and with an open window and fan, businesses can make indoor smoking areas to treat people with a smoking addiction more humanely.

Now, there's alternatives and the same people who said they cared so much to see smoker's quit, who probably run weed-whackers on Sundays that emit more airborne dust, dirt and gasoline into the environment than an e-cig ever can, are offended by vapor. These same people probably would have a problem with the steam off a cup of hot chocolate being blown out of a straw that looks like an analog. They're as ....-retentive as they come.

I do believe BT has a bigger responsibility for all the advertising they used to do and for making things that kids can buy and put drugs in to smoke, marketed as candy cigars. I'm against anything advertised that lures minors into making choices they are too young to make that can cost them their lives. These are products for adults only. I started analogs when I was 10.

I see BT as needing this ridiculous fight to divert responsibility, which would cost them mega $'s and not caring to define the thin line that makes their products deadly and e-cigs a healthy alternative. I could be wrong on this point as being productive to debate about but, I believe e-cigs are being blamed for the shortcomings (to be civil about it) of BT and despite the facts, some politicians who obviously don't want to be re-elected, are helping what is nothing more than social harassment by a group of .... retentive, bs'ers who never cared about smokers in the first place - they wanted a brawl and will keep looking for one. I don't think that's what gov should waste tax dollars on during a recession and a war. All those resources could help schools and kids in so many ways and prevent them from lures in many areas of society - not only nicotine.

I also wouldn't bet my life on anything you say you would trust about BT. I risked it once and once was enough. just saying. Not to throw a dig at you but, when I switched to e-cigs I meant it for a change in my health for the long term. I just don't see BT as having any redeeming quality about them. I can't say the same about e-cigs. Can you - honestly?

We have, for once, something peaceful going on w/ China. What more do these ...... harassing us over what science can't prove, want? It helps the economy and we're still treated like scum by some who need a major attitude adjustment and some education about what e-cigs are. That's just my opinion.

I couldn't agree with you more about open options. I just wish those making this into a crusade against e-cigs would think about the resources they are provoking a waste of. It's sad, really & it makes me to be sad for doing the right thing for myself and others because of such senseless harassment.



I don't think it helps anyone.

k?

I agree with you on most points. I disagree that it is the job of vapers to coerce smokers into vaping. My view is that if I like vaping, great. If a smoker asks questions, I am happy to answer. Otherwise, like smoking, it is just another choice I have made for myself. Others are free to do the same....or not.

 

[bassnut]

I doubt it'd be any better than what we now have or what else will be out by the time they do. But they'll certainly market it as better. And as someone else stated on ECF, they have 40,000+ storefronts to sell them at. But they'll never be the best. BT will follow BO's campaign as the "leaders" in alternative energy research as soon as the FDA aligns with BT's strategy. Also we'll end up with is a huge black or grey market of foreign competition ala the current cheap pharmaceuticals from India & Malaysia. Successful strategies always seem to repeat themselves.

My anyway.

If they did come out with a better e-cig I'd use it and I'd have no problem buying e-juice (or whatever the medium would be) from any of their 40,000+ storefronts if I liked it.

I'm trying to make the point that I don't see BT as being necessarily evil.
They may yet have something good to offer.
As was stated earlier, I made the choice to smoke and consequentially become a nicotine addict.

If BT came out with a better, safer alternative, I'd use it. Why not?
If I really wanted to be a purist or even seek "revenge" against tobacco growers and the tobacco industry in general, I'd quit nicotine altogether.

 

[WOW]

Where did I say that vapers are responsible to coerce smokers to vaping? I don't think I did.

Education allows information so smokers can make whatever decision they want. Are you saying education is coercion? (I might agree if it's false or wreckless education(unless all teacher's vape so as to be discriminatorily classified as vapers vs teachers), educating children about the science of nic addiction is equal in my opinion to teaching kids about fire prevention or how to dial #911 and a teacher's responsibility but, we're talking about adults, right?
(Cause, now, just FYI, is not the best time for me to chat w/ you about the probs in the (formal) school system for either kids or advanced ed for adults - just not today - having a really over stressed day here but open to discussing it another time))

I agree, informing others the choice of an alternative by vapers to smokers is a courtesy, not an obligation but, really, where did I say or imply otherwise so I can correct it as I don't think what you read I think.

I agree with you on most points. I disagree that it is the job of vapers to coerce smokers into vaping. My view is that if I like vaping, great. If a smoker asks questions, I am happy to answer. Otherwise, like smoking, it is just another choice I have made for myself. Others are free to do the same....or not.

 

[WOW]

If I really wanted to be a purist or even seek "revenge" against tobacco growers and the tobacco industry in general, I'd quit nicotine altogether.

I have to ask - seriously I don't get it - why does focus of analogs vs e-cigs always come down to the nic and not the abscence of tobacco? I really don't understand. If the burning of tobacco to make analogs causes many of the chemical dangers then is chewing tobacco (responsible for mouth cancer) a burnt tobacco, also?

I sense ya might say cause nic is addictive. So is alcohol which is also legal.

Maybe I'm in denial but, if hypothetically, Bud Weiser caused alcoholism and Pabst Blue Ribbon, making the same product didn't, would it really be revenge (or 'revenge') to avoid products made by the former?

There's nicotine in asthma medication and there's alcohol in cough syrup. I just don't get it when e-cigs let you choose the mg and BT doesn't and e-cig companies that are reputable, advise people before purchasing anything, if they've never smoked, that nic is addictive. Someone show me one box of analogs with an addiction warning on the side made before tomorrow.

Maybe it's the difference between supporting big business over small business? I don't know but, I don't feel vengeful at all to not trust BT. Can't say I'm forgiving of their knowingly keeping their deadly products on the market after science proved the connection however, revenge is not imho, re-iterating what everyone already knows - not against BT. If a person wants to use analogs, like an alcoholic who knows their intake messes up their personal, employment and physical health, what do facts mean to them? It's just a punishing lecture that becomes an excuse to drink too much. iow, the focus always coming down to nic 'because it's addictive' seems equally as already out-there.

Why don't tobacco growers use tobacco to make scented things, like candles or something? They already know how to add menthol and fruit flavors to tobacco.

Sorry but, I just don't get what you're saying/assuming about others who have learned to not trust huge companies that have a long record of selling dangerous products for human 'consumption' by blinding consumers about the addiction risk - knowingly.

You don't have to justify, as an adult, that you would trust BT with your life. It's your life. But, why the nic focus, on the topic of e-cig bans?

Seems both redundant and a misconception about anyone who wouldn't trust BT again, doesn't it?

 

[sherid]

Where did I say that vapers are responsible to coerce smokers to vaping? I don't think I did.

Education allows information so smokers can make whatever decision they want. Are you saying education is coercion? (I might agree if it's false or wreckless education(unless all teacher's vape so as to be discriminatorily classified as vapers vs teachers), educating children about the science of nic addiction is equal in my opinion to teaching kids about fire prevention or how to dial #911 and a teacher's responsibility but, we're talking about adults, right?
(Cause, now, just FYI, is not the best time for me to chat w/ you about the probs in the (formal) school system for either kids or advanced ed for adults - just not today - having a really over stressed day here but open to discussing it another time))

I agree, informing others the choice of an alternative by vapers to smokers is a courtesy, not an obligation but, really, where did I say or imply otherwise so I can correct it as I don't think what you read I think.

Sorry you are having a hard time today. I am a teacher in the public school system, so I guess we should save that discussion for another day.

 

[kristin]

I have to ask - seriously I don't get it - why does focus of analogs vs e-cigs always come down to the nic and not the abscence of tobacco? I really don't understand. If the burning of tobacco to make analogs causes many of the chemical dangers then is chewing tobacco (responsible for mouth cancer) a burnt tobacco, also?

Sorry but, I just don't get what you're saying/assuming about others who have learned to not trust huge companies that have a long record of selling dangerous products for human 'consumption' by blinding consumers about the addiction risk - knowingly.

You don't have to justify, as an adult, that you would trust BT with your life. It's your life. But, why the nic focus, on the topic of e-cig bans?

Seems both redundant and a misconception about anyone who wouldn't trust BT again, doesn't it?

First off, by saying chewing tobacco is "responsible for mouth cancer" you have been hoodwinked NOT by Big Tobacco, but by the anti-tobacco fanatics. Smokeless tobacco has 20-50% the risk of causing mouth cancer than cigarettes and a 1-2% risk overall. The antis have overblown the risks and withheld this vital information from the public and prohibited Big Tobacco from letting the public know (through advertising) that smokeless tobacco is a 98-99% safer alternative to smoking. So, who shouldn't be trusted now?

The CEO's of the Big Tobacco cover-up years are all long gone. (Not to say that they don't still lobby the legislatures and use politics to their advatage - but obviously, the legislatures are going along with it, so who is the bad guys?) The true health risks of smoking hasn't been a secret for 20 years or more. That "long history" IS history. No one can claim that Big Tobacco is still "blinding consumers" about the risks of cigarette addiction unless they've been living under a rock.

If anyone is blinding consumers about the risks of tobacco, it's public health groups who are making sure that the ONLY tobacco products available on the market are deadly tobacco cigarettes - by attempting to ban safer options such as e-cigarettes, snus and tobacco dissolvables/lozenges and LIE to the public about the fact that smokeless tobacco use isn't any more dangerous than habitually drinking coffee. So they keep smokers in the dark and let them die. And they've known this for 20+ years - so many of the vapers here on this forum could possibly have been smoke-free YEARS ago. So, who REALLY shouldn't be trusted?

To place the blame for the continued availability of cigarettes on the market only on Big Tobacco is naively ignoring the HUGE dependence upon tobacco tax revenues by the government, the BILLIONS of dollars collected by Big Pharma dependent upon the constant influx of smokers, the anti-tobacco/public health groups, whose very existence is based on funding from Big Pharma and finally, consumer demand - which all support BT. So, why blame only BT? They just sell what everyone wants. They even make it in much less harmful forms - smokeless alternatives - but all of these other groups have chosen cigarettes over the safer options, giving BT no reason to want to eliminate them from their line of products. We aren't talking about contanimated water here - this is a product that people CHOOSE to use, in spite of the well-known risks. You can't blame BT for selling cigarettes any more than you can demonize companies who sell junk food, alcohol or guns.

Big Tobacco will do what it takes to make money and e-cigs could make them money AND eliminate the bad image problem. They have been trying for years to offer alternatives that would be embraced by smokers - they developed better smokeless options, better flavors and attempted to develop less hazardous products. There have been marketing wars between companies to gain smoker loyalty. That wouldn't change if they got into the e-cigarette market. They would constantly be trying to improve the product and make it more appealing to vapers to win their business. There is no reason to believe that they would need to put in toxic or bad ingredients - as soon as word got out, that would dissolve their market share. The whole selling point of e-cigs is better health. They'd be stupid to risk that in this age of information. The fact that there are sellers worldwide and that e-cigs can be bought online will always be at the back of their minds. In order to beat them out and win consumers over, they'll have to offer the best.

Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, are more arrogant, IMO. They have the FDA and general public trust on their side. They'll charge what they want, make it as crappy as they want and expect people to put up with it. That's what they do with the "effective" nicotine products they put out now.

Personally, I'm more concerned that the public health groups are covering up the fact that smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes are a safe alternative and lying to the public. I find that much more abhorrent than even what BT did in lying about the health effects of smoking. No one expects BT to look out for anyone but their own bottom line - they are a business. But public health is supposed to be in the business of looking out for consumers and they are knowingly letting them die. It almost makes me say I'd start smoking again before ever using an NRT! 8-o I certainly would use smokeless tobacco before ever giving my money to Big Pharma or letting the smug nannies in public health get their way!

The reason it comes down to nicotine and not just tobacco, is because tobacco isn't the cause for all of the health issues - it's the smoke. And one HUGE reason many people smoke is for the nicotine and nicotine COMES from tobacco - whether it's in a tobacco leaf product, e-cigarette liquid or NRTs.

So, in order to be a purist or seek "revenge" on BT (or BP), as Bassnut was saying, you'd have to give up nicotine altogether. Because, so long as you use nicotine, you are still supporting Big Tobacco.

Anyhow, that's just how I feel about it. I can't speak for anyone else.

 

[WOW]

nicotine COMES from tobacco - whether it's in a tobacco leaf product, e-cigarette liquid or NRTs.

Thank-you.

 

[WOW]

Sorry you are having a hard time today. I am a teacher in the public school system, so I guess we should save that discussion for another day.

Thanks for your understanding. I'd be happy to discuss this w/you another day - soon I hope...

You can pm me if you like. Hopefully, tomorrow will be better.

 

[Altmed]

Hello,

As you may have read, we are facing indoor bans in Northhampton MA, Albany County NY and Lowell IN. Once these indoor bans start, it's going to be hard to stop them. We need to get as many vapers to the public hearings for these two ordinances as possible. Please, if you live anywhere near either of these areas try to attend and speak out!

Northhampton:
City Hall, 210 Main Street,
Northampton, MA 01060
July 22nd,
6:30-7:30pm Council Hearing Room, 2nd Floor

Albany County: ,
112 State Street,
Albany, New York
First floor Cahill Room
7:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 [see below]

Date change / update - See this note on the Albany date:
Link removed - I need o post more!

Lowell, IN
501 E Main St
Lowell, IN
Town Hall
Monday August 9, 2010 at 7pm*****DATE CHANGED
219 696 7794
(please call to confirm time and location)

After tomorrow, there will be more information available at vaperscoalition DOT org

Also, don't forget we are still trying to raise enough money to fund the IVAQS study. This study will look at air quality issues involving the exhaled particulates of e-cigs. We NEED this study to help fight the indoor bans. Please give what you can to either CASAA or NVC.

Thank you!

Hi all
I don't dispute at all that "2nd hand smoke" from a chemically-laden plant s dangerous, as is first hand. What I find interesting is that there seems to be a hysteria-laden pack of idiots now trying to ban "e-Cigarettes" or personal vaporizers, which simply do not have the harmful chemicals (although the FDA found a "single batch" of foreign e-cigs that apparently contained di-ethelyne glycol.

There seems to have been some hysteria with absolutely NO backing whatsoever the FDA tried to stir up, and thankfully a judge decided the FDA was far over-stepping their bounds when it came to regulation of personal vaporizers and refill liquid.

Sure di-ethelyne glycol can be harmful harmful, yet it is also found in many, many foods we eat, and there are far worse things added to our foods, but the "FOOD AND DRUG" Administration that it seems should be taking care of our "foods" and our "drug" safety - NOT making hysteria about a safer substance that is neither!

eCigs are FAR safer, but some people just want to be control freaks as they drink their monster drinks laden with guarana, morman tea, etc. which BTW makes others around them sick to even be near. Diet sodas are a caffeine delivery system w/ toxins in them. Diet sodas & any foods with the food additive aspartamine make many, many people ill and aspartamine can act as a neurotoxin, so who's minding the food store? Gassing apples with carcinogens to ripen them isn't healthy (& BTW, when they ripen, many fruits put out their own chemicals naturally, some of which are carcinogens.) So the chemicals tobacco naturaly puts out (NOT counting the additives) may just be safer than eating an apple, as often times those are gassed with carcinogens to ripen them. Our meat is irradiated to add to its shelf life, so it too is altered,but we aren't afforded the labeling that tells us just how much or if this has even been done because of the food lobby.

"All natural" has become absolutely meaningless and talk about "addicting", high fructose corn syrup - some studies have shown - is more addictive than ....... and kids that drink eat foods containing high fructose corn syrup are, according to some studies, many times more likely to become methamphetamine and ....... users when they grow up, and there seems to be a direct relationship between the altered corn syrup and later addictions to extremely harmful street drugs!

So we should take a serious look at these and outlaw eating apples, chips, etc. in public and, as studies have shown, dangerous food additives in less expensive fake "fruit juices", chips with additives KNOWN to make people more hungry and thus diet foods create a more obese society, as children share what's in their lunches at school.

Some additives are known to cause ADHD in children and adults, which can create long-term health problems.

At least non-altered tobacco, nicotine derived from non-altered tobacco are natural, and thus FAR safer than genetically altered tobacco, fruits and vegetables.

There are some studies out now that strongly suggest that nicotine is far less addictive, or possibly not addictive, IF unaltered, at all, and that it is the additives that are the addictive substances in tobacco.

If we keep it natural, as God meant it to be, our foods, medicines (many of which contain PG and/or PEG or even DEG) will have us becoming a far healthier society!

If we are going to force tobacco companies to pay for smoking cessation products, which BTW generally contain nicotine which comes from guess where? Tobacco! And yep! They sell it too! Synthetically produced nicotine may actually cause one to become more addicted to the altered substance, as it acts slightly different in the body & is far more addictive...

Then that brings us to chemically synthesized nicotinic acid, nicotinamide and niacinamide... If you don't know what that is, try looking at your vitamins an again, "enriched foods" that have vitamin B3 added! B3 is a vitamin we need to survive, yet the lab-created vitamin is questionable at best, but is thought to be "healthy".

Natural sources of B3 include salmon, chicken breast, asparagus, halibut,dairy products, poultry, fish, lean meats, nuts, eggs, Legumes, enriched breads (likely tobacco/ lab source), sheep liver, prawns, pork, meats, rice bran, wheat bran and cow's milk..

So... perhaps we should outlaw food as well?

Oh wait, we can't do that! We'd all have pellagra! But since the FDA in the late 80's found ONE contaminated shipment of tryptophan and thus outlawed it being sold as a supplement by itself for years (and may still be on the banned natural substances list) we might get pellegra anyhow, as tryptophan plays a role in B3 utilization!

If you think every time a smoker quits that it is a victory, perhaps every person that became an anorexic or developed pellegra would be one too?

Some smokers' health is hanging by a thread, and NOT because they quit smoking, but because they did! eCigs are a good alternative, as long as the nicotine they are getting is a natural source.

Synthetic vitamin B1 is made form coal tar, formaldehyde is used to make synthetic vitamin B6.

I could go on and on, but these are called, "Natural", when they CLEARLY are not, and are FAR less absorbable by the body.

Next time you buy ANY food that is "enriched (say milk & bread or cereal for example), you might think about what you are really eating yourself or what you are feeding your kids! Sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup are certainly NOT natural, but they can say it is on a label!

Let me qualify what I mean by "natural" - Something that occurs in nature, is not altered for consumption.

I've NEVER seen a high-fructose corn syrup plant, an aspartamine plant or the like growing anywhere, or seen this occur in nature anywhere, when naturally occurring nicotine is found in many fruits and vegetables such as cauliflower, eggplant, potatoes, tomatoes and on and on.

If naturally occurring nicotine, when balanced in a plant such as unaltered tobacco, fruits and vegetables is so addicting, then why aren't non-smokers raiding cruciferous vegetables or rioting over nightshade plants, such as tomatoes that contain nicotine?

If you DIY, be sure to use the safer tobacco based nicotine, instead of chemicals!

'nough said.
-Altmed

 

[kristin]

Informative post!

Just one correction:

Hi all

Sure di-ethelyne glycol can be harmful harmful, yet it is also found in many, many foods we eat, and there are far worse things added to our foods, but the "FOOD AND DRUG" Administration that it seems should be taking care of our "foods" and our "drug" safety - NOT making hysteria about a safer substance that is neither!

You're confusing diethylene glycol with propylene glycol.

Propylene glycol is the food additive that is the base for most e-cigarette liquid.

Diethylene glycol is a highly toxic chemical and highly unlikely to be found in "many, many foods we eat."

The FDA found "approximately 1%" diethylene glycol in ONE cartridge they tested (but not in the vapor), hence the overblown, hysterical claims of "antifreeze" in e-cigarettes.

Common mistake.

You're point is well-taken, though!