How can anyone in their right mind say e-cigs are marketed to children and yet allow this on the air? 
YouTube - Quitting Smoking Sucks...SHARK!
YouTube - Quitting Smoking Sucks...SHARK!
Nicorette Commercial
- Thread starter JustMeAgain
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Even more disturbing is this one, YouTube - Nicorette Inhalator TV ad UK from the very fools trying to ban e cigs or these ads for Nicorette, Nicorette Stop Smoking Reviews | Best Nicorette Stop Smoking | Nicorette Stop Smoking clearly marketed to the children in tasty flavors from the same people who object to flavors for e cigs because they are marketed to children.
or these tasty lozenges http://www.nicorette.com/Products/Nicorette-mini.aspx?rotation=30493395&banner=208382772&placement={placement}/?cmpid=US_Nicorette_Google_Search from the people who cried foul to BT for introducing tobacco lozenges. These hypocrites will eventually hang themselves...can't be quickly enough.
or these tasty lozenges http://www.nicorette.com/Products/Nicorette-mini.aspx?rotation=30493395&banner=208382772&placement={placement}/?cmpid=US_Nicorette_Google_Search from the people who cried foul to BT for introducing tobacco lozenges. These hypocrites will eventually hang themselves...can't be quickly enough.
yes, the hypocrisy is glaringly obvious......and proves without a doubt that the anti-organizations that scream the loudest whenever BT puts out an alternative product are squarely on the payroll of BP.
The really sad part in all this? The public does NOT recognize the glaring bias, and continue to go along their merry way because this issue doesn't concern them personally.
The really sad part in all this? The public does NOT recognize the glaring bias, and continue to go along their merry way because this issue doesn't concern them personally.
OK, I've got to admit it, but that commercial cracked me up...the ETHICS behind it, on the other hand, DIDN'T.
Even better is the inhaler commercial..have you guys SEEN those things? They look like a bunch of freakin' TAMPONS! '
I'd rather be shot in the FACE...
Even better is the inhaler commercial..have you guys SEEN those things? They look like a bunch of freakin' TAMPONS! '
I'd rather be shot in the FACE...
My 8 year old thinks that shark comercial is hysterical (I do too). It's not quite the same as placing the cigarette display in an easily shopliftable place as it was when I was a kid (I could get 5 packs in my pockets, while looking at gum), but it's still pretty bad.
Could not have said it better!!OK, I've got to admit it, but that commercial cracked me up...the ETHICS behind it, on the other hand, DIDN'T.
Even better is the inhaler commercial..have you guys SEEN those things? They look like a bunch of freakin' TAMPONS! '
I'd rather be shot in the FACE...
Yes it looks just like sucking on tampon. Gross!!! Not for me.
I both agree with you and not.....I agree that the public..thinks..it does not affect them personally but in fact it does and directly in the pocketbook and, in turn, the availability of healthcare resources for everyone. This is why I've been saying that in addition to getting out accurate and honest info. concerning electronic cigarette technology we also should be illustrating the point, repeatedly, that it is a "Public Health" issue and not just a smokers' health issue. For every life saved as a result of switching to e-cigs (and according to Elaine's excellent summary the numbers are staggering) it is money in every U.S. taxpaying citizen's pocket - because of the savings to the country's overall healthcare costs and the arguable savings to overall health insurance expenditures -same goes for smoking related illnesses prevented and/or minimized. The overall costs of healthcare in this country are a HUGE part of the dismal overall economic picture, especially when it comes to Medicaid and Medicare, and ANYTHING that can prove to provide significant healthcare cost savings is most definitely in the best interests of each and every person, not only financially, but in terms of available healthcare resources - and the public needs to have that explained and literally spelled out for them - facts, figures, savings - direct/indirect, etc. In addition, they need to be informed as to who exactly is trying their utmost to prevent this technology from continuing to be available and "truthfully" why. The FDA and the alphabet suits et.al need to be held accountable and when the public at large understands that they do indeed have a stake in this, then maybe the questions will grow louder and stronger.
Last edited:
Do those inhalers come in different strengths, like Mini, Maxi and maybe even one for light days? 
But I can't get past that little curvy, brightly-colored, kid friendly container the lozenges come in -
But I can't get past that little curvy, brightly-colored, kid friendly container the lozenges come in -
D103, those are good points, but I think there's another aspect to consider ~ It makes sense that lower health care expense as a result of improved health should be the motivating factor. But what about the effect on our economy as a whole should millions of American's change from smoking to vaping? There would be many health care jobs lost, our already broken Social Security system would bear the additional burden when we all live longer, even all those 'society' groups created in the name of health (American Lung Association, American Cancer Society......) would eventually cease to exist. I guess it would even trickle down as far as many of the people who work for Bic would find themselves unemployed.
Everything would eventually readjust - we're going to spend all the money saved somewhere - but I think there are people out there that see this as having a potentially devastating effect on our economy.
And it's a horrible thought that people could disregard the health and wellbeing of others with such a cold, calculating viewpoint.
I saw that shark commercial for the first time about a week ago.. all I could think was, "if that dude had an eGo, he wouldn't be sitting there mumbling nonsense about needing a cigarette!" 
Good points JustMeAgain and I agree wholeheartedly with you - but consider....in a public debate about this, someone would have to come right out and spell that out, publicly and say, "...we can't afford to have people quit smoking tobacco, we can't afford to have all those 'smokers' live longer...our economy just can't handle it...our state budgets would be hurt far too much." Do you know anyone who would be willing to Publicly make that argument and truly admit that this is what it has been about all this time. I cannot think of one single person, from their side of the equation, who would be willing to do that or have the guts to do that. And absent that, what then do they argue against the considerable savings I previously mentioned. As long as it remains the 'dirty little secret' the carnage continues as does the reaping from the carnage.....but shed a lot of light on the issue and let's see how long it continues.
Last edited:
It's a lame commercial for an awful product, but I don't see how that is marketed to children. The curvy container is meant to look like a lighter in size...and the taste is reminiscent of chalk and indigestion.
The GEICO commercial has a talking gecko, yet children have no need for car insurance. Similar thing here.
The GEICO commercial has a talking gecko, yet children have no need for car insurance. Similar thing here.
Here's an excellent analysis of the smokeless industry vs. BP
NICOTINE WARS
According to a new study authored by Gregory Connolly & al of the Harvard School of Public Health, Big Tobacco are being naughty boys again. ‘’ (…) Orbs, pellets made of finely ground tobacco with mint or cinnamon flavoring, are packed with nicotine and can poison children and lure young people to start using tobacco. The pellets dissolve in the mouth, like breath mints. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children” the lead author told reporters.
Our research led us to the following link which describes what Orbs are and their nicotine yields: Camel Orbs
Their description closely resembles another product presently marketed, namely nicotine lozenges. You can read about Commit Lozenges and their nicotine yields at the following link: Commit Lozenges
We later compared the two products:
Orbs contain 0,6 - 3,5 ml of nicotine
Commits contain 2 - 4 ml of nicotine
Orbs are fruit and candy flavored
Commits are fruit and candy flavored
Orbs come in attractive packaging
Commits come in attractive packaging
Because they’re a tobacco product minors cannot purchase Orbs
Commits are marketed over the counter and are available to everyone
Orbs dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere
Commits dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere
In the U.S. Orbs are priced at around 4.00 $ before tax for 15 pieces (approx. 15 cents per piece)
In the U.S. Commits are priced at around 40 $ for 72 pieces tax exempted (approx 55 cents per piece).
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: NICOTINE WARS
NICOTINE WARS
According to a new study authored by Gregory Connolly & al of the Harvard School of Public Health, Big Tobacco are being naughty boys again. ‘’ (…) Orbs, pellets made of finely ground tobacco with mint or cinnamon flavoring, are packed with nicotine and can poison children and lure young people to start using tobacco. The pellets dissolve in the mouth, like breath mints. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children” the lead author told reporters.
Our research led us to the following link which describes what Orbs are and their nicotine yields: Camel Orbs
Their description closely resembles another product presently marketed, namely nicotine lozenges. You can read about Commit Lozenges and their nicotine yields at the following link: Commit Lozenges
We later compared the two products:
Orbs contain 0,6 - 3,5 ml of nicotine
Commits contain 2 - 4 ml of nicotine
Orbs are fruit and candy flavored
Commits are fruit and candy flavored
Orbs come in attractive packaging
Commits come in attractive packaging
Because they’re a tobacco product minors cannot purchase Orbs
Commits are marketed over the counter and are available to everyone
Orbs dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere
Commits dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere
In the U.S. Orbs are priced at around 4.00 $ before tax for 15 pieces (approx. 15 cents per piece)
In the U.S. Commits are priced at around 40 $ for 72 pieces tax exempted (approx 55 cents per piece).
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: NICOTINE WARS
Here's another must read from the world of anti-smoking.
InterviewWithPrEven
’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
InterviewWithPrEven
’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
- Status
Similar threads
