Want to Quit Smoking? Studies Suggest Vaping Daily Is Best Way to Kick the Habit for Good

[supertrunker]

i think the telling point in the article was that cigalikes are ineffective and sold by BT, which mirrors a lot of the anecdotal success stories on here.

Alcohol is taxed, tobacco is taxed, e-cigarettes are not currently taxed and that is why we will not be left alone; even if they proved to extend lifespan by 10 years - they are not taxed!

T

 

[AndriaD]

i think the telling point in the article was that cigalikes are ineffective and sold by BT, which mirrors a lot of the anecdotal success stories on here.

Alcohol is taxed, tobacco is taxed, e-cigarettes are not currently taxed and that is why we will not be left alone; even if they proved to extend lifespan by 10 years - they are not taxed!

T

Exactly. And to those in charge of taxes, money counts for a LOT!!!!!!!! more than human lives.

Andria

 

[Oliver]

I think it's worth pointing out here that the UK is hugely fortunate in having a group of scientists who are in no way working towards an agenda, except insofar as that they wish fewer people to smoke tobacco. For them, E-Cigarettes have huge potential, and they have been carefully monitoring the impact.

It's also worth noting that these scientists were, until quite recently, described by some in the UK as being "ANTZ". The E-Cigarette Summit, which ECF co-founded, was instrumental in that it put in front of the public and the media the full picture (yes, we invited people who definitively would qualify as ANTZ, in that they are anti THR), and a proper debate was had.

I think it's fair to say that the Summit allowed attending scientists a platform by which they were able to "come out" in favor of e-cigarettes. Since then, the UK alphabet soup has almost completely either come out in favor of e-cigarettes, or has kept schtum while they wait for further evidence. There are, now, only two real organisations wholesale opposed to E-Cigs - the British Medical Association and the Faculty of Public Health. Sadly, these two groups are very powerful and continue to cause immense damage to vaping.

Now, from my personal communications and experience, I can say with 100% certainty that there is a similar pre-Summit situation in the United States. There are many people that would be considered ANTZ, but who are not and will, if given the chance, take the lead. The thing is monumentally complicated in the US because of the huge quantities of money provided by MSA to anti-tobacco groups, but vapers need to be very careful not to alienate those who recognise the importance of e-cigarettes, and will help ensure that they continue to be available. I'd love to see the "ANTZ" terminology retired, in favor of "Anti THR".

I would also dearly love to have a Summit type event in the United States, but I don't see it happening, sadly. The only thing that's going to properly change the debate in the USA is the early release of PATH data, but that's very unlikely.

 

[Kent C]

The thing is monumentally complicated in the US because of the huge quantities of money provided by MSA to anti-tobacco groups, but vapers need to be very careful not to alienate those who recognise the importance of e-cigarettes, and will help ensure that they continue to be available. I'd love to see the "ANTZ" terminology retired, in favor of "Anti THR".

"ANTZ" is the senior concept/category that subsumes both Tobacco Control and Tobacco Harm Reduction factions. Both sub groups still 'know what's best for us'. Something that is perhaps less tolerable for some in the US, more than other countries, who have been told what to do by their leaders (and opinion leaders) for centuries/millennia.

That said, I think vapers who post here (or those who post here long enough) are well aware of the difference in what the 'we know what's best for you' means for those in the TC faction and those in the THR faction. A great percentage of us were smokers - some of us don't forget either faction - both factions 'alienated' us first - but understand the THR's orientation can be advantageous to us now.

 

[nicnik]

I'd love to see the "ANTZ" terminology retired, in favor of "Anti THR".

I'll continue to use "ANTZ" for some situations, but I like your suggestion of "Anti THR" for a lot of situations, and I'll use it. Kent's response below is good.

 

[Oliver]

@Kent C , I hear where you're coming from, but look at it this way: what would you consider Louise Ross to be? By her own admission, prior to the advent of the Summit, she was extremely skeptical about e-cigs. Her career has been in helping smokers to stop smoking. She's on the "front line". I've met her, she's lovely and in no way a zealot about anything. I simply cannot put her in the "ANTZ senior concept".

Since the Summit, she's become somewhat of a pioneer; bringing e-cigs in the smoking cessation services she offers, and educating her own colleagues nationally about what e-cigs are. She's almost single handedly combatting the media spin against e-cigs that the UK has, just like the US, suffered.

Right, so you might think she's co-ercive because she's involved in Smoking Cessation, but I think she's someone who tries to help people who no longer wish to smoke to stop smoking. Many of her colleagues are still skeptical about e-cigs, and there's a long way to go. So what are her colleagues? Are they ANTZ, or Anti-THR, or are they people waiting for evidence as to how e-cigs help people to stop smoking? And if and when they move over to Louise's position, will they be ex-ANTZ?

In other words, I think the ANTZ category is poorly defined, creates false us-and-them dichotomies, and rules out the human elements that are involved amongst those who wish to see smoking reduced, and instead casts participants as slaves to a particular agenda.

I really, really don't see that this is helpful to anyone.

That said, and agreeing with Nicnik, there are people who are definitively ANTZ. They exist, and they are very powerful. The WHO is also beholden to an ANTZ agenda. It's there but it's specific, not general, and better applied to those people.

 

[Kent C]

@Kent C , I hear where you're coming from, but look at it this way: what would you consider Louise Ross to be? By her own admission, prior to the advent of the Summit, she was extremely skeptical about e-cigs. Her career has been in helping smokers to stop smoking. She's on the "front line". I've met her, she's lovely and in no way a zealot about anything. I simply cannot put her in the "ANTZ senior concept".

There's a big difference between:
"we connect with smokers in Leicester who want to get help to stop smoking."

...and someone who wants the gov't to impose restrictions, bans, taxes against people who may or may not want to stop smoking or vaping.

IOW, your using Louise as an example is a bit of a "reddish brine dyed kipper". It should be apparent to anyone, she is not an ANTZ. Stanton Glantz is not in the business of 'helping those who want to stop smoking' out of some platonic goal. What Louise does is moral. What Glantz does is not.

The people of whom I speak are those who were anti-smoking and some even anti nicotine (although that division is more defined today than before), who rather than 'wanting to help people to stop smoking', wanted to force people to stop smoking or tax them enough to pay for their (ANTZ) wages and programs under the guise of 'children's' health' - in the US - the CHiP program.

Within that group - there were and are, people along a gradient scale of TC to THR. Some have moved quite far toward THR, some have not. Dr. Siegel, for example, used to be considered as Stanton Glantz's 'right hand man' or some such designation. Currently, he has done some stellar work, although there are some notables in the THR faction that are either not as impressed, or still hold him accountable for his past TC actions.

The link on that (Dr. S) has been posted here and as a smokers rights advocate, I knew of some of the 'THR" people before I came to ECF. I know - because I've been a long time sponsor at CATO institute - that Brad Radu and Greg Conley have had a 'relationship' with Cato on certain issues that were 'smoker's rights' oriented while still being part of the anti-cigarette movement - hence my "...but understand the THR's orientation can be advantageous to us now." comment above.

I also know that certain THR advocates were staunch enemies of the work Cato (esp. Robert Levi and others) had done on exposing the second-hand smoke hoax and the deviant way that the EPA (aided by ANTZ of all stripes) got through their second-hand smoke policies that affected many Americans on false pretenses and junk science - which was proven in Federal Court, but to no avail.

In other words, I think the ANTZ category is poorly defined, creates false us-and-them dichotomies, and rules out the human elements that are involved amongst those who wish to see smoking reduced, and instead casts participants as slaves to a particular agenda.

I disagree. I think it defines exactly the mindset of those who use our money against us, either through MSA or direct taxes and regulations, while demonizing us at the same time. While some THR want that reduced against ecigs, they still want it upheld against smokers. Hence they are still ATZ's and are in fact, slaves to that agenda. A truly 'human element' would include allowing people to do anything that doesn't harm others (even though it may harm oneself). IF someone wants to 'stop harming oneself' - then we need more Louises and less Glantzs. But only IF.

And, I think holding that separation can be beneficial - I think we are seeing that in some of the ANTZ - as seen yesterday with Goniewicz's presentation at the workshop. Here's a guy that has done studies on 2nd and 3rd! hand vapor, demonized ecigs and attempted to prove harm with junk science or at least have done so that the media has spun it in a way that has been harmful to the vaping community. But now - perhaps because we HAVE the 'us vs. them' view and have shown them to not only be wrong in their studies but also wrong in their orientation - to where yesterday his words were the most encouragingly pro-vaping. And, I think as a result of his comments, a few others also agreed to the harm reduction aspect of ecigs. See Bill's OP thread in Regulation on the FDA workshop. Something he and most all of us considered would be a 'whitewash' for ANTZ.

I have to think that 'our guys' studies and comments/blogs, etc. against them, (the us vs. them idiom) was instrumental. Esp. when our guys make so much more sense and point out that problems of the ANTZ studies, where for some ANTZ continuing to hold those positions/views appears not just irrational but derisively so.

So.... while you:

really, really don't see that this is helpful to anyone.

..... I find it can be quite helpful as well as the truth.

 

[nicnik]

I have to think that 'our guys' studies and comments/blogs, etc. against them, (the us vs. them idiom) was instrumental. Esp. when our guys makes so much more sense and point out that problems of the ANTZ studies, where for some ANTZ continuing to hold those positions/views appears not just irrational but derisively so.

I strongly agree.

 

[DrMA]

100% on the money @Kent C