Not looking good
- Thread starter Hanna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Hello everyone. Im new to the ecigarette world and also to this forum. In my decision of which product to buy (Joye 510) and also where to buy (E-Smokeytreats.com) with great feedback from all of the members and video reviews by Terraphon (Youtube handle thanks by the way, your reviews are awesome and amusing) I feel like I could find a home in this community. I also feel that this and many other communities are in jeopardy.
Like most of you I have been smoking for 14+ years and tried quitting. Each time I failed not only because of the nicotine addiction but also the physical addiction and the realization that I LIKED it. I enjoy smoking when on a phone call or working. Thanks to the ecig I can continue to enjoy this without the side effects and knowing in the back of my mind that it might hinder me from seeing my future children grow and have grand children. I feel so strongly about this product and where it will go that Ive decided to step up and do all I can to see it grow in popularity and social acceptance. Many people complain and talk about stock piling reserves in case the FDA closes its fist on us.
We need to be heard. We, as the believers in this product, need to educate the public. How? By any means necessary.
I am a filmmaker from NY who would like to produce a documentary on Ecigs. I want to show the truth behind the product and bring the faces of those its helped (and those whose lives were saved by the product) into the light. I have the equipment and the know how to get it professionally and legitimately done but I need help from some members to make this happen.
I dont want your money, I want your knowledge. Heres what I need:
1) I need stories of people who have quit smoking (or drastically cut down) thanks to the ecig. I want to interview you/your family on camera.
2) I need facts:
a. What chemicals are in ecigs? (good and bad)
b. What research has been done? (positive and negative)
c. Who is trying to ban it and why (Lets expose the hypocrisy)
d. Nicotine facts (good and bad)
3) I would also like vendors to showcase products and talk about how they make their juice and other such things.
4) ANYTHING YOU MIGHT SUGGEST
The documentary has to be honest, hence why I ask for the good and bad. We cannot get called out on our information as trying to slant the truth. Were not like those trying to ban us and we wont lie. This could be the perfect tool to introduce the public to the product and possibly help others. Will it work? Lets hope so. If not, we tried another way to get ourselves heard.
Anyone willing to be interviewed, please be in the New York area as I cant afford to fly all over the place though Id like to. You can PM me and tell me your story. Anyone who feels they can help in anyway feel free to suggest how. Lets make this happen and be quick about it! Time might just be running out!
PS I tried to make this a new thread but I'm not allowed to make new threads? What's that about? Everyone please spread this to whoever may be able to help!
Count me in - I am willing to go on film to document my quitting traditional cigs completely, and the effects (good) on my family as a result. PM me if you can use me. I have a video camera, and could possibly shoot the footage you need myself and mail it to you. I don't have a great cam, but it works good to record the kids for memories, and it burns right to a DVD-RW.
He is probably using a service like prnewswire.com that all the radio/television stations subscribe to around the world. They charge to submit a press release to the wire. That's where your local tv stations get their stories for the 6 o'clock news....
Also, you can release a press release for free, although I think it's just a online outlet, at nationalprwire.com
Having done a lot of thinking about vaporizers, I think too many people are getting a bit confused. The new FDA control bill is all about actual tobacco products. There is a provision to regulate levels of nicotine, but does that mean in tobacco, or in gum, patches and vaporizers? Nobody knows.
More importantly, think about the fundamental difference between smoking and using an electronic vaporizer. Smoking involves actual fire! The countless studies done on smoking, regardless of their veracity, ALL speak to the issue of smoke itself. No studies on the chemical nicotine accept it as a carcinogen.
A vaporizer is no different from a flashlight excepting the atomizer. That's a filament behind a braided length of wire, from what I gather. A light bulb is also a filament. Push electricity into either and they glow with heat. To ban atomizers would mean also banning light bulbs. Which may happen if we're forced to use fluorescent "green" pieces of crap.
Batteries are batteries, and nobody's going to be able to stop them from entering any market. Plastic cartridges are pieces of plastic. The "wool" in the cartridge is just wool. Water is everywhere, leaving only the PG (propylene glycol) and the actual nicotine.
Currently, the anti-smokers and FDA are suggesting that nicotine should be banned because it's addictive. Not because it's a carcinogen. Only SMOKE should be banned. If we ban PG, then we must also ban every other addictive pharmaceutical, like pain-killers and other medicines. ...... and ....... already are "controlled substances" and have been made illegal.
Next comes the possible black market. The bulk alone of shipping 7 cartons of cigarettes from point A to B is a significant storage area. Not "everyone" can grow, cure and package tobacco. It takes climate, soil, time, skill, and luck.
But any chemist can create the "juice" used in a PV cartridge, just as any chemist can produce ... (hallucinogenic). The size of a 30ml. bottle of juice makes it transportable anywhere, in just about any conditions. Likewise, batteries and atomizers can be smuggled anywhere, by anyone.
Taken together, the key factor here is that "vaping" is not smoking. There's no smoke. It's an entirely different technology, and is a nicotine delivery system. It's like Nicorette gum, a different way to deliver a chemical into the system.
The ONLY way the FDA will have a leg to stand on is if personal vaporizer manufacturers make the claim that they help "quit smoking." As soon as they do that, it's a health claim. Since it isn't true, the FDA can clamp down for false advertising and public health endangerment.
A much better solution is to advertise PVs as a smoking alternative. That makes zero claims about health. The worst that could happen would be to verify buyers as being over 18.
Finally, with China about to walk away from US dollars and China being our single largest creditor, do you really think they'll stand by and let the US government interfere with what promises to be a massive export product? Not a chance!
More importantly, think about the fundamental difference between smoking and using an electronic vaporizer. Smoking involves actual fire! The countless studies done on smoking, regardless of their veracity, ALL speak to the issue of smoke itself. No studies on the chemical nicotine accept it as a carcinogen.
A vaporizer is no different from a flashlight excepting the atomizer. That's a filament behind a braided length of wire, from what I gather. A light bulb is also a filament. Push electricity into either and they glow with heat. To ban atomizers would mean also banning light bulbs. Which may happen if we're forced to use fluorescent "green" pieces of crap.
Batteries are batteries, and nobody's going to be able to stop them from entering any market. Plastic cartridges are pieces of plastic. The "wool" in the cartridge is just wool. Water is everywhere, leaving only the PG (propylene glycol) and the actual nicotine.
Currently, the anti-smokers and FDA are suggesting that nicotine should be banned because it's addictive. Not because it's a carcinogen. Only SMOKE should be banned. If we ban PG, then we must also ban every other addictive pharmaceutical, like pain-killers and other medicines. ...... and ....... already are "controlled substances" and have been made illegal.
Next comes the possible black market. The bulk alone of shipping 7 cartons of cigarettes from point A to B is a significant storage area. Not "everyone" can grow, cure and package tobacco. It takes climate, soil, time, skill, and luck.
But any chemist can create the "juice" used in a PV cartridge, just as any chemist can produce ... (hallucinogenic). The size of a 30ml. bottle of juice makes it transportable anywhere, in just about any conditions. Likewise, batteries and atomizers can be smuggled anywhere, by anyone.
Taken together, the key factor here is that "vaping" is not smoking. There's no smoke. It's an entirely different technology, and is a nicotine delivery system. It's like Nicorette gum, a different way to deliver a chemical into the system.
The ONLY way the FDA will have a leg to stand on is if personal vaporizer manufacturers make the claim that they help "quit smoking." As soon as they do that, it's a health claim. Since it isn't true, the FDA can clamp down for false advertising and public health endangerment.
A much better solution is to advertise PVs as a smoking alternative. That makes zero claims about health. The worst that could happen would be to verify buyers as being over 18.
Finally, with China about to walk away from US dollars and China being our single largest creditor, do you really think they'll stand by and let the US government interfere with what promises to be a massive export product? Not a chance!
DoubleTrouble's post made me think about this a bit. Vendor's should think about how to market their product if e-cigs are specifically banned. A little creative re-branding should do the trick. Sell them as personal vaporizers, or personal smog machines and do not sell any nicotine infused juice alongside them. It's the same idea as with other devices sold on the internet with alternative uses. You may need to get your juice from site A and your e-cig from site B, but we should be ok. Remove any mention of Nicotine replacement or smoking, etc... from the packaging and instructions. Seems silly, but that's what our country has come to.
What bothers me about this is that, if we have to do this, it will severely limit the exposure of this product to other smokers. Which would be a shame, because I believe it is such an effective and safer alternative. But that's the problem, because e-cigs are effective and becoming more popular, they are a threat ($$$). No tax revenues, not produced by the drug and tabacoo monopolies, etc..
Just watch the fun when some high school kid gets caught with an e-cig... We'll get to see all the "Save the Children!!!" and "America's new epidemic" specials all over the news. Maybe we'll even get a War named after us (War on Nicotine, War on E-cigs....).
What bothers me about this is that, if we have to do this, it will severely limit the exposure of this product to other smokers. Which would be a shame, because I believe it is such an effective and safer alternative. But that's the problem, because e-cigs are effective and becoming more popular, they are a threat ($$$). No tax revenues, not produced by the drug and tabacoo monopolies, etc..
Just watch the fun when some high school kid gets caught with an e-cig... We'll get to see all the "Save the Children!!!" and "America's new epidemic" specials all over the news. Maybe we'll even get a War named after us (War on Nicotine, War on E-cigs....).
Hi, I just found this on the net ! and really like what its said on the nicotine issue:
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A recent press release from The Massachusetts Department of Public Health highlights findings from its report titled, "Change in Nicotine Yields 1998-2004."
Despite an attempt to provide pivotal information to benefit public health, the MDPH Release and MDPH Report focus attention on nicotine, while totally disregarding "tar" and carbon monoxide (CO).
It is widely accepted that exposure to "tar" and CO are much more harmful to smokers than nicotine.(1-4) Although nicotine is the "addictive" substance in cigarette smoke, it is relatively benign to existing smokers compared to other smoke components, such as "tar" and CO. The MDPH Release fails to even mention "tar" or CO.
One finding of the MDPH Report is, "Overall, nicotine yields increased ten percent from 1998 - 2004."
Although it appears paradoxical to the MDPH's purported implications for public health, these increases in nicotine yields may have been beneficial to smokers of the subject brands, since they may have inhaled less smoke from their cigarettes produced in 2004 compared to 1998.
Published research studies and analyses of smoking behavior have indicated an inverse relationship between nicotine concentration in cigarette smoke and the amount of smoke that smokers actually inhale.(2-6)
From a public health perspective, the MDPH Report would have been much more meaningful if "tar" and carbon monoxide yields were also measured in relation to nicotine yields. A 656-page report titled, Clearing the Smoke, Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction ("IOM Report"), by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,(1) affirms, "Retaining nicotine at pleasurable or addictive levels while reducing the more toxic components of tobacco is another general strategy for harm reduction."
Although the MDPH Release states, "Increased levels of nicotine may make it more difficult for the average smoker to quit," there is no scientific evidence to support this. Within the nicotine range of popular cigarette brands, no scientific evidence suggests that cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are associated with smoking being more addictive.
A paper by Harvard Health Publications titled, Nicotine: It may have a good side, states, "nicotine, unlike many other addictive drugs, doesn't behave in a simple additive manner as the dose increases."(7) Smokers desire certain amounts of nicotine at different times, no more or less.(8) Too much nicotine at once becomes unpleasant to the smoker.
Regrettably, the MDPH Release does not mention the phenomena of compensatory smoking, also known as compensation,(9,10) despite the fact that the nicotine yields in the MDPH report are based on its own smoking-machine method "developed to reflect compensation techniques." Human smoking behavior is primarily driven by nicotine seeking.
Compensatory smoking essentially means over smoking (smoking more intensely) to obtain the desired nicotine impact or under smoking (smoking less intensely) due to the increased presence of nicotine. The manner in which a smoker may compensate includes the frequency of puffs per cigarette, volume of smoke inhalation of these puffs, time the inhaled smoke is held before exhaling, and the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
Some smokers engage in compensatory smoking of low-yield cigarettes, namely with "lights" and "ultra lights." This mainly occurs due to the reduced presence of nicotine in smoke.
The conclusions presented in the MDPH Release and MDPH Report were based solely on results obtained from smoking-machine data, and therefore do not necessarily predict nicotine intake by smokers. Results from smoking behavioral studies on individual smokers are far more conclusive in evaluating the impact of varying nicotine levels on public health.
The IOM Report(1) on page 533 specifically recommends using a low-tar/moderate-nicotine (nicotine-enriched) cigarette for evaluation in human clinical trials. It states, "Potential advantages of this trial are that the low-tar/moderate-nicotine product, if it reduces harm, could be used as a reference product for future regulation of marketed products."
As announced in October of 2005, 22nd Century Limited, LLC is genetically modifying tobacco cultivars for increased nicotine content for use in less hazardous cigarettes. After field trials in the spring of 2007, 22nd Century is planning rigorous, short-term, human-exposure studies to measure differences in exposure levels to tobacco toxins from cigarettes with varying nicotine levels.
22nd Century believes that these studies will substantiate that a higher nicotine concentration in cigarette smoke will effectively reduce compensatory smoking of low-yield cigarettes, thereby substantially reducing exposure to most harmful tobacco smoke components, including "tar" and CO. Joseph Pandolfino, the company's president states, "The expected result is that smokers will inhale less daily average tobacco smoke by smoking fewer cigarettes per day and/or smoking less of each cigarette.
Story Published: Sep 15, 2006 at 1:05 PM EDT
Story Updated: Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12 PM EDT
I will vape away ! no matter what ! is good for me and the rest of the world !!
Cheers from the caribbean sea .
BUFFALO, N.Y. -- A recent press release from The Massachusetts Department of Public Health highlights findings from its report titled, "Change in Nicotine Yields 1998-2004."
Despite an attempt to provide pivotal information to benefit public health, the MDPH Release and MDPH Report focus attention on nicotine, while totally disregarding "tar" and carbon monoxide (CO).
It is widely accepted that exposure to "tar" and CO are much more harmful to smokers than nicotine.(1-4) Although nicotine is the "addictive" substance in cigarette smoke, it is relatively benign to existing smokers compared to other smoke components, such as "tar" and CO. The MDPH Release fails to even mention "tar" or CO.
One finding of the MDPH Report is, "Overall, nicotine yields increased ten percent from 1998 - 2004."
Although it appears paradoxical to the MDPH's purported implications for public health, these increases in nicotine yields may have been beneficial to smokers of the subject brands, since they may have inhaled less smoke from their cigarettes produced in 2004 compared to 1998.
Published research studies and analyses of smoking behavior have indicated an inverse relationship between nicotine concentration in cigarette smoke and the amount of smoke that smokers actually inhale.(2-6)
From a public health perspective, the MDPH Report would have been much more meaningful if "tar" and carbon monoxide yields were also measured in relation to nicotine yields. A 656-page report titled, Clearing the Smoke, Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction ("IOM Report"), by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,(1) affirms, "Retaining nicotine at pleasurable or addictive levels while reducing the more toxic components of tobacco is another general strategy for harm reduction."
Although the MDPH Release states, "Increased levels of nicotine may make it more difficult for the average smoker to quit," there is no scientific evidence to support this. Within the nicotine range of popular cigarette brands, no scientific evidence suggests that cigarettes with higher nicotine levels are associated with smoking being more addictive.
A paper by Harvard Health Publications titled, Nicotine: It may have a good side, states, "nicotine, unlike many other addictive drugs, doesn't behave in a simple additive manner as the dose increases."(7) Smokers desire certain amounts of nicotine at different times, no more or less.(8) Too much nicotine at once becomes unpleasant to the smoker.
Regrettably, the MDPH Release does not mention the phenomena of compensatory smoking, also known as compensation,(9,10) despite the fact that the nicotine yields in the MDPH report are based on its own smoking-machine method "developed to reflect compensation techniques." Human smoking behavior is primarily driven by nicotine seeking.
Compensatory smoking essentially means over smoking (smoking more intensely) to obtain the desired nicotine impact or under smoking (smoking less intensely) due to the increased presence of nicotine. The manner in which a smoker may compensate includes the frequency of puffs per cigarette, volume of smoke inhalation of these puffs, time the inhaled smoke is held before exhaling, and the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
Some smokers engage in compensatory smoking of low-yield cigarettes, namely with "lights" and "ultra lights." This mainly occurs due to the reduced presence of nicotine in smoke.
The conclusions presented in the MDPH Release and MDPH Report were based solely on results obtained from smoking-machine data, and therefore do not necessarily predict nicotine intake by smokers. Results from smoking behavioral studies on individual smokers are far more conclusive in evaluating the impact of varying nicotine levels on public health.
The IOM Report(1) on page 533 specifically recommends using a low-tar/moderate-nicotine (nicotine-enriched) cigarette for evaluation in human clinical trials. It states, "Potential advantages of this trial are that the low-tar/moderate-nicotine product, if it reduces harm, could be used as a reference product for future regulation of marketed products."
As announced in October of 2005, 22nd Century Limited, LLC is genetically modifying tobacco cultivars for increased nicotine content for use in less hazardous cigarettes. After field trials in the spring of 2007, 22nd Century is planning rigorous, short-term, human-exposure studies to measure differences in exposure levels to tobacco toxins from cigarettes with varying nicotine levels.
22nd Century believes that these studies will substantiate that a higher nicotine concentration in cigarette smoke will effectively reduce compensatory smoking of low-yield cigarettes, thereby substantially reducing exposure to most harmful tobacco smoke components, including "tar" and CO. Joseph Pandolfino, the company's president states, "The expected result is that smokers will inhale less daily average tobacco smoke by smoking fewer cigarettes per day and/or smoking less of each cigarette.
Story Published: Sep 15, 2006 at 1:05 PM EDT
Story Updated: Jul 23, 2007 at 12:12 PM EDT
I will vape away ! no matter what ! is good for me and the rest of the world !!
Cheers from the caribbean sea .
Great Idea!
The costs of getting individual lawyers is just out of the question. So why not unite the manufacturers, distributors and the vapers into one group?
We could find someone to represent us all like in the movie Erin Brockovich with Julia Roberts.....only there is a real live Erin Brockovich, check her out in this link: Erin Brockovich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'll bet she would be successful in getting the FDA, Health Canada et al off our backs.
Seriously, I am not kidding.....we should get all ecig people under one banner, with donations, and hire this lady to represent us.
Think about it people.....this can work!
btw: If she too is a smoker, then I guarantee if she tried ecigs, she would definitely fight for the cause.
I think vendors need to place a warning on their packages, something like "Not to be used with nicotine" Or "Not for use with nicotine" or "for legal herb elixers only".
Those water pipes all state that they are for legal herbs only. Seems to work
Shoot, even a device for mouthwash
Those water pipes all state that they are for legal herbs only. Seems to work
Shoot, even a device for mouthwash
I agree with CheeMiss that there's likely going to have to be an "industry lobby" for e-cigs. The problem I'm seeing, having read about Ruyan (inventors) is that although they're located in Hong Kong, even there, in their own city, smoking has been banned and there are issues with e-cigs.
What's far more disturbing is the precedent setting nature of all this. With the new FDA legislation, and the argument (from another thread) that e-cigs are part of "intended use," it won't be long before all sorts of products are regulated by a gigantic FDA.
Back in the 60s, people were getting busted for having "drug paraphernalia." These included roach clips, small brass hash pipes, and all sorts of devices that in and of themselves were simply pieces of metal. But the "intended use" was for marijuana and the process of getting high. From there, you could be detained by the police for possession of these devices.
It wasn't long ago that coconut oil was considered harmful. Now, it turns out coconut oil is actually beneficial. Unfortunately, most of the manufacturers went out of business. Additionally, "movie theater" popcorn stopped using coconut oil, and now tastes pretty crappy. Too bad, so sad, but it's gone.
What's far more disturbing is the precedent setting nature of all this. With the new FDA legislation, and the argument (from another thread) that e-cigs are part of "intended use," it won't be long before all sorts of products are regulated by a gigantic FDA.
Back in the 60s, people were getting busted for having "drug paraphernalia." These included roach clips, small brass hash pipes, and all sorts of devices that in and of themselves were simply pieces of metal. But the "intended use" was for marijuana and the process of getting high. From there, you could be detained by the police for possession of these devices.
It wasn't long ago that coconut oil was considered harmful. Now, it turns out coconut oil is actually beneficial. Unfortunately, most of the manufacturers went out of business. Additionally, "movie theater" popcorn stopped using coconut oil, and now tastes pretty crappy. Too bad, so sad, but it's gone.
Thank you Double Trouble,
Yep, I agree with you too.......if you lay down and act like a carpet, then by golly, they will treat you like a carpet and walk all over you.
Alex Jones just loves a challenge. He is fighting the Bildergerg's, Secret Societies, USA Government, Unconstitutional Income Tax, Federal Reserve etc.
Check him out on youtube. He's got many, many videos and books.
THIS MAN, ALEX JONES, IS NOT AFRAID TO ROUND EVERYONE UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM RIGHTS WHETHER IN THE USA OR CANADA.....IT'S TIME WE GIVE HIM A CALL.
This is right up his alley. Tackling the FDA!
Yep, I agree with you too.......if you lay down and act like a carpet, then by golly, they will treat you like a carpet and walk all over you.
Alex Jones just loves a challenge. He is fighting the Bildergerg's, Secret Societies, USA Government, Unconstitutional Income Tax, Federal Reserve etc.
Check him out on youtube. He's got many, many videos and books.
THIS MAN, ALEX JONES, IS NOT AFRAID TO ROUND EVERYONE UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM RIGHTS WHETHER IN THE USA OR CANADA.....IT'S TIME WE GIVE HIM A CALL.
This is right up his alley. Tackling the FDA!
Great that you mention Alex Jones. He connects to an even more impressive source, Walter Burien Jr., whose tape I watched and I was stunned. IF the information he reports is true, then there aren't any "emergency budget shortfalls" at all, and ALL these bailouts and tax hikes are a complete scam.
This is ALL true. It takes 20 to 40 yrs to implement a plan. I over-heard of these plans when I was just a kid back in the late 50's to early 60's when the adults were talking, supposedly in secret.
Lets just get Alex Jones involved.....he possesses a great deal of knowledge and balls.
These guys are like cockroaches.....when you expose them to the lite, the run & hide.
Look, yrs ago, Poland stood up in the UN meeting and screamed that they did not want GMO food in their country. Europe and Asia took a step back, away from the Polish speaker. They said that they are not sharing Poland's views. They were AFRAID TO PISS OF THE USA. Within 1 to 3 mths, they all supported Poland and united they stood. Guess what? They won. We too took a stand against the GMO potato that was grown with the pesticide not only in the leaves, but in the potato itself....a couple people died of potato poisoning. Guess what....check google....this potato project has been dropped. I sang like a canary to total strangers on the street, not to buy those potatoes. We won.
We do need an expert in the field of getting things done. And being that there is a zero budget, well, I think Alex Jones is a good choice also.
Who knows, maybe we could get the both of them and who knows, maybe many more will join to cause. We are long over due for a revolution. A peaceful one, but a revolution nonetheless.
All the WORLD WIDE FREEDOM that we won because of the 60's.....were is it? They slowly stole it away while we were sleeping. Time to wake up. And with Alex Jones in the pic......wake up the world shall be.
If you are new to secret society stuff, PM me with your email address and I will send you some great stuff. In the meantime, I really think we should somehow design a letter and email Alex Jones with our plight.
If you don't bother to ask, you can't expect to receive. yes? no?
I just found the Alex Jones contact me link and have sent in my request to him.
Maybe if his office receives many many more letters from us, then they will consider
looking into this matter. yes? no?
http://www.silverspider.com/contact/
Last edited:
If infowars got slammed with 100 emails about it, I bet it get's looked at.
Not just Alex Jones, but also Jason Bermas, he is a vaper, I saw him puffing on one on his show.
I'd like to see somebody from the ECA be a guest on his show.
Not just Alex Jones, but also Jason Bermas, he is a vaper, I saw him puffing on one on his show.
I'd like to see somebody from the ECA be a guest on his show.
Last edited:
Great, another name to the list. Way to go!
btw: I tried to post my letter on the Alex Jones link that I provided above, but something is wrong, the submit button did not work. Do you have another link that we can use for him or for Jason Bermas?
I agree with you, we need at least 100 emails......maybe if we create one post with many contact links and names, and post that post in several places in the forum to make sure more people see it, then maybe, just maybe, we would get that 100+ people to write a letter.
What do you think of that idea?
We really do need to act quickly.....before they get the upper hand.
They already created a depression in USA and a recession here in Canada. The very least they can do is let us have our ecig's to pacify us. Timing is everything. yes? no?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
