K
Check out this Photo, Ecigs in the Pharmacy Section at Morrisons
gords1001
Achiever
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2,031
I don't think ecigs have any place being sold anywhere that the people selling them do not understand the potential risks associated with their use, ok, cig alikes are not rechargeable or reloadable, but I dont really like them being just there on a shelf with no user support offered or available.
I agree with @kurlmestupid that sticking them next to kids medicine is poor product placement, but tbh, I dont like the idea of cigalikes or of supermarkets banging out ecigs full stop.
I just think that vaping supplies should be obtained from knowledgeable vaping suppliers, these are simply not as straight forward as a cancer stick and lighter/matches.
I agree with @kurlmestupid that sticking them next to kids medicine is poor product placement, but tbh, I dont like the idea of cigalikes or of supermarkets banging out ecigs full stop.
I just think that vaping supplies should be obtained from knowledgeable vaping suppliers, these are simply not as straight forward as a cancer stick and lighter/matches.
MrTeaTime
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 13,933
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 17,727
Our tesco has them in both the tobacco kiosk and in the pharmacy. Maybe they are hoping to get the attention of the parents whose kids have coughs due to the passive smoke they are inhaling? 
i also hate seeing all these easily available cigalikes springing up everywhere. Any corner shop has them now and we have a dodgy market stall that sells them. If I see them for sale I always try to strike up a conversation and as yet all I've had is blank looks back. The bloke on our market couldn't even tell me the mg of his juice. He had a good look at the bottle and then tried to tell me it was 10ml! It was eshisha so I knew full well is was 0% but he didn't have a clue. That's why I personally think it should be sold under licence in the same way that alchohol is. Regulate sales that way by giving licences to decent, educated vendors who kno what they are selling!
i also hate seeing all these easily available cigalikes springing up everywhere. Any corner shop has them now and we have a dodgy market stall that sells them. If I see them for sale I always try to strike up a conversation and as yet all I've had is blank looks back. The bloke on our market couldn't even tell me the mg of his juice. He had a good look at the bottle and then tried to tell me it was 10ml! It was eshisha so I knew full well is was 0% but he didn't have a clue. That's why I personally think it should be sold under licence in the same way that alchohol is. Regulate sales that way by giving licences to decent, educated vendors who kno what they are selling!
JosefK
Postman
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 133
Our tesco has them in both the tobacco kiosk and in the pharmacy. Maybe they are hoping to get the attention of the parents whose kids have coughs due to the passive smoke they are inhaling?
i also hate seeing all these easily available cigalikes springing up everywhere. Any corner shop has them now and we have a dodgy market stall that sells them. If I see them for sale I always try to strike up a conversation and as yet all I've had is blank looks back. The bloke on our market couldn't even tell me the mg of his juice. He had a good look at the bottle and then tried to tell me it was 10ml! It was eshisha so I knew full well is was 0% but he didn't have a clue. That's why I personally think it should be sold under licence in the same way that alchohol is. Regulate sales that way by giving licences to decent, educated vendors who kno what they are selling!
You are kidding, surely?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 17,727
Not at all. I'd like to see the back of these jump on the bandwagon, get rich quick sellers who see it as an easy buck without knowing or caring what they are selling. If there is some kind of application process and a (sensible) upfront fee it would sort the wheat from the chaff. At the end of the day there is no perfect solution that will keep everyone happy, but I'm pretty sure my way would get rid of the bloke on the market selling bongs, rizla, lighters and ecigs!
JosefK
Postman
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 133
No restriction or licensing system will get rid of any dodgy derek because they are, by nature... dodgy... and people that purchase products from dodgy dealers will also not go away, for a variety of reasons.
I'm not being personal here (truly) but sometimes we vapers can come across as a tad superior. We may have expensive gear, diamond-coiled and mohair-wicked, full of the latest must-have juice bought from 'reputable' vendors... and we tend to forget that this 'revolution' began with cigalikes sold on e-bay by people savvy enough to realise there was a market for a quick buck but who had, initially, no clue as to the technology and no care as to the safety or health-implications of what they were selling.
'Reputable' vendors are just that... those that have built a reputation among users, for friendliness, swift service, sourced products... whatever. Building a reputation and product knowledge takes time and a vibrant consumer-base... and who's to say that a few dereks that are currently 'dodgy' won't follow in the footsteps of other vendors and build a good reputation? Some may not and decide to continue fleecing people for private gain... but this is the nature of capitalism and no amount of regulation or licensing will stop it. As in any consumer-led, consumption-based economy, it's left to buyers to choose which vendor to source products from. Broadly-speaking, this works... most consumers either already know, or quickly learn not to buy plasma TVs, mondeos or condoms from those with a whiff of dodgy.
The easiest and most effective way of 'getting rid' of dodgy dealers is not to buy from them... not by trying to create a restrictive licensing system. Not that I personally care about 'getting rid' of the dodgies, to be honest... I lean to libertarianism... freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
As a vaper, and in common with any of us that has some knowledge as to the technology and science behind e-cigs and the substances used, I am fighting against restriction and regulation on evidential grounds. Evidence is king, or should be... and no restrictive or regulatory action should be taken that is based on prejudice, ideology, puritanism or misunderstanding against any product, but specifically, e-cigs.
It follows that the wider the availability of e-cigs, and the greater the uptake, the better... for experienced vapers and new vapers. A more vibrant market will lead to better products, more innovation, more quality, more choice etc.
For this to happen, e-cigs need to be a 'mainstream' and not a 'niche' product. Restrictions, licensing and regulations, either in manufacture or sale, would force a 'niche' market... which might pander to the prejudices of the 'superior-minded' vaper but doesn't actually help in any way... well... in any way that matters to me.
In short... 'easily available cigalikes' are what kick-started this revolution and there is nothing wrong with widening the entire market with more availability through corner shops and market stalls... and specialist vendors and supermarkets, garages whatever... in stocking e-cigs of any generation.
On a purely personal note, I have to say I find it odd that a vaper would favour things like licensing, restriction or regulation... there's absolutely nothing wrong with what we do, or the products (again, of any generation) that we choose to do it with and if we're thrilled and over the moon with our hobby, we should be happy to see it thrive and prosper, unfettered and free.
I'm not being personal here (truly) but sometimes we vapers can come across as a tad superior. We may have expensive gear, diamond-coiled and mohair-wicked, full of the latest must-have juice bought from 'reputable' vendors... and we tend to forget that this 'revolution' began with cigalikes sold on e-bay by people savvy enough to realise there was a market for a quick buck but who had, initially, no clue as to the technology and no care as to the safety or health-implications of what they were selling.
'Reputable' vendors are just that... those that have built a reputation among users, for friendliness, swift service, sourced products... whatever. Building a reputation and product knowledge takes time and a vibrant consumer-base... and who's to say that a few dereks that are currently 'dodgy' won't follow in the footsteps of other vendors and build a good reputation? Some may not and decide to continue fleecing people for private gain... but this is the nature of capitalism and no amount of regulation or licensing will stop it. As in any consumer-led, consumption-based economy, it's left to buyers to choose which vendor to source products from. Broadly-speaking, this works... most consumers either already know, or quickly learn not to buy plasma TVs, mondeos or condoms from those with a whiff of dodgy.
The easiest and most effective way of 'getting rid' of dodgy dealers is not to buy from them... not by trying to create a restrictive licensing system. Not that I personally care about 'getting rid' of the dodgies, to be honest... I lean to libertarianism... freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
As a vaper, and in common with any of us that has some knowledge as to the technology and science behind e-cigs and the substances used, I am fighting against restriction and regulation on evidential grounds. Evidence is king, or should be... and no restrictive or regulatory action should be taken that is based on prejudice, ideology, puritanism or misunderstanding against any product, but specifically, e-cigs.
It follows that the wider the availability of e-cigs, and the greater the uptake, the better... for experienced vapers and new vapers. A more vibrant market will lead to better products, more innovation, more quality, more choice etc.
For this to happen, e-cigs need to be a 'mainstream' and not a 'niche' product. Restrictions, licensing and regulations, either in manufacture or sale, would force a 'niche' market... which might pander to the prejudices of the 'superior-minded' vaper but doesn't actually help in any way... well... in any way that matters to me.
In short... 'easily available cigalikes' are what kick-started this revolution and there is nothing wrong with widening the entire market with more availability through corner shops and market stalls... and specialist vendors and supermarkets, garages whatever... in stocking e-cigs of any generation.
On a purely personal note, I have to say I find it odd that a vaper would favour things like licensing, restriction or regulation... there's absolutely nothing wrong with what we do, or the products (again, of any generation) that we choose to do it with and if we're thrilled and over the moon with our hobby, we should be happy to see it thrive and prosper, unfettered and free.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 17,727
I never said the licence should be prohibitive. You can buy alcohol in loads of places, and not all are straight up (I used to have to go round to our corner shop at 8am to pick up a couple of beers for my dad when he finished night shifts to help him sleep, I was definately under age). But there should be some token effort to legitamise vaping. I do rather have it in for the bloke on the market, but people like him are the ones that work against us in our aim to make vaping a sensible alternative. He will sell to anyone, doesn't know or care what he is selling, has no interest in vaping or the products and has it lumped in with drug paraphernalia. This, to me, does nothing to promote vaping-if anything it plays right into the daily fail core readership mentality. If there was some sort of basic control, it would (in my head) make it much better for everyone. I agree that vaping should be easily accessibly to everyone and would much prefer a genuine light touch approach to regulation and I, as much as anyone, want to see the ecig businesses survive and thrive. Regulation and restriction will throttle it, all I am proposing is just a basic standard that everyone must adhere to. (I also have nothing against other market vendors, I've met some lovely market vendors who are just as passionate about vaping as I am!). JosefK, thanks for your eloquent debate. It's nice to have a genuine, well thought out debate. We may not agree with each other, but it's always good to hear other perspectives 
JosefK
Postman
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 133
Purplefowler Thanks for the replies and I'm glad you're not taking my words personally, or as an attack... as that's not my intent, at all. Nice one.
All licenses are prohibitive, in that (say) without one, you can't sell the relevant product. As your tale of buying booze while underage indicates... even the +18 restriction is pretty pointless. I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning my pub career a few years underage, either. I was also sent out to get booze and fags... and I was under 10 at the time and bought them from a village off-licence... which was licensed. For some reason, the same shopkeeper wouldn't sell me matches unless I could spell 'matches.' God alone knows where that requirement or concept came from
I don't think dodgy dealers have any impact one way or the other, to be honest... beyond caricature and prejudice. As you said, there are good ones and bad ones. There are also good 'reputable' vendors and bad ones. The reputations of products sold, e-cigs or whatever, are not harmed in any meaningful way by the people that sell them, unless there is some form of prejudice involved, I guess... towards the product or the seller.
I personally like to buy my PC components from people that know what they're talking about and can answer any question I might ask. I don't usually buy PC components from market stalls OR from PC World unless it's irrelevant and they're significantly cheaper.
With e-cigs, for me in my current vaping position, it has become irrelevant because I do my own legwork and I'll buy from anyone if the quality and price is right, even those that the Daily Mail and Deborah Arnott sneer at, like the Chinese. For those that are clueless about e-cigs, it is obviously better for them to initially buy from people that can advise and answer questions... absolutely... but in my experience, as with PC World, just because a shop is reputable, well-established and full of quality stock doesn't guarantee good advice and product knowledge... or even a faultless and 100% safe product.
In the example you gave, it was a bit of a trick question to ask what the nicotine content of a product that contained no nicotine was, especially as you already knew it to be zero. What was the purpose of the question but to highlight his possible ignorance? If the dodgy one has said 'zero' he may have foiled you temporarily, but your opinion of him would not have been meaningfully altered, don't you think?
As far as the Daily Mail is concerned... either educate, or fight against Daily Mail mentality (which is prejudice with an agenda, to me), rather than act as though it has any legitimacy, surely? Pre-empting them and doing what they would want just to 'dis-arm' them in some way simply reinforces prejudiced perceptions, doesn't it?
I tend to think that it's MY responsibility to know what I'm buying, and MY responsibility to not fall for any bullshit from any retailer, whether in a car-showroom or market, with the caveat that if the product sold is faulty or dangerous, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that, before and after the sale.
With regards to e-cigs... there is no evidence for restriction whatsoever. In my opinion, of course, though I think I can back it up with evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'token effort to legitimise vaping.' It is already legitimate, in every way, isn't it? Any form of control, basic or no, is a restriction. I am not against ALL restrictions, regulations or laws... but there does have to be, as I said, an evidence-based reason or cause. This, to me, means that IF you argue for control, you have to have evidence that it is necessary and required... AND that it will be effective and has no unintended consequence. It can't be based on prejudice, ideology, misunderstanding or even some rather airy notion that 'it would be for the best.'
As for 'basic standard' - I would agree, in terms of manufacture... but not in terms of sales (as in a license to sell, say). If the former is adopted, then there is no need for the latter.
And you're absolutely right... different perspectives are the juice of life
All licenses are prohibitive, in that (say) without one, you can't sell the relevant product. As your tale of buying booze while underage indicates... even the +18 restriction is pretty pointless. I'm sure I'm not alone in beginning my pub career a few years underage, either. I was also sent out to get booze and fags... and I was under 10 at the time and bought them from a village off-licence... which was licensed. For some reason, the same shopkeeper wouldn't sell me matches unless I could spell 'matches.' God alone knows where that requirement or concept came from
I don't think dodgy dealers have any impact one way or the other, to be honest... beyond caricature and prejudice. As you said, there are good ones and bad ones. There are also good 'reputable' vendors and bad ones. The reputations of products sold, e-cigs or whatever, are not harmed in any meaningful way by the people that sell them, unless there is some form of prejudice involved, I guess... towards the product or the seller.
I personally like to buy my PC components from people that know what they're talking about and can answer any question I might ask. I don't usually buy PC components from market stalls OR from PC World unless it's irrelevant and they're significantly cheaper.
With e-cigs, for me in my current vaping position, it has become irrelevant because I do my own legwork and I'll buy from anyone if the quality and price is right, even those that the Daily Mail and Deborah Arnott sneer at, like the Chinese. For those that are clueless about e-cigs, it is obviously better for them to initially buy from people that can advise and answer questions... absolutely... but in my experience, as with PC World, just because a shop is reputable, well-established and full of quality stock doesn't guarantee good advice and product knowledge... or even a faultless and 100% safe product.
In the example you gave, it was a bit of a trick question to ask what the nicotine content of a product that contained no nicotine was, especially as you already knew it to be zero. What was the purpose of the question but to highlight his possible ignorance? If the dodgy one has said 'zero' he may have foiled you temporarily, but your opinion of him would not have been meaningfully altered, don't you think?
As far as the Daily Mail is concerned... either educate, or fight against Daily Mail mentality (which is prejudice with an agenda, to me), rather than act as though it has any legitimacy, surely? Pre-empting them and doing what they would want just to 'dis-arm' them in some way simply reinforces prejudiced perceptions, doesn't it?
I tend to think that it's MY responsibility to know what I'm buying, and MY responsibility to not fall for any bullshit from any retailer, whether in a car-showroom or market, with the caveat that if the product sold is faulty or dangerous, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with that, before and after the sale.
With regards to e-cigs... there is no evidence for restriction whatsoever. In my opinion, of course, though I think I can back it up with evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'token effort to legitimise vaping.' It is already legitimate, in every way, isn't it? Any form of control, basic or no, is a restriction. I am not against ALL restrictions, regulations or laws... but there does have to be, as I said, an evidence-based reason or cause. This, to me, means that IF you argue for control, you have to have evidence that it is necessary and required... AND that it will be effective and has no unintended consequence. It can't be based on prejudice, ideology, misunderstanding or even some rather airy notion that 'it would be for the best.'
As for 'basic standard' - I would agree, in terms of manufacture... but not in terms of sales (as in a license to sell, say). If the former is adopted, then there is no need for the latter.
And you're absolutely right... different perspectives are the juice of life
Similar threads
