Wisconsin Vapers Blog

With the recent announcement from Blu Electronic Cigarettes that it has been sold to Lorillard Tobacco company, panic seems to be spreading through the e-cigarette community. Many vapers seem to harbor a hatred for "Big Tobacco" and have expressed disgust, outrage, distrust and fear that the industry will now turn e-cigarettes into what they were trying to escape. Here are some personal thoughts about the situation that I posted on a community forum, in response to comments that Big Tobacco was not to be trusted with e-cigarettes:

Are any of u planning on buying any pv hardware or liquids from a company that has previously tried to knowingly kill us?????

How on earth could we ever trust that they would sell us the best that is available?
Do you still buy products from the automobile industry? Did you know the automobile industry knew that seat belts and air bags would save lives, yet fought having them be mandatory in cars? Or they knew for 30 years about the problem of spontaneous acceleration, yet covered it up and continues to deny it?

Do you still buy medications - both prescription and over the counter? Yet everyone has heard of the myriad of denials and cover ups made over the years by Big Pharma - Chantix, Avandia, Paxil - were all killing people and BP lied, denied and hide the facts. Still, people do not claim BP knowingly tried to kill people.

The denials and cover up of "Big Tobacco" were no different or worse than any of those perpetrated by other industries, yet they are still vilified while other companies get a free pass time and again. The fact is, while smoking is highly dangerous, it doesn't kill every user or even most users; there are more people today who have quit smoking than smoke and anyone who has ever smoked cannot pretend that they didn't feel the negative effects of smoking on their body and believed it was still good for them or perfectly safe. Those tobacco executives who participated in that cover up and denial are long gone. It's a well-known fact that smoking can be bad for you and has been since the 1950's, but so are a lot of other things that are sold to people today. It's fully informed, personal choice now whether or not to take the risk and has been for some time. It was well known in the 1980's when I made the choice to start smoking - whether the tobacco companies admitted it was addictive or not. The tobacco companies weren't knowingly "trying to kill" me, because I shouldn't have started smoking in the first place.

Now the question becomes, will they be "smart" with their purchase and marketing plan... If so, and if they do not re-introduce all of the "nasty" things that are in the good old analogs, they could have something here. 


I would not mind purchasing supplies from them as long as I know they are not trying to kill me like the normal smokes will. I also would be concerned about pricing and the fact that it might go up. I guess it depends on how much the government wants to step in on this and how much "pocket padding" BT is willing to pay to make this work.
Because of the general mistrust of tobacco companies, Lorillard has to know it will be under extreme scrutiny - something other e-cigarette companies haven't had to deal with...yet. If anything, Lorillard will be motivated to produce the cleanest, safest e-liquid possible because of that scrutiny - and they'll probably promote that fact. (From my understanding, the deal with Johnson Creek is not going to end anytime soon anyhow.) Additionally, unlike with tobacco - which has thousands of NATURAL ingredients within which to hide the toxic additives people believe are added to cigarettes - it would be very difficult to add toxic chemicals to something that basically has only 3 or 4 "generally regarded as safe" ingredients without being discovered.
As far as prices, Lorillard has the ability to make much larger purchases and negotiate prices with manufacturers - which will help them compete and keep prices low. I'm sure they are well aware that the high costs of regular cigarettes, a lot due to taxation, is partly why people quit smoking or switch to e-cigarettes and keeping the cost low is a strong selling point. It also gives them incentive to fight unjustified sin taxes on e-cigarettes - something that will benefit the industry as a whole.
The whole point of e-cigarettes for most people are low health risks and low price. It would be counter-productive for Lorillard to buy into the industry and remove those two greater incentives. It would be like large food company buying a popular and successful organic health food company and changing all of the ingredients to be non-organic and full of preservatives, fat and sugar. Why would anyone buy their product then?? It just wouldn't make sense.


There is the risk that Lorillard will try to negotiate with the FDA (like Philip Morris did with the FSPTCA), resulting in regulations that could essentially wipe out anything other than a blu-style device, pre-filled cartos and tobacco flavors and acquiesce sin taxes and public use bans. I can guess that CASAA would NOT support that! I hope they truly understand how vapers are a different breed - we won't go quietly into the night like we did as smokers. Lorillard needs to understand that they have a really great market with the starter vapers and don't need to destroy the cottage companies that specialize in the upgrade devices and boutique liquids. They will see a lot of consumer backlash if they attempt to move against those types of products and I will be out front leading the charge if I have to!
I don't know, this really bothers me. We all know BT has spent countless hours of research and ungodly amounts of money to make their products as addictive as possible. I have no doubt that they won't stoop that low now, and then we're back to square one again (IMHO) They'd be enslaving people to their all new product.

I believe that vaping is much safer than smoking but I don't want them dipping their dirty corrupt fingers in my juice and messing with my brain chemistry again. I just feel like we'd be stepping backwards and lose some of the benefits we've all gained by getting away from them *sigh*
Remember when opposition started coming out against e-cigarettes and everyone assumed it was big, evil tobacco trying to eliminate the competition? Remember how shocked we all were that it wasn't Big Tobacco, but all of the health groups who we thought would now be happy that we didn't smoke anymore? Remember how interesting it was to find out that so many of those opposing health groups were in the pocket of Big Pharma?

Now think of this: Once it was obvious e-cigarettes were here to stay, either Big Pharma or Big Tobacco were bound to get into the e-cigarette industry. It was inevitable. Which would you trust more to handle that business now?

An industry which was called out 30 years ago for refusing to admit what everyone already knew anyhow - that smoking wasn't good for you and was potentially addicting; has made attempts to create safer products for its consumers; is under great public scrutiny and is sympathetic to people who want to use tobacco/nicotine products recreationally and without being vilified and ostracized by society?

Original Artwork: Mike Keefe, The Denver PostOr an industry that has secretly been behind all of the lies about e-cigarettes and smokeless alternatives; lied to get smokers/vapers banned from just about everywhere; financially supported groups that made smokers, tobacco users and nicotine users social pariahs in order to guilt them into buying their gums and patches and increase their profits; lied about and/or hid the relative safety of smoke-free alternatives (effectively killing millions of smokers who would have otherwise switched); perpetuated the "quit or die" standard in order to sell more gums and patches and increase their profits; lied and/or hid the dangerous effects of Chantix; lied and/or hid the fact that NRT are highly ineffective, yet continue to tell people they are "safe and effective, so use them instead of smoke-free alternatives," which is effectively keeping smokers smoking (and endangering their health) every time the gums and patches fail?

You could say "neither," but then all you would be left with the e-cigarette industry, which is unorganized, unregulated, fly-by-night; has largely refused to step up and implement the most basic manufacturing and ethical sales standards in nearly 10 years; has been largely MIA in the fight against bans, taxes and sales restrictions and has only one representative organization that is apparently willing to throw everyone else under the bus to make their business model of the pre-filled, tobacco flavored carto the FDA standard.

It baffles me how vapers continue to see Big Tobacco as some inherently untrustworthy and unethical entity knowing what Big Pharma and the ANTZ groups have perpetrated over the past 30 years - lying and covering up the facts- at the expense of public health, in order to make a billions in profits. Especially since it was the ANTZ who have worked tirelessly to provide the "evidence" to demonize the tobacco industry in the eyes of the public (for doing exactly the same thing) and giving smokers a reason not to hold themselves accountable for their own actions.

Think about it - everything you know, all of the evidence about Big Tobacco, came from the same people who are now telling the public that "Big E-cigarettes" are targeting kids with the tasty flavors that no adult would use; contain anti-freeze, other toxic chemicals and carcinogens; are possibly more addicting than cigarettes; that vapers are just underhandedly trying to circumvent smoking bans and their vapor could be harmful to bystanders, so the industry is lobbying legislators to keep it legal to use publicly. They are twisting the facts, exaggerating, guessing and even telling outright lies to protect their profits. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious about what they've been telling you about Big Tobacco?

Opinions posted on this blog are those solely of the author(s) and do not represent the opinon, views or policy of any organization or company with which the author(s) may be otherwise associated.

Dr. Michael Siegel
Boston University School of Public Health
The American Legacy Foundation released a policy statement on electronic cigarettes, in which it called for the removal of these products from the market. The statement was entitled "The FDA Should Take Electronic Cigarettes Off The Market Until It Is Satisfied That They Are Safe and Effective."


According to the statement: "While we remain open to promising products that can help smokers quit smoking, a consideration of all of the available evidence combined with important unanswered questions strongly supports our call on the FDA to prohibit the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes unless and until the FDA is satisfied that they are safe and effective."

I have already explained why this is an inappropriate policy suggestion that would result in severe public health harm. There is little doubt that these products are helping literally thousands of people to remain smoke-free and that removing them from the market would result in thousands of ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking because e-cigarettes are no longer available. I have also explained how this policy statement misrepresents the scientific evidence, as it suggests that electronic cigarettes present a carcinogenic risk, although the actual laboratory findings show that only trace levels of carcinogens are present in these products, comparable to the levels of carcinogens present in nicotine gum and nicotine patches -- products which the American Legacy Foundation has no concerns regarding safety. Moreover, the levels of carcinogens in electronic cigarettes are more than 1000 times lower than in Marlboros, meaning that these products can dramatically reduce a smoker's cancer risk.

This commentary, however, focuses on another issue: the question of the objectivity of the policy statement and whether or not Legacy appropriate revealed conflicts of interest that may be perceived as affecting Legacy's position and its reporting of the scientific evidence.[Read More]

"There is no safe form of driving. Driving sober is not a safe alternative to driving drunk."
Imagine if that was the message being given to the public in an effort to reduce traffic fatalities. Imagine that the government required car manufacturers to place signs in their cars stating that "driving this vehicle while sober is not a safe alternative to driving while intoxicated." Imagine the public outrage that would occur if those tasked with protecting the public were to make that sort of statement or make such requirements! It would be the truth, but would anyone seriously view that as a responsible and effective message?

One sign tells the truth responsibly. 
The other - not so much.There really is no safe way to drive - if you are talking about being 100% safe. Every time one gets behind the wheel of a car, or even rides in a car, there are all types of risks involved. The roads may be slippery, another driver may be texting, someone else may be drunk, an inattentive driver may run a red light - any number of things could happen. There is just no way to make driving 100% safe.
Fortunately, society has recognized that there are ways to reduce those risks and increase the odds that drivers will reach their destination safely. There are traffic lights, lane dividers, speed restrictions and laws against drunk or distracted driving to decrease the odds of an accident and seat belts, air bags and other devices to decrease the risks of death should an accident occur.
So, while we know that there is no 100% safe way to drive, we certainly wouldn't allow public officials to send the message that they may as well drive drunk - that would be irresponsible and counter-productive to the goal of reducing driving fatalities. It is clear to everyone that while driving sober still has some low risks, driving drunk is far more dangerous.
Yet, the government and public health officials routinely tell people that "there is no safe form of tobacco" and that "smoke-free tobacco products are not a safe alternative to smoking," even though research shows unequivably that smoking is far more risky than smoke-free tobacco use. They also require tobacco companies to put warnings on their smoke-free products that they are "not a safe alternative to smoking," thereby discouraging smokers from switching. This is in spite of the fact that they know that smoke-free products do not have the risk of lung diseases, half to less than one-quarter the risk of oral cancers and the risks of heart and cardivascular disease are proving to be slim to none with some smoke-free products. It should be made clear to everyone that while smoke-free tobacco still has some low risks, exposure to tobacco smoke is far more dangerous.
With 23% of US adults using tobacco products, 3% of them smoke-free tobacco users, public officials and public health organizations are essentially telling these people that they may as well smoke or keep smoking. This is ethically no better than telling people that they may as well drive drunk because driving sober is no guarantee they won't have an accident. We would never dream of allowing our representatives to send that message about driving to the public and we shouldn't allow them to send a similar message about tobacco risks. 
According to MADD, efforts to educate the public - that not driving while drunk significantly decreased their risks of a fatal accident - have saved over 300,000 lives in the past 25 years. The CDC states that more deaths are caused each year by [smoking] than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. Imagine how many lives would have been saved over the past 25 years if people had known that there were much safer tobacco alternatives. The public should be outraged. 
The time is long overdue to stop sending the wrong message - even if it is technically "the truth."

The 1999 article below was an obvious attempt at making "Big Tobacco" seem to be the bad guy pushing around "innocent" pharmaceutical companies, but it takes on new meaning when considering the recent actions taken against electronic cigarettes and other smoke-free alternatives by groups receiving massive amounts of funding from Big Pharma, such as the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. 
"The result is thousands of smokers cycling between competing forms of nicotine, "turning to a patch, gum or pill for a month" as a result of a New Year's resolution, "then relapsing to a cigarette product," said Gregory N. Connolly of the Massachusetts tobacco control program. "You get this sort of strange, symbiotic relationship between the tobacco industry and the drug companies where everybody makes money." 
Anyone "poo-pooing" the claims that Big Pharma would use it's financial influence over public health organizations to quietly lobby for policies, which ensure future profits, as "silly conspiracy theories" may change their mind after reading this must-read article. Apparently, the drug companies learned from the best.

Consider, too, the implications that the public health groups knew back in 1999 that the products they shill today as "safe and effective" already had studies which showed that "on any single attempt people who try quitting cold turkey succeed about 3% of the time, whereas success with gum or patches rises to 7% or 8%." This translates to a 92% - 93% failure rate and a relapse back to smoking. It's interesting that this fact has only recently been widely reported in the media (based upon "new" studies) and as Big Pharma lobbies the FDA to market it's NRT products for long-term use to complete with the innovative smoke-free products    now gaining a market share of former smokers.

(Note: Once clicking the link below, the full article is 3 pages long.)

Big Tobacco Keeps Thumb on Makers of Stop-Smoking Aids
Memos show cigarette firms pressured manufacturers of nicotine gums and patches to mute their message.
February 14, 1999|MYRON LEVIN | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Cigarette makers and the drug firms that market nicotine gum and patches would seem to be natural enemies, at war in a multibillion-dollar market of people hooked on nicotine.

Yet a peaceful coexistence has reigned between them since nicotine replacement products were introduced in the 1980s to help smokers kick the habit.

The quit-smoking aids are widely advertised, and in recent years have joined such remedies as Advil, Tums and Robitussin on a list of the country's top-selling over-the-counter medicines. Yet they are promoted in a manner certain to minimize conflict with cigarette manufacturers.

Veterans of the smoking wars think they know why.

 For at least a decade, Philip Morris sought to intimidate drug firms marketing the stop-smoking products, using the threat of economic reprisals to make them tone down their ads and refrain from supporting the anti-smoking cause, according to once-secret documents from the world's biggest cigarette maker. Philip Morris officials declined interview requests.
 
 R.J. Reynolds, the second biggest U.S. tobacco company, also was engaged in some of the efforts, documents and interviews show.

 Pressure tactics were exerted against at least two major drug firms between 1982 and 1992, although they may have continued beyond that date. A non-confrontational marketing approach for the nicotine products remains in use today.

 Moreover, within the last three years, a major worldwide supplier of cigarette filters to the tobacco industry [GlaxoSmithKline] has become a power in the gum and patch business, thus playing in both arenas of the nicotine market.

 Drug firms say their ads are not intended to appease the tobacco industry, but rather aim for the best approach to boosting sales. Even so, their marketing message is the same one that cigarette makers sought to dictate in the past by threatening to cancel supply contracts with the drug firms' corporate parents, internal memos show.

 Rather than attack cigarettes directly or implore all smokers to quit, their ads target the narrow band of smokers who are currently trying to quit--offering a product that can help ease their nicotine cravings.

Companies Muffle Anti-Smoking Message

The involvement of drug firms in anti-smoking politics has been limited as well. Since gaining federal approval in 1996 for over-the-counter sales, patch and gum marketers have financially supported the American Cancer Society and American Lung Assn. in exchange for using their logos in ads. But to the disappointment of tobacco foes, they have chosen not to involve themselves directly in political fights--such as by lobbying for higher tobacco taxes that would help their business by making quitting more attractive.

Considering the history of tobacco industry pressure, "I think there's no question that there's still a residual influence," said Gregory N. Connolly, director of tobacco control for Massachusetts.

Drug firms seem determined "not to get into a public war" with cigarette makers, when "what the public needs is a war between the tobacco industry and the drug industry," Connolly said.

"There are a lot of people who hoped that when they [drug companies] got into the 'quit' market, they would be more aggressively involved in a lot of activities to reduce tobacco use," said Matt Myers, general counsel for the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Some observers have even suggested there is a symbiotic relationship between drug and tobacco firms as millions of would-be quitters cycle between buying cigarettes and gum or patches in a long-term struggle against nicotine addiction.[Read More] 

This is a telling news report. 

The ANTZ claim that smoking bans are good for businesses and do not negatively impact the economy. You could just read this article and think that the owner allowing smoking in his bar is exaggerating the 20% loss in business after banning smoking. However, if business doesn't actually drop after smoking bans, why is the owner of the bar down the road - one that does enforce the ban - feel it is "unfair" that the law is not evenly enforced? According to the ANTZ, his business should be booming compared to the smoke-filled tavern down the road. Except a picture is worth a 1,000 words:
Busy smoking barNearly empty non-smoking bar down the roadAlso telling is the comment made by the man at the smoking bar when asked if he's planning on quitting any time soon.

"When they bury me," he replied.
This is what we call an 'inveterate smoker" and smokers like him are completely forgotten and ignored by the ANTZ when they suggest tobacco and smoking policies to legislators. Rather than caring about this man, he is left behind as a lost cause or even worse, villainized for his smoking. This man, who has no intention of quitting tobacco, is fed the lies and half-truths about smokeless alternatives and electronic cigarettes. He is encouraged to keep smoking because the government tells him that smokeless alternatives are really no better for him. Even if he did decide to switch to a reduced-harm option to save money, local, state and federal governments all across the country are increasing taxes on these products, making them as or more expensive than cigarettes and removing that incentive.
 If he decided to switch to an e-cigarette, which are not currently banned for public use in Wisconsin (and in most of the country), the ANTZ groups such as the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids are lobbying hard to ensure that e-cigarette use is also banned in public, removing yet another incentive to switch. These laws are meant to protect imaginary "possible future smokers" who do not even exist, yet what they really accomplish is keeping real, living smokers in harm's way by putting up every road block possible to him switching to a loss-risk, smokeless alternative.
Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469 has been introduced by Senator Glen Grothman and is intended to ensure that e-cigarettes are not included in indoor smoking bans. If passed, this will be the first legislation it's kind passed in the entire world - legislation to protect the use of a harm reduction product in public. This legislation could set a precedence and set an example for state and local governments all over the country. 
There are an estimated 2.5 million electronic cigarette users in this country. These are not the hypothetical youth and non-smokers over which the ANTZ wring their hands, but living, breathing human beings; former smokers who have made the conscious choice to end their exposure to smoke. These are folks who can head back out to that corner bar and enjoy an evening without having to step outside for a smoke and business could be booming again for that owner with the empty bar. The ANTZ want to put a stop to even that.
Please write your congressmen and ask them to support Wisconsin Assembly Bill 469. You can easily find them here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx 


(For the record, I do not support public smoking bans in private businesses or open, outdoor areas. However, the ANTZ have successfully sold these bans to the public based on their "evidence." When it comes to e-cigarette use bans, on the other hand, they may as well cite fairy dust and magic potions as "evidence," because they have absolutely nothing else that even suggests harm to users or bystanders!)

I woke up this morning thinking about a few places now trying to ban e-cigarette use (along with smoking) outdoors - including at parks and beaches. A recent television episode of a show my kids watch showed a girl trying to read at the beach and being bothered by grill smoke - which got me thinking....

Would the FDA or CDC argue that charcoal or wood smoke is actually safer to inhale than the smoke from tobacco leaves? If not, then would that not be an argument to also ban charcoal grilling from parks and beaches, in order to protect innocent bystanders from THAT smoke, as well? And since there is "NO safe level" of smoke exposure, regardless of ventilation systems installed, would that not support banning the use of wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills in food service and restaurants, in order to protect employees and patrons? If you can smell the grill in the dining room, that means you are being exposed to smoke, right? How can they argue one smoke is safer than another smoke? (Yet, apparently they do.)

Men "smoking" at the park.
Think of the children!And then there's campfires, fireplaces and fire pits to consider. Shouldn't those be banned, as well?

I think at these meetings where they are trying to ban e-cigs/smoking outside (where grilling is allowed) we should insist that they add grills to the ordinance or not pass it at all!! And if they are trying to ban e-cig use in bars & restaurants, insist they also ban wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills, because my safety is at risk! (Let's see them answer THAT one.)

I know that this has long been an argument made by smoker's rights groups, but I have yet to hear it or about read this argument at any public testimonies regarding outdoor bans and I don't think anyone has insisted or argued that we SHOULD ban grills and fire pits. Maybe the time has come to force them to put their money where their mouth is or shut up.

Think about it - they want to ban smoking and smokeless e-cigarettes at the stadium in Indianapolis, but the hundreds of tailgating grills that will be at the Super Bowl this weekend, pumping out enough smoke to equal dozens of smokers for hours before the game, isn't a concern? Still think these bans are supported by "science?" Time to call them on their bluff?