Lorrillard And Blu E-Cigs Join Forces

[Retriever]

I have never heard very much good about Blu. I wonder why Lorillard chose them?

[danpio1217]

My guess is b/c they have good marketing & packaging and they've done a good job convincing 1st time buyers to pull the trigger. Blu was my 1st ecig, and while it fell miles short on performance, I have to hand it to them for introducing me to this awesome industry. Also, i think blu owns a portion of the ecig patent which could have played a part as well.

[DanWG015]

I agree that this is a good thing for the time being. They will have the funds for R&D and also access to labs in order to prove the safety of eCigs. This will help pave the way for smaller operations to operate without the fear or threat that they are selling a dangerous product. But as Chris said, patent battles will follow as those big companies try to lock themselves into profits to cover the expense of the R&D and the labs. It's a double edged sword.

I see that a lot of smaller operations will be bought up by the big companies, that will pay off for those who have hung in thus far but it will be bad for the consumer as customer service will go down the tubes and the choice of products will be scaled down to what can be efficiently mass produced and disposable.

Most small operations cannot compete with the big money it takes to have a product patented. The last time I checked, back in 1997, it cost $10,000.00 to have a patent attorney just perform a patent search to see if you invention or idea hasn't already been submitted. We never went as far as having a product patented because the cost was just too far out of sight.

Yes, this is bad for everyone: the e-cigarette consumer, e-cig business owners, the economy, and, possibly more. I know this may sound like a dramatic claim, but I'll explain why.

First, let's examine the basics of this issue. The past decades have shown us that big tobacco is driven by two things: money and power. The power more-so to insure their revenue stream. They put chemicals in cigarettes to make them more addictive, but refused to disclose the details claiming it was part of the recipe, or some patent loophole to that effect. Not only did these chemicals make the already-dangerous-enough cigarettes more addictive, but the chemicals themselves are incredibly harmful. So, basically, big tobacco added poison to their product to make it even harder for people to quit while simultaneously hurting customers more with the added chemicals. After all, every good marketer knows that it's easiest and cheapest to keep repeat customers, as opposed to going after new ones.

This is just one of the atrocities big tobacco has committed against humanity. I included it as an example to remind everyone just how this industry functions.

All smoking prevention / harm reduction initiatives by big tobacco are to maintain their reputation in a way that, 1.) keeps regulation and lawsuits at a minimum, and 2.) Keeps just enough of a positive image so that smokers continue to choose to buy their brand of cigarettes. Again, it's all about the profit, which you can't make if your company gets shut down, heavily fined or if your customers stop buying from you.

1) Public Health Information - First I'd like to address this. Optimistic E-cig fans have mentioned that big tobacco has the funds to put into research and development to help the electronic cigarette industry. Having worked on and studied many grant-funded research studies in the health field (though this applies for any field), I can tell you first hand that it's not difficult to make studies say what you want them to say. Even if the FDA is involved to "regulate," which, who knows if it would be at this point, you still have to be careful what to believe. Unfortunately, I've seen government-funded studies in the health care field that come out with misleading or incorrect information because the people putting together the study 1.) lacked a comprehensive understanding of all of the issues involved, 2) or, as some have accused, the study was designed to favor one particular outcome that would result in more money being spent on health care procedures.

Research funded by big tobacco is not done so with the purpose of science and truth; the goal of the research is to determine strengths and opportunities for marketing it's products, i.e. profit.

2) Economy - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/smokeless-tobacco-kansas-rj-reynolds_n_1465533.html?utm_hp_ref=smoking

This article is about how RJ Reynolds (big tobacco) is supporting state-by-state studies on the "health effects of smokeless tobacco, potentially allowing the state to market smokeless tobacco as a healthier alternative to cigarette smoking."

Translation: big tobacco recognizes that the combination of evidence of the dangers of traditional cigarettes mixed with the public health initiatives to end tobacco use impact the cigarette market. These "smokeless tobacco" products represent a HUGE new market for big tobacco. If big tobacco can get the OK to market smokeless tobacco products as a "healthier alternative," that is a HUGE potential for profit increase.

How does this affect the economy?

Big tobacco has the funds and friends to take over all of the smokeless tobacco markets and push the mom-and-pop shops out, like many people have said already. And I think we all know that's what they'll try to do. Why? To gain control of the market share for all tobacco products, not just traditional cigarettes. If this is done, big tobacco will have less competition and essentially be in control of the whole tobacco industry - from e cigarettes, to e liquid ingredients, to advertising and messaging.

And I'm sure we all understand that many, moderately sized retailers in the same industry is economically superior to one giant superpower controlling the majority of the industry.

2) Electronic cigarette business owners - Well, the effect on them is obvious. But these businesses were built upon providing a safer smoking alternative to traditional cigarettes. They are founded upon the principles of helping people emancipate themselves from their addiction to traditional cigarettes, and prevent further harm on the smokers and people around them. These mom-and-pop e cigarette retailers have built their businesses on helping reduce the harm on society caused by big tobacco. For big tobacco to come in and take over would be a slap in the face to the American entrepreneurial spirit.

3) Consumer - Last but certainly not least.

Like TheSmokingMan said, "it will be bad for the consumer as customer service will go down the tubes and the choice of products will be scaled down to what can be efficiently mass produced and disposable."

In addition, if big tobacco companies become the main source of smokeless tobacco products, research and information, who knows what tricks they'll pull to increase sales. Who knows what will be added to e-liquid, what changes will be made to the mechanics of the e cigarettes, etc. It's clear that we can't trust big tobacco whatsoever.

History repeats itself, but only if we let it.

Don't let big tobacco, the industry that has made BILLIONS off of the number one preventable cause of death in the US, take control of products that were intended to help alleviate the damage big tobacco caused in the first place.