Formidable new foe

[BigJimW]

Unfortunately, manufacturers HAVE supplied science (all be it not a lot, but there IS Science available). It simply does not matter what science is presented, this organization WILL NOT accept it. It's a wild goose chase.

Here do this... Ok... here you go. Oh... no wait... we want this... Ok... here you go... Well... we should have clarified we want this... It's a never ending presentation of science and NONE of it will ever prove what they want and that is that the electronic cigarette should just go away.

And that is the sad reality of it all. Organizations like this perfer to hear junk science (The FDA "report") over an independent study such like the one done in New Zealand. They only hear what they want to hear.

What I meant was step up to the plate and really sock them with a report that cannot be disputed and work with that. If these groups still do not want to listen, then they will be exposed for the ignorant frauds that they truly are.

Like what ASH is going through.

[LaceyUnderall]

And that is the sad reality of it all. Organizations like this perfer to hear junk science (The FDA "report") over an independent study such like the one done in New Zealand. They only hear what they want to hear.

What I meant was step up to the plate and really sock them with a report that cannot be disputed and work with that. If these groups still do not want to listen, then they will be exposed for the ignorant frauds that they truly are.

Like what ASH is going through.

Agreed. I am hopeful that this new round of "smoking bans" popping up around the country that include vapor in smoke will be producing some good testing of the vapor here in the next coming months.

It's disgusting that we have YEARS of propylene glycol vapors and mists testing and these organizations have NEVER even looked at them. It's gross that the EPA has even made statements as recently as 2006 for PG vapor and it is like the EPA doesn't even exist.

That's all right. What goes around comes around and after 20 years of demonizing a group of people, history has shown that eventually, those people stand up for themselves and demand their voices heard.

If consumers keep fighting daily which buys us all a little bit of time, then we can call these propagandasts/prohibitionists out onto the carpet for the final time. It won't happen over night... but it WILL happen. Keep up the good work Jim!

Edit: It's really gross that these "smoke free" organizations WANT smokers to use tobacco. It's shameful.

[Our House]

Unfortunately, manufacturers HAVE supplied science (all be it not a lot, but there IS Science available). It simply does not matter what science is presented, this organization WILL NOT accept it. It's a wild goose chase.

Here do this... Ok... here you go. Oh... no wait... we want this... Ok... here you go... Well... we should have clarified we want this... It's a never ending presentation of science and NONE of it will ever prove what they want and that is that the electronic cigarette should just go away.

Moving the goalpost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[lotus14]

Groups like this can't change laws but they can certainly influence legislative bodies that can. When second hand smoke was scientifically determined to be a risk to non-smokers, it was pretty hard to lobby against the no smoking bans.

As pointed out by TBob and BigJim, we need more scientific evidence to prove or disprove whether there is any danger to others in a closed environment from the vapor we exhale. We can't change the minds of a group like this, but we can certainly challenge their assertions in the arena of public opinion and lobby against restrictions. We must be as proactive as they are.

[doots]

Groups like this can't change laws but they can certainly influence legislative bodies that can. When second hand smoke was scientifically determined to be a risk to non-smokers, it was pretty hard to lobby against the no smoking bans.

As pointed out by TBob and BigJim, we need more scientific evidence to prove or disprove whether there is any danger to others in a closed environment from the vapor we exhale. We can't change the minds of a group like this, but we can certainly challenge their assertions in the arena of public opinion and lobby against restrictions. We must be as proactive as they are.

Exactly it. We must be more proactive than them!

Manufacturers need to stand up and get the studies done. Preferably from a company ortesting labs here in the US,

They are making lots of money from sales of their products.. It is to their benefit to produce conclusive results, one way or another, on the safety of second hand vapor.

They stand to lose the most from a ban!

[sherid]

It all started here.
he 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, June 2-5, 1975.

“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking”

Sir George E. Godber
Chairman, Expert Committee on Smoking and Health
World Health Organization

“In 1969, the World Health Organization Regional Committee for Europe and the Americas had passed resolutions calling attention to the dangers of smoking and deciding that smoking would not be allowed during their meetings.”

“None of us can be really satisfied with what we find anywhere. Yet there has been progress sufficient to make one feel that THIS world conference will have an even clearer message for the world and will be able to endorse and amplify the views expressed at the World Health Assembly in Geneva last month.”

“I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

“First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deterioration of age.”

“Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

“…..described the way in which education against smoking was to be incorporated into the general programme of health education which is so well presented in the USSR.”

“Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

“If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect…..There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.”

“A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”

[Angela]

Whilst it may be true that there has been some testing, we desperately need some testing to be done on the vapour.....and in particular, the exhaled vapour (unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any analysis of this done).

If there are scientific test results showing that the exhaled vapour is benign, then we really have the high ground, and there can be no logcal reason for groups to call for bans. (as someone already said, we lost the battle with cigarettes becaue of the second-hand smoke argument, and they are trying to play the same card with vaping. If that argument can be taken away then whether or not we ae causing long-term harm to ourselves is of much less consequence because we ar the demonized smokers anyway)

[cliff5550]

BigJimW..You are absolutely right. Manufacturers MUST put forth hard-rock, indisputable, scientific studies, tests and results if they, and we, are to survive the mania against smoking, in all perceived forms.
Those who oppose see no difference between nicotine in PVs and nicotine in analog cigarettes. Opponents seem to disregard the cigarette papers, burning tobacco, real smoke and hazardous toxins being any different from vaping nicotine.Tobacco cigarettes, and nicotine itself, are so ingrained with the general public as being the identical things that it is extremely difficult for many, maybe most, to separate the two. That is what must be done.

[sherid]

Dr. Siegel's op-ed in NY Post today
Op-Ed in NY Daily News Exposes Misleading Scientific Claims of Anti-Smoking Groups; Now Health Groups, Not Just Big Tobacco, are Deceiving the Public
An op-ed that appears in today's New York Daily News exposes the widespread misleading claims being made by anti-smoking groups about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke. The unsupported and biased conclusions of the IOM report about smoking bans and heart attacks are only one example of the loss of scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement, and that loss of integrity is now being publicly exposed.

The op-ed points to hundreds of claims by anti-smoking groups that are scientifically inaccurate; most of them relate to claims that brief secondhand smoke exposure causes hardening of the arteries (atherosclerosis), heart disease, fatal arrhythmias, or clinically meaningful heart or artery damage that puts even a healthy person at risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke.

Sadly, these claims are headlined by the Surgeon General himself, who stated that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer."

There is no evidence whatsoever that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke poses any lung cancer risk, nor is there any evidence that a brief exposure can cause heart disease. The Surgeon General should have ended his sentence after stating that brief tobacco smoke exposure has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. Trying to falsely extrapolate from those adverse physiologic effects to heart disease and lung cancer turned an important piece of health information into a dishonest communication (i.e., a lie).
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

[TropicalBob]

I really think the biggest obstacle to acceptance of e-smoking by antis is .. perception. They cannot tolerate the thought of adults mimicking smoking by sucking on white tubes and then blowing vapor out. The antis have spent years making that image go away in all public places. They will not easily accept a replacement that looks like the dreaded, demonized practice they have succeeded in banishing from public view.

So ... we can amass all the "science" we now don't have and still face a brick wall of objections. Perceptions aren't easily altered. It doesn't help that the major advertiser Blu sells itself with the slogan, "Vaping is the new smoking."

Not if the antis have anything to say about it. And, no, it isn't.