Recently, I purchased a Blu Cig. The reason for my purchase was that it contains vegetable glycerin instead of propylene glycol, with which I had quite a horrible reaction to once. In an attempt to be open-minded, I decided to give Blu a chance. They're ok for when you're stuck in a non-smoking environment against your will (ie., they're not going to replace my cigarette habit any time in the near future) I suppose, and even though they make me cough upon occasion when inhaling, the side effects were nowhere near what I had experienced with the PG based e-cig that had once made me (and my boyfriend) ill.
Seeing this as a sign of progress (I believe in progress), I decided to contact the company via their website to see if I could put a Blu banner on my blog. This lead me to an affiliate company that provided me with an application for prospective affiliate publishers.
What came next surprised me: I was told that my application was denied. When I asked why, I was told that it was because of the content of my blog. In other words, they did not approve of my talking about smokers' rights and tobacco harm reduction for combustibles. I explained (err..or I tried to) to them that I am interested in harm reduction and that even though I am more interested in combustible cigarettes, I am trying to be open-minded to the idea of e-cigarettes (despite a previous bad experience). I also explained to them (...ok..tried to) that there were/are no banners of the "Marlboro Man" anywhere on my blog; thus, it cannot be said that I am selling anything (um, because I'm not) related to combustible cigarettes on my blog; though it can be said that I am attempting to sell an idea (ie, harm reduction for the millions of smokers who will continue to smoke), rather than a particular product per se .
As a smoker who pays taxes, I have every right to speak of "ideas" (ie., by digging up relevant studies, etc.) when it comes to the issue of tobacco. There are some who don't agree with this right to discuss ideas. I am in the process of learning the hard way that not everyone is as open-minded as I thought, for Blu has just shunned one of their prospective customers merely because they don't "like" what I talk about on this blog. In the dictionary, the definition of what I have just experienced can be encapsulated in the term/word prejudice.
....and it's not just them either....The same thing has just happened to me (presumably for the same reason) again when attempting to contact another VG-based e-cig company called Pro Smoke. In hindsight, I'm not too surprised by the slight that I have received from Pro Smoke, as they have a big, shiny endorsement from our favorite smoke-banster friends over at the ACS.
I'm not trying to bash on e-cigs, but what I am saying is this: Many proponents (not all) of e-cigarettes are indeed anti-smokers that only want to sell their form of harm reduction. Sound familiar? They're not exactly tolerant of other alternative ideas..or of freedom of expression for that matter. That's a fact.