I am actually surprised that sellers feel comfortable selling 24 and 36 mg nicotine juices, and most do so without any warning label or security cap. The amount of nicotine itself seems likely to make them liable if someone gets nicotine poisoning from it, and the lack of warnings and security caps (on any level of nicotine, actually) would leave them open to lawsuits if some child gets their hands on them. Nobody can claim ignorance about nicotine's toxicity. Even if they post the warning on their website, it seems insufficient. I personally am glad I have no children and no pets in the house (and basically could not sleep one night that I left my 11 mg liquid in the office overnight)....
- Status
Kate hit it right...I also agree that selling/buying high doses of nic is heading in a unhealthy direction...not that health is the topic...but why not try and enjoy this new device that you can also cut down on the nic. Sorry...but I think its the young people that need to be monitored in nic use. Most (I know from past experience) look for extremes. Balance comes with life experience and maturity...sorry those that are "mature" in age for what I said...but why expose yourself to high doses of nic??????
Unfortunately, it also seem(ed) to be trendy in this forum. When I came in to learn about things, I quickly got the idea that higher nic is much better and that any rough guy should be vaping 36 day and night. Fortunately, the "worst headache..." thread cured me rather quickly, so I actually dilute under the lowest 11 mg... Somewhere around 7-9 mg... And it works for me very nicely.
So I am quite happy with Kate linking that thread everywhere. Newbies might notn be aware of the danger even if they are sort of mature. I started smoking somewhere around 1982 and I had the idea that I did know what nicotine is all about. WRONG!
So I am quite happy with Kate linking that thread everywhere. Newbies might notn be aware of the danger even if they are sort of mature. I started smoking somewhere around 1982 and I had the idea that I did know what nicotine is all about. WRONG!
Ouch. Being neither poor nor black, this gets me thinking... Well, he omited the stupid from his list
There are numerous separate ad campaigns for "black areas" and magazines with emphasis on menthol cigarettes, highly favored by black smokers. I've seen reports of how much Big Tobacco revenue would be lost if menthol joins other "flavors' in being banned, as is currently proposed.
NOTE: I was answering an earlier post and didn't see those immediately above this. Jumped off the current topic under discussion ...
NOTE: I was answering an earlier post and didn't see those immediately above this. Jumped off the current topic under discussion ...
Last edited:
74% of black smokers choose menthol according to one Philip Morris study i was looking at, the dominant brand being Newport. the percentage is around 20% for whites, asians and "other", 30% for hispanics. because of the cooling effect of menthol, it can be held in the lungs longer which causes more damage = higher lung cancer rates among blacks.
ALL ETHNIC GROUPS HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE USE... (mep96a00)
check this out though, Philip Morris tried once to launch a cigarette called "Menthol X". The brand was marketed in the African-American community, but was removed from the marketplace after protests occurred.
MENTHOL X (eyp28d00)
ALL ETHNIC GROUPS HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE USE... (mep96a00)
check this out though, Philip Morris tried once to launch a cigarette called "Menthol X". The brand was marketed in the African-American community, but was removed from the marketplace after protests occurred.
MENTHOL X (eyp28d00)
Last edited:
The tobacco companies actually marketed a cigarette called "Life" back in the early 70s....
But aside from lawsuits re health, affecting this fledgling e-cig industry, I would be much more concerned about the big pharm companies. When I was quitting a couple of years ago I went through various pharm nic replacements. Nasal spray, inhalers and of course that Godawful gum. (The warning alone on a script of some pills they were peddling -- something before Chantix -- scared me half to death and I never took a single one.)
The nasal spray was the only one that really had a good nicotine uptake (a little slower than a real cig, but it definitely did the trick). However, it was like snorting Ajax; damn, that was some really horrible crap. And, since the US is a third world country when it comes to health care, without a prescription insurance plan the price of a tiny bottle was something like $125 bucks!
When those evil weasals get this e-cig business on their radar scopes (and realize it will cut into their phenomenal mark-up profits on nic replacment) you can be sure that all of the congressmen, that they have bought and paid for with cold hard cash, will put pressure on the FDA to ban them with some mealy-mouth excuse that "they should be banned until further testing," or some such other crap.
Frankly, addictive as it is, they should hand these damn things out for free! 500,000 people a year die from smoking (or some similar riduclous number). If they could put a solid dent in that, the money saved from health care costs, related to analog smoking, would be an absolutely stunning reduction in overall health care costs.
We can only hope that the powers that be, see the big picture.
And, I suspect, when wind of this kind on political corruption starts, it will be up to people like us on this board, to launch an all out attack on the particular paid-for congressmen who will try to slide it in when no one is paying attention. At least they hope nobody will be paying attention, as they pocket huge campaign contributions.
But aside from lawsuits re health, affecting this fledgling e-cig industry, I would be much more concerned about the big pharm companies. When I was quitting a couple of years ago I went through various pharm nic replacements. Nasal spray, inhalers and of course that Godawful gum. (The warning alone on a script of some pills they were peddling -- something before Chantix -- scared me half to death and I never took a single one.)
The nasal spray was the only one that really had a good nicotine uptake (a little slower than a real cig, but it definitely did the trick). However, it was like snorting Ajax; damn, that was some really horrible crap. And, since the US is a third world country when it comes to health care, without a prescription insurance plan the price of a tiny bottle was something like $125 bucks!
When those evil weasals get this e-cig business on their radar scopes (and realize it will cut into their phenomenal mark-up profits on nic replacment) you can be sure that all of the congressmen, that they have bought and paid for with cold hard cash, will put pressure on the FDA to ban them with some mealy-mouth excuse that "they should be banned until further testing," or some such other crap.
Frankly, addictive as it is, they should hand these damn things out for free! 500,000 people a year die from smoking (or some similar riduclous number). If they could put a solid dent in that, the money saved from health care costs, related to analog smoking, would be an absolutely stunning reduction in overall health care costs.
We can only hope that the powers that be, see the big picture.
And, I suspect, when wind of this kind on political corruption starts, it will be up to people like us on this board, to launch an all out attack on the particular paid-for congressmen who will try to slide it in when no one is paying attention. At least they hope nobody will be paying attention, as they pocket huge campaign contributions.
I fear it's beyond campaign bribery. Fact is, smokers of any kind do not have public support. Florida is proposing a 300% increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Reaction? Major newspaper support!! Pass it. Cut down on smoking. SAVE THE CHILDREN. We have NO friends. Not for smoking, not for smokeless, not for something that looks like smoking. We will have no support in Congress or elsewhere in government. It is laughable to think we can influence the ultimate outcome. We are addicts and the sooner we reform, the better, in their eyes. Enjoy today.
I beg to differ with my favorite poster on these boards, but alas, I must. Although the last decade has been rather depressing, I have never given up on the basic Jeffersonian principle that in a democracy, there is a marketplace of ideas and that as messy as it is, the better ideas will, however long it takes, rise to the top like creme. And so here we find ourselves again.
Since this has none of the aftereffects of tobacco -- any kind of tobacco: basic cancer, second hand smoke, throat cancer from chewing, unpleasant effects on fellow diners, workers, etc. The only hit on e-smoking is the addictive nature. So what? I am also addicted to coffee for a morning stimulant (which I am drinking now along with my morning e-smoke).
Point is, people don't jump out against e-smoking, I have noticed. I have smoked in front of my pharmacist, in stores, federal buildings. As long as my rap is pretty quick with: "there is no tobacco, this is not smoke, it's flavored vapor only. They have been receptive. This will be an educational process for sure.
The thing I am worried about is someone making the argument that this will hook people on nic and then they will move on to analog or that "there are unknown risks that we just can't allow" (so go out and smoke real cigarettes and die). Which is silly, but you watch, it will be made.
Like the Godfather said to Michael: "whoever comes to you with this deal will be the traitor." And this what to watch for because they (either an FDA spokesman, a congressman/senator, or lobbyist of some kind under the banner of a health group) will be talking about "health." . .. as they try to put the legislative knife in e-smoking.
They will be lying.
They will be the traitors.
They will be talking about protecting a financial interest. Mark my words.
They only win when nobody is looking. I say we keep our eyes open. Don't give up on democracy. It can be pretty powerful stuff. These weasels run scared when they see anything larger than a lemming. Of course, the other thing is that they will will desperately be looking for revenue in two years and this will be a target like everything else.
Since this has none of the aftereffects of tobacco -- any kind of tobacco: basic cancer, second hand smoke, throat cancer from chewing, unpleasant effects on fellow diners, workers, etc. The only hit on e-smoking is the addictive nature. So what? I am also addicted to coffee for a morning stimulant (which I am drinking now along with my morning e-smoke).
Point is, people don't jump out against e-smoking, I have noticed. I have smoked in front of my pharmacist, in stores, federal buildings. As long as my rap is pretty quick with: "there is no tobacco, this is not smoke, it's flavored vapor only. They have been receptive. This will be an educational process for sure.
The thing I am worried about is someone making the argument that this will hook people on nic and then they will move on to analog or that "there are unknown risks that we just can't allow" (so go out and smoke real cigarettes and die). Which is silly, but you watch, it will be made.
Like the Godfather said to Michael: "whoever comes to you with this deal will be the traitor." And this what to watch for because they (either an FDA spokesman, a congressman/senator, or lobbyist of some kind under the banner of a health group) will be talking about "health." . .. as they try to put the legislative knife in e-smoking.
They will be lying.
They will be the traitors.
They will be talking about protecting a financial interest. Mark my words.
They only win when nobody is looking. I say we keep our eyes open. Don't give up on democracy. It can be pretty powerful stuff. These weasels run scared when they see anything larger than a lemming. Of course, the other thing is that they will will desperately be looking for revenue in two years and this will be a target like everything else.
Apparently it has begun:
dubya dubya dubya
kvue.com/news/top/stories/112108kvue_ecig-folo-eh.1d415e303.html
When the time comes, we are going to have to be ready to fight. We'll need the names and email addresses of those involved and make it miserable for them. They will try to do it when they think nobody cares. The lobbyist system in this country is so out of control. So corrupt. It's unbelievable.
dubya dubya dubya
kvue.com/news/top/stories/112108kvue_ecig-folo-eh.1d415e303.html
When the time comes, we are going to have to be ready to fight. We'll need the names and email addresses of those involved and make it miserable for them. They will try to do it when they think nobody cares. The lobbyist system in this country is so out of control. So corrupt. It's unbelievable.
Thanks, Keys. We have a thread on that story (nearly all press accounts are in Law and the E-Cigarette). We also have a lengthy thread on I Talked With The FDA or something like that.
When I demo e-smoking to people near me, the demo is usually very well received. They smile, love the idea. When I showed it to my former boss, and demo'd it, he was fine for me to e-smoke at my desk. BUT .. the non-smokers were not fine at all. From across the room, they'd wave hands in front of their faces (the univeral You Stink, Smoker gesture). This told me a lot about perception. Sure, up theirs, but they're the majority, you must understand. They rule. We don't.
Yes, there's a battle coming, but it won't be e-smoking foot soldiers carrying the banner. It must be the big manfacturers who can present scientific studies showing our safety, lack of impact on anyone near us, the health benefits. That will be countered by arguments (behind the scenes) by both Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Big Pharma will say this drug-delivery device for highly addictive nicotine needs as much study as any NRT device; Big Tobacco will say to level the playing field by taxing small carts $1 each and liquid at $5 per 10ml. It's ... only fair ... to them.
Get ready.
When I demo e-smoking to people near me, the demo is usually very well received. They smile, love the idea. When I showed it to my former boss, and demo'd it, he was fine for me to e-smoke at my desk. BUT .. the non-smokers were not fine at all. From across the room, they'd wave hands in front of their faces (the univeral You Stink, Smoker gesture). This told me a lot about perception. Sure, up theirs, but they're the majority, you must understand. They rule. We don't.
Yes, there's a battle coming, but it won't be e-smoking foot soldiers carrying the banner. It must be the big manfacturers who can present scientific studies showing our safety, lack of impact on anyone near us, the health benefits. That will be countered by arguments (behind the scenes) by both Big Pharma and Big Tobacco. Big Pharma will say this drug-delivery device for highly addictive nicotine needs as much study as any NRT device; Big Tobacco will say to level the playing field by taxing small carts $1 each and liquid at $5 per 10ml. It's ... only fair ... to them.
Get ready.
You are right. It is about perception. And this will require education. I just hope that the common sense of nicotine being available unattached to the evil cigarette, can be made in time. I think the argument just has to be simply on the offense.
Those who do not want e-cigs available want people to die.
There is no other way, because they will want to twist it into being about the negative impact of nic addition and how this is a major health concern. It is. But only as it relates to tobacco. And that's where the change needs to be made. Nicotine is probably no more harmful than caffeine (and studies indicate that, outside of severly hypertensive people, caffeine is actually a mild health plus).
We need to say to anyone against e-cigs: why do you want people to die? Why are you in favor of cancer?
We need to be on the offense when the time comes. t's hard to argue in favor of cancer.
Being against e-cigs is like those people who have a problem with condoms to prevent STDs. They say you simply shouldn't have sex if you want to remain disease free. And they will say you shouldn't have e-cigs because of the addictive nature of nicotine. But people want both sex and nicotine (usually right after).
So why not simply do what is in the best interest and what is for the greater good? Nicotine. Caffeine. Same thing. Mild stimulant. If people can't quit, at least they should be able to take this creative solution and live.
Those who do not want e-cigs available want people to die.
There is no other way, because they will want to twist it into being about the negative impact of nic addition and how this is a major health concern. It is. But only as it relates to tobacco. And that's where the change needs to be made. Nicotine is probably no more harmful than caffeine (and studies indicate that, outside of severly hypertensive people, caffeine is actually a mild health plus).
We need to say to anyone against e-cigs: why do you want people to die? Why are you in favor of cancer?
We need to be on the offense when the time comes. t's hard to argue in favor of cancer.
Being against e-cigs is like those people who have a problem with condoms to prevent STDs. They say you simply shouldn't have sex if you want to remain disease free. And they will say you shouldn't have e-cigs because of the addictive nature of nicotine. But people want both sex and nicotine (usually right after).
So why not simply do what is in the best interest and what is for the greater good? Nicotine. Caffeine. Same thing. Mild stimulant. If people can't quit, at least they should be able to take this creative solution and live.
Keys, iam fascinated and completely in agreement with your views. Put another way iam worried about societys view of e-cigs, and sometimes worry myself that ecigs are"too good to be true". Governments around the world have pushed so much anti tobacco propaganda, that people will hit out at even safe alternatives to cigarettes.
The tobacco companies used to market cigarettes as increasing health, not just not dangerous. Compared to e-cigs they were, "a healthy alternative to breathing."
Maybe some distributors but RS clearly says they are intended as a smoking alternative or a cessation device. They clearly outline that you are to lessen your nicotine levels. (At least as clear as can be expected when written by an obvious native Chinese speaker.)
I don't know how it works in your country but here warnings are government mandated. Legal disclaimers are what individuals do to cover themselves, and I have seen disclaimers at some distributors.
Yeah, unfortunately there are still plenty of rogues around claiming NRT, it's not allowed here but some still do it. The only eliquid I've seen with warnings, ingredients list etc is Wicked. Some others now use child safe caps but there is still a long way to go unfortunately.
In the UK the Advertising Standards Committee have this code about marketing - The CAP Code Index
Some of the relevant things it says are:
All marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful
All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
The Code is applied in the spirit as well as in the letter.
Marketers should deal fairly with consumers.
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.
Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers.
No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.
Marketing communications should not condone or encourage unsafe practices. Particular care should be taken with marketing communications addressed to or depicting children
Marketers should hold signed and dated proof, including a contact address, for any testimonial they use. Unless they are genuine opinions taken from a published source, testimonials should be used only with the written permission of those giving them.
Testimonials alone do not constitute substantiation and the opinions expressed in them must be supported, where necessary, with independent evidence of their accuracy. Any claims based on a testimonial must conform with the Code
Unless they are genuine statements taken from a published source, references to tests, trials, professional endorsements, research facilities and professional journals should be used only with the permission of those concerned.
Marketers should not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation. Marketers must not claim that they, or any other entity that features in their marketing communications, or their products have been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval.
Guarantees may be legally binding on those offering them. The word 'guarantee' should not be used in a way that could cause confusion about consumers' legal rights. Substantial limitations on the guarantee should be spelled out in the marketing communication. Before commitment, consumers should be able to obtain the full terms of the guarantee from marketers.
Marketers should inform consumers about the nature and extent of any additional rights provided by the guarantee, over and above those given to them by law, and should make clear how to obtain redress.
Marketing communications should not mislead consumers about who manufactures the product.
I noticed one UK supplier implies that their products are approved by the medicines regulatory authority and also that they are quit smoking devices.
Some of the relevant things it says are:
All marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful
All marketing communications should be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.
The Code is applied in the spirit as well as in the letter.
Marketers should deal fairly with consumers.
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation.
If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed.
Marketers should not exploit the credulity, lack of knowledge or inexperience of consumers.
No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.
Marketing communications should not condone or encourage unsafe practices. Particular care should be taken with marketing communications addressed to or depicting children
Marketers should hold signed and dated proof, including a contact address, for any testimonial they use. Unless they are genuine opinions taken from a published source, testimonials should be used only with the written permission of those giving them.
Testimonials alone do not constitute substantiation and the opinions expressed in them must be supported, where necessary, with independent evidence of their accuracy. Any claims based on a testimonial must conform with the Code
Unless they are genuine statements taken from a published source, references to tests, trials, professional endorsements, research facilities and professional journals should be used only with the permission of those concerned.
Marketers should not display a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation. Marketers must not claim that they, or any other entity that features in their marketing communications, or their products have been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body if it has not or without complying with the terms of the approval.
Guarantees may be legally binding on those offering them. The word 'guarantee' should not be used in a way that could cause confusion about consumers' legal rights. Substantial limitations on the guarantee should be spelled out in the marketing communication. Before commitment, consumers should be able to obtain the full terms of the guarantee from marketers.
Marketers should inform consumers about the nature and extent of any additional rights provided by the guarantee, over and above those given to them by law, and should make clear how to obtain redress.
Marketing communications should not mislead consumers about who manufactures the product.
I noticed one UK supplier implies that their products are approved by the medicines regulatory authority and also that they are quit smoking devices.
Last edited:
It just makes me sick to read all the statements that a lot of these websites are claiming this to be.. They are the ones that are going to make a good thing bad...
I really think we all need to email each and every website that we find and let them know to not do this because they will in turn loose out in the long run...
I really think we all need to email each and every website that we find and let them know to not do this because they will in turn loose out in the long run...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
