Anti e-editorial

[BiscuitSlayer]

Americans have spoken all right... they have chosen to lose more liberty in the name of security.

Our problem is that we turn to government to solve all of our problems. Kind of like the guy that wrote the article that this thread is about. He doesn't smoke or e-smoke, so why should he care one way or the other what people do with their lives. How is it any of his business or concern?



We WANT government to get bigger and intercede into our lives. We WANT governmtent to protect us in every way shape or form. We WANT government to figure out ways to protect the general public, when really it is a few idiots that are causing the problems.



Look at the north east states with their taxes on tobacco products. Taxing a pack of cigarettes at $4? I know the smokers in those states didn't help support those new taxes. Has anyone up there done anything to to repeal that outlandish tax?



I would call that taxation without representation. It is a penalty tax designed to either A. curb smoking habbits or B. collect a lot of revenue (that funds what?).


I agree pretty much holeheartedly with you Austintatious, although I don't know if Ron Paul or Bob Bar whould have made any changes.

I have considered running for office just because of how anti conventional government I am. I am sick of government involvement into my life. What I fear, though, is that I am in the minority.

[rhyddereh]

Don't forget this is in Portland Oregon before you go off too far. This place is about as anti-smoker as it comes. (though pot is just fine it seems . . . ) Yes I saw this in the newspaper today, and yes I was kinda outraged but then I remembered where I was

[rhyddereh]

grr . . . couldn't help myself . . . why oh why did you post a link to that article so I could see a "comment" section?

"This is the only thing that has helped me slow down my nicotine intake, don't buy from the mall, do your research.

As for the anti-smoking faschists: Please leave me be. Addicts need help not condemnation or so I hear from most people talking about any other addiction except cigarettes in Oregon.

I'm sorry that you thought that you wouldn't ever have to see us "dirty smokers" again (since we cannot come pretty much anywhere anymore), but it seems you will have to pass another hurdle before you can evict us completely from your society.

Go get a life, stay away from me when I'm standing on the corner smoking a cig or an e-cig for that matter since you don't like it, and maybe . . . just maybe you look at your own life and what's wrong with it instead of mine.

I get that you do not want me to poision you, I have been trying to not poison you for years (staying in my own "approved" places, even leaving when you come to me and I want to smoke), but my places must seem VERY nice to you since you wanted so bad to come see what you are missing at the dive bar that you had to force me to leave. Now what's next? Someone comes up with a way for you not to smell my habit, get poisioned by my habit, you can elbow your way next to me no matter that I back away and don't have to deal with it and you don't want me to do that? Hrmm must be you can't stand the sight of it.

Yes, I'd love for these things to be properly labelled, but "FDA regulation"? Are you kidding me? Alchohol is a worse poision and I'll bet you don't support that being regulated since it'd be outlawed at any levels worth while. Same thing will happen to nicotine products if the FDA gets ahold of it. The FDA regulates drugs that have therapudic uses, alchohol and tobacco doesn't. Why do you think that marijuanna is illegal? How about we as smokers just support US manufacturers of these things and make them do lab reports on them before we buy? Sue them if they get caught with anything else in them? We do have options here besides banning.

Goodbye Bob Caldwell, Good luck Bob Caldwell, and I hope that if you ever have trouble with anything that we will not treat you with half the disdain you are treating smokers as I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

[xpdx]

The Oregonian is a lame paper but a lot of stupid people read it. I'm afraid that they are going to believe this crap. "Candy flavors?" WTF? Since when is "coffee", or "Tennessee cured" or "Camel" or "Marlboro" a candy flavor?

"The WHO says may be dangerous"! of course they say that, what else are they going to say? They are the WHO for crissakes!! They say everything "may be dangerous" unless it has been tested, regulated and taxed to death. Then they still say it may be dangerous only now it costs 10 times as much..

I am stomping mad about this little jerk trying to ...... up the only thing in twenty years that got me to stop smoking cigarettes. I am stocking up on the hardware now and learning how to extract my own nicotine from effing cabbage if I have to. I'll take this ..... underground. Start my own nic lab in the basement. Deal it on the street corner..

I need a pill to calm down now.. Sorry bout all the cussin.. It just chaps my hide...

[madog]

Thought you all may enjoy this this is an article that was printed a week or two ago in my hometown rag - "Otherside of the state" from Portland where the Oregonian is - More as a information piece than a bash piece. They did put in the WHO crap - I have vaped in various estabilishment around the valley and have had mosly postive results - NO severly negative results just 1 simple "Please not in here". No problem I can go elsewhere - It was a tiny sandwich shop in a Rural City.

MailTribune.com: Electronic cigarettes walk a fine legal line

[LaceyUnderall]

Good find madog. It is so interesting how these articles sway so differently.

[NicoNut]

Well, not many more will ever read that anti-e-cig article (Portland, Oregon newspaper). The page is now blank, and they charge $2.95 to read it from the archives. Is this normal practice, and does anyone have a copy of it?

[madog]

Well, not many more will ever read that anti-e-cig article (Portland, Oregon newspaper). The page is now blank, and they charge $2.95 to read it from the archives. Is this normal practice, and does anyone have a copy of it?

Well it worked for me still but for prosperity here ya go -

Snuff that e-cigarette!

by The Oregonian Editorial Board Saturday January 10, 2009, 1:17 PM


Kiosks at Portland-area shopping malls have begun hawking "electronic cigarettes" as a dubious answer to Oregon's newly expanded workplace smoking ban.
The "e-cigarettes," also known as "e-cigs," are nicotine-delivery devices that involve no tobacco and no smoke. Thus they're legal in bars, bingo halls and restaurant lounges where smoking is now newly banned in Oregon, although some establishments probably won't welcome them.
At first glance, they look like cigarettes. When a user takes a drag on one, an orange LED light glows at the end. Meanwhile, a fine, heated mist is absorbed into the lungs, and then the user exhales what looks just like a puff of smoke.
But it isn't smoke. It's vaporized nicotine and other chemicals that the World Health Organization says could be dangerous.
Manufactured in China, the "electronic cigarette" consists of a white metal tube, approximately the size of a cigarette and painted on one end with a fake filter. The tube contains a lithium battery, a computer chip and heating device, as well as a cartridge of liquid containing nicotine and unspecified other chemicals.
The cartridges are available in a wide array of candy flavors, making them suspiciously attractive to minors.
A salesman at the kiosk at Washington Square was overheard last week telling prospective customers the product was perfectly legal to use on airplanes. That may be true, but the fact is that flight attendants on most U.S. airlines ask "e-cig" users to put them away because the puffing upsets nearby passengers.
The salesman also asserted that the $149 "e-cigarette" starter kit was a good way to break the tobacco habit. He said cartridges in the kit contained gradually diminishing doses of nicotine, designed to wean the user off the addiction while providing much of the physical and tactile sensation of smoking.
Oregon health officials say that's a completely bogus claim. The devices are not recognized by the U.S. government or the World Health Organization as smoking-cessation products. In fact, if sellers try to market them that way in this country, they will become subject to Food and Drug Administration oversight, like nicotine patches and chewing gum.
In our view, the FDA should test and regulate "e-cigarettes" no matter how they're marketed. Nobody knows exactly what chemicals the Chinese manufacturers are putting in the liquid in those cartridges, and nobody in their right mind should be inhaling them.
But, hey. Isn't the same thing true of real cigarettes?
The good news is that support is building in Congress for FDA regulation of tobacco products. They're long overdue for government oversight, and that goes for the fake "electronic" versions, too.
--Bob Caldwell, editorial page editor; bobcaldwell@news.oregonian.com

[devonschmoker]

here is a link that should work. Snuff that e-cigarette! - OregonLive.com
I have never heard of them charging 2.95 for looking in the archives before. This link comes up as free to me at least.

[TropicalBob]

The differences between these two pieces are basic to journalism: One is an opinion column and one is an article. In an opinion piece, the writer has a position, states it and supports it with his arguments. Editorials are opinion pieces. Personal columns are opinion pieces. They are meant to stimulate thinking. They are not meant to present all sides, be fair, or contain balanced views.

An article is supposed to be fair and balanced, as the MailTribune one is. It is meant to inform and educate those new to the subject. And of course the WHO statement will be used. Call it balance. It's fair to include it; it's irresponsible not to. An good article is not a promotional piece. It's not criticism, either.

Press people go ballistic when someone says an "article" was biased, when they are clearly talking about an opinion piece.