You're joking, right?? This happens ALL the time on this and many other topics. Real journalism is dead, has been for a very long time.
What do electronic cigarettes contain
- Thread starter vaperature
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You're joking, right?? This happens ALL the time on this and many other topics. Real journalism is dead, has been for a very long time.
Man I forgot about that dangnabit coffee!
I guess I need to stop ordering my favorite coffee now!
Kopi luwak is world's most expensive coffee and comes from paradoxorus poop
The one substance none of us want around is "DG", and a trace amount of DG was found in one sample tested by the FDA.
However, if you follow the time line of the sample tested in 2009 it's easily explainable.
Before the EPA Red Action Paper of 2007 all VG contained trace amounts of DG. It was even in your tooth paste.
However, if you follow the time line of the sample tested in 2009 it's easily explainable.
Before the EPA Red Action Paper of 2007 all VG contained trace amounts of DG. It was even in your tooth paste.
Actually, the Attorney Generals from 41 states and providences, BOTH sides of the isle, are calling for bans and heavy regulations. It is not just one party after us, it is all. Their money bags (cigarette taxes) are being threatened.
I'm a democrat that votes with common sense. I do not vote by Party, I vote by what I feel is sensible. Our choices are very limited these days. PARTY stances are stupid ideals. The main reason I'm NOT Republican is because of the PARTY stance on abortion and a few other issues. If a Repbulican came up through the ranks that actually was allowed to have his/her own opinion and have the chance for higher office, I would have no problem voting for him/her.
Politics should be left out of this debate over ecigs. Yes, the major players against vaping are Dem, but there are MANY on the other side jumping on the bandwagon. It's not just one party.
I agree. If we were on a pro-choice forum or gay marriage forum the Conservatives might have some 'splaining to do. But we're not on one of those forums.
It's only an unfair generalization if it's not nearly 100% true.
I agree with you about the AG's and I oppose their stance regardless of political affiliation. But the FDA is a Federal agency and on the Federal level where vaping can be harmed the most, it has only been one party calling for it to be banned or severely restricted. And I am not aware of any Independent (my affiliation) or Republican on the Federal level, stating that vaping needs to be severely restricted. As I stated in my original comment, "95%" of those against vaping are liberal. Why is that?
And unfortunately, politics cannot be left out of this argument since it is politicians who will ultimately decide how or if we can vape. And we vapers did not interject politicians into this issue, they interjected themselves. And since you brought it up, one of the reasons I am an Independent is because I don't believe unrestricted abortion is morally defensible as many liberals do. (but it is not a topic we should be discussing on a vaping forum)
Last edited:
Yes, if it's not one group, it's another. Or soon will be another.
That's why our biggest problem is the social stigma that we've unfairly inherited from cigarettes. That social stigma facilitates and encourages unscrupulous behavior at our expense, on the part of anyone who imagines he might gain -- whether it's the pharmaceutical companies, or the tobacco companies, or politicians/bureaucrats who just think they can score rhetorical points by skewering the scare du jour. As long as the prevailing wisdom about e-cigarettes is negative or even ambivalent (but for the association with cigarettes), someone in a position of power will be tempted to use that widespread prejudice to his purpose, even if we can't imagine what that purpose might be at this moment.
A-er, I hate to disagree but .................
Utah was the first state in the nation to include e-cigs in their "clean air act" eliminating the use of e-cigs in all public buildings.
State senate ........ 24R, 5D
State house ......... 61R, 14D
BT & BP can buy a congressmen regardless of party affiliation
We need to remember that a congressman's only job is getting elected. So look to see who is paying the bills.
Last edited:
I agree with you at the "state & local" level. It's on the big stage, at the Federal level, where legislation can be far more damaging, that those aligned against vaping are all from one side of the political persuasion.
There is an argument to be made at any level, that the reasoning, that an activity should not be legislated if it does not impinge on others rights, has more support from one side of the political spectrum .
Last edited:
Let's face it, folks....anti-tobacco (nicotine, drugs, etc.) is a popular political position these days. It really doesn't matter if the politician is "liberal" or "conservative" just so long as they believe it's going to make the masses think more positively of them enough to vote for them.
The main reason these topics get so heated is the pasting on of terms such as "liberals" and "conservatives" when describing who is doing what. It tends to sound like a lumping of everyone and and an idea into one camp when the fact is, a blanket term like that really doesn't have much to do with the situation. They aren't doing it BECAUSE they're liberal and all liberals want a nanny state but rather because they are being lobbied to do so, and because the mainstream voting population sees it as a good thing because they are ignorant of the facts of vaping.
I think if we tried to avoid the black and white "Z0MG LIBRUHLS! and "Z0MG CONSERVACONS!" (or whatever variations...lol) when describing such issues we'd be more likely to keep a discussion on topic.
The main reason these topics get so heated is the pasting on of terms such as "liberals" and "conservatives" when describing who is doing what. It tends to sound like a lumping of everyone and and an idea into one camp when the fact is, a blanket term like that really doesn't have much to do with the situation. They aren't doing it BECAUSE they're liberal and all liberals want a nanny state but rather because they are being lobbied to do so, and because the mainstream voting population sees it as a good thing because they are ignorant of the facts of vaping.
I think if we tried to avoid the black and white "Z0MG LIBRUHLS! and "Z0MG CONSERVACONS!" (or whatever variations...lol) when describing such issues we'd be more likely to keep a discussion on topic.
Actually, it was far from "random." The FDA specifically tested e-cigarette brands carried by the two companies that were involved in a lawsuit with the FDA at the time. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to believe the FDA was unbiased in its testing and wouldn't benefit from e-cigarettes being shown as a public danger.
Only ONE cartridge (sold by one of the suing companies that is no longer in business) tested by the FDA was found to contain "about 1%" diethylene glycol, which is above the allowed 0.1% level for other consumable products. Diethylene glycol IS a potentially toxic chemical used in antifreeze, however, at "about 1%" of a cartridge holding maybe 2 ml of liquid, in order to actually BE toxic to a human, someone would have to DRINK the liquid out of several THOUSAND cartridges to reach a toxic level (for even a child.) Nevermind that, drinking that amount of liquid, you would have nicotine poisoning before reaching a toxic level of DEG! The FDA purposely misled the public into believing that it found a dangerous level of diethylene glycol by intentionally ignoring the rule that "the dose makes the poison."
I understand your thinking about blanket statements. I also agree that money in politics has undue influence regardless of party. On the issue of vaping, unfortunately, those wanting it stopped as much as possible are mostly from one side of the aisle. And since Big Pharm contributes to both, it really makes one wonder why those aligned against vaping are predominately from the left. I would like someone to explain it.
Maybe the other side is too busy trying to fight the ACA and legislate wombs.....lol (<--- seriously, just kidding)
dangit...i'll never be able to think of either party without using those two labels again.
I seriously would like vendors to let us know what sweetener they use! I have weird reactions with sucralose and would really prefer not to vape it, eat it, drink it...Ive cut it out of my life, but i think its back in because of some of the juices i have.
Also would prefer vendors not to use any food colorings but some do.
Also would prefer vendors not to use any food colorings but some do.
What she said. You would be amazed at what is "in" some of the things you consume.
OP, the base facts are this. E-cigs are out of the bag now too far to be stopped (they failed at that in 2010) so instead they are using scare tactics to do everything they can to try and get these regulated to get the money flowing to the "right" people.
Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the Tax Man all are looking at taking a hit if e-cigs continue to be similar the industry they see today.
Big Pharma wants you to buy their failed smoking "cures", so they are attacking e-cigs with half/ truths, cheery picked facts (like the anti-freeze thing) and outright lies.
Big Tobacco wants you to only be able to buy their limited supply so they are attacking flavors and online sales.
The Tax Man, just counts on the agencies of the government scaring people into hating e-cigs as much as regular cigs so they can tax the heck out of um.
It's not about our health it's about keeping the money in the same circles.
The Big Tobacco guys and tax man are already taking a hit in the form of $10-15 million annually per company. Least that's the figure that was quoted by a few wed sites when I first looked into Vape. Tobacco is running scared, loosing profits, scrambling to get a foot hold buying and starting cigalike companies. They have the most to lose, the most to spend , and why that I am highly confidant that they are the major lobbyist behind the mainstream manipulation. Trying to catch up and trying to regain their profits.
I'm sure the marketing strategist approach to the CEO was something like:
Jo, all we have to do is spread the word that vape is as dangerous as smoking, that will discourage dumb Billy J not to check it out. It will also inflame John Q Public to start rebelling against the Nasty Vape people who are threatening our health and rights with 2nd hand vape... Jo, you know as well as I that fact and science doesn't really matter, it's what John Q Public thinks and cries about that drives the lawmakers. Now while we put the brakes to the Vape industry and regain some our lost profits, we slip in and buy and develop our own scientifically proven, safe e-cigarette. well call it something like Blu or No Smoke, or Eco Smoke. then we back off and enjoy the new higher profit margins, and can play it against the tobacco farmers, bringing down out costs and further expanding our profits!! It's a win win for us Jo. .....
Least that's what I would of done if in charge of market strategy. But hey I'm only a dumb craps dealer, that can tell you what a $12 horn with a $8 C & E, and keeping up your $20 hopping hard ways, with a $15 dollar 3 way would pay when 12 craps 12 is called. Fraking hate heavy prop action. lmao. but that's what I get paid to do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
