Why Vapers are getting a BAD NAME.
- Thread starter LEDBETTER122
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You make a good point about the clouds here my friend. It seems that most vapers don't realize how poorly informed most people are about vaping. Because of the underground nature of the industry it seems to be an all or nothing situation. it takes a good deal of research in order to get to a point where you can call yourself a vaper. We go to shops, and hang out in vape bars, and browse forums. All the while collecting information. On the other hand, the uninformed only know what they are told by the media, which is usually negative and always misleading. So when they encounter someone vaping in public and they're being obnoxious, it's not constructive to our cause.
We need to suck it up and be the better person in order to nullify any negative propaganda, otherwise it's going to be another ......... snafoo for 50 years. Fortunately we are on the side of truth and eventually vaping will be accepted as the cure for cancer that it is.
Even if/when vaping becomes appreciated as harmless, people will always be bothered by massive billowing clouds that smell like blueberry pop-tarts. So what if we just got rid of the actual vapor component while in public situations. Would people be more likely to vape freely if affecting others wasn't an issue?
Seems to me that could be the answer to a lot of our problems. I believe that if others saw vapers making a valid effort not to bother those around them it would tip the scales in our favor. And it's not about wanting to be able to do what I want, where I want. It's about breaking down this barrier that's keeping a large portion of people on analogues and maybe even worse, creating an environment where the people are being lied to by those in power.
We need to suck it up and be the better person in order to nullify any negative propaganda, otherwise it's going to be another ......... snafoo for 50 years. Fortunately we are on the side of truth and eventually vaping will be accepted as the cure for cancer that it is.
Even if/when vaping becomes appreciated as harmless, people will always be bothered by massive billowing clouds that smell like blueberry pop-tarts. So what if we just got rid of the actual vapor component while in public situations. Would people be more likely to vape freely if affecting others wasn't an issue?
Seems to me that could be the answer to a lot of our problems. I believe that if others saw vapers making a valid effort not to bother those around them it would tip the scales in our favor. And it's not about wanting to be able to do what I want, where I want. It's about breaking down this barrier that's keeping a large portion of people on analogues and maybe even worse, creating an environment where the people are being lied to by those in power.
It is the visible vapor that is the only issue, as far as I am concerned. No real way around it, though, save for discreet vaping something like a carto on an ego-style PV, which produces little vapor and holding it until there is virtually nothing that comes out.
The reason that BT is ALSO behind this is that they are using FDA regulations to whack the competition in the e-cig field. They have bought up some major players in the e-cig market. Primarily cig a likes. However, there are plenty of people who enjoy using higher end mods, refilling their own tanks, re-wicking and everything that Big Tobacco does not have any foot hold in. Also there is NOTHING preventing anyone going into the e-cig market.
By backing FDA bans, then all these options are wiped off the table. Ban Internet sales, and you effectively wipe out almost every juice maker out there. Ban Internet sales and you kill the market for batteries, tanks and toppers. Also very few juice makers can afford to bring their "kitchens" to FDA specs.
Once the FDA effectively wipes out the competition, then Big Tobacco has two choices.
1. Kill e-cigs: They can simply bury them. Sure, they spent some cash but they've protected their cash crop and with the MSA in place they are effectively shielded from any future litigation. They simply state that e-cigs were not viable due to stiff FDA regs and simply drop them. Take a tax deduction for the hit and whistle on their merry way, safe and secure that their cash crop has been effectively protected for decades to come.
2. Corner the market and promote "safe" e-cigs that "conform" to the new FDA regulations: Of course these safer "proprietary" e-cigs will be much more expensive due to the additional quality checks. So you get a line of proprietary expensive disposable, or at best cartridge based e-cigs. The contents of which the end user has no control over, and vapers get to pay out the rear to use them. Who knows. They may even become hip. If you can't afford the new safer e-cig, well go back to smoking the plant. Also by being the only player in the market, they have total control of the content. You know those additives they put into tobacco to make them more addicting? They wouldn't DARE put that in their e-juice......Oh heavens no!!!. And good luck getting zero nic e-juice from a BT supplied e-cig.
And once BT comes in with their "blessed e-cigs" imagine how all of the sudden local governments will start revisiting the vaping bans, because now BT will WANT to allow vaping of their product in public areas where smoking is banned. So now BT will bring up the studies we've already brought up and will convince their lobbyists that vaping in public poses no public risk and we all will be free to vape our BT supplied e-cigs.
And we should be giving them a medal for protecting us vapers from ourselves and our dirty e-juice, sub ohm coils, hyper wattage batteries and battery venting accidents....
Bottom line. Buy your mech mods, learn to rebuild, and learn to DIY your juice now...
Last edited:
If that statement was entirely accurate, GNC wouldn't be in business.
Mercury is a heavy metal. It doesn't vaporize at relatively low temps? Sorry, I'd like to take your knowledge of ignition points for specific materials at face value but it's just something I'd rather see citations of.
Last edited:
So true. All you have to put on a supplement bottle is: "The FDA has not evaluated...blah blah blah....." Then when it's proven to cause harm they yank it. Remember Ephedra? Used to be a huge over the counter weight loss aid, until it was proven to cause heart issues, and then it was yanked, But it wasn't disallowed until studies proved safe. It was assumed safe until studies proved otherwise.
Ephedra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think there comes a Point where Everything has been said.
If you think Vaping in the Places I mentioned I Wouldnt helps Promote and Better the Vaping Community Jman8 then, you have to Do what You have to Do.
zoiDman said:
I just hope you Perceive just how much your actions in Vaping in these Places molds the Views of the Non-Vaping Public as to how ALL Vapers use an e-Cigarette in Public.
zoiDman's method. CA bans ecigs piece meal.
Jman8's method. WI protects ecigs statewide.
Just stating the facts
Seriously? School Yard Tactics.
BTW - How's things going in Chicago Lately?
A sad note... The EU today has voted to (while not a straight-out "ban") effectively kill ecigs today:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...urope-has-fallen-big-money-has-triumphed.html
For example: Nicotine capped at 2% (20 mg/ml). Yes, 2%!
A couple of good posts from Smokey Joe & Rolygate in the thread as well.
smh
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...urope-has-fallen-big-money-has-triumphed.html
For example: Nicotine capped at 2% (20 mg/ml). Yes, 2%!
A couple of good posts from Smokey Joe & Rolygate in the thread as well.
smh
Someone will figure out a way to up that 20 mg/ml concentration on their own right fast. There's one result of that law that might make things more dangerous than they were.
Option #1: Not even a Consideration.
Blu would not have been Acquired and the other Two would not be Rolling out New e-Cigarette Products if they planned to go down That Road.
Option #2: Yeah... They going to be able to Control the e-Cigarette Market. But they are going to be Able to do it by Controlling the e-Liquid. Not the Hardware.
Bottom Line: Very Good Advise.
So we're on the same page that this is blatant discrimination based on appearances and can be classified as 'profiling' vapers to be smokers and to top it off it's being done in the face of credible scientific information that it's a relatively harmless activity.
Sounds like the type of thing the ACLU should be all over.
I do perceive it and am currently (as in right now) in a discussion/debate with fellow vapers about how doing it or not doing it molds the views of the non-vaping public as to how ALL vapers use an eCig in public.
In my view, not using it, and admit your not using it due to ANTZ logic is grounds for a debate. Hopefully one that is respectful, and not constantly making appeals to emotion or ad hom type of arguments.
It is not BT.
It would make no sense to buy ecigs to squash them when they could simply sit back and let the ANTZ do that. Only RJR has done anything against ecigs and they seem to have learned a lesson. BT sure doesn't want tight regulation, no business does.
So BT buys Blu and they're going to squash Johnson Creek that Blu has used to make their name?
Any liquid maker who hasn't been saving their pennies from their extremely huge markup to be able to afford a clean room deserves to be run out of business. I'd even ask why aren't we self policing that already? Why are we so convinced there's someone mixing liquid in their bathroom and doing nothing about these mythical hazards?
Exactly what additives did they put into tobacco? Make sure you know who fed you the lie before parroting it.
Why would you need to get 0mg from BT?. If you want to get all prohibition paranoid it's not BT you have to worry about, it's the government. Sure we can buy VG and flavorings at Walmart until the government decides to poison it for vaping like they did with alcohol during prohibition and Carter did with paraquat.
I'm sure eventually we will get to a time when BT paranoia is justified and they will do something like push for a 2000% tax like they did for RYO, but that time is not now. For now they need a new business because the ANTZ want to do away with cigarettes. It looks as though they see ecigs as that new business.
I didn't know mercury was a carcinogen, I can't find anything to support that claim. Why would mercury be in the metal used for an ecig? We don't use mercury for much of anything any more let alone things that people are putting in their mouths.
Seriously? School Yard Tactics.
BTW - How's things going in Chicago Lately?
School yard tactics??? Aren't you the fragile one.
Chicago proper pulled the same style crap that NYC pulled. IL, where I live, passed a minor ban and a heavy handed age verification that is workable which proves to the rest of the country that internet bans aren't justified. I haven't heard anything else yet this year. I think the state learned their lesson when they tried a complete ban long before there was enough of a population to have any rude vapers.
I'm guessing you were playing devil's advocate and knew that bringing up IL would only solidify the claims that it has nothing to do with how people vape or where and everything to do with ANTZ not liking ecigs because they exist.
However the Chicago politician who tried to ban ecigs has introduced a sugary drink tax bill.
Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll, doot doot doot, do-doot dooooo!
We will always have a bad name. It's a good thing. lol
We will always have a bad name. It's a good thing. lol
I was using mercury as an example to counter your claim that heavy metals don't vaporize at a relatively low temp. Like the temps produced by a vaporizer. Plus, we don't know what heavy metals make up the 5.0PPMs allowed in USP Glycerin. We do know, or should know from a simple google search, that at least some heavy metals are carcinogens. But I'm sure you checked before you dismissed my claim - because you said you did.
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...s_on_Human_Health/file/79e415082be0ce7530.pdf
They don't really have to Vaporize at Low Temps.
If they are in an e-Liquid, they can be Carried in Suspension via the Vapor Droplets.
But Once Again, when the Levels are So Low, thy aren't that Meaningful. And there are Many Examples of things that are sold every day that Contain Miniscule Level of Toxins.
But Then Again, Heavy Metals and Toxins in e-Liquids does make for a Good Banner Headline. Or on the CNN crawl at the Bottom of the screen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
