I really don't buy the addiction trading argument. By that logic, any nictotene replacement therapy is going to be looked on unfavourably -- which is clearly not the case. Any nicotene replacement method will always carry the risk that the user is simply replacing one addiction (tobacco) for another (nicotene).
It's the fact that it looks so much like smoking that really puts up roadblocks -- all those people that spent time and money to control what we do are now seeing us doing what appears to be exactly what they thought they had stopped us doing. That's what will stick in their throats and make them not listen when we talk about how so many of us have quit this way -- they don't see as having quit smoking. If you're on a patch or the gum, they don't see you really doing anything -- not so with the e-cig.
But yeah, to get back to the original point -- see my signature.
What can they ban next? Singing and dancing were disliked by O.Cromwell. Gambling - watch out, Vegas.
Originally Posted by sherid
But as has been pointed out elsewhere the next big attacks will be on alcohol and food.
I just wish that the authorities would stop pretending that they have our best interests at heart. They simply wish to save money on healthcare and have work units that break down less frequently.
Yes TBob ....I am quite certain that when they all get their act together they are going to do everything they can to put an end to e-cigarettes....there is no way they are going to allow them to become socially acceptable....I can even understand it...... It 'might' be a hell of a lot healthier for 'us' smokers to vape.......but the healthiest thing of all would be not to do either and I certainly wouldn't think it was a good idea for non-smokers to take up vaping.......I don't really know what the answer is because vaping could potentially save a lot of people's lives even allowing for the fact that the liquid isn't regulated and subjected to a reliable quality control.
Heed--If you look at the gum or patches, you'll see there's a schedule to gradually reduce your nicotine dependence and to give up the particular product altogether. There is nowhere in the advertising or literature anything that would suggest that the manufacturers expect you to to keep patching or chewing forever.
But, then, in all fairness, ecig manufacturers/suppliers aren't allowed to market this as a nicotine replacement therapy or as a smoking cessation device, so the marketing pitch is going to be different . . . at least for now.
I do hope the studies get done, though. Frankly, from all of the anecdotal information shared on this forum, it seems clear that a decent percentage of hardcore smokers have been able to give up tobacco entirely, and some have even reduced their nicotine intake (or eliminated it altogether). Aside from FDA issues, I think that these scientific studies are what we're going to need to really get ecigs mainstreamed so that a significant percentage of the smoking population will give them a try.
When you say back ip up what do you refer to? I understand not being able to claim its "safer" due to the lack of long term testing, or any testing for that matter. But the proof about it aiding in getting off tobacco is plastered all over the internet for any eyes to see. And all it would require testing wise to get that proof is to have smokers use the e-cigs. I don't think claiming this can aid in getting a smoker off of tobacco is a false claim that needs ot be backed up at all. There is no lying there, no false claims, nothing. Just a true statement that E-cigs can aid in the getting a smoker off of tobacco.
Originally Posted by providence
Like i said, I do understand the false statements about health and safety that poeple are making that can get the FDA involved, and not in a nice way. But as much as that can happen, I see way too many paranoid statements over here on this end, that basically makes anyone scared to say anything positive about e-cigs, and thats a bunch of baloney.
While Jon from Safe-Cig is what we do not want to be, we also do not want to be so scared to say anything positive that we can't make a true statement like "E-cigs can(not DO), aid (not replace) in getting a smoker off of tobacco. Nothing out of line there, nothing to be paranoid about with the FDA, because that statement is easy to back up.
Of course they aren't going to say, "keep taking nicotene indefinitely". We all know nicotene is a poison. And no company that markets a cessation device is going to say don't cease your intake of this poison.
Originally Posted by JustJulie
But that doesn't mean a lot of people don't rely on said products in just that way. It's not like the retailer has any way to check if you've been using the product and not reducing your intake and therefore stop selling to you.
One could trade an addiction to tobacco for an addiction to nicotene gum, for example -- just as one could trade an addiction to tobacco for an addiction to vaping niquid. That's why the "trading addictions" argument doesn't hold -- it applies to all nicotene replacement methods. It's just that the "official" ones can market themselves as "helpful to the addict"; whereas, the e-cig can't be marketed in this way.
NRT works by trading one addiction for another -- that's the mechanism by which it functions. It's just that "official" NRT's also make a bit of a show (i.e. a little chart or schedule) about quitting the new addiction after a period of time. But there's no enforcement of that schedule that means people will necessarily follow that path.
Last edited by Heed; 02-09-2009 at 05:04 PM.
The decision to ban, regulate or tax will be made by the lobbyist in Washington. Whether it be the tobacco or pharmaceutical groups, they both want a piece of the money pie. Washington will realize the taxes they are losing by people quitting smoking and due something drastic to regain that income. They do not care about our health, they only want the money these habits generate. Why would smoking still be legal if they were worried about our health?
And let's be honest... when a smoker gives up their cigarettes, many simply trade their smoking addiction for a food addiction.
I do question why the anti-smoking campaign believes they have any right to tell me what I can and cannot do. I am a mother with children and I am concerned for their safety. I don't need a "nanny" telling me that I shouldn't smoke around them, I know this. I surely don't tell them they should hold off on their coffee. And what's worse, is that caffeine is legal for children! We are curious why our youngins' seem unable to concentrate and are constantly being medicated for hyperactiveness. It is a vicious cycle.
But... Sherid is right... it is a protestant attack on our personal rights to be able to do as we wish with our person... but then again, I think it is ridiculous that if a person wants to end their own life, it is illegal.
You are the sister that I always wanted.
Tags for this Thread