KTAB Abilene: Electronic Nicotine Fix

[jamie]

Electronic Nicotine Fix

(includes video)

Cory Patterson has saved a lot of money. "I spent over $200 a month on cigarettes. I spend about $50 a month with e-cigarettes."

... e-cigarettes do not contain chemicals like tar or carbon monoxide and do not cause cancer. It contains liquid nicotine, and companies making the product claim it is a healthier alternative to smoking actual cigarettes.

Suzanne Starr works at the Hendrick Cancer Center and is passionate about helping people quit smoking. "Even without the other harmful chemicals, it's still nicotine. Nicotine is bad for you no matter what," Starr said.

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

"Even without the other harmful chemicals, it's still nicotine. Nicotine is bad for you no matter what," Starr said.

So is alcohol - so is caffine - so is an excess of fat or sugar.....

She totally missed the point of the PV. This is harm reduction - an alternative to putting 4000+ chemicals in our lungs, 60 of which are known carcinogens....and, again, there is no mention of zero nic fluids.

I think that if we could bring education about the nic free fluids to the masses - that you can use the PV without any nicotine - they'd be allowed to proliferate.

[LaceyUnderall]

That's interesting:

"have not been approved by the FDA due to lack of scientific proof that they are safe".

That is a very general and misguided bit of fluff.

I do love it though! It is people like Starr who will really bring these out in the open for us. Real people will say "Wait, you work for a Cancer Center and openly admit that this does not have the known carcinogens yet you don't want people to switch from tobacco?"

Right there with you Vicks... she totally misses the point because she isn't about Tobacco Harm Reduction, she is about Nicotine Prohibition!

It's all becoming so very very clear! I love it. Just love it!

[sherid]

"she is about Nicotine Prohibition!" I have to disagree. She is NOT about nicotine prohibition in Nicorette Gum and patches. These companies do provide big cash donations to the grant funding process at ACS through RWJF. What she IS against is the "appearance" of someone smoking something that resembles a cigarette. Unless, of course, that device is the Nicorette Inhaler. It is ONLY about money and control...not even a little bit about health. Wake up, people.

[LaceyUnderall]

"she is about Nicotine Prohibition!" I have to disagree. She is NOT about nicotine prohibition in Nicorette Gum and patches. These companies do provide big cash donations to the grant funding process at ACS through RWJF. What she IS against is the "appearance" of someone smoking something that resembles a cigarette. Unless, of course, that device is the Nicorette Inhaler. It is ONLY about money and control...not even a little bit about health. Wake up, people.

"Even without the other harmful chemicals, it's still nicotine. Nicotine is bad for you no matter what," Starr said.

From her own mouth! She IS a nicotine prohibitionist hiding in a suit of money and hate. And it is wonderful to see that these contradictions are going to finally come to the surface. That their agendas are going to be busted wide open and that their lies will not be able to continue. It will become very clear over the next six months who falls where and why.

[strayling]

That's interesting:

"have not been approved by the FDA due to lack of scientific proof that they are safe".

That is a very general and misguided bit of fluff.

I found that rather positive in the context of this story. The impression I got was that they were calling out the FDA for dragging their heels.

Even the anti-nicotine spokeswoman sounded fairly positive, although she kinda looked like she was sucking on a lemon while saying nice things about e-cigs.

[lachesis]

Well, not to defend her, but the video says little different.... and probably some intentional cutting by editors. (or my hearing's must be wrong. )

[LaceyUnderall]

I found that rather positive in the context of this story. The impression I got was that they were calling out the FDA for dragging their heels.

For me though, I noted it because the FDA does not get to give approval over nicotine products unless they are for quit smoking/health claims. So in this piece, bringing up the FDA at all was kind of ridiculous considering this piece wasn't about quitting but about an electronic nicotine fix.

[strayling]

For me though, I noted it because the FDA does not get to give approval over nicotine products unless they are for quit smoking/health claims. So in this piece, bringing up the FDA at all was kind of ridiculous considering this piece wasn't about quitting but about an electronic nicotine fix.

Gotcha. I was coming from a different perspective, looking at the way e-cigs are being reported and how the spin has changed from silly nerd toy through OMG think of the children and now towards being presented as a good idea being held back by bureaucratic red tape.

[LaceyUnderall]

Gotcha. I was coming from a different perspective, looking at the way e-cigs are being reported and how the spin has changed from silly nerd toy through OMG think of the children and now towards being presented as a good idea being held back by bureaucratic red tape.

Gotcha... And I see your perspective on that.