WARNING: This product contains nicotine.
Nicotine is an addictive chemical.
18+ to purchase
V2 is designed with you in mind. V2 is the leading e-cigarette brand, delivering genuine satisfaction with authentic flavors and unparalleled performance.
Vapor Couture Collection Vapor Couture is the original e-cigarette for women, inspiring an entire line of fashionable accessories.
V2 PRO V2 PRO is the world’s most advanced line of vaporizers, representing the ultimate in form and function.
Members and Visitors: We've updated our forum category names to help you easily navigate discussions topics. Categories are still in the same order on the homepage, just with different names! Message me with any questions. - Samantha
Interested in joining the conversation? CLICK HERE to become a forum member now!


  • mrtmrt Posts: 5,021Member ✭✭✭
    Good article, wont do any good, but still good.
  • amoreamore Posts: 2,194Member ✭✭
    Thanks for the link :)

  • Corbs126Corbs126 Posts: 62Member
    That is a good article for sure. Embrace the e-cig. Plus, not everybody that smokes them is in it for the nicotine. I feel like I'm a minority on this forum but I order all my carts and juices with 0mg nicotine because I like to feel like I'm smoking without getting any of the harmful chemicals. Calling e-cigs a "gateway" is like calling marijuana a "gateway drug". Though I do not partake in that activity, I have not known a single person that smokes pot that said, "Hey let's go do some heroin". E-cigs aren't a gateway, they aren't marketed towards children, and they should not be banned from anywhere. They're a helpful device and should be viewed as treatment instead of a negative stigma.
  • TheSmokinSquirrelTheSmokinSquirrel Posts: 774Member
    Shared on my  Facebook  page
  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    edited April 2013
    "Some health lobbyists are so determined to prevent people doing anything that remotely resembles smoking—a process referred to as “denormalisation”—that they refuse to endorse a product that reproduces the pleasure of smoking without the harm."

    And that, my friends, sums it up.  You meet these same nut-jobs on school boards, public committees, running your government in such wonderful and glutted property taxed cities like, uh.. say.. Madison, WI.  LOL.  The "do-gooders" who actually do no one any good but inflate their personal egos and, welll, their own wallets.

    Fun article! 
  • JmanJman Posts: 3,050Member
    IMO, once 'we' concede the ideas of:
    - nicotine is highly addictive and
    - nicotine is poisonous
    ... we are just asking for (heavy) regulation. 

    I challenge both of those assertions as I think both when just put out there without examination are 'gateways' to reasonable restrictions if kids are anywhere in the vicinity of eCig use or sales. If magically, kids were nowhere within 10 miles of either those two things, then perhaps vaping community would stand a chance in what it is selling - politically speaking. 

    The poisonous claim is, IMO, preposterous. I mean if I said, "water is poisonous" people would want to probe that for all its worth to determine - wait do you mean like I'll die if I drink water today or are you saying over 50 years of time, this could have impact on my health? The latter is reality with nicotine, otherwise smokers would be long gone if nicotine, on top of the 4000 other chemicals put in smokes, was truly poisonous or imminently deadly. 

    The highly addictive claim is one I also think is challenging. It is the tougher of the two claims to refute, but I think it is as simple as quantifying the addiction level and possibly leading to realization that nicotine has addictive qualities, but challenging to say for all users it is 'highly' addictive. Seems there's a decent portion of vapers that once they make the switch from tobacco to vape, it is within a year they take the nicotine down to 0% nicotine. They appear to do so easily (no withdrawal symptoms). I also think as smokers, we come to vaping with idea of being able to get a fix we are so used to getting, but now can get inside/outside and almost everywhere we go. I don't think it is too far fetched to think a non-smoker new vaper wouldn't have that same desire / same experience of 'getting the fix' that an ex-smoker now vaper experiences. 

    The addiction part is tougher road to travel because I think most everyone is aware that we all believe nicotine to be significantly addictive. So, the evidence that counters that is often anecdotal. I very rarely crave a vape like I remember craving a smoke. IMO, it is night and day comparison as to which one felt very compelling and which one is mildly compelling. 

    What certainly seems less anecdotal is how we look at other addictions, like alcohol. We don't really say that alcohol is highly addictive even while there are full blown addicts around us. Instead we say it is 'in the genes' and varies from individual to individual. But with nicotine, we seem to completely ignore that and act as one size (highly addictive) fits all. 

    At any rate, when I read these articles that are 'pro eCigs' and they actually include these 2 notions, I feel it isn't actually all that helpful. Of course vapers are going to like the message of that article given the other pieces that make ridiculous assertions like 'eCigs are just as bad as smoking.' Articles like the one in OP are breath of fresh air in the propaganda battle being waged. But if I were non-user and had kids or knew kids that might be around my residence, I don't think I'd be cool with something that is readily conceded as: highly addictive and poisonous being deemed good to normalize. 
  • parrotladyparrotlady Posts: 686Member
    Nicotine is not poisonous in the amounts we are using it. The main effect is elevated blood pressure in some people who are prone to that (but not everyone.) You would have to ingest huge amounts of nicotine to get any poisonous effects, and even then, death is unlikely.

    Water is poisonous too, if taken in large amounts. Recently a young man died when he was required to drink gallons of water at once as part of a fraternity hazing.

    Those who want to ban ecigs because they "look like" smoking may be merely uninformed, but more likely, have closed their minds to any new information because their hostility has interfered with their judgement. And there's the money lobby from big tobacco, of course.
  • mrtmrt Posts: 5,021Member ✭✭✭
    That is why I will not buy white batteries.
  • Goin60Goin60 Posts: 10Member
    Great article and the idea that ecigs are a ‘gateway’ to smoking is preposterous. However, I’ll have to admit that Ecigs are much too easy to buy over the Internet. The idea of simply clicking an icon/box saying that you are over the age of 18 is beyond ridiculous, albeit I don’t really know how proof of age could be verified. If there is however such a way I’m all for it no matter what frustration it may cause to me. Just check out a few porno sites (yes, admit it, as many of us have been there out of curiosity so let’s forgo the jokes) and all it takes is saying that you are an adult… and you’re in. Thank God my daughter is very strict with my granddaughter when it comes to being on the Internet and I hate the idea of raising a child these days.

    There is a very popular program on T.V. called “The Doctors” which consists of four (real) doctors. They once brought up this subject (2009?) and it’s the very first time I’ve seen four separate doctors agree that this may possibly be a good alternative to smoking albeit they obviously, and understandably so, gave their respective concerns over the addiction to nicotine. They also had an audience member who was a heavy smoker who tried Ecigs to try and stop her addiction (which was successful) and she said that it was a god send and they applauded her no matter what the means were.

    As to why anyone in their right mind would wish to take up Ecigs when they have never smoked is beyond me and I consider that as sheer stupidity, unfathomable and incomprehensible, but that’s just MHO from someone who has been a heavy smoker for 50 years. Then again, why would anyone in their right mind, given all of the information on smoking, aside from the prohibitive cost, take up smoking in the first place.  I’m only using Ecigs to get off the analogs and I have absolutely no wish whatsoever to be vaping for the rest of my life as I don’t wish to trade one addiction for another. However, it’s great to see that they are obtainable in lieu of the deadly alternative.

    Other than that, and mark my words; the government/FDA will win out and within two years or so Ecigs will be strictly regulated and taxed just as the analogs are. Hopefully, and selfishly speaking, I’ll long be off of both by then. ;)



  • gotolamgotolam Posts: 525Member
    It's not the warning banner that stops someone from buying e-cigs.  It's the fact that you need a credit card.  Presumably, you need to be 18 to have one.  I admit that some under-18s can have a debit card that their parents provide but that's on the parents. Website vendors shouldn't have to become parents.
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭

    Not if the e-cig industry can prove e-cigs are a cessation program, like gum, patches, etc., which, AFAIK, are not subjected to tobacco taxes (or control).

  • CynsonyaCynsonya Posts: 5,367Member
    Agree with @gotolam
  • parrotladyparrotlady Posts: 686Member
    The warning banners have nothing to do with proving your age, they are (supposedly) to protect the site owner from being sued. They can say they have taken measures to avoid selling to minors. It's just a means to try and cover themselves.
  • EarthpigEarthpig Posts: 4,754V2 Veteran
    I guess I can chime in here on two points.
    1) Minors and e-cigs
    2) Non-smokers using e-cigs.

    A little background:
    I worked for 6 months at a mall store kiosk selling the very model type V2 sells. I knew the manager and she needed help over the Christmas holidays, so I helped out. A real experience since I was able to mess with all product lines and do a lot of discussions with the "man on the street". Probably a few thousand customers passed by and we went into heavy detail about e-cigs and what they are.I also was doing a lot of in depth research since I was considering opening a small retail outlet myself. The Illinois political climate to me was a little too shaky to do so. So I never opened up a shop. I may do so in N.C.

    1) In the 6 months I worked there I only one time had one minor even ask about buying a e-cig. He was a 12 year old boy who wanted to buy it for his mother who smoked. He was truly concerned for her. I asked him to send her by, and I would turn her on to e-cigs. He was thrilled I would help her and ran off.  Other than that, we had a few minor aged teens (16-17ish) who smoked and wanted to buy e-cigs to help kick the habit but I wouldn't sell to them.
    So as far as teens interested in the flavors or in taking up e-cigs? Very rare.

    2) Also in the 6 months and thousands of customers, I never ever talked to any non-smoker who wanted to take up vaping. Now I did sell to non-smokers but their purchase was as a gift to a loved one who was a smoker, in hopes they would convert. After all, this was around the Christmas holiday.

    So this is personal hands on sales experience.

    I haven't read the article (yet, but will) but I thought I would quell some of these misconceptions.
    They are fear tactics, perpetuated by the FDA, ALA, ACS and other anti-smoking orgs. They have no basis in fact and are meant as battling tools to interfere with our personal rights.


  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    Your personal experiences with distributing ecigs brings credibility tot he discussion, @Earthpig.  And I agree with your position. 

    I don't think there will be any 'significant' draw for minors to obtaining ecigs - until such time that ecigs and vaping will have significantly replace cigarette smoking.  And, if and when that happens, of the two scenarios - smoking versus vaping - which is likely to pose a more serious health risk as a gateway to addiction ?  
  • Jcris25Jcris25 Posts: 60Member
    I have always had a problem with drugs being called gateway drugs. Drugs are never a gateway in the sense that they make you actually want to try something harder. However they can be a gateway in a mental sense. You can do a relativly harmless drug and think hey, this didn't hurt me maybe this other drug wont hurt me either. But no drug physically addicts you to another or makes you crave something else. I believe if someone starts on ecigs first than they will be less likely to try real cigs. If they start on the real thing they will be hard up to fully make the switch to ecigs because you really don't get the same feeling but what people don't realize is your getting that feeling from the real cigs not from the actual tobacco but from the harmful chemicals inside it. Thats what gives you that buzz. ecigs dont offer that but they do offer helthier living which is the key. It's hard to get away from the real thing. I struggle myself. As long as I have my V2 whenever I have a craving I vape like crazy and I keep vaping and it actually does fulfill that craving as long as i constantly puff. Good article btw
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    @Earthpig Yeah, sounds about right, about what good sense would tell you without even having to "study" it.  I wonder if Penn & Teller will ever address the issue.  As far as non-smokers go... I have had non-smokers express genuine interest, but not in starting, just in knowledge seeking.  I've offered them as much as I know and pointed them to various sites and encourage them to do their own research on PG, flavorings, etc.  One was actually horribly, terribly misinformed and touted information given to him by his brother, a physician, as biblical truth.  When I physically showed him the information that his brother was giving him was horribly misinformed (PG versus EG, actually) he kind of shrugged and dug in his heels about it "still being bad for you" (which I can't disagree with, given 0 comparative studies).  But, he stopped preaching, and stopped complaining about it affecting his health.  Anyway, by and large, I think non-smokers in the population are generally supportive.  It's just that the whacknuts are louder than the rest.
  • usernameusername Posts: 149Member ✭✭
    Gateway drugs are, in my opinion, only gateway drugs in the sense that one can often cross paths with other drug users who use harder drugs when going about the process of acquiring these "gateway" drugs. So I guess you could say they are sometimes a "gateway" to the outlet where one would get harder drugs. Still, you can lead a horse to water, etc... You still need a willing potential hard drug user to take advantage of the gateway.
    Anyhow, I'd suggest hanging out in a bar until 2AM or going to wild frat parties is more likely to get you smoking cigarettes than vaping an eCig. That's just my opinion though. Most non-smokers I speak to about eCigs are more interested in the info to help someone else quit smoking cigarettes. The few that are interested for themselves lose interest when I tell them that it costs at least $30 a week and requires cleaning carts, ordering stuff online well in advance of needing it, difficulty with batteries, inconsistent QC, etc...
  • CynsonyaCynsonya Posts: 5,367Member
    I don't spend near $30 a week unless I am on a spending binge. If only buying what I need I would spend $32 a month.
  • usernameusername Posts: 149Member ✭✭
    Cynsonya said:
    I don't spend near $30 a week unless I am on a spending binge. If only buying what I need I would spend $32 a month.
    $30 a week is my average over the last 230 days. It includes batteries, chargers, etc...
  • CynsonyaCynsonya Posts: 5,367Member
    edited April 2013
    I admit I had a HUGE spending habit in the 1st 6 months of vaping. Amassing 18 cig-a-like batteries, 5 eGo style vv, 1 kgo, a couple box mods, a few larger mods. Umpteen hundred cartos/clearos/tanks. I will be 1 year vaping in 11 days. Probably spent about $1800 in the last 345 days.

    I guess if I average it like that maybe I do too. But since I already have all the hardware/delivery devices now I just count juice. That's my $32 a month. Plus I do have enough blank cartos to last 2 years, clearo heads to last 3++ years and juice to last 1+ years. So technically I could not make another single purchase for over a year. But I will anyway :P
  • SunShineSunShine Posts: 389Member ✭✭
    edited April 2013
    Just shared on Facebook by CASAA:

    Who leads the fight against banning e-cigarette sales to minors? Guess again: it is the American Cancer Society

    What???? Here is the link: http://antithrlies.com/2013/04/25/who-leads-the-fight-against-banning-e-cigarette-sales-to-minors/

    Wow, so diabolical...

  • CynsonyaCynsonya Posts: 5,367Member
    ^what a crock of sh*t^
  • DrewskyDrewsky Posts: 1,947Member ✭✭
    mrt said:
    That is why I will not buy white batteries.
    Same here. Never had a white battery, never will.
  • EarthpigEarthpig Posts: 4,754V2 Veteran
    edited April 2013
    ACS uses FDA'a data.
    For all the money poured into the ACS in donations their research side is horsesh**. WHY?
    You would think with the multi $$$Millions donated to them, they could support research. They don't.

    When I had prostate cancer,(the most common male cancer), I called them for advice, and they were useless as tits on a boar hog. Info was sparse and useless.
    They suggested a support group. My comment back was "I don't want to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya ....I need data and research!!!" They had none.
    Really? They are (supposedly) the go to people for cancers. The info they gave me would have made things drastically worse.
    NEVER will they see a dime from me !!

    Same with the ALA.

  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    Ah, Earthpig, but that's the nature of NPOs from United Way on down.  They're cash cows for those employed by them, particularly CEOs, CFOs, COOs, etc.  That's why my donations go directly to those in need or are non-monetary in nature, like food and clothing.
  • EarthpigEarthpig Posts: 4,754V2 Veteran
    I put out a lot for charitable uses, but the money usually goes local, and not into a coffer of funds where you can't account for the spending.

  • MatthewCMatthewC Posts: 1,129Member ✭✭
    edited June 2013
    Anyone who says pot is NOT a gateway drug should head on over to Norwich, CT. and swing buy their police department...they got a BRILLIANT flow chart with busted dealers that sold pot THEN sold herion...and busted kids that bought both...numbers dont lie...back in my day (ok I'm only 40; but I love that saying) I bought ¢25 lucy's at 16...and a bottle of Jack at 17...and guns are HEAVILY regulated in MY state...what I mean is how about INSTEAD of more goverment regulations...WE as HUMANS regulate ourselves AND our kids...and lets try not to use the word “puritan” as a curse word...it simply means to have a purer understanding of ANY idea...obviously, the ANTZ have a BLIND hatred...that aint pure!!!
    Rant over... :-bd
  • streamhawkstreamhawk Posts: 177Member
    With all due respect Matthew, that is extremely faulty logic. Dealers will deal whatever they want to deal, they go where the bigger money is. Narcotic users will also stay high on whatever they can get their hands on. From the dozens of marijuana smokers I personally knew back in the day, none of them went on to narcotics. None, as in zero. Just because one partakes of marijuana, does not automatically make them a narcotic user in the future. I don't care what the local police department records show.
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭

    This is just further proof of what I always say, statistics are not science.  They do not necessarily tell the truth.  Reverse engineering the numbers to "prove" that almost all heroin users started out as marijuana users "proves" nothing more than that the person using heroin already had a propensity for illegal drug use.  It does not prove the reverse true, that most marijuana users move on to harder drugs like heroin.  A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. 

    For me, "puritanical" IS a curse word.  It implies severe intolerance of anything not accepted by a very strict religion.  I have absolutely no problem with anyone's religious beliefs as long as they do not try to impose those beliefs on others.  The problem with drug abuse is that it hurts society and citizens who are not users.  A whole lot of theft crimes trace their roots right back to drug abuse.  Don't think marijuana is one of these drugs?  Then you've never lived in a city were a group of jobless thugs bumps off a gas station attendant so they can steal some brew and buy some herb.  No, MOST marijuana users probably do not resort to this, but it DOES happen.  And here, again, we see the life and liberties of others threatened.  Two sides of the same coin, really. 

  • streamhawkstreamhawk Posts: 177Member
    It's the "statistical" logic that bothers me. It's raining today. Today is Saturday. It always rains on Saturday.....
  • streamhawkstreamhawk Posts: 177Member
    Maybe those jobless thugs drink soft drinks and smoke tobacco, it's probably all that sugar and nicotine that makes them that way. Or perhaps, they have a propensity to commit burglary because they're jobless. I'm sure someone has stats to prove whatever you want to have backed up backed up.
  • CynsonyaCynsonya Posts: 5,367Member
    Totally agree Streamhawk.
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭

    Yeah, that's just a simple example.  Want a REALLY shocking example?  99.2% of smokers will never get lung cancer.  99.2%.  And, wait for it... 99.975% of non-smokers will never get lung cancer.  These are from number I crunched when in college, I no longer have access to the supporting data.  I simply used smoker population versus reported lung cancer in smokers versus non-smoking population versus reported lung cancer in non-smokers.  That's like "WOW", right there.  But say it this way, 1 in 125 smokers will get lung cancer, while only 1 in 4000 non-smokers will get lung cancer and your prospects as a non-smoker look a whole lot better.  But then apply the same ratios as 1000 in 125000 vs. 1000 in 4000000 and your chances don't look so impressive any longer.  Wow, 124000 of 125000 smokers will never get lung cancer, but only 3,999.000 nonsmokers in 4000000 will be so lucky.  Statistics are BS; especially when they're based on surveys.

  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    edited June 2013
    Good study, @kdodds!  Wasn't aware of those stats and so I like my odds of 1 in 125.  My best friend wasn't so lucky.  He passed away at a young age of lung cancer... and he had been a fairly heavy smoker.  But probably no more than I.

    Just to comment on 'statistics are BS'.. well, yeah.. they really can be.  And that is what the media presents.  Or, they simply misrepresent a valid statistic, and then it becomes B.S.  

  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    Right, @MikeV.  And true, the numbers are just that, numbers.  Only numbers, and no more than numbers.  They don't lie, they're just numbers, it's their representation that's BS really.  A co-worker of mine is fond of a saying, "If you're the 'one in', then your chances are 100%."  Kind of a different perspective/philosophy on things.  Not that events are pre-ordained, but more to say that your chances of being the one are just as good as the next guy's.  As a small child I would have liked my odds of never finding a dead body, or of never seeing someone get run over by a train, or of being there on 9/11 about a mile from the WTC, or of surviving on that day because I was one of those people who "didn't get on the plane" because I felt I should drive that day (instead of winding up UNDER the towers at a most unfortunate time).  Probability that is statistic driven, IOW, is no more reliable at a given specific point in place/time, then those mangled media statistic interpretations. 
  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    It would be interesting to accumulate all these health risk stats mathematically and come up with, for any given individual heredity and lifestyle, a single probability that you are going to die by a certain age.  I would think once I hit 60% probability of dying by age 60... 

    I would really go "all out" splurge on life.  Boy, would we be living in a different world!

  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    ST:TNG - Half a Life.
  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    I will have to check that out  ^:)^
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    Not quite the world you've envisioned, though.  :)  But everyone knows they'll die at 60.
  • streamhawkstreamhawk Posts: 177Member
    edited June 2013
    Then I'm a vaping zombie kdodds! Some people have a genetic or emotional,etc, favoritism to have something, whatever that may be, happen to them. Some people just have crap luck......
  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    I didn't watch many episodes of that series.  I watched the Voyager series several times.. and once in a while will watch some episodes on Netflix.  I tried DS9, but just couldn't get into it enough to watch the whole series.  There's another one on Netflix that has a cowboy theme to it.. some group of misfits traveling around space.  Name escapes me.. but there again, I have not been able to stick with the series.  

    I'm going to give away my age, here.. but I watched the original ST series as a kid with my folks in the 60's.  We loved it.. but the show barely survived the first season.  It was a little rough.. those first couple episodes.  And, it was way before its time as far as TV programming.  We all know what happened next.  What a show.
  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭

    Firefly... a Joss Whedon series, and a really good one at that.  Got cancelled after one season, I think, and then they wrapped up in the movie Serenity a few years later. 

    There are some REALLY bad SciFi shows out there.  Farscape was pretty bad, despite their trying to really make it work.  Had some redeeming moments, but I couldn't get through it.  There was another one, I think originated on Canadian Cable.  Can't remember the name, but it was unwatchable, and lasted like four seasons.

  • kdoddskdodds Posts: 2,571Member ✭✭
    Lexx... that was the name... bad.  Really bad.  No, like you don't get it, how bad it actually was.  I think I got though maybe three episodes, and regret every one.
  • vaperaniavaperania Posts: 116Member
    Lexx was on US tv also, late night, years ago. It was so bad, I couldn't stop watching it... :-B
  • MikeVMikeV Posts: 511Member
    Good call on Firefly, @kdodds.  That is it.  Lasted 1 season, huh? Watched 1-1/2 episodes and gave up on it.  I may try it again.  Never heard of Lexx.  I see Farscape is on Netflix and I think that I tried watching that one, as well.  

    Watched the series Enterprise with Scott Bakula and Jolene Blalock.  It was ok.  Scott Bakula sucks as an actor, and that last 3 or 4 seasons were centered around these aliens... I forget their name.  Got old, quick.   
  • oshinstormoshinstorm Posts: 193Member ✭✭
    edited June 2013
    Anything Joss Whedon does is worth watching. Whenever I am not feeling well I will do a marathon of Firefy or Buffy!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Powered by Vanilla