Why can't BT embrace the e-cig?

[umop apisdn]

If Big tobacco actually took their heads out of their asses and marketed their own e-cig, not only would they make a killing, but everyone would also enjoy a wealth of benefits from it.
-Better PR: PV's are massively healthier than analogs, no marketing a product responsible for so many deaths a year.
-No ban: enough said.
-Better equipment? I'm sure if they wanted, with their large wealth, they could easily fund R&D to create a new product that out classes what we have now for a fraction of the price.

The world is truly backwards, it's beginning to disgust me.

 

[Overlord]

Agreed.

If I was the CEO of some Tobacco cig company, i'd be all over these things like stink on shat.

Imagine if ... remember im Canadian ... DuMaurier, Players ... and for you American folk ... Winston, Marlboro etc came out with their own ecigs, this industry would take off, products would be vastly improved and they'd be more rich.

I'm sure the prices would skyrocket, but hey, would be easier to get supplies. Would be nice to run to the local convenience store and get an atty and a bottle of juice. Although i'd imagine they wouldn't take that route. More like carts that couldn't be refilled but that would be hard to accomplish if there were still juice vendors out there. I would imagine those companies would do cartomizers.

 

[angjen0816]

you would think it would stand to reason by marketing a product that doesn't kill their customers and harm the people around said customers they would greatly increase not only their profit but their reputation....something which BT sufferes greatly

 

[boxhead]

hehehe. Their are laws against that sort of thing.
well i know its here some place that BT cant have drug/device combo something like that...
ladyraj has some info.
my thought is BT wont have a safer cig because it would open them to 'what do you mean safer cigarette?' and lawsuits would just about be filed untill every smoker was accounted for...

 

[sherid]

hehehe. Their are laws against that sort of thing.
well i know its here some place that BT cant have drug/device combo something like that...
ladyraj has some info.
my thought is BT wont have a safer cig because it would open them to 'what do you mean safer cigarette?' and lawsuits would just about be filed untill every smoker was accounted for...

If it is an alternative product, then that admission would be irrelevant. Besides, just as e cig companies cannot make that claim, neither would BT.

 

[umop apisdn]

If it is an alternative product, then that admission would be irrelevant. Besides, just as e cig companies cannot make that claim, neither would BT.

True, Camel and Marlboro don't even attempt that for their snus products, which if they were made like real snus as I would like to believe, they very well could.

But regardless, even if they did take off with e-cigs, the clientele would do their own share of marketing them as safer. They wouldn't have to do anything. And if they market it as an alternative for committed smokers, I'm sure there wouldn't be too many problems with the law. If so, they could always create a new shadow corporation that could sell these without the typical brand name.

As far as non-refillable carts go, as long as you can see your atty, you can always drip. Then again though, they might take Ploom's style and stick us with capsules.

 

[Mac]

If I recall correctly LegalOne stated in the SEvsFDA thread that BT is forbidden from offering reduced harm or cessation products by law. If that is true, I would say the real bad guys here aren't the BT tycoons but the government funded ones. Disturbing to say the least.

 

[NanoVapor]

Theres also the fact Big Pharma has been given the respective nicotine-alternative markets. Id say BP is pulling more weight with the FDA than BT. I dont think the FDA would ever let BT advance into those markets simply to protect turf they gave to BP (it makes the FDA look better if they pander to BP than BT, public opinion-wise).

 

[boxhead]

look to, at some of shireid`s posts about BT and FDA, and idea and an a product, that changed how tobacco is used would give the momentem that already caving in BT a final blow to what is fast becoming the new scarlet letter in the world at large...
BP on the other hand is on an edge that will go with the money first, people third...
who would argue that well people makes us money. us being the nameless entity

 

[Antebellum]

Another thing to remember about the FDA is that big pharma is their client. I saw that in direct quote where an FDA official was talking about a company - she called it at one point "our client." The FDA sees their role, apparently, as servicing big pharma. The American public is NOT their client.

 

[c3902]

Check out the Premier and Eclipse cigarette by R.J. Reynolds. Although different then what we're using both where vaporators and were billed as 'healthier' cigarettes. If I remember correctly the FDA killed the sale of those things using the drug delivery device argument.

And a note; Yes it's a very good thing that BT can't make cessation products! Do you really want the same company selling you both the disease and the cure?

 

[NanoVapor]

Do you really want the same company selling you both the disease and the cure?

Eh? hate to break it to you bud but the good lil boys of the FDA company do exactly that.....

 

[tescela]

Check out the Premier and Eclipse cigarette by R.J. Reynolds. Although different then what we're using both where vaporators and were billed as 'healthier' cigarettes. If I remember correctly the FDA killed the sale of those things using the drug delivery device argument.

And a note; Yes it's a very good thing that BT can't make cessation products! Do you really want the same company selling you both the disease and the cure?

Eclipse were not banned. To my knowledge, they are still for sale (and they are more expensive than "regular" cigarettes like Marlboro).