- Status
I don't believe vaping to be considered a liberty. I say this not in any way facetious, but it is really more of a priviledge. Anything that is regulated (ie. must be 18yrs+) can not really be considered a liberty. That's like saying being able to own and drive a car is a liberty, but that is in fact a priviledge.
If someone has any thoughts on this idea, please post.
If someone has any thoughts on this idea, please post.
Actually, yes they can be blamed since it is them and only them designating the policies. A handful of militant anti-smoker Puritans have managed to influence legislators, manipulate the press, and dictate policy all over the world. Rising against them with force is the only way of preventing future harm as they enter new phases of battle against alcohol, fast food, and God knows what other pleasures they reject simply because they resent anyone anywhere experiencing pleasure. Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H. L. Mencken
OK...
But are you sure it is such a Nefarious Global Plot? Or could it just be that some policy makers are Unsure as to the Exact Health Risks associated with the use of e-Cigarettes?
I do not “Fear” vaping.
But I am also not so naïve that I cannot see that there could be Risks and Long Term Heath Problems from inhaling Food Flavorings, Sweeteners, Colorants and or Silica Fibers.
I see e-Cigarettes more as a Lesser Evil to Smoking Analogs.
Last edited:
I think it's both.
Many of the policy makers may be unsure of the exact health risks of vaping.
But they are getting bad information from those they trust to inform them, and therefore making bad policies.
In this case I'm talking about things like city and county boards of health, college administrators, and other such policy makers.
And the people they are getting the bad information from are giving them bad information on purpose.
And yes, the misinformation is just one part of a global nefarious plan...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
And these people are funded in large part by money from another global nefarious plan...
The New Corporate America Business Model
I've followed the issue and those in charge for several years now, so despite your intended sarcasm, then yes it is a "Nefarious Global Plot." You might follow some critics other than myself for some enlightenment. You could start her with this good professor,
E-cigarettes in The Guardian
An absolutely superb article in The Guardian on the subject of e-cigarettes by Lionel Shriver. It mentions the Tobacco Products Directive...
Why did the EU's tobacco product directive released last month propose effectively banning any e-cigs that deliver remotely enough nicotine to make them an attractive alternative to tobacco? Isn't a "tobacco product directive" reaching beyond its remit by seeking to regulate a product containing no tobacco?
It touches on the self-righteous morality of the anti-nicotine extremists...
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/
E-cigarettes in The Guardian
An absolutely superb article in The Guardian on the subject of e-cigarettes by Lionel Shriver. It mentions the Tobacco Products Directive...
Why did the EU's tobacco product directive released last month propose effectively banning any e-cigs that deliver remotely enough nicotine to make them an attractive alternative to tobacco? Isn't a "tobacco product directive" reaching beyond its remit by seeking to regulate a product containing no tobacco?
It touches on the self-righteous morality of the anti-nicotine extremists...
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/
You're so unbelievably off base here. So if someone is afraid of driving, should they not drive? What about taking the bus? W TF are you to tell people what they can and can not do? God complex, much?
Yet E-cigs haven't been proven to not be harmful!
I fear for this generation; whatever the age, y'all act like spoiled, petulant children who think the can do whatever the .... they want. It's sad and pathetic.
Wow I am getting an education. You know it's very scary that these corporations and orgs can have so much power to shape the entire world ! That link about WHO is maybe even more scary. Seems like everything they wanted in 1979 has happened.
I just wonder though, if they could have this kind of influence and control over things that are not dangerous. I mean cigarettes are obviously bad news, so maybe people are more willing to go along with the agenda. Sugar is probably bad for health too, so people look the other way.
But now would this new corporate model and new framework of influence work to other things ( I don't even know what that could be )
I guess I have my answer, at least as far as j&j goes, since they are going after e-cigs. But is that possible only because of the apparent association e-cigs have with tobacco cigs ?
What other ways are they attempting (and succeeding ) in controlling the world with these sneaky tactics ?
It's all about money. BP has plenty of money to line the pockets of the people in charge of these decisions and they have the most to lose if ecigs continue to be used as a tobacco alternative. They're seeing their revenue dwindling right before their eyes if the medical community starts espousing ecigs as a viable way of curtailing smoking. I see the involvement of BT for now a good thing as they certainly have more money than the ecig "movement" at this time to keep ecigs accessible to the public.
How freekin much money can they lose just from NRT ? They still have Cancer. And if somehow a cure for that actually sneaks out, they have enough money to invent a disease and the maintenance of that !
Exactly - they have cancer treatments, heart disease treatments, COPD treatments and asthma treatments for SMOKERS. If we all switch to e-cigarettes, not only does BP lose those "customers" (victims?) who were using their products when trying to quit, they also lose all those who didn't quit and then needed their "smoking-related disease" treatments. Those who actually get sick are FAR more lucrative! (Maybe that is why they encourage smokers to use BP products that fail 93.6% of the time?)
This could be
But I think that e-Liquids that are currently being sold dont have a Tax Stamp on them might be more of a Reason when it come to the Money Side of this.
As long as were into Nefarious Plots, heres mine if I was BP.
Push for Small, Localized Bans by stirring up the ANTZ under the guise of We have to Save them from themselves. ANTZ are good for this and will need Little Stirring. Spread a little money around and get some Anti e-Cigarette web sites / orgs going. All low key and non-back traceable. Nothing major, just keep Static in the Air.
Then approach Federal Law makers and tell them that e-Cigarettes are Evil because they are Steady Revenue Stream that isnt being Taxed. That there is a Boat Load of Money that could be collected as well as a Large amount of Campaign Contributions for Re-Elections that is just being wasted every time someone takes a hit off a Tax-Free e-Cigarette/e-Liquid.
Man, if there are Two things that Elected Officials love to think about that is Tax Monies to spend and getting Re-Elected. Not necessarily in this order.
And explain that since the Tobacco Industry has such a Bad Name when it comes to selling Taxable Products and Public Health, that BP is the Logical choice seeing that they can handle a Taxed and Regulated e-Cigarette market and FDA already knows how to work for them. Big Tobacco will be the Supplier of the Raw Materials, so they can recoup their lost Cigarette Profits but BP should be the Image with the Lab Coats and the Test Tubes and the Charts and Graphs.
All that is needed is to get rid of the Pesky Unregulated Market with some sweeping regulations. Then as the Giant Sucking sound occurs as the small Kitchen Mixers are driven out of the Market enter Ecco-Vape e-Liquids ( A Registered Trademark of GlaxoSmithKline in partnership with Pfizer) to save the day.
About all that is left would be to fix a Price point for a Daily supply of Prefilled Cartos, sold by Blu. A price aligned with a Pack of Cigarettes but slightly lower to start with to allow room for Future Tax and Profit Increases.
Say $5/Day.
But I think that e-Liquids that are currently being sold dont have a Tax Stamp on them might be more of a Reason when it come to the Money Side of this.
As long as were into Nefarious Plots, heres mine if I was BP.
Push for Small, Localized Bans by stirring up the ANTZ under the guise of We have to Save them from themselves. ANTZ are good for this and will need Little Stirring. Spread a little money around and get some Anti e-Cigarette web sites / orgs going. All low key and non-back traceable. Nothing major, just keep Static in the Air.
Then approach Federal Law makers and tell them that e-Cigarettes are Evil because they are Steady Revenue Stream that isnt being Taxed. That there is a Boat Load of Money that could be collected as well as a Large amount of Campaign Contributions for Re-Elections that is just being wasted every time someone takes a hit off a Tax-Free e-Cigarette/e-Liquid.
Man, if there are Two things that Elected Officials love to think about that is Tax Monies to spend and getting Re-Elected. Not necessarily in this order.
And explain that since the Tobacco Industry has such a Bad Name when it comes to selling Taxable Products and Public Health, that BP is the Logical choice seeing that they can handle a Taxed and Regulated e-Cigarette market and FDA already knows how to work for them. Big Tobacco will be the Supplier of the Raw Materials, so they can recoup their lost Cigarette Profits but BP should be the Image with the Lab Coats and the Test Tubes and the Charts and Graphs.
All that is needed is to get rid of the Pesky Unregulated Market with some sweeping regulations. Then as the Giant Sucking sound occurs as the small Kitchen Mixers are driven out of the Market enter Ecco-Vape e-Liquids ( A Registered Trademark of GlaxoSmithKline in partnership with Pfizer) to save the day.
About all that is left would be to fix a Price point for a Daily supply of Prefilled Cartos, sold by Blu. A price aligned with a Pack of Cigarettes but slightly lower to start with to allow room for Future Tax and Profit Increases.
Say $5/Day.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
