Anti e-editorial - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

TropicalBob · 01-11-2009, 02:21 PM

This from a Portland, Ore., newspaper editorial:

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.

Snuff that e-cigarette! - Oregon Opinion Articles, Political Blogs & Views | The Stump – OregonLive.com

sherid · 01-11-2009, 03:27 PM

Here was my email to Bob, the editor.
Gee, Bob I thought you people in the anti-smoking cartel were opposed to smoking because of second-hand smoke. These electronic cigarettes produce no shs. I thought the anti-smokers opposed smoking because of the "4000 carcinogens" in the smoke. E Cigarettes produce no smoke and no carcinogens. I was under the impression that you and other rabid anti-smokers opposed smoking in bars and other private businesses because you were "protecting the workers" Electronic cigarettes produce no shs to "harm" the workers. I thought the anti-smokers opposed smoking because it made their hair and clothes all yucky, necessitating a shower and all. There is no smell to electronic cigarettes. I guess I was wrong in my understanding about anti smokers opposition to smoking, since this opinion piece clearly states that what you really want is to CONTROL smokers, and an invention such as the e cigarette puts a crimp in that. It makes the anti smokers have to go back to the drawing board to find new reasons to oppose electronic cigarettes. As a journalist, you might try going to some more reliable sources than a mall kiosk worker next time you want to diss something. It doesn't look like good journalism when that is your only source, you know. Go to www.e-cigarette-forum if you wish to actually begin to find out what e-smoking is all about. Meanwhile, we can only hope that the FDA does not rely on a mall kiosk operator as its only resource when investigating this issue.

SuperStack · 01-11-2009, 03:40 PM

You nailed it sherid, the real agenda is control over others with so many of these anti-smoker types (not all, but quite a lot).

I'm convinced that many authoritarians naturally gravitate toward activist organizations as an outlet to help satisfy their control cravings. That's more dangerous than any benign chemical from China.

Kate · 01-11-2009, 06:39 PM

I couldn't agree more with Sherid and Stack, this is certainly about control, power and authority. Little Hitlers get taken seriously these days, hopefully the political climate will change soon.

e-pipeman · 01-11-2009, 06:48 PM

The word for this is priggishness.This stems from the word "prig" - "a precisian, a puritan; a person of precise morals without a sense of proportion; a sanctimonious person, certain of his or her blamelessness and critical of others' failings; a coxcomb" (Chambers). There has been a huge upsurge in this since about the mid-'80s, when political correctness was in the ascendant. When confronted with prigs we should mock their pretensions. They are weak people without redeeming features.

Kate · 01-11-2009, 06:54 PM

Whatever happened to 'live and let live'?

Them were the days eh

Frankie · 01-11-2009, 06:57 PM

Somebody should keep reminding the little Hitlers that the unholy father of the smoking bans really was Adolf Hitler of the NSDAP.

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e-pipeman · 01-11-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kate

Whatever happened to 'live and let live'?

Them were the days eh

Aye lass - them were't' days....

TropicalBob · 01-11-2009, 08:03 PM

I've never bought into any kind of conspiracy theory about no-smoking laws and prefer to think this opposition arose from an increasingly litiguous society and a "not on my watch" mentality among the elected.

First, we'll sue even if we're stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee between our legs and drive a car. A lawyer -- any lawyer, nowadays -- will sue a "responsible party" for "pain and suffering." It sucks. And it needs to stop. In the meantime, those who might be sued are likely to ban hot coffee. Makes sense to them since it caused the incident that caused the suit. Have you noticed suits lately against bartenders for serving one too many drinks? They're a "responsible party."

Secondly, there used to be accidents, or even "acts of God," but we don't seem to have those much anymore. There's no such thing as a blameless incident with injury or damages. Someone is to blame. Something needs fixing. And precautions need to be taken so terrible consequences never repeat. Thus we get helmet laws for motorcyclists' own protection and various laws to force addicts off their substances.

Enter a few unknowns, as is the case with e-smoking. Governments lament past inaction, blaming those ignorant officials for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of smokers each year. We know better now, they say. So we must prevent further deaths -- so it doesn't happen "on my watch." E-smoking is just another form of smoking to them. If smokers really want to quit, then Big Pharma has approved ways to get them off. No one promotes lifelong maintainance of nicotine addiction, as e-smoking promises. Not on my watch. Tobacco and everything it represents must be toppled like that Saddam statue. That will be "victory."

Add it up. They really do think they're doing the right thing. They are not control freaks for sinister reasons. They are seeking to better statistics accumulated for their watch, their turn in power. They are telling us to "take this medicine and it will make things all better. It's for your own good."

How do you fight that without appearing to pitch a childish tantrum in others' eyes?

Kate · 01-11-2009, 08:12 PM

...'it's for your own good' is not necessarily a bad thing when looking after a vulnerable dependant but if we are all treated like that then we have no self determination, no choices and no free will.

We need to wake up and change the victim culture, we are not victims or dependants, we are free thinking, responsible adults.

Unfortunately we are so right wing and authoritarian in politics that there are no popular options for less authority and control.

I've heard it said that in a democracy it's not who's at the top of the heap that matters but the heap itself. Did we really vote for this?

01-11-2009, 02:21 PM	#1
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Anti e-editorial This from a Portland, Ore., newspaper editorial: 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. Snuff that e-cigarette! - Oregon Opinion Articles, Political Blogs & Views \| The Stump – OregonLive.com

01-11-2009, 03:27 PM	#2
sherid ECF Veteran Join Date: May 2008 Location: Canton, Ohio USA Posts: 1,302	Here was my email to Bob, the editor. Gee, Bob I thought you people in the anti-smoking cartel were opposed to smoking because of second-hand smoke. These electronic cigarettes produce no shs. I thought the anti-smokers opposed smoking because of the "4000 carcinogens" in the smoke. E Cigarettes produce no smoke and no carcinogens. I was under the impression that you and other rabid anti-smokers opposed smoking in bars and other private businesses because you were "protecting the workers" Electronic cigarettes produce no shs to "harm" the workers. I thought the anti-smokers opposed smoking because it made their hair and clothes all yucky, necessitating a shower and all. There is no smell to electronic cigarettes. I guess I was wrong in my understanding about anti smokers opposition to smoking, since this opinion piece clearly states that what you really want is to CONTROL smokers, and an invention such as the e cigarette puts a crimp in that. It makes the anti smokers have to go back to the drawing board to find new reasons to oppose electronic cigarettes. As a journalist, you might try going to some more reliable sources than a mall kiosk worker next time you want to diss something. It doesn't look like good journalism when that is your only source, you know. Go to www.e-cigarette-forum if you wish to actually begin to find out what e-smoking is all about. Meanwhile, we can only hope that the FDA does not rely on a mall kiosk operator as its only resource when investigating this issue. __________________ I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it. Mark Twain

01-11-2009, 06:57 PM	#7
Frankie ECF Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Slovakia Posts: 820	Somebody should keep reminding the little Hitlers that the unholy father of the smoking bans really was Adolf Hitler of the NSDAP. Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-11-2009, 03:40 PM	#3
SuperStack ECF Veteran Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario, Canada Posts: 281	You nailed it sherid, the real agenda is control over others with so many of these anti-smoker types (not all, but quite a lot). I'm convinced that many authoritarians naturally gravitate toward activist organizations as an outlet to help satisfy their control cravings. That's more dangerous than any benign chemical from China.

01-11-2009, 06:39 PM	#4
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	I couldn't agree more with Sherid and Stack, this is certainly about control, power and authority. Little Hitlers get taken seriously these days, hopefully the political climate will change soon.

01-11-2009, 06:48 PM	#5
e-pipeman Moderator Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Salford, England Posts: 1,775	The word for this is priggishness.This stems from the word "prig" - "a precisian, a puritan; a person of precise morals without a sense of proportion; a sanctimonious person, certain of his or her blamelessness and critical of others' failings; a coxcomb" (Chambers). There has been a huge upsurge in this since about the mid-'80s, when political correctness was in the ascendant. When confronted with prigs we should mock their pretensions. They are weak people without redeeming features.

01-11-2009, 06:54 PM	#6
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	Whatever happened to 'live and let live'? Them were the days eh

01-11-2009, 08:03 PM	#9
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	I've never bought into any kind of conspiracy theory about no-smoking laws and prefer to think this opposition arose from an increasingly litiguous society and a "not on my watch" mentality among the elected. First, we'll sue even if we're stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee between our legs and drive a car. A lawyer -- any lawyer, nowadays -- will sue a "responsible party" for "pain and suffering." It sucks. And it needs to stop. In the meantime, those who might be sued are likely to ban hot coffee. Makes sense to them since it caused the incident that caused the suit. Have you noticed suits lately against bartenders for serving one too many drinks? They're a "responsible party." Secondly, there used to be accidents, or even "acts of God," but we don't seem to have those much anymore. There's no such thing as a blameless incident with injury or damages. Someone is to blame. Something needs fixing. And precautions need to be taken so terrible consequences never repeat. Thus we get helmet laws for motorcyclists' own protection and various laws to force addicts off their substances. Enter a few unknowns, as is the case with e-smoking. Governments lament past inaction, blaming those ignorant officials for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of smokers each year. We know better now, they say. So we must prevent further deaths -- so it doesn't happen "on my watch." E-smoking is just another form of smoking to them. If smokers really want to quit, then Big Pharma has approved ways to get them off. No one promotes lifelong maintainance of nicotine addiction, as e-smoking promises. Not on my watch. Tobacco and everything it represents must be toppled like that Saddam statue. That will be "victory." Add it up. They really do think they're doing the right thing. They are not control freaks for sinister reasons. They are seeking to better statistics accumulated for their watch, their turn in power. They are telling us to "take this medicine and it will make things all better. It's for your own good." How do you fight that without appearing to pitch a childish tantrum in others' eyes?

01-11-2009, 08:12 PM	#10
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	...'it's for your own good' is not necessarily a bad thing when looking after a vulnerable dependant but if we are all treated like that then we have no self determination, no choices and no free will. We need to wake up and change the victim culture, we are not victims or dependants, we are free thinking, responsible adults. Unfortunately we are so right wing and authoritarian in politics that there are no popular options for less authority and control. I've heard it said that in a democracy it's not who's at the top of the heap that matters but the heap itself. Did we really vote for this?