Two new surveys put the final nail in the coffin of "gateway" fantasy

[DrMA]

There can be no more pretense about the glantzian lunacy known as "gateway". Anyone still claiming [HASHTAG]#vaping[/HASHTAG] leads to [HASHTAG]#smoking[/HASHTAG] after the crushing amount of evidence available to date is flat out lying.

Two Surveys Find That Almost All Regular Vapers Are Smokers - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[Kent C]

Reason magazine - "Free Minds and Free Markets" - and Jacob Sullum come through for us one more time!

"These results, together with the awkward fact that smoking by teenagers continues to fall as vaping rises, reinforce the impression that public health officials and anti-smoking activists are grasping at straws to justify their knee-jerk animosity toward e-cigarettes. Instead of harping on unfounded fears that vaping will lead to nicotine addiction and an increase in smoking, they should be investigating the lifesaving potential of e-cigarettes, a far less hazardous alternative to the conventional kind. "

 

[nicnik]

Reason magazine - "Free Minds and Free Markets" - and Jacob Sullum come through for us one more time!

Sullum's been great. Reason, and the other libertarian media have been great supporters, speaking clearly, truthfully and effectively on vaping issues.

 

[CarolT]

Unfortunately, those clowns at Reason are "Official Anti-Smoker Approved Fake Opposition" because they never attack the anti-smokers' scientific fraud (which they intend to use against e-cigs as well). They frame the issue exactly the way the anti-smokers want it, as "Freedom versus Public Health." They snivel about "nannyism" and "slippery slopes," the most simpleminded interpretation that's the first thing any ignoramus on the street thinks of. They are our worst enemies, because the anti-smoker media use their drivel to deceive the public that they cover both sides of the issue, when they do not.

 

[jtpjc]

Unfortunately, those clowns at Reason are "Official Anti-Smoker Approved Fake Opposition" because they never attack the anti-smokers' scientific fraud (which they intend to use against e-cigs as well). They frame the issue exactly the way the anti-smokers want it, as "Freedom versus Public Health." They snivel about "nannyism" and "slippery slopes," the most simpleminded interpretation that's the first thing any ignoramus on the street thinks of. They are our worst enemies, because the anti-smoker media use their drivel to deceive the public that they cover both sides of the issue, when they do not.

What? Is this a very intelligent opinion that I just don't get, or am I drunk already?

 

[Nick N]

This just in... smoking cigarettes is now considered a gateway to vaping, which we all know (wink wink) is a gateway to (insert scariest vice here). Better to stay dependent on cigarettes than to (insert scariest vice here), right?

[emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12]

 

[Kent C]

Unfortunately, those clowns at Reason are "Official Anti-Smoker Approved Fake Opposition" because they never attack the anti-smokers' scientific fraud

That's simply not true and can be seen in earlier Reason articles* and Cato Institute* Policiy Analyses and books, (too numerous to list) which were at the forefront on attacking the junk science of second hand smoke and the junk stats used for 'smoking related deaths' along with amicus briefs in the court cases where the courts through out the EPA 'findings'.

Ask any Tobacco Control 'expert' where - like you evidently - they hate the 'rights-based' arguments from Cato and Reason, since that is still the actual oppression that is the basis of almost all regulation. While most THR advocates will support Reason, Cato and Sullum on ecigs - 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' ...they are against them on cigarettes and second hand smoke.

You can argue science 'for and against' forever, but the real problem is nanny staters - just to make this clear - ie the people who think that they're own science or opinions should be forced on others to control the behavior of others - to attack individual rights when those actions harm no one but perhaps oneself. The Tobacco Controllers couldn't make people stop smoking with 'science' so they had to make it 'harmful to others' - hence the fake second-hand smoke junk science.

You can continue to push your 'infection causes cancer' routine, battling your science with their junk science but imo, it's irrelevant and misses the real point - that as long as no harm is done to others, then actions of individuals are no concern of the government - the exact position of both Reason and Cato Institute.

"Clowns" is just another ad hominem that is empty except perhaps for it's propaganda effect on mindless low information folk. But more people here and elsewhere are catching on to such tactics, whether such tactics come from ecig advocates or ecig enemies.

*go to either site and do a search on 'second-hand smoke' or 'smokers' rights'.

 

[motordude]

That's simply not true and can be see in earlier Reason articles and Cato Institute Policiy Analyses and books, (too numerous to list) which were at the forefront on attacking the junk science of second hand smoke and the junk stats used for 'smoking related deaths' along with amicus briefs in the court cases where the courts through out the EPA 'findings'.

Yeeeaaah!

 

[caramel]

This just in... smoking cigarettes is now considered a gateway to vaping, which we all know (wink wink) is a gateway to (insert scariest vice here). Better to stay dependent on cigarettes than to (insert scariest vice here), right?

[emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12]

It goes like this: "don't even think of smoking cause it leads to vaping of which we don't know the long term effects". See, smoking is now more dangerous than ever before.

 

[caramel]

[...] The Tobacco Controllers couldn't make people stop smoking with 'science' so they had to make it 'harmful to others' - hence the fake second-hand smoke junk science. [...]

I always wondered what the status of motor vehicle safety would be these days, if NHTSA would had adopted the same modus operandi as Tobacco Control. I.e. vilify vehicles, ban them from most places, increase taxes, affix gory pictures, etc.

 

[Kent C]

I always wondered what the status of motor vehicle safety would be these days, if NHTSA would had adopted the same modus operandi as Tobacco Control. I.e. vilify vehicles, ban them from most places, increase taxes, affix gory pictures, etc.

And arguments can be made (and have been made) that seatbelts and air bags make the driver feel more safe and as a result drive more unsafely Similar arguments and stats on how the 55 mph limit killed more people. Similar to 'gun control'. What appears to be 'sensible' (ie to kneejerks) isn't always that sensible. Prohibitionists had no idea of what the results of the black market would be. They institutionalized organized crime and have been dealing with it ever since.

 

[caramel]

And arguments can be made (and have been made) that seatbelts and air bags make the driver feel more safe and as a result drive more unsafely Similar arguments and stats on how the 55 mph limit killed more people. Similar to 'gun control'. What appears to be 'sensible' (ie to kneejerks) isn't always that sensible. Prohibitionists had no idea of what the results of the black market would be. They institutionalized organized crime and have been dealing with it ever since.

I credit NHTSA for standardized crash testing and publishing of the results so people could use such data to make informed decisions during vehicle purchase. It has pushed the industry into a competition regarding safety and the results are visible. Just watch videos of those crash test from current models and some older one.

In contrast with Tobacco Control who recently removed nicotine and tar content figures from cigarette packages. And deny that e cigarettes could be any safer.

 

[Kent C]

I credit NHTSA for standardized crash testing and publishing of the results so people could use such data to make informed decisions during vehicle purchase. It has pushed the industry into a competition regarding safety and the results are visible. Just watch videos of those crash test from current models and some older one.

Big cars/trucks/suvs are still safer than the little cars with all that "protection". Stats show this quite clearly - so does just physics lol. And the car companies aren't 'competing regarding safety - they're following regulations that have been imposed upon them. They may 'promote' the safety to customers though - but it's still something they must do because of gov't. There's an old cartoon about following Ralph Nader's recommendations regarding cars - it goes from big to small back to big, from buying American to Japanese back to American, etc. etc. which if followed would have cost you a fortune. And still does because of him and others like him.

 

[caramel]

And the car companies aren't 'competing regarding safety - they're following regulations that have been imposed upon them.

Be careful, you're going here against your own principles that left alone without the burden of regulations, the free market would lead all by itself to better products.....

 

[Kent C]

Be careful, you're going here against your own principles that left alone without the burden of regulations, the free market would lead all by itself to better products.....

I don't think so. I happen to know more about what car companies did for safety before the gov't got involved. The only thing is - they made those things 'options' rather than forcing them down everyone's throat - seat belt is a good example.

I know you're in a constant quest to find inconsistencies in my philosophy, so have at it, but remember there has been more suffering, deaths, illness, poverty (all 'equal' I'll grant that ) and murder in socialist or national socialist/facist regimes where capitalism could never catch up. The more healthy and environmentally clean countries are capitalist or were ...and are now 'mixed economies' on the downward spiral where that will no longer be the case.

 

[caramel]

Well the vehicle frame has never been optional, and all the NHTSA testing resulted in the evolution to the current shock absorbing, controlled deformation frames. It's really impressive to see the difference in crash test videos.

Compare this with Tobacco Control work. All ingredients are secret, now even nicotine and tar contents are secret, no one has any idea of what they're smoking, it's all just funny pictures and "thou shalt cold turkey". No one has any incentive to improve products in any sensible way - as they will anyway carry the "This product is not a safe alternative" warning.

Incompetent impostors or ill will?

 

[Kent C]

Incompetent impostors or ill will?

As I said to DC2 in another thread - basically - why can't it be both? :- )

 

[bobwho77]

Let's not turn this in to a left/right issue. The fact is that vaping is under attack from BOTH sides of the political aisle, and only by standing united will we be able to defend it. Progressives are attacking it as a "Public Health" issue, while Conservatives see it as a moral crusade and both sides rake in cash from BT/BP

 

[CarolT]

What? Is this a very intelligent opinion that I just don't get, or am I drunk already?

Yes, apparently this is a very intelligent opinion that you just don't get. What part are you getting hung up on? Don't you understand that the media love to use Sullum and his ilk to make it look like this is the best the opposition can come up with, and that supposedly shows there is no real. solid criticism of the anti-smokers' pseudoscience?

 

[CarolT]

That's simply not true and can be seen in earlier Reason articles* and Cato Institute* Policiy Analyses and books, (too numerous to list) which were at the forefront on attacking the junk science of second hand smoke and the junk stats used for 'smoking related deaths' along with amicus briefs in the court cases where the courts through out the EPA 'findings'.

Those Reason articles and the CATO Institute are worse than absolutely useless and I don't touch them with a ten foot pole for this reason.

Ask any Tobacco Control 'expert' where - like you evidently - they hate the 'rights-based' arguments from Cato and Reason, since that is still the actual oppression that is the basis of almost all regulation.

They don't attack the rights-based arguments because they hate them, it's because they're such weak, cream puff arguments. They don't dare attack strong arguments, so they ignore them.

You can argue science 'for and against' forever, but the real problem is nanny staters - just to make this clear - ie the people who think that they're own science or opinions should be forced on others to control the behavior of others - to attack individual rights when those actions harm no one but perhaps oneself. The Tobacco Controllers couldn't make people stop smoking with 'science' so they had to make it 'harmful to others' - hence the fake second-hand smoke junk science.

There's nothing here but a hopeless wish that they stop being mean to us.

You can continue to push your 'infection causes cancer' routine, battling your science with their junk science but imo, it's irrelevant and misses the real point - that as long as no harm is done to others, then actions of individuals are no concern of the government - the exact position of both Reason and Cato Institute.

You are missing the point that it's BECAUSE they use the same pseudo-science against vapers that they use against smokers - falsely blaming tobacco, including nicotine, for diseases that are really caused by infection. They're dusting off their old "nicotine causes heart disease" junk for that purpose.

"Clowns" is just another ad hominem that is empty except perhaps for it's propaganda effect on mindless low information folk. But more people here and elsewhere are catching on to such tactics, whether such tactics come from ecig advocates or ecig enemies.

An ad hominem argument is one pretending that because someone is immoral or nasty or whatever, therefore their argument is false. My criticism does not rest on that basis, but on their failure to attack anti-smoker scientific fraud. It is therefore not ad hominem, and you clearly do not understand that it is not automatically an ad hominem merely to call someone a clown.