FDA Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

[DC2]

Yeah, I was mostly joking with that tidbit. There is a difference between effective at losing weight and effective at keeping you on a diet. The second is more complex and would have to account for personal preferences. A bit like THR actually, whether you vape or use ST, as long as you don't smoke. If you're someone who can't give up carbs but can otherwise restrict your caloric intake, you should lose weight.

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there...

My wife is in Weight Watchers.
Which I consider to be a mostly low-fat diet.

And since she makes all the food around here, I am on that diet as well.
It works.

But when we have a Food Holiday coming up, and we want to feel free to indulge...
We go low-carb for one week.

I routinely lose AT LEAST 5 pounds during that week.
And I'm eating bacon, sausage, cheese, steak, creamy sauces, and all the other good low-carb foods.

Low carb works.
Definitely.

But believe it or not, you really do get tired of having bacon.
And having no bread? That get's old very fast.

That's why we only do it for a week.

 

[nicnik]

It would probably be difficult to get much agreement on how dangerous smoking really is, and how badly we've been lied to. I'm guessing there would be huge differences of opinion. I've read a lot of your posts, and you seem to think it's less dangerous than I do, but there would be bigger differences, all believeing we're being lied to, disagreeing about when, where and to what extreme.

But I do think vaping and smoking misinformation need to be battled together as you're prescribing.

There are some anti-smoking lies that might have a lot of concensus to go after. Those might also be the lowest hanging fruit for reaching the genral public:

3rd hand smoke - goes so far as to suggest smokers (and newer claims that vapers also)are emitting dangerous level of toxic fumes from their hair and clothes, and eliminating smokers (and all users of nicotine in any form)from eligibility for employment. In 2006 the US Surgeon General claimed that his office's 2006 report states that there is no safe level of exposure to 2nd hand smoke. However, that appears to be a lie. The report does not include any such conclusion, as far as my word searching can find. (Edit: I redid the word searches and found a few instances where it actually does makes that claim). It does make a quick statement saying (paraphrasing here) that there MAY be no safe level. Not elaborated upon, at all. No explanation for why they are suggesting an exception to the universally accepted foundation of toxicology - all things are toxic and the dose makes the poison.

If the Surgeon General wants to adopt a stance so far out on the fringe he needs some sort of explanation, other than the apparent "Gee, tobacco smoke is SO dangerous, maybe even the most microscopic undetectable amount is dangerous - or wait, I guess it is true - or wait, it IS true!" All leading to "You're fired" and "Nicotine users need not apply".

The justifications for the insane level of taxation can be shown to be misleading to the point of being a nasty lie supporting a shakedown.

Demonization might be relatively low hanging fruit. A hugely important issue, though.

Outdoor bans might not have all that much public support. I don't think I've ever seen them proposed or adopted on their own, only packaged with other rules, so it's hard to guess.

These issues overlap a lot, like they all do. I think almost all of us probably agree the justifications are built on lies.

I've seen Jman talk about battling the smoking lies along with the vaping lies in the past, but I don't remember ever seeing him start a thread about it. If we want to discuss this further, maybe he can start a thread about it. That's a better way for people interested to find it, and it would be nice to get it out of this thread, out of respect for Bill.

 

[NGAHaze]

But believe it or not, you really do get tired of having bacon.

NO U!!!!!!

That's just crazy talk!

 

[skoony]

just caught up again.
seeing that i am here i want to state unequivocally
i like Bill.
i do not agree with him 100% but then again he's in
a better position to have some influence than i will
ever have.
i can deal with it.

regards
mike

 

[AndriaD]

Don't forget that it's not all about taxation, or where you can smoke/vape. Companies can LEGALLY discriminate against you, for hiring purposes, if you consume nicotine.

And that's just evil, for something that's perfectly legal; where do they get the everloving GALL, and why do the courts uphold it????

It's exactly like, they won't hire you if you eat tomatoes. Or potatoes. Senseless, and should be completely illegal.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Outdoor bans might not have all that much public support. I don't think I've ever seen them proposed or adopted on their own, only packaged with other rules, so it's hard to guess.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. A few years ago, hanging around outside a Longhorn steakhouse smoking, because that's the only place I COULD, this evil old bat starts giving me a bunch of crap about my smoke. I'd finally had about enough, and said "look,if you don't like it, GO WAIT FOR YOUR TABLE INDOORS, because this is the only place I CAN smoke, thanks to intolerant buttholes like YOU." She looked like she'd just swallowed a fly or maybe a cicada. Really I was just happy to make her as outraged as she and all her intolerant ilk make me.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

I've seen Jman talk about battling the smoking lies along with the vaping lies in the past, but I don't remember ever seeing him start a thread about it. If we want to discuss this further, maybe he can start a thread about it. That's a better way for people interested to find it, and it would be nice to get it out of this thread, out of respect for Bill.

I started a thread about it, but am too lazy in moment to go digging for it.

I brought it up in this thread cause it is topic of conversation in first 1 minute of the video noted in OP. There's more time spent in OP about anti-smoke campaigning than there is on "how vapers can fight back."

If vapers aren't interested in fighting ANTZ on their own turf, and instead are ready to say, "you are so right about tobacco smoking," I don't see too many ways to fight all that Bill G. notes we are up against. Let's see, BG, BP and BT are facing a formidable foe known as vapers. If I were the first three, I'd be shaking in my boots. Especially as that foe is telling ANTZ how right they are about smoking (lies).

"If you accept those lies as fact, man, for vaping, we got plenty more where that came from."

 

[nicnik]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. A few years ago, hanging around outside a Longhorn steakhouse smoking, because that's the only place I COULD, this evil old bat starts giving me a bunch of crap about my smoke. I'd finally had about enough, and said "look,if you don't like it, GO WAIT FOR YOUR TABLE INDOORS, because this is the only place I CAN smoke, thanks to intolerant buttholes like YOU." She looked like she'd just swallowed a fly or maybe a cicada. Really I was just happy to make her as outraged as she and all her intolerant ilk make me.

Andria

That's just one person out of a total of billions, but I know there are plenty more like her out there. Maybe even enough to keep the momentum going of more and more outdoor bans being enacted. So yeah, I'm not too sure.

But maybe they don't have strong public support. I'm saying maybe they don't.

 

[nicnik]

I started a thread about it, but am too lazy in moment to go digging for it.

I brought it up in this thread cause it is topic of conversation in first 1 minute of the video noted in OP.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have brought it up on this thread. Yes, it's absolutely on topic for this thread, and I'm willing to discuss it here if you prefer, seeing as how my interest in taking this approach started from reading posts of yours before I was ever posting here, and I'm not sure a good discussion would get going without your involvement.

I'll try to find that thread you started so I can get caught up. I'll start a new thread if someone can suggest a title for it. I'd like to take part in that discussion, and hopefully others would, too.

There's more time spent in OP about anti-smoke campaigning than there is on "how vapers can fight back."

That's true. The video was edited, though. Maybe the interview included more of "how vapers can fight back", but we're not discussing the unedited version that we haven't seen, so good point. You're right.

If vapers aren't interested in fighting ANTZ on their own turf, and instead are ready to say, "you are so right about tobacco smoking," I don't see too many ways to fight all that Bill G. notes we are up against. Let's see, BG, BP and BT are facing a formidable foe known as vapers. If I were the first three, I'd be shaking in my boots. Especially as that foe is telling ANTZ how right they are about smoking (lies).

I agree with all that.

"If you accept those lies as fact, man, for vaping, we got plenty more where that came from."

Really problematic. We're hurting ourselves when we hurt smokers with lies. Any political benefit is probably short term. Long term it could undermine us. We shouldn't want to lie about smokers in the first place.

 

[Oliver]

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there...

My wife is in Weight Watchers.
Which I consider to be a mostly low-fat diet.

And since she makes all the food around here, I am on that diet as well.
It works.

But when we have a Food Holiday coming up, and we want to feel free to indulge...
We go low-carb for one week.

I routinely lose AT LEAST 5 pounds during that week.
And I'm eating bacon, sausage, cheese, steak, creamy sauces, and all the other good low-carb foods.

Low carb works.
Definitely.

But believe it or not, you really do get tired of having bacon.
And having no bread? That get's old very fast.

That's why we only do it for a week.

I've lost over 20 pounds in the last year by being "mindful about carbs" - that is to say, I don't consider myself on a diet per se, but I will consciously avoid carbs as often as I'm able.

Quite amazing - believe the hype.

Not tired of bacon, mind you, and my cholesterol's pretty high. Sigh.

 

[AndriaD]

I've lost over 20 pounds in the last year by being "mindful about carbs" - that is to say, I don't consider myself on a diet per se, but I will consciously avoid carbs as often as I'm able.

Quite amazing - believe the hype.

Not tired of bacon, mind you, and my cholesterol's pretty high. Sigh.

Pork has hardly any cholesterol at all -- I can eat bacon and sausage just fine, but hamburgers? Fuhgeddaboutit. *sigh*

Andria

 

[Oliver]

This is going way off topic, but I don't think dietary Cholesterol is a problem. It's dietary saturated fats which the body turns into cholesterol.

 

[Jman8]

These issues overlap a lot, like they all do. I think almost all of us probably agree the justifications are built on lies.

DrMA started a thread today, "New drivel about US youth gateway making the rounds today" that is one of around 10,000 examples I could provide showing that politics of vaping and smoking are routinely tied together.

If I wish to comment on that thread, I'll do so in that thread. But I bring it up here because I do not see the smoking fight as dead and very much see it as revived by the vaping fight. Go read the thread titles in the News area of the forum, and I'd say around 50% of them are speaking directly about smoking as it relates to vaping.

I will just note here that it is one thing to say, "no never smoking youth user is not going to try vaping then smoke, according to most studies." That's fine, that's (mostly) factual, that works for positioning vaping in proper light. But it also denies some realities of youth smoking and that youth will be segment of market that smokes/vapes, and that they, or rather we, are all in it together. Thing is, they are clearly being lied to / manipulated and essentially told to take it lying down. We (adults) are fighting it, and when we do, it impacts them (and us). Have to engage in a bit of adultism (i.e. their bodies are different than ours) to make it seem like they are not in the fight we are in, and that the lies being told to them, and about them, are somehow more politically viable. Even OP knows that's a big pile of ANTZ manure.

 

[nicnik]

In 2006 the US Surgeon General claimed that his office's 2006 report states that there is no safe level of exposure to 2nd hand smoke. However, that appears to be a lie. The report does not include any such conclusion, as far as my word searching can find. It does make a quick statement saying (paraphrasing here) that there MAY be no safe level.

I was really wrong about that. I did those word searches a while back, but now repeated them and found a few statements saying there is no safe level. They seem to base it on speculation by some regulatory scientists that there is no safe level of exposure to carcinogens.

 

[nicnik]

"no never smoking youth user is not going to try vaping then smoke, according to most studies."

I don't understand that sentence and I suspect a typo is involved. Is it a quote from one of the articles?

 

[AndriaD]

I was really wrong about that. I did those word searches a while back, but now repeated them and found a few statements saying there is no safe level. They seem to base it on speculation by some regulatory scientists that there is no safe level of exposure to carcinogens.

Guess we'll all have to stop going outdoors then. Solar radiation is the #1 carcinogen on planet earth.

Andria

 

[rico942]

If someone can accept that secondhand smoke won't kill you, they'll see how ridiculous it is to worry about secondhand vapor.

In my smoking days, my standard defense against the second hand smoke nonsense was just this:

"Show me a death certificate, signed by any reputable doctor or coroner, specifying 'second hand smoke' as the official cause of death ..."

I had ample opportunity to walk away before they were done sputtering and gesturing wildly. The steam coming from their ears might have been hazardous to my health ...

For third hand smoke rants, I would insist that they not touch me, or my stuff ...

I grew up in a household that was blue with my Dad's pipe smoke, it did sometimes darken the lead-based paint and the asbestos insulation ...

And I've already outlived many of my contemporaries ...

 

[nicnik]

In my smoking days, my standard defense against the second hand smoke nonsense was just this:

"Show me a death certificate, signed by any reputable doctor or coroner, specifying 'second hand smoke' as the official cause of death ..."

If someone dies from a heart attack brought on by progressively severe diabetes, how would that be written up?
I agree that 2nd hand smoke dangers have been exaggerated, I'm not sure to what extent. Pretty much, at least, but I still don't know if there should be concerns for people. I have a real problem with being lied to about it. We should be able to trust Public Health people.

 

[Luisa]

Just because someone thinks an issue 'important' doesn't mean it's right or morally right. I think all TC advocates interfered with my right to smoke and cost me money and freedom (as to where I could smoke) as well as slandering me as part of that group, as a result of their actions. Take any other activity that does no harm to someone directly rather than just offend their senses - which happens all the time - and such intervention would not be justified. Using junk science on second-hand smoke and playing to non-smokers sensibilities, TC demonized over 40% of the population, under the guise of 'we know what's best for your health'. If the same actions would be taken against any other group who engages in what someone thinks is 'dangerous behavior' to oneself, not many would stand for it.

And I'd point out that almost everyone who commented about his past TC actions, have praised him for his work in ecigs multiple times, not just in this thread but almost every other thread that he's started or commented on.

For him to say that ECF is less and less relevant for vaping advocacy, is like saying Standard Oil (who once had a near monopoly in oil) is less relevant in the oil industry. Were it not for ECF and Smokey Joe, CASAA and all of us who have done our own Call To Actions and CASAA's and others, it's a slap in the face. ECF started it and has been a podium for Bill and other THR advocates. And were it not for the support of members here or in his own group, he'd just be another anti-smoking, pro-vaping guy. To belittle those who do what they can, because he thinks they haven't done as much as he has, is a bit too 'proud' and misses the relationship between leaders and groups.

Bill should acknowledge (and understand the fact) that most vapers are ex-smokers - some of who loved smoking and would have continued to smoke were it not for ecigs. And understand that he was on the opposite side at that time and not be surprised that some react to his comments about that. It's akin to saying one is 'proud to be a Yankee' in Mississippi.

As long as he sticks with pro-vaping comments and stays away from anti-smoking comments, most of us, including myself have nothing to say in opposition to what he is doing and has done for vaping advocacy - in fact, I have now and in the past much praise and have attempted to help him in many cases on finding links, recently posting a graph and have done some searches some of which were fruitful, some not. And I am by far, not the only one to do such things and to give praise.

I don't think it's that hard to differentiate between his past actions and his present ones. And I understand that he thinks they are entirely consistent. But when someone asks questions about 'how this all got started' one can't ignore stuff like 'deeming' to what? and a full explanation has to include the anti-smoking aspect that we are sometimes dealing with today.

One thing everyone has forgotten is that the e-cig probably would never have been invented if there was not a need. The smoking wars actually helped create vaping. With out a good product on the market,most vapors would never have switched. That certainly,and fortunately, happened. We now have a product that has a chance to help us avoid the health problems we all know occur with smoking.

 

[nicnik]

One thing everyone has forgotten is that the e-cig probably would never have been invented if there was not a need. The smoking wars actually helped create vaping

The need was there without the TC lies. Vaping would've happened anyway, the lies just sped up the process of people switching to them.

If e-cigs were invented by Hon Lik to help with his and other people's smoking addiction, after smoking killed or helped kill his father, in China, a country where smoking was widesperead and not being attacked, he still might have been motivated in part by an opportunity he saw brought on by the war on smoking in the West. But maybe not. Either way, they'd still have been invented and likely improved upon, similar to how they have been.