GTNF Tobacco industry conference on FDA and FCTC regulations, THR and vapor products going on in WV

[DC2]

As far as I'm concerned...

Most of the "conclusions" regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke are lies.
And it is clear that the "illegitimacy" of vaping is being successfully tied to nicotine and second-hand smoke lies.
And it is obvious that exposing the nicotine and second-hand smoke lies would be very beneficial for increasing the legitimacy of vaping

Claiming ANTZ are wrong about e-cigs because they were wrong about cigarette smoking is to concede victory to the ANTZ on e-cigs.

But this is something I am forced to agree with.

It is going to be much easier to prove the merits of vaping than to erase the last 30-plus years of ANTZ brainwashing regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke.
And it is a fight that would be wasting too many resources and too much time.

I believe that it is the right thing to do, but I also agree that it would be a huge mistake.

 

[Anjaffm]

As far as I'm concerned...

Most of the "conclusions" regarding nicotine second-hand smoke are lies.
And it is clear that the "illegitimacy" of vaping is being successfully tied to nicotine and second-hand smoke lies.
And it is obvious that exposing the nicotine and second-hand smoke lies would be very beneficial for increasing the legitimacy of vaping


But this is something I am forced to agree with.

It is going to be much easier to prove the merits of vaping than to erase the last 30-plus years of ANTZ brainwashing regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke.
And it is a fight that would be wasting too many resources and too much time.

I agree that it is what is right, and I also agree that it would be a huge mistake.

absolutely

And anybody who doubts that the train on exposing the lies on second hand smoke has left the station:
Go ahead, read the lies and propaganda exposed in this document: http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
And then come back and tell me - really tell me - that you did not also believe at least some of this this crock of (nasty word) that they hammered into everybody's brain before you started vaping and started reading up on the subject.
Hey, I am not into media propaganda. But yeah, "pregnant women smoking is not good for the baby". Decades of indoctrination. Are we to believe that we can fight that crap?
That train left the station long ago. Period.

 

[Anjaffm]

Altria began urging the FDA to impose the deeming regulation back in 2010 because it wanted to gain control of the cigar industry, and began urging FDA to impose the deeming reg on e-cig in 2011.

In contrast, none of the other tobacco companies began supporting the deeming regulation until last year.

Now, the largest tobacco company executives are urging the FDA to quickly implement the deeming regulation on e-cigs (and to ban PVs and e-liquids) because they know:
- PVs and e-liquids pose a huge threat to future cigarette sales and to future cigalike e-cig sales,
- PVs and e-liquids are far more effective than cigalikes for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption,
- PVs and e-liquids cost about 33% of the price of cigalikes, and about 25% of the price of cigarettes,
- their cigarettes and cigalike e-cigs won't be able to compete in a free market against PVs and e-liquid,
- they can afford the $10-$40 million it would cost to submit new tobacco product applications for each of their several cigalike brands,
- 99% of PV and e-liquid manufacturers cannot afford the $10-$40 million to submit a new product application,
- FDA is very unlikely to approve any new tobacco product application for a PV or e-liquid even if applications are submitted,
- FDA would need to approve several new tobacco product applications for cigalike brands before sending cease-and-desist letters to PV and e-liquid manufacturers, and
- FDA will be facing increasing pressure from vapers to approve new product applications for PVs and e-liquid as their sales continue to skyrocket.

The best ways to prevent the FDA from imposing the deeming regulation on e-cigs include exposing how it would:
- protect cigarettes from market competition by far less hazardous PVs and e-liquid,
- ban >99.9% of all e-cig products on the market (including those most effective for quitting smoking and reducing cigarette consumption),
- threaten the lives of most vapers, smokers and secondhand smokers,
- give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies and allow sales of only more expensive and inferior cigalike brands, and
- create a huge black market for PVs and e-liquids, which would increase product risks and reduce quality control.

absolutely
Thank you for the very clear and precise summary!

 

[Nate760]

Claiming ANTZ are wrong about e-cigs because they were wrong about cigarette smoking is to concede victory to the ANTZ on e-cigs.

Moreover, it's one of the same dubious attempts at logic the ANTZ themselves use in trying to demonize e-cigs: "The tobacco industry makes deadly products. Tobacco companies make e-cigs. Therefore, e-cigs are deadly."

 

[Nate760]

And it is obvious that exposing the nicotine and second-hand smoke lies would be very beneficial for increasing the legitimacy of vaping.

I don't think it matters (at least not in ethical terms) whether or not it benefits our cause. Lies and junk science always need to be exposed no matter what, and the need for exposing them is all the more pressing when they form the basis of bad legislation and hideously misguided public health policies that are actively contributing to the potentially needless deaths of tens of thousands of people each month.

 

[Kent C]

As far as I'm concerned...

Most of the "conclusions" regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke are lies.
And it is clear that the "illegitimacy" of vaping is being successfully tied to nicotine and second-hand smoke lies.
And it is obvious that exposing the nicotine and second-hand smoke lies would be very beneficial for increasing the legitimacy of vaping

Claiming ANTZ are wrong about e-cigs because they were wrong about cigarette smoking is to concede victory to the ANTZ on e-cigs.

But this is something I am forced to agree with.

It is going to be much easier to prove the merits of vaping than to erase the last 30-plus years of ANTZ brainwashing regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke.
And it is a fight that would be wasting too many resources and too much time.

I believe that it is the right thing to do, but I also agree that it would be a huge mistake.

re: bold - why? The argument of jman isn't as Bill implies: that the ANTZ are wrong on ecigs BECAUSE they were wrong on cigarettes. They were just wrong on both. There's no need to connect the two. They are wrong for their own reasons. The quote actually makes no sense to me, unless he's actually saying that they were right on cigarettes (which he believes and many of us don't - esp. wrt second-hand smoke) therefore it implies they are right on ecigs. That's conflating two totally separate topics - it's like the more recent 'changing one addiction for another' - that is simply not the case. The addiction is nicotine in both cases.

 

[Jman8]

Claiming ANTZ are wrong about e-cigs because they were wrong about cigarette smoking is to concede victory to the ANTZ on e-cigs. That's what FORCES attempted to do for the past five years (and why right to smoke activists post far more notes on ECF than on FORCES website).

I don't follow this logic. If ANTZ were wrong about smoking and claims are made that they are also wrong about vaping, then I see that as tilting things in favor of those that oppose ANTZ. I would think ANTZ would want to know and feel quite prepared to discuss where they were wrong about smoking. If they were to somehow win the debate by showing they were not wrong about smoking (to any degree), then I could see it being a concession of victory on eCigs. On the other hand, if during the debate on smoking the ANTZ position was losing, then I think they would have little hope of winning on the eCig front.

 

[Jman8]

It is going to be much easier to prove the merits of vaping than to erase the last 30-plus years of ANTZ brainwashing regarding nicotine and second-hand smoke.
And it is a fight that would be wasting too many resources and too much time.

I believe that it is the right thing to do, but I also agree that it would be a huge mistake.

What resources and time are spent on fighting ANTZ on smoking? Please explain that to me.

As I see it, if we concede on the smoking front, knowing it is lies, then we are saying their lies work. Ergo, their lies about vaping work, but we are resistant to them. If I were ANTZ, I'd ignore that resistance and know that the lies will reach an audience that will be open to them and have the power of anti-smoking rights to back them up, as if this is the group telling you the truth on all issues. Heck the vapers don't dispute 'us' on the smoking stuff and they are just a bunch of addicts coming to terms with their vaping science, which fairly soon will show grave harms and dangers, as brought to you (and bought by you) via federal grants.

 

[DC2]

What resources and time are spent on fighting ANTZ on smoking? Please explain that to me.

Pretty much none... which is what you want to change... and is the point I was trying to make.

 

[DC2]

re: bold - why? The argument of jman isn't as Bill implies: that the ANTZ are wrong on ecigs BECAUSE they were wrong on cigarettes. They were just wrong on both. There's no need to connect the two. They are wrong for their own reasons. The quote actually makes no sense to me, unless he's actually saying that they were right on cigarettes (which he believes and many of us don't - esp. wrt second-hand smoke) therefore it implies they are right on ecigs. That's conflating two totally separate topics - it's like the more recent 'changing one addiction for another' - that is simply not the case. The addiction is nicotine in both cases.

If I understand Bill's quote correctly, he is saying what I also believe to be obvious...

The entire world has been brainwashed into believing various lies about second-hand smoke.
These lies are so ingrained that most people believe that only an irrational person could think to question them.

And to try to convince the world to erase those lies from their collective and individual consciousness in the next few years is futile at best.
And will make us look like nuts at worst.

This may not be what Bill intended to say with his quote, but it's how I read it because it's what I believe to be true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit happy that this is what I believe.
And over the course of the next decade I would love to see the lies about second-hand smoke be discredited in the eyes of the public.

But it seems to me we have a better chance of discrediting those liars by showing how they are lying about vaping first.

 

[Nate760]

The entire world has been brainwashed into believing various lies about second-hand smoke.
These lies are so ingrained that most people believe that only an irrational person could think to question them.

Kent global warming remark in 5...4...3...2...

 

[Kent C]

If I understand Bill's quote correctly, he is saying what I also believe to be obvious...

The entire world has been brainwashed into believing various lies about second-hand smoke.
These lies are so ingrained that most people believe that only an irrational person could think to question them.

And to try to convince the world to erase those lies from their collective and individual consciousness in the next few years is futile at best.
And will make us look like nuts at worst.

This may not be what Bill intended to say with his quote, but it's how I read it because it's what I believe to be true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit happy that this is what I believe.
And over the course of the next decade I would love to see the lies about second-hand smoke be discredited in the eyes of the public.

But it seems to me we have a better chance of discrediting those liars by showing how they are lying about vaping first.

Ok... that is clearer. I just thought Bill's comment that included the 'because' really doesn't make sense. It simply isn't 'because'.

But the lies on vaping may be believed by some, mainly on the fact that they also believe they were right on second hand smoke. So that has to be addressed as well, imo - but not just by declaring it - but showing the information (as I have) that debunk it. If people want to wade through it, that's their choice, but showing that the information exists - tends to decrease their certainty that second hand smoke is quite harmful and except for special circumstances (waitresses in a smoking bar, and a few others) it is rather harmless - and they may then conclude that, therefore, they may be doing the same with ecigs.

Certainly handle the current lies directly, but just as in court, if you can show a witness has a propensity for lying in the past, then it's easier to establish that their present assertions are questionable.

 

[Kent C]

Kent global warming remark in 5...4...3...2...

I'm glad someone has made the connection There is a connection

 

[Nate760]

But the lies on vaping may be believed by some, mainly on the fact that they also believe they were right on second hand smoke.

“Extremism in the defense of a smoke-free world is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of junk science is no virtue.”

-- Barry ANTZwater

 

[Jman8]

Pretty much none... which is what you want to change... and is the point I was trying to make.

Nope. I see it as little resources necessary to fight it. Perhaps a bunch of time, but currently feeling like we have an eternity to fight it, or that it never needs to stop being fought for.

So, in case you care to re-answer, I am curious what resources you think would be necessary to spend on fighting ANTZ or ANTZ like rhetoric?

 

[Jman8]

If I understand Bill's quote correctly, he is saying what I also believe to be obvious...

The entire world has been brainwashed into believing various lies about second-hand smoke.
These lies are so ingrained that most people believe that only an irrational person could think to question them.

And to try to convince the world to erase those lies from their collective and individual consciousness in the next few years is futile at best.
And will make us look like nuts at worst.

This may not be what Bill intended to say with his quote, but it's how I read it because it's what I believe to be true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit happy that this is what I believe.
And over the course of the next decade I would love to see the lies about second-hand smoke be discredited in the eyes of the public.

But it seems to me we have a better chance of discrediting those liars by showing how they are lying about vaping first.

So, you appear to be framing it as either-or. Vaping first, then maybe one day we'll get to smoking lies. From what I wrote in post #18 on this thread, "I don't think exposing them alone is the way to go. I think new tactics ought to be tried, and that includes putting ANTZ on the defense around smoking rights." So, for me it is both. And is more like killing two birds with one stone. One bird is the lies about vaping, the other bird is the lies about smoking, and the stone is the truth.

As I see it, if we concede that they are probably right about smoking, then our claims that they are entirely wrong about vaping, shows up as we are hoping that the long term effects of vaping will be on our side, and in the meantime are going to raise a stink because, well we want to vape how we want to vape. So, our side will be on the defensive much of the time. When (neutral) science comes out with another study, we get to be on the offense. So what if no mass media or mainstream science source picks up on the new scientific study we are propping up, we still get to toot our horn. But when ANTZ science comes along to do the SAME THING it did with smoking, we get to play defense. And balance that with, "why of course Mr. ANTZ you were correct on smoking, but please listen to me on the vaping front. Cause, well, I think this matters and I think we could be right on this issue, just as you were right on the smoking issue." Wait, why aren't they listening to me? I was already to play a good defense, but they've moved on after informing me of their righteous ANTZ scientific data.

Hmmm, if there was only a way to get them to play defense for awhile so that our offense (on vaping) would actually be able to make some inroads.

 

[DC2]

So, in case you care to re-answer, I am curious what resources you think would be necessary to spend on fighting ANTZ or ANTZ like rhetoric?

More than we currently are.

 

[Jman8]

More than we currently are.

I'm not asking "how much" which is how you've answered this twice now. I am saying what resources? What would we spend money on to buy that would help with this fight? And are you open to idea that perhaps there is other ways to have this fight, without spending much money? Arguably, no money.

I will add that part of me does see it as pointless to have this fight if tobacco industry is moving squarely away from combustibles into newer products. I think we can all agree that this is occurring, though I believe some vapers think BT is only doing such to foil the success of vaping market and then will return to only selling combustibles. I believe they are genuinely making the transition and that it is likely another 30 years before the global transition is made, or that smoking is essentially obsolete. Could be 10 years or another 100. I dunno exactly.

But do know that it will be mostly vaping and similar technological advancements that are primary cause for the transition. And that this transition is at a crossroads right now, because regulators, who feel they won on the anti-smoking front, feel they can win on the anti-vaping front. And further feel that if you trusted their science and arguments against smoking, then you ought to trust them on vaping products.

Hence, it makes very good sense to challenge them on their arguments and data about smoking, to make sure the transition to the new technology is not currently and continuously muddied up by junk science and anti type propaganda.

 

[DC2]

I'm not asking "how much" which is how you've answered this twice now. I am saying what resources? What would we spend money on to buy that would help with this fight? And are you open to idea that perhaps there is other ways to have this fight, without spending much money? Arguably, no money.

I don't see anything but money or word of mouth working...

And I'm not seeing enough vapers willing enough, and informed enough, for the word of mouth part to work very fast.
But I will continue to hold out hope that the regulations get stalled long enough.

And that vapers will get more informed and more active.

 

[Buster282]

I don't think you have a chance in he11 of convincing people that second hand smoke is not harmful. proof or no proof. trying that would just hurt our cause. IMO