Weblog maken?

MaakEenWebsite.nl (tip)
Totaal slechts 10 euro per maand incl. domeinnaam en gratis overzetten van uw bestaande weblog bij Bloggers.nl 100 MB ruimte
Lees meer..... en bestel
Gratis geld verdienen met e-mails lezen? Meld je aan bij
Zinngeld, Surfrace, Qassa en Euroclix !

Op zoek naar God?
Greg's blog Home | Profile | Archives | Friends

Biological Basis of the Need for Nicotine19/7/2013
The Truth About Nicotine It is widely believed that nicotine causes cancer and heart more? info? disease. But it is other ingredients in tobacco smoke--not nicotine--that cause these. In fact, nicotine is an extremely effective treatment for several disease conditions, and can prevent a number of other serious, debilitating diseases. It is not lack of willpower but rather nicotine's "wonder-drug" qualities best site that prevent so many smokers from being able to quit.
Smokeless cigarette Frequently Asked Question For Newbies http://nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/2010/11/biological-basis-of-need-for-nicotine.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Trying To Quit? This E-Cigarette Tweets Your Shame19/7/2013

Chicagoans help on electronic cigarettes study

Thanks to the rise of open-source, cheap, and easy-to-program reusable microcontrollers like v2 cigs coupon code the Arduino , however, you can now connect just about anything to the Internet with very little overhead. Agencies are increasingly taking advantage of this new capability by setting up labs of people who can do much more than just conceptualize ideas for their clients. Everybody here is a maker, so at the end of the day we're producing something, says group director Marc Maleh, who oversees the prototype studio. That mentality lead to a functional connected e-cigarette prototype and companion iPhone app in just four days of work.
For the original version including v2 cigs any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.fastcolabs.com/3014518/open-company/trying-to-quit-this-e-cigarette-tweets-your-shame

Adam Provenzano, E-cig user: I quit for a while and started back up again, smoking about a pack a day. Since I started this, I havent had a cigarette which is a good thing. I know that we dont know all the facts on whats in it yet, but I do know its a lot safer than regular cigarettes. But are they? Its a burning question the U.S.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://wgntv.com/2013/07/18/chicagoans-help-on-electronic-cigarettes-study/

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Tobacco Harm Reduction: Hope in the U.S., Despair in Europe19/7/2013
Tobacco Truth Helping smokers avoid risks is a legitimate goal of tobacco control. But the movement has morphed into an anti-tobacco crusade intent on demonizing both tobacco users and the industry supplying them. This blog examines and comments on the scientific foundation for tobacco policies and fallacies. Thursday, June 27, 2013 Tobacco Harm Reduction: Hope in the U.S., Despair in Europe In my commentary, ?The Electronic Future of Cigarettes,? published last week in The Atlantic,  I described ??a radical transformation in the way our society uses tobacco?as tobacco consumers switch to smoke-free products like smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes.?  One of my longstanding goals has been to correct http://WhiteSmokeReview.com volt electronic cigarette REVIEWS decades of misinformation about nicotine and tobacco, in order to introduce safer smoke-free products to millions of smokers.  The Atlantic article, available here and reproduced below, conveys a hopeful message, but optimism in the U.S. is offset by depressing events in Europe.  The British Government two weeks ago decided to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines ( here ), a move that will likely deter wider e-cig adoption by smokers.  The European Union continues to move forward with its tobacco directive, which denies vastly safer snus to all but Swedish smokers and places further restrictions on e-cigarettes.  A blistering public health critique of the European Commission, the European Council and the Irish Presidency, the World Health Organization, the European public health lobby and various governmental health organizations is offered by Clive Bates in his recent web post ( here ).   The Electronic Future of Cigarettes Aiming for a tobacco-free society is go here myopic. Embrace the safer alternative. Brad Rodu The Atlantic, June 20, 2013 We are on the cusp of a radical transformation in the way our society uses tobacco. Cigarette consumption is in substantial, protracted decline as tobacco consumers switch to smoke-free products like smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes. This isn't America's first large-scale change in tobacco habits; in the early 1900s, cigarettes replaced chewing tobacco. This is, however, the first shift with a promising public health outcome. The reason is simple science: Smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products are around 98 percent safer than traditional cigarettes .  The evidence has been mounting for a long time. I published  my first scientific studies  on vastly safer smoke-free cigarette substitutes almost 20 years ago. Britain's Royal College of Physicians, one of the world's oldest and most prestigious medical societies,  reported in 2002 : "As a way of using nicotine, the consumption of non-combustible [smokeless] tobacco is on the order of 10-1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product." The report continued with an even bolder statement, acknowledging that some smokeless manufacturers may want to market their products "as a 'harm reduction' option for nicotine users, and they may find support for that in the public health community." In 2007, the Royal College challenged governments to consider "...that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved." Big tobacco companies are already adapting to the demand for smoke-free tobacco. Altria, the largest American cigarette manufacturer, will sell e-cigarettes throughout Indiana in August. Number two Reynolds American believes that "governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others share a responsibility to provide adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products." Reynolds sells Snus, a smokeless tobacco product that has produced an extraordinarily low smoking rate in Sweden, under its flagship Camel brand. Reynolds also introduced dissolvable tobacco products, and it owns a pharmaceutical company that sells nicotine gum. In July Reynolds will start selling its Vuse e-cigarettes in Colorado. Lorillard, the nation's third largest cigarette maker, is taking an aggressive smoke-free posture in the public policy arena as it promotes its Blu e-cigarette brand. Lorillard CEO Murray Kessler wrote , "We see e-cigarettes as a product that has the potential to play a critical role in the national harm reduction discussion and affords our company a seat at the table in this debate." Sadly, the potential of tobacco harm reduction is threatened by opposition from many major medical organizations and government agencies. Obsessed with a myopic vision of a tobacco-free society, they have transformed a legitimate war on smoking into a moral crusade against tobacco, a mistake that was tragically made with alcohol almost 100 years ago. Congress has prohibited tobacco marketers from any communication with smokers regarding safer alternatives without the express approval of the FDA. So far, the agency has taken a hard line, claiming , falsely, that, "To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products." The agency is defying a key element of its stated mission - "to provide the American public with factual and accurate information about tobacco products." In an effort to kill the nascent smoke-free market, the FDA is slow-walking development of necessary regulations. In March 2012, it my website signaled the extraordinary lengths that companies will have to go to in order to have a product accepted as "modified [i.e., reduced] risk. In essence, the agency will require dozens of new studies on minute product details and human effects, which will likely take a decade or more. This is regulatory fundamentalism, a bureaucratic maze that will condemn e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, and therefore tobacco harm reduction, to purgatory. With this delay, cigarettes will continue to dominate the American tobacco market, and 440,000 more Americans will die from smoking-related disease every year. One thousand two hundred and five deaths. Every. Single. Day. The body of highly credible research and roster of public health experts endorsing tobacco harm reduction continues to grow, providing more science-based support for smokers to switch. In the absence of rational FDA regulation, nicotine-addicted smokers would do well to quit cigarettes and avail themselves of the many smoke-free harm reduction products that are currently on the market. Posted by
Usually Posed Inquiries On Smokeless cigarettes http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2013/06/tobacco-harm-reduction-hope-in-us.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

LIRR Rules Allow E-Cigs, But LIRR Bans Them Anyway18/7/2013

Are e-cigarettes healthier?

But hold on; let's look at the language of the law. Here's what the rule cited by the LIRR's Legal Department states: No person in a terminal, station or train shall... (o) burn a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe, or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any tobacco substitute on a train or in any indoor area within a terminal or station not specifically designated as an area where such conduct is permitted; The problem of course, is that nothing is "burned" in an e-cigarette they operate without any combustion. "The LIRR's ban on e-cigarette use is arbitrary and not based on the science," says Gregory Conley, an attorney and legislative director for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, a group that promotes the use of e-cigs. "E-cigarettes do not burn anything, and therefore it is absurd to claim that the current law covers these products." Conley added that the association is exploring its legal options.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://gothamist.com/2013/07/17/lirr_ecigs_ban.php

blu eCigs Covers Your Butt At Bonnaroo Music & Arts Festival - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

best quality e cig Music lovers and media alike will be able to enjoy 3 days of live music for free, featuring a stellar mix of 30 of today's electronica and indie music acts including Shiny Toy Guns DJ featuring Carah Faye (@shinytoyguns), Body Language (@body_language), Flume (@flumemusic), Datsik (@datsik), and Keys N Krates (@keysnkrates). blu eCigs revamped the venue located in the heart of Austin at 418 E. 6th Street inside and out, bringing in diverse artists, leading sound providers and unsurpassed lighting for concertgoers. The Electric Lounge will also provide a unique experience for concert fans to enjoy device charging stations, lounge areas, a VIP bar and an interactive social media photo booth.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.marketwatch.com/story/blu-ecigs-presents-the-electric-lounge-2013-03-11

blu eCigs Presents The Electric Lounge

Erika Sward, American Lung Association's vice president of national advocacy, said e-cigs have not been thoroughly studied and no one really knows the chemical content in the e-juice. She also criticized the FDA and the Obama Administration for not moving fast enough in regulating e-cigarettes.

The American Lung Association is very concerned about the potential health impacts of e-cigarettes, said Sward, adding another big concern is the product is being marketed to children. When I see a product with a cotton candy flavor, I don't think that is for adults.

Sward said there is also ample proof that e-cigarette companies are marketing the products as a tobacco cessation aide.

Kiklas said manufacturers of cessation products, not the tobacco industry, is leading the charge against e-cigarettes. Most tobacco manufacturers are or soon will be joining the e-cigarette market after tobacco sales declined by 5 percent last year.

Kiklas said regular tobacco cigarettes have 7,000 chemicals, 600 of which become carcinogens when ignited. E-cigarettes only have five basic ingredients: nicotine, flavoring, water, glycerol and propylene glycol less than one half of 1 percent of the harmful chemicals, he said.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.ocala.com/article/20130717/ARTICLES/130719745

Occupy Wall Street Gives NYPD Perfect Excuse To Crack Down On Elderly Veterans If you have any questions or comments about this page please contact pressreleases@worldnow.com . SOURCE blu eCigs blu eCigs joins forces with Clean Vibes Trading Post for first ever "Cover Your Butts" cigarette cleanup effort at North America's Largest Music Event blu Vapor Lounge to host surprise artist appearance; offering e-cigarette samples to age-appropriate fans CHARLOTTE, N.C., June 10, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- blu eCigs , the electronic cigarette company widely known for its products' superior style and quality, today announced its partnership with the critically acclaimed Bonnaroo Music & Arts Festival taking place from June 13-16 in Manchester, Tennessee. blu eCigs' unique activation space, coined The Vapor Lounge, will feature surprise guest appearances from some of this festival's top performers in the indie, rock, and hip-hop genres. blu eCigs will also partner with Clean Vibes to bring the "Cover Your Butts" cigarette cleanup effort and will also supply two winners with two general admissions passes to the festival through a Twitter giveaway.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.wthr.com/story/22547807/blu-ecigs-covers-your-butt-at-bonnaroo-music-arts-festival

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Imagine what would happen if all companies sold products like tobacco18/7/2013
Discussing tobacco and nicotine consumer discrimination, unethical nanny state laws, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, personal vaporizers, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other smoke-free topics. Wednesday, September 26, 2012 Imagine what would happen if all companies sold products like tobacco In a   recent post , on the Legacy website, President and CEO of the Legacy Dr. Healton laments that there are no graphic label warnings in sight for tobacco products and writes, "One of my favorite truth® spots asks the American public to imagine what would happen if all companies sold products like tobacco . In such a world, the consumer protections we expect on items from lead paint in children?s toys to toxic ingredients would disappear. Yet, just when it seems like policy makers are making bold, historic moves to change the way our nation addresses our No. 1 preventable and needless cause of death, tobacco products continue to be treated as the exception to the basic principles of consumer protection." Here's the thing - I honestly cannot think of any other product that has more warnings associated with it than tobacco. Not only is the public deluged daily with anti-tobacco ads featuring grim warnings in every type of media - television and radio (where the tobacco companies are prohibited from advertising), print media and they are even limited on the internet -  the product ads and labels already carry warnings similar to those on other risky products and are quite graphic front page even without images. Who could possibly still claim ignorance of the well-publicized health risks? Many of the warnings, such as those shown on the snus packages pictured on the right, aren't even scientifically proven to be true. In some cases, the warning is an outright lie! There is no scientific evidence proving or even strongly linking snus to oral cancer; it is not shown to cause significant gum or tooth loss; it is not harmful simply because it is addicting nor has it been shown not to be a safe alternative to smoking (and it's obvious - to just about everyone without a financial interest in keeping people smoking - that smoke-free tobacco products like http://WhiteSmokeReview.com safe cig cartomizers snus are a image source "safe-R" alternative.) So let's consider her argument from another perspective. What would happen if all companies were forced to sell their products like groups such as Legacy want tobacco to be sold? Imagine, all companies would have to have graphic images of the worst-case health scenario covering 1/2 or more of the label - Legacy's idea of "basic principles of consumer protection." Imagine a world with public warnings like this: Maybe this:
Newbie Answers To Common E cig Queries http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2012/09/imagine-what-would-happen-if-all.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Are E Cigarettes Safe: 4 Vital Considerations18/7/2013
The relatively young nature and apparently lack of peer review of clinical tests has allowed the question ?Are e cigarettes safe?? be posed by many potential users.  There is no doubt that this represents a genuine concern that cannot be disregarded despite the growing number of electronic cigarette users as well as the huge chunk it has taken out of the tobacco industry.  This device, which was invented in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist, only made its way to mainstream markets in the United States in 2007. Like most new products, there are huge speculations and misconceptions that accompany its presence and usage.  The simple fact is that instead of traditional tobacco leaves, it makes use of a nicotine solution that is heated by a battery-powered mechanism to produce water vapor that quickly turns into mist.  Despite the various testimonials from long time users, there are still some sectors questioning its safety because of lack of clinical trials and regulation.  Some of the reasons why the concern ?Are e cigarettes safe?? can be responded to positively are: The lower nicotine levels. Based on the initial studies conducted on the use of electronic cigarette s, they do not appear to be bad for the heart.  In fact, researcher Konstantinos Farsalinos, MD, from the Onassis Cardiac Surgery in Greece, even suggests that the simulating nature of electronic cigarettes can be an effective technique to gradually kick the addictive habit, which has been proven to cause havoc to the health of smokers. Available data on traditional tobacco cigarettes is irrefutable; it contains carcinogenic, toxic, and poisonous chemicals that harm the smoker, the people around them, and the environment.  In stark contrast, electronic cigarettes are comparatively less harmful with its type of delivery system, which converts the liquid nicotine solution into water vapor.  Although Farsalinos admits before the European Society of Cardiology that studies may be small, electronic cigarettes are still comparatively better. The main reason is that the nicotine content is measureable, unlike in traditional tobacco cigarettes.  This means that vapers can choose anywhere from high nicotine content and gradually move to lower nicotine levels.  In fact, the presentation of various nicotine strengths give vapers the option to eventually reach nicotine-free levels, where they simply enjoy the motions and sensory experience of smoking, external link without the debilitating side effects.  This is a good way to respond to the concern of ?Are e cigarette s safe?? There are reduced risk levels. Are e cigarette s safe, is a natural concern of those who have never tried the device before.  Although not conclusive, the answer to this query would be yes, simply because, as Dr.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/are-e-cigarettes-safe-4-vital-considerations/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

E-cig sellers jockey for market position before FDA issues regulations18/7/2013

to advertise on TV," said David Howard, spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Vapor, the subsidiary selling Vuse. But, he added, "in our television ads you will not see people using the product." In addition, Vuse will not be marketed online. Howard said that decision was a function of not having enough security to ensure that the products were being sold only to adultsa concern that reflects recognition that the FDA will be regulating e-cigs as tobacco products. "Therefore, we are marketing them as tobacco products," Howard said.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.cnbc.com/id/100890887

Bestselling E Cigs Starter Kit by EverSmoke Review DigitalSmoke.org

People who are planning to enjoy vaping first time in their life, for them basic starter kit by EverSmoke is a best option. This starter kit has everything which a smoker need while puffing. As per the customers safe cigs coupon reviews e cigarette basic starter kit of this brand is one of the best kit available in the market for the new Vapers. Customers of this kit are provided with one standard battery, one portable wall charger, one USB charger, five flavored cartridges and one user manual.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.emailwire.com/release/128005-Bestselling-E-Cigs-Starter-Kit-by-EverSmoke-Review-DigitalSmokeorg.html

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

FDA: Adverse Events Related to E-Cigarettes Are Almost Nonexistent18/7/2013
9 2 Dr. Chen notes: ??approximately half of all tobacco-related [adverse event] reports [since the late 1980s] concern electronic cigarettes, the first of which was submitted in 2008.?  A look at details of the events reveals that few reflect legitimate e-cigarette health impact. Some ?serious? complaints variously involved hospitalization for pneumonia, congestive heart failure, disorientation, seizure, hypotension, possible aspiration pneumonia, second-degree burns (from a battery explosion), chest pain and rapid heartbeat, possible infant death from choking on a cartridge, and loss of vision.  The single burn quit smoking coupons case may have been related to an e-cigarette, as there have been media reports of rare battery-related incidents ( here ).  The infant choking death, while tragic, implicates irresponsible adults who put children in proximity of ingestible objects; it is not an e-cigarette health issue.  All of the other ?serious? complaints were nonspecific and probably unrelated to the product. Dr. online Chen reports that ??other e-cigarette complaints include concerns about false advertising, headache/migraine, chest pain, cough/sputum, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, feeling sick, confusion/stupor, sore throat, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, pleurisy, blurry vision, and sleepy/tired.?  He correctly adds, ?Of note, there is not necessarily a causal relationship between AEs reported and e-cigarette use, as some more? info? AEs could be related to pre-existing conditions or due to other causes not reported.? E-cigarettes are relatively new products, so it is not surprising that adverse events have surfaced in the form of ??voluntary communications from consumers, health care professionals, and concerned members of the public.?  The bottom line is: Among millions of e-cigarette users, credible adverse events are almost nonexistent.   
Usually Sought Concerns Regarding Electric cigarettes http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2013/02/fda-adverse-events-related-to-e_6.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

The Truth About E-liquid And Your Health16/7/2013
Since its introduction, vaping with electronic cigarette s has become more and more popular. For the past 10 years, the number of people who continue to smoke with obsolete tobacco cigarettes has been in steady decline. Simultaneously, the number of people who enjoy clean, fresh nicotine vapor produced by electronic cigarette s has increased.   How enjoy electronic cigarette is vaping with e-cigs different?   One very big difference between smoking obsolete tobacco cigarettes and vaping with electronic cigarettes is the e-liquid . This is also sometimes called liquid nicotine or E juice.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/the-truth-about-e-liquid-and-your-health/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

V2 Cigs Coupon Code Saves Users 15% on E-Cigarettes16/7/2013

Users can choose between an automatic or manual battery, and pair it with the cartridge flavor of their choice. A V2 Cigs Standard E-Cig Starter Kit includes an automatic e-cig battery, a manual battery, ten e-liquid flavor cartridges and a USB e-cig charger with wall adapter. V2 Cigs starter kits serve as the perfect gift for smokers looking to make the switch from http://v2cigs-couponcode.com/buy-v2-cigs-the-reasonable-one/ conventional tobacco cigarettes to safer and cheaper electronic cigarettes. According to Lindsay v2 cigs coupon code Fox of EcigaretteReviewed.com, "These exclusive V2 Cigs coupons allow our viewers to get their hands on some of the best products in the marketplace and save money at the same time." The V2 Cigs coupon code offering a 15% discount on online purchase of V2 Cigs Starter Kits is "ECR15KITS," while a discount of 10% can be availed at V2 Cigs stores nationwide with the coupon code "ECR10ALL." About EcigaretteReviewed: Based in California, EcigaretteReviewed.com is the primary source of unbiased, accurate and valid e cigarette reviews .
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://markets.financialcontent.com/stocks/news/read/23062729/V2_Cigs_Coupon_Code_Saves_Users_15_on_E

Cigarettes could go up in smoke as American technology arrives in Prague

1 online electronic cigarette in America, is at the forefront of a cultural transformation that is nothing short of revolutionary. Just two years ago, electronic cigarettes were a novelty item that many dismissed as a passing fad. Instead, electronic cigarettes or e-cigs have become a billion-dollar business. And their staggering growth is just beginning.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://praguemonitor.com/2013/06/11/cigarettes-could-go-smoke-american-technology-arrives-prague

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

A Changing World: All Three Major U.S. Tobacco Companies Have Now Entered the Electronic Cigarette Market16/7/2013
...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news. Wednesday, June 12, 2013 A Changing World: All Three Major U.S. Tobacco Companies Have Now Entered the Electronic Cigarette Market Reflecting massive changes in the U.S. tobacco space, all three major U.S. tobacco companies - Altria, Reynolds American, and Lorillard - have all entered the electronic cigarette market. Lorillard had previously acquired Blu, but last week's announcement that R.J. Reynolds will introduce Vuse e-cigarettes in Colorado in July and this week's announcement that Altria will introduce MarkTen e-cigarettes in Indiana in August mean that all three companies will have entrants in the electronic cigarette market. The Rest of the Story There is now no question that the major cigarette companies are actively engaged in transforming the cigarette market, with a shift towards much less hazardous tobacco products. This shift has already resulted in a significant reduction in cigarette consumption, but the declines in smoking should grow as these alternative products begin to penetrate into brick-and-mortar retail stores, rather than just mall kiosks and the internet. Ironically, the only groups which are opposing this transformation - which may result in a great reduction in cigarette-related morbidity and mortality - are the anti-smoking groups, which simply can't handle the fact that vaping looks like smoking and are not willing to actually examine the evidence that electronic cigarettes, in their seven years on the market, have not resulted in youth smoking initiation or even regular e-cigarette use among nonsmokers. All three visit homepage of the major tobacco companies are now officially in the business of harm reduction and are devoting a substantial amount of resources to promoting smoking cessation via the use of electronic cigarettes. On the other hand, anti-smoking groups are largely opposed to the use of electronic cigarettes and have called for their removal from the market. They, along with the FDA, are actively discouraging smokers from trying to quit using these products and are scaring smokers who have quit using electronic cigarettes into discontinuing the use of these devices and instead, returning to smoking. In addition to being a strange but to learn more true ironic twist, I view this as being a major embarrassment for the anti-smoking movement. Is it not unfortunate that we in tobacco control are the last to adopt the idea of harm reduction to help protect the health of millions of smokers who - let's face it - are not going to quit smoking? Is it not a disgrace that Big Tobacco is now promoting a form of smoking cessation that we in tobacco control are discouraging? The entrance of the cigarette companies into the electronic cigarette market offers five distinct advantages that I believe in the long run will enhance the e-cigarette market: 1. The entrance of the tobacco companies into the electronic cigarette space now means that a substantial amount of resources - not previously available - can be devoted to marketing the product and making the public aware of electronic cigarettes, something which has previously been quite slow to develop. It is unfavorable for the e-cigarette industry that even six years after introduction of this product, consumers are still largely unaware of the very existence of the product. Even tobacco control experts remain confused about the differences between a cigarette and an electronic cigarette. Already, the entrance of the tobacco companies into the market has resulted in substantial publicity and media attention which is helping to educate the public about these products.  2. The entrance of the tobacco companies into the electronic cigarette space now means that the industry has the resources to conduct the types of studies that may be required in order to obtain FDA approval for various important marketing claims that will ultimately be pivotal for the industry. While it is unclear whether the FDA will apply section 911 to electronic cigarettes (I have urged the agency not to do so), if it does there is no chance that any of the smaller electronic cigarette companies could possibly produce the research required to meet the heavy burdens of that statute. At least there is now a chance. Even if the FDA does not apply section 911 to electronic cigarettes, the entrance of tobacco companies into the market will help facilitate the conduct of important research into the safety and effectiveness of electronic cigarettes that can help inform the development of rational public policy regarding these products. 3. The entrance of the tobacco companies into the electronic cigarette space creates a formidable force that the FDA must now deal with and which has the resources to apply pressure to the agency to promote a reasonable approach to electronic cigarette regulation. 4. The entrance of the tobacco companies into the electronic cigarette space helps the entire industry by establishing an entity that can introduce the most stringent and appropriate quality control measures and help address concerns such as: the presence of diethylene glycol in some cartridges; unpredictable delivery of nicotine;  inaccurate nicotine levels on cartridges; exploding batteries; leaky cartridges, etc. Anti-smoking advocates will no longer be able to argue that we have no idea what electronic cigarettes are or what they contain or how or where they are made. In addition, the tobacco companies will be able to educate the FDA and provide the agency with ideas about specific aspects of the manufacturing process that could be incorporated into sensible regulations that would help set high standards for the entire industry. 5. Perhaps most importantly, the entrance of the tobacco companies into the electronic cigarette space may help transform the market by shifting it from an internet and mall kiosk business into a more traditional retail store operation. Already, the cigarette companies have developed arrangements with retail stores to carry their products. This could potentially lead to a more traditional market in which 2 piece electronic cigarette these products are available at brick-and-mortar stores, not just on the internet or at mall kiosks. Posted by
Some Regular Questions About Electronic Cigarettes http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/06/a-changing-world-all-three-major-us.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Disposable E-Cigarettes: Everything That You Need To Know About Them16/7/2013
Using disposable e- cigarettes is something that has become more popular in recent years especially with people that previously smoked normal cigarettes as they are used to throwing them away when finished. The only problem is that if you are new to all of this, you will not know if e-cigarettes are for you, so do read on to learn more about them. The first thing to know is that as the name suggests they are electronic cigarettes that you will then dispose of when either their website the battery is finished or there is no longer any nicotine in it with them often containing nicotine that equates to around two packets of cigarettes. These cigarettes are normally longer than the reusable versions, as they are generally around 125mm, and when you buy it you will have a choice of flavors of nicotine with the most common being tobacco and menthol, then all you have to do is put in the battery and everything is ready to work. V2 Cigs Disposable E Cigs Top Rated Choice ? Save 10% With Coupon Code EVAPE10? src=?http://whitesmokereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/v2-cigs-disposable-ecig-coupon.jpg? width=?518? height=?481? /> [WPMSHOT key=" V2 Cigs " url="http://smokelesscigarettesreviews.org/v2-cigs-review/"] Disposable E Cigs Top Rated Choice ? Save 10% With Coupon Code EVAPE10 When using it for the first time it does depend on the manufacturer and whether you have bought the automatic version or the manual type. If it is automatic, then you simply need to start inhaling from it as soon as the battery is put in and with the manual you should see a button to turn it on located on the side with you then being able to use it as soon as you flick that switch.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/disposable-e-cigarettes-everything-that-you-need-to-know-about-them/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Is distrusting the MHRA's regulation of e-cigarettes "conspiracy theories?"16/7/2013
Discussing tobacco and nicotine consumer discrimination, unethical nanny state laws, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, personal vaporizers, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other smoke-free topics. Thursday, June 20, 2013 Is distrusting the MHRA's regulation of e-cigarettes "conspiracy theories?" Recently on a forum for e-cigarette enthusiasts, a commenter said he "saw no harm" in the move to regulate electronic cigarettes as medicine in the U.K., if what the MHRA was saying about just wanting to have e-cigarette companies "apply for licensing and to make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised" was true. Apparently expecting doubt from other commenters that the MHRA was being forthright, the commenter said, "Conspiracy theorists have at it." How is it a conspiracy theory, I asked? These people have 30 years of lying to the public about tobacco, nicotine and low risk alternatives as evidence they have no interest in telling http://WhiteSmokeReview.com best way to clean cartomizer the truth. Back in the late 70's, anti-smokers were pushing for separate smoking sections in restaurants. They claimed that is all they wanted and there was no "slippery slope." People who claimed that it would open the door to draconian measures down the road were called "conspiracy theorists," too. Thirty years later, there are bans on smoking even OUTSIDE. It's bad enough that there is plenty of evidence second-hand smoke poses NO danger to anyone outside, but they have still managed to ban even vaping (and smokeless tobacco use) outdoors without ANY evidence at all. The "conspiracy theorists" were right all along. And in the UK: ?No one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants,? said the director of ASH (UK) in 1998, adding that the suggestion was a ?scaremongering story by a tobacco front group.? In June 2005 Britain's public-health minister described talk of such a ban as ?false speculation?. Parliament voted it into law just eight months later. http://www.economist.com/node/13813444 The MHRA isn't regulating to help vapers get "better products." It's doing this to open the door to applying whatever regulations they deem fit once the products are "medicines." What people are failing to ask is, where are the complaints? Has the MHRA been deluged with complaints that people's e-cigarettes are failing to work? The MHRA is "fixing" a problem that barely exists...for people who haven't asked for a fix. It is a problem that the market is handling just fine, thank you. If an e-cigarette/liquid sucks, word gets out or they try it and don't buy it again. And what does a license accomplish other than revenue for the government? Do people really think they will be going store to store, site to site to guarantee that the liquid is "good?" How much will non-smokers' taxes be raised to cover all of these "inspections" and reviews of e-liquid? Another question: if most of the products "currently out there [are] of poor quality," as the MHRA claims, then why are there 1.3 million perfectly happy vapers in the UK? (That's 13% of the smokers in the UK who have quit or significantly reduced smoking, by the way.) The MHRA says it wants e-cigarettes to be as effective and high quality as other nicotine medicines. Do they mean the ones that succeed only 6.5% of the time to help smokers quit? Because, if that is their idea of "effective," the e-cig industry (and vapers) in the UK are screwed. Remember that just a few months ago the goal was to limit the nicotine strengths to 4 mg - the same as medical NRT. Do people really believe that idea is off the table? How will the MHRA "make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised?" (And do they assure the same thing for cigarette smokers?) Does that mean the devices must be proven to deliver "consistent amounts?" Or do they just mean that the liquid actually contains what the bottle/cartridge states? Does anyone know a company that charges more for 24 mg than for 18 mg? If a customer doesn't get exactly the level ordered, are they out any money? If a customer orders 6 mg but NEEDS 24 mg to be effective, will that be the fault of the company for selling an "ineffective" product? Who gets to pick what is "effective?" I use a 6 mg liquid on an eGo VV with a drip tip. That is effective for me. Everyone good with that for themselves? Most importantly, the reasons they give for wanting medical regulation are illogical. Do e-cigarettes really need to be licensed and regulated as medicines to ensure truthful labeling (which is what it really comes down to?) If an energy drink says it contains 20 mg of caffeine, but really only contains 18 mg, do energy drinks need to be regulated as medicines then? Or are there already truth in advertising laws already in place to handle this issue? Do energy drinks have to prove that they are "effective" for caffeine delivery and [read] energy creation? Or do people try them and decide this one for themselves whether or not the drink does for them what they expect? How are e-cigarettes any different? This ruling is not as black and white as some may think. And every time the ANTZ claim they are doing something to help smokers, it seems they just get screwed over instead. Smoking bans, high taxes, NRT, Chantix - all claimed to be to help people quit yet did absolutely nothing but victimize smokers even more. Conspiracy theory? Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! Posted by
Some Typical Concerns About Electric cigarettes http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2013/06/is-distrusting-mhras-regulation-of-e.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

A Look at E-Cigarette Atomizers15/7/2013
It is important for both beginner and advanced e-cigarette users to understand the different atomizer types available to them. The primary of any atomizer, regardless of its construction, is to heat the flavored e-liquid and produce the vapor that simulates smoking. At some point, the experienced vaper will more front page than likely wish to experiment with other forms of atomizers than they are currently using. This means it is important to understand the differences in types.   Though the concept of smokeless cigarettes was first formulated in 1864 by Herbert A. Gilbert, it was not developed until 2003 by Hon Lik, a Chinese inventor.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/a-look-at-e-cigarette-atomizers/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Anti-Smoking Researchers Still Hiding Tobacco Industry Funding, Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest15/7/2013
...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news. Monday, see here July 15, 2013 Anti-Smoking Researchers Still Hiding Tobacco Industry Funding, Failing to Disclose Conflict of Interest A new study published this month in the Journal of http://WhiteSmokeReview.com best price vapor cigars the American College of Cardiology reports that secondhand smoke causes coronary artery calcification (an early sign of atherosclerosis) in nonsmokers. (See: Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI, et al. Second-hand tobacco smoke in never smokers is a significant risk factor for coronary artery calcification. JACC 2013; 6:651-657.) The story here isn't the research itself, but the conflict of interest statement. According to the conflict of interest statement, two of the co-authors (Dr. Narula and Dr. Hecht) disclose conflicts, but "all other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose." This means that Dr. Yankelevitz and Dr. Henschke, the two lead authors, are not revealing any conflicts of interest. The Rest of the Story Let's suppose for a minute that Dr. James Enstrom were to publish the same paper: a study of the effect of secondhand smoke on coronary artery calcification. Let's further suppose that Dr. Enstrom's conflict of interest disclosure were to read: "The author reports that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose." There is little question that within minutes of publication of such article, the anti-smoking groups (myself included) would be in an outrage, criticizing Dr. Enstrom for failing to reveal his past funding by the tobacco industry. Such funding is directly relevant to the study because the tobacco industry is affected financially by the results of the study. Finding increased effects of secondhand smoke could affect the public's perception of the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke and could also affect the fate of tobacco litigation. Thus, it could have a direct effect on cigarette company profits. In fact, the anti-smoking groups attacked Dr. Enstrom anyway , even though he did reveal his tobacco industry funding, when he published an article about the effects of secondhand smoke on cardiovascular disease. So clearly, in an article of this nature, a history of tobacco industry funding is most relevant and needs to be disclosed in the conflict of interest statement. Readers may therefore be surprised to hear that both Dr. Yankelevitz and Dr. Henschke have a history of tobacco industry funding that is not disclosed in this article.Yet anti-smoking groups are not attacking them or this article. Why? What's the difference between Enstrom's research and this research? The difference is the findings. While Enstrom found no significant effect of secondhand smoke, this study reports "positive" findings. Thus, the deception by the authors regarding their history of tobacco funding is apparently acceptable to anti-smoking groups. It is the "results" of the research that apparently matter to the anti-smoking movement, not the ethical principles involved. Apparently, tobacco money automatically gets "cleansed" or "purified" when it is put to use in reporting "positive" rather than "negative" results. What is the rest of the story? In 2006, Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz were lead authors on a study of CT screening for early detection of lung cancer. In visit this paper, published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, they disclosed funding from the "Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention, and Treatment." No tobacco industry funding was disclosed. However, it turns out that the authors were hiding the truth and deceiving both the journal editors and the public. The truth is that the "Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention, and Treatment" was essentially a front group that was almost entirely funded by a cigarette company (Liggett). As revealed here at the Rest of the Story, in the Cancer Letter , and in the New York Times , a review of tax records showed that the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention, and Treatment was "underwritten almost entirely by $3.6 million in grants from the parent company of the Liggett Group, maker of Liggett Select, Even, Grand Prix, Quest, and Pyramid cigarette brands." The editors of both JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine both stated that they had been deceived by the failed disclosure and would never have published the article had they known about the tobacco funding. (As expected, there was little criticism from anti-smoking groups, since the findings of the study were "favorable.") According to these sources, as well as to an article at Source Watch, the front group - Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment - was a research foundation set up by Dr. Henschke and Dr. Yankelevitz and underwritten by $3.6 million in grants from the Vector Group, parent company to Liggett. Apparently, Dr. Henschke was the president of the "foundation" and Dr. Yankelevitz was its treasurer. Dr. Henschke was forced to publish a " correction " in the New England Journal of Medicine, in which she revealed that: "For full transparency we wish to inform you that $3.6 million (virtually all of the Foundation's funding) was contributed in 2000 through 2003 as an unrestricted gift by the Vector Group, the parent company of Liggett Tobacco, which manufactures cigarettes." As if this weren't enough, it also turns out that Dr. Henschke and Dr. Yankelevitz hid another conflict of interest: both received royalties on patents licensed to General Electric relating to imaging techniques to detect lung cancer. Of course, the authors therefore had a financial interest in demonstrating the value of these techniques in the early detection of lung cancer. They were forced to publish a second " correction " in the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that: "Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz report receiving royalties from Cornell Research Foundation as inventors of methods to assess tumor growth and regression on imaging tests for which pending patents are held by Cornell Research Foundation and licensed to General Electric." The authors, as well as Cornell Weill Medical College, denied that they were attempting to hide their tobacco company funding, although it seems quite obvious that they were indeed hiding this funding. They certainly deceived the editors of two major medical journals, who were both appalled when they found out the truth. The rest of the story, sadly, is that rather than learn from their mistakes, these researchers (Dr. Henschke and Dr. Yankelevitz) are continuing to deceive the public by hiding their history of funding from the tobacco industry. If this funding was relevant in the New England Journal of Medicine article, then it is every bit as relevant in the JACC article. In fact, it is probably more relevant with the present article because with the earlier article, there was no clear direction that the tobacco industry conflict would bias the findings, but with the present study, there is. I have already explained why the fact that the funding occurred in the past is not a valid reason why it should not be disclosed. I can certainly understand how researchers could make a mistake. We all make mistakes. But it is essential to learn from the mistakes and not to repeat them. The sad part of this story is that these researchers have apparently not learned from their mistakes, as they are repeating them. Once again, they have failed to disclose their tobacco industry funding (albeit in the past), which is a relevant financial conflict of interest that should have been disclosed in this article. Even worse, it appears that this deception is not just a single episode, but it occurred in at least three other articles as well. A 2013 paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine about early detection of lung cancer using CT screening contains a disclosure in which Dr. Henschke fails to list her previous funding from Liggett as a conflict of interest. In addition, she deceives readers about her lung cancer research foundation by hiding the fact that the Foundation, or one similar to it, was essentially established from tobacco funding. Instead, she points out that the Foundation does not (currently) accept tobacco funds. But a reader could easily be deceived (and I think would be deceived) into thinking that the Foundation never took tobacco funding or that there was never a similar foundation that did take tobacco money. And I think someone reading this disclosure statement would be shocked to find out that the Foundation or one similar to it was established with tobacco industry funding. The statement reads: "I am the President and serve on the board of the Early Diagnosis and Treatment Research Foundation.  I receive no compensation from the Foundation.  The Foundation is established to provide grants for projects, conferences, and public databases for research on early diagnosis and treatment of diseases.  Recipients include, I-ELCAP, among others.  The funding comes from a variety of sources including philanthropic donations, grants and contracts with agencies (federal and non-federal), imaging and pharmaceutical companies relating to image processing assessments.  The various sources of funding exclude any funding from tobacco companies or tobacco-related sources." With this much detail given, including an emphasis about the lack of tobacco funding, but nothing about her tobacco funding in the past, it seems that this is an attempt to hide the truth from readers. Dr. Yankelevich's disclosure for the same article also fails to mention anything about his history of tobacco industry funding. It fails to disclose his prior role as secretary of a foundation that was underwritten by a tobacco company. Another example: this 2012 article about CT screening for lung cancer, which includes Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz as co-authors, fails to provide any disclosure of these authors' development of a tobacco-funded research foundation or their history of tobacco funding. And a third episode: this 2012 article , in which Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz are co-authors, fails to disclose their history of tobacco industry funding. Here are even more examples of articles in which this conflict of interest is not disclosed:
Most Often Posed Issues On Smokeless cigarettes http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/anti-smoking-researchers-still-hiding.html
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Infographic shows electronic cigarettes help control nicotine cravings15/7/2013

Can electronic cigarettes help smokers kick the traditional habit?

Electronic cigarettes: No smoking, but lots of fuming When choosing to stop smoking many people struggle with the effort and eventually become defeated. According to Electronic Cigarette Review Source on July 12 more than five million deaths per year in this nation is due to the use of tobacco. In actuality the deaths from tobacco rises higher than AIDS, suicides, murder, drug and alcohol abuse and motor vehicle accidents combined. The infographic recently released by the Electronic Cigarette Review Source stipulates that smoking is accountable for 20 percent of all deaths within the United States. Secondhand smoke also accounts for another 10 percent of deaths due to the vapors being inhaled from cigarettes by others.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.examiner.com/article/infographic-shows-electronic-cigarettes-help-control-nicotine-cravings

Christine Prody and O.J. Simpson Ho / Los Angeles Times) Also By Amber Dance July 6, 2013 Darrin Gold had been smoking for 27 years when he picked up an electronic cigarette. The Los Angeles real estate broker had tried to quit via nicotine gum, patches and lozenges, and didn't hold out much hope for the personal vaporizer. A few days later, he trashed his traditional cigarettes. Technically, e-cigarettes are not stop-smoking devices and may not be marketed as such. There is not much published scientific evidence that the devices are a viable method to quit cigarettes , says Linda Sarna, a professor at UCLA's school of nursing and chair of the committee that recently enacted a campus-wide ban of cigarettes both best electronic cigarette traditional and electronic.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-ecigs-quitting-20130706,0,7883805.story

E-cigarette maker targets Colorado

Currently, the largest concentration of e-cigarette ads is online. But with big companies such as R.J. Reynolds entering the marketplace, some predict advertising on TV, radio and billboards is not far behind. By around August, we should start seeing significant TV advertising, as well as online, said Colorado-based marketing executive Brent Green. In addition, he said, there will be live sampling at nightclubs and festivals where people gather. Green, a critic of e-cigarettes, highlighted the dangers of romanticizing e-cigarettes.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://durangoherald.com/article/20130713/NEWS01/130719776/0/News04/E-cigarette-maker-targets-Colorado

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Sorry, but Anna Gilmore is still lying about economics15/7/2013
by Carl V go Phillips Anna Gilmore, an anti-tobacco activist and ?researcher? at the University of Bath (they must be so proud!) is primarily known for doing junk epidemiology but has also branched into junk economics.  (The definitive collection about her can be found at Chris Snowdon?s blog, running a search for her name.)  It is not entirely clear whether she is in the subset of lairs internet who know they are disseminating disinformation or the subset who claim to be experts but simply have no idea what they are doing.  My assessment, based on her previous foray into economics (see my analysis of it ) is that while she seems to be intentionally misleading about epidemiology, in economics she probably never read so much as a first-semester textbook before writing her unintentional comedy. Her new ? contribution ? is ?Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategy and whether it undermines tobacco tax policy: the example of the UK cigarette market, by Anna B. Gilmore, Behrooz Tavakoly, Gordon Taylor, Howard Reed, about the impact of cigarette tax increases on retail prices.  It was widely laughed at by commentators because the part of her press release that was usually highlighted in the news was that smokers react to price increases by shifting to cheaper products (that is, from premium brands to brands with lower wholesale, and thus after-tax, prices).  The observations were along the lines of ?hey, look, Anna Gilmore seems to have learned basic economics!?  But she actually did not. I do have to give credit to the health reporters on this one.  Not only did they emphasize the one simplistic observation that she got right, but some fixed her false claim ?tobacco tax increases are the most effective means of reducing tobacco use? (by ?tobacco? she means cigarettes, of course ? the standard casual anti-THR lie is thrown in there), making it accurate with ?one of the most effective?.  (Basic education about the risks from smoking is, by a huge margin, the most effective way to convince people to not smoke.  Taxes come in third, after promotion of harm reduction.)  Unfortunately, further down in the articles, most of the reporters went on to report her innumerate claims also. The core of her innumeracy ? great site failure to understand first-semester economics before trying to write about economics ? is claiming that the setting new prices after a shock to the market (in this case, a new tax increase) is a matter of complicated volition rather than simple market forces.  She attributes manufacturers? actions to various nefarious motives, which is perhaps just political lying, but probably is because neither she nor her coauthors understood what they were writing about (and did not stop to think that perhaps University of Bath has an economics department, and that any decent student in it, let alone any professor, could have explained it). The key is the following observation :  When taxes are increased, the retail price of premium brands increases by more than the tax increase (i.e., there is a wholesale price increase also) while the price of low-end brands increases by less than the tax increase (i.e., there is a wholesale price reduction).  I am going to assume that this simple factual claim was true ? not a foregone conclusion due to Gilmore?s history of publishing out-and-out false claims, but since it is exactly what an economist would predict it seems like a safe assumption. To predict that the manufacturers would lower wholesale prices (i.e., eat some of the tax themselves) on the highly price-competitive cheaper brands is just a matter of applying the most common supply and demand curve analysis (see, e.g., Wikipedia ).  When there is an increase in the cost of supply (a tax has exactly the same effect as, say, an increase the price of the tobacco leaf), it is shared between the consumer (higher prices) and supplier (prices not quite so much higher as to fully compensate for the cost increase).  Usually most of the cost is borne by the consumer, but typically not all of it.  Basic stuff. [For those who want to delve a bit deeper:  The consumer pays most of the cost because the supply curve is much closer to horizontal than in the typical picture like the one in the link.  For those who want to delve even deeper, and to argue that long-run supply curves do not actually slope upward at all, despite the usual picture, it gets a bit more complicated.  We still observe that cost shocks are shared by consumer and supplier.  The easiest explanation is that in a highly price-competitive market, at least one supplier is going to have an upward-sloping short-run demand curve over the relevant range -- because they have already invested the capital in their manufacturing and distribution capacity and so are better off lowering prices to somewhat offset the reduction in demand, just like in the standard graph.  If this is true for even one supplier in the competitive market, the others will also have to lower their prices or lose revenues to the cheaper competitor.] The extra price increase on premium brands is even easier to explain.  The manufacturer of a premium brand has some ?market power? because consumers have loyalty and will not switch to a competitor to save a few pennies (and there are relatively few competitors, so they are all doing it).  This lets the supplier charge more without losing so much business that the reduced quantity erases the increase in net revenues per unit.  The ultimate in market power is a monopoly; with no competitors at all, the only constraint on a monopolist?s prices is consumers reducing their consumption, and so they can command a lot of net revenue per unit. What happens in a market power situation when there is a cost shock like a tax?  The consumer becomes less sensitive to any given increase in net revenue.  It is easy to see:  Imagine a good with a production cost of $1 that the manufacturer charge $1.20 for because that is the price that maximizes total net revenue; raising the price to $1.21 would drive more than 5% of the customers to cheaper competitors, and so the net effect would be a loss.  Now imagine a new tax of $1 on everyone, including the competitors.  A price rise to $2.20 maintains the old margin, but now an increase to $2.21 is a much smaller change in the base price, and so consumers will react less.  Less than 5% will be lost due to such an increase, but the impact on the supplier (making an additional 5% cent per unit) is still exactly the same, so the additional increase is a good idea.  So it is perfectly predictable that a tax increase would lead to an additional wholesale price increase.  (Note that the total net revenue of the supplier might still drop due to the reduced demand that the big price increase causes, but this does not affect how to optimize the situation as it is.) Snowdon discovered that Gilmore?s close allies have been failing to understand this since at least 2008: ?The hypocrisy of the industry knows no bounds,? said Deborah Arnott, the director of Action on Smoking and Health. ?While complaining bitterly about tax increases, these companies have been raising the price of cigarettes to fill their own coffers while hiding behind the screen of tax rises.? Undoubtedly in the last five years, in response to such silly claims, someone explained the basic economics to them.  Of course manufacturers do not like tax increases ? they decrease demand.  Of course they raise their prices (on premium brands) when there is such an increase ? it only takes the two paragraphs above to explain why.  So perhaps the current claims are intentional disinformation rather than mere unforgivable ignorance after all. It is hard to tell exactly what they want people to believe, since it is hard to be precise when arguing nonsense.  But they try to suggest that these simple predictable effects of supply and demand, observed in a market with multiple competitors who want to take business from each other, are some complicated unified plot to manipulate their customers.  Somehow every bit of it, both the competitive price decreases and the premium price increases, is part of a grand scheme to do something other than simply make as much profit as possible given the taxes and what consumers want. Ah, to have the easy life of working in the tobacco control industry.  Archeology is made much easier if you just take the Jewish Bible as fact and do not have to bother with all of that pesky carbon dating and digging in the ground.  Economics is similarly easy if your bible lets you avoid bothering with all the theory and empirical evidence from economics. So why did I cover this junk science about cigarettes in the anti-THR lies blog?  The answer is that basic economics offers the strongest arguments in favor of THR.  Therefore any attempt to mislead people about the basic economics, and to claim that the tobacco/nicotine market is somehow mysteriously different from markets for all other goods that consumers want, tends to aid the anti-THR agenda.  The main message of this analysis is that the market was working just like it does for any other consumer good, with price changes reflecting exactly the same profit-maximizing forces that we would expect in normal consumer markets for phones or almonds or coffee. So long as we get the economics right, the case for THR is even stronger than the usual arguments that are based on health effects alone.  More about that soon when I widely release the paper that I am now circulating.
Questions About E-cigs Usage For Rookies http://antithrlies.com/2013/04/24/sorry-but-anna-gilmore-is-still-lying-about-economics/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Just A Couple Of Qualities Previous Tobacco Users Like About Electric Cigs15/7/2013
4 // TOBACCO CAN'T BE THAT BAD? // CAN IT?   Regular smoking puts thousands of awful chemicals into your body, and a quit smoking patches coupons huge majority is not even nicotine! And most of these terrible chemicals can also be found in everyday household cleaners. Would you want to smoke your dish washing detergent? Smokeless cigarettes are free of all the terrible chemicals that are in normal cigarettes.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/just-a-couple-of-qualities-previous-tobacco-users-like-about-electric-cigs/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

E Cigarette Reviews reveal V2 Cigs as Topnotch Brand Says DigitalSmoke.Org14/7/2013

The superior quality of its products equipped with the most advanced technology has given utmost satisfaction to the customers and they have revealed in their reviews that this electronic cigarette best quality e cigarette brand is the best. Available in wide varieties of flavors, starter kits and disposables of this e cigarette brand have been voted as the best for enriching and enhancing the vaping experience of the customers with rich flavors. The essence of this electronic cigarette brand lies in its quality which gives me clean and fresh vaping experience, says a customer of V2 Cigs which considers this as the best e cigarette brand. A wide variety of products has been displayed by this electronic cigarette brand in the section of its accessories which has been reviewed to make vaping opulent.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://emailwire.com/release/127527-E-Cigarette-Reviews-reveal-V2-Cigs-as-Topnotch-Brand-Says-DigitalSmokeOrg.html

Cigarettes could go up in smoke as American technology arrives in Prague

1 online electronic cigarette [link] in America, is at the forefront of a cultural transformation that is nothing short of revolutionary. Just two years ago, electronic cigarettes were a novelty item that many dismissed as a passing fad. Instead, electronic cigarettes or e-cigs have become a billion-dollar business. And their staggering growth is just beginning.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://praguemonitor.com/2013/06/11/cigarettes-could-go-smoke-american-technology-arrives-prague

0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Three Things to Consider When Looking For The Best Electronic Cigarette11/7/2013
Choosing the best electronic cigarette can be challenging, but not impossible. Manufacturers, of course, claim that theirs is the best. Vapers claim the one they are currently using is the best. However, it is possible to determine the best for you among the electronic cigarette brands on the market today. It is possible that several brands can be considered as the best using some simple guidelines. They are basic to why electronic cigarettes exist at v 2 electronic cigarettes all, and why so many smokers are shifting from conventional tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/three-things-to-consider-when-looking-for-the-best-electronic-cigarette/
0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link

Page 1 of 13
Last Page | Next Page
Hosting door HQ ICT Systeembeheer