Don't Vape On Me

[nicnik]

MacArthur: E-cigarette promising; don't vape on me
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/opinion/2015/05/26/electronic-cigarettes/27983893/

Nastiest reporter, yet, IMO. Seems to want to brag about his smoking of other substances, while apparently hating not only smoking tobacco, but vaping, too. No mention of e-cigs being promising, as stated in the title.

My response to Mr."Don't vape on me", Dan MacArthur:

Had there been the option of switching to vaping when your parents were still alive, I bet you would have supported them, if they wanted to make the transition. And if they hadn't expressed an interest, maybe you would have researched, and then tried to convince them to try vaping. Then again, maybe you would have shown the same cruelty toward tobacco smokers looking for a way to quit, as you do today. Your published opinion is unethical, uninformed and dangerous.

As much as his article repulses me, I am even more disgusted by his photo, when combined with his words.

 

[Jman8]

Doesn't strike me as that nasty. Seems par for the course for general anti-smoking sentiment that exists today.

Seems to me his views are shaped by this about his father:

I sometimes questioned feeding his passion for puffing. I feared the smoke he inhaled by choice, along with the nasty stuff sucked in during his career as a steelworker, would take him from me prematurely. But he made it to 90, although tethered constantly to oxygen at the end.

With that as part of anyone's family history, it is understandable to me why there is concerns for how prevalent smoking is within society and culture. But it really really really doesn't make sense why the prevailing thought is "this kills" when, someone (or many people) are able to make it to ages that healthy, non-smoking people don't usually make.

It is obvious this relative was not taken 'prematurely.' For the anti-smoking sentiment to show up as genuine / accurate, premature would have to be under 50, otherwise, it really shows up as skewed logic and really, if being honest, as deception. My own father passed at age 64, as a heavy (abusive) smoker, and that doesn't strike me as premature.

To me, the grand deception is ingrained, and seemingly okay if left unexplored. It's like whatever was going on in say 1910 thru 1950's with regards to denial around smoking in society, did a complete 180 and is now denial on the other end of the spectrum, with people so unwilling to explore their attitudes and fears around smoking.

That the same people (really the overwhelming majority) are doing similar thing with vaping strikes me as "what do you expect?" If the smoking stuff is going to continue to be deceptive, inaccurate and treated as best not to question or go against the grain, then how does anyone expect vaping to be treated significantly differently?

A vaper is going to die (for sure by age 90) and one day people will be saying my favorite relative died prematurely, due to vaping.

And it'll still be a lie. And it'll still probably play on the false sympathies of many people.

 

[caramel]

There's something like "average life expectancy" that you can relate to. It's currently at 78 for US (lower then the heavier smoking Europe and Cubans and their cigars). Anyone living more than that shall not be deemed "premature" unless it was a violent accident (car accident, immediate poisoning, falling off a building, getting shot, etc).

Just wondering - if a smoker falls off a bridge at age 80, how do the Antz record his death? Premature death from smoking?

 

[guambred]

There's something like "average life expectancy" that you can relate to. It's currently at 78 for US (lower then the heavier smoking Europe and Cubans and their cigars). Anyone living more than that shall not be deemed "premature" unless it was a violent accident (car accident, immediate poisoning, falling off a building, getting shot, etc).

Just wondering - if a smoker falls off a bridge at age 80, how do the Antz record his death? Premature death from smoking?

Yes because he was probably on the bridge to smoke.................

 

[nicnik]

Doesn't strike me as that nasty. Seems par for the course for general anti-smoking sentiment that exists today.

I guess you're right. The headline is a real problem, though. "MacArthur: E-cigarette promising; don't vape on me", and next to it, a picture of a friendly face. I was expecting a generally vaping supportive article, with likely an endorsement of banning public indoor use. I was enjoying reading it, 'til I got near the end, where he delivered the punch. Everything leading up to it, made sense that he would be all for vaping.

Now, I realize he might not have written the headline. Maybe a pro-vaping editor wrote it, trying to make him look bad, but then it should have been: E-cigarettes promising; MacArthur: "Don't vape on me." The way the headline is written, it suggests that MacArthur is responsible for the "E-cigarette promising" statement.

Bait and switch. I was blind-sided with that nasty ending.

 

[CarolT]

Doesn't strike me as that nasty. Seems par for the course for general anti-smoking sentiment that exists today.

Seems to me his views are shaped by this about his father:

He's a rotten scumbag who wants to ban vaping anywhere that cigarettes are banned. And never mind that crap about his father - his story is just cobbled together to rationalize being a brainwashed sheep who was indoctrinated since birth with anti-smoker hate propaganda.

 

[caramel]

Indoctrination is not necessary. It just needs to be lucrative. Then for many people it doesn't matter if they believe in it or not. They will just do it.