Good article: It's all about the money

[DrMA]

«Vapor products provide real economic and societal benefits. So why burden an industry with excessive regulation and unfair taxes? The motive may be more about money than the public health.»

Burdensome vaping regulation about revenue, not health - The Orange County Register

 

[stormjib]

it's a letter to the editor, but good read, thanks

 

[Mooch]

«Vapor products provide real economic and societal benefits. So why burden an industry with excessive regulation and unfair taxes? The motive may be more about money than the public health.»

Burdensome vaping regulation about revenue, not health - The Orange County Register

Interesting! Thanks for the link!

 

[CarolT]

It's nothing but a regurgitation of standard anti-tobacco hate propaganda. It endorses health lies that are based on falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection, while pretending that the same scientific frauds couldn't possibly be used against vaping. They can be and have been already and will continue to be used in the future, by means of the traditional type of population studies based on lifestyle questionnaires (which exploit the confounding between socioeconomic status and infection), bolstered with specious studies on the supposed health effects of particulates and the old 'nicotine causes heart disease' theory. People like Mark Burton, co-president of the Southern California chapter of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, are really just helping the anti-smokers, meaning the kind who are against anything that even looks like smoking, who are the ones in the driver's seat.

 

[Katya]

People like Mark Burton, co-president of the Southern California chapter of the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, are really just helping the anti-smokers, meaning the kind who are against anything that even looks like smoking,

Seriously? Are we reading the same article????

I think he's very much in support of "things that look like smoking" and is using the ANTZ's own arguments and statistics against them--to fight anti-vaping regulations.

 

[nicnik]

Seriously? Are we reading the same article????

I think he's very much in support of "things that look like smoking" and is using the ANTZ's own arguments and statistics against them--to fight anti-vaping regulations.

Here's an example from the article of what I consider anti-smoking misinformation being used to make a point that is commonly made in support of vaping:

Lowering the number of cigarette smokers would help reduce California’s annual $18 billion burden in economic and health care costs due to combustible tobacco. Fewer smokers also will contribute to cost savings among Medicaid patients, where the prevalence of tobacco smoking is twice the general public and about 45 percent of California smokers receive Medicaid.

It might possibly be stated factually in this instance, but the numbers don't take into account cost savings to society, mainly in shorter lives leading to less government money needed for late life assistance and health care. Those arguments come from TC attempts to justify the overbearing taxation, and the author is turning that argument against anti-vapers. That's part of what you're referring to, Katya, I'm pretty sure.

I can understand Carol's objection to stuff like that, and I have mixed feelings about it, but mostly I think it's a bad idea. I like the article, though.

 

[CarolT]

Seriously? Are we reading the same article????

I think he's very much in support of "things that look like smoking" and is using the ANTZ's own arguments and statistics against them--to fight anti-vaping regulations.

Yes, we're reading the same article. It's not just that one paragraph about "Lowering the number of cigarette smokers," etc., that I object to. It's that whole strategy, and on many levels. He wants to ingratiate e-cigs with the anti-smokers by eagerly helping to attack smokers, parroting the anti-smokers' health lies and endorsing the eradication of smoking. He thinks he can make some sort of deal with them, he thinks he can appease them - what a delusion! It's like trying to appease H...... In fact, as I have explained, every time he helps them 'hang' smokers, he's ultimately helping them 'hang' vapers with the same rope. Namely, the rope of health lies, which I have described and pointed out their preparations to deploy against vapers. And THAT is all the gratitude that you can expect from anti-smokers, because they are snakes and reptiles! It's a desperate, deluded, and despicable strategy, it's guaranteed to fail, and only somebody who is morally and intellectually bankrupt would embrace it.

 

[mcclintock]

You're reading between the lines much more than I can find in that article. So anytime someone wants to be pro-vaping, they have to take on the entire anti-tobacco establishment?

The important difference between myself and the anti's is I see that people do things they enjoy and the government would need an overwhelming reason to restrict that, vs. the bad effects of regulation/prohibition. In fact, the government's record in that area is so poor they should be considered disqualified from continuing and the FDA should be abolished. I don't -- yet -- have any argument with the idea that smoking is unhealthy, however. The snowflake-like crystal formations of black dust that form on the high-voltage leads inside smokers' CRT TVs tell me that.

 

[nicnik]

So anytime someone wants to be pro-vaping, they have to take on the entire anti-tobacco establishment?

I don't want to throw smokers under the bus, especially using misinformation. The example here actually starts to throw vapers under the bus, seeing as how the latest claims of how much smokers cost society are discussing how society still has huge costs for covering smokers who have already quit. It's a narrative implying that people who've switched from smoking to vaping should still be taxed heavily.

CarolT seems to want to take on the entire anti-tobacco establishment, but I don't. Maybe just parts of it, though. I agree with some of what she's saying, the parts most aligned with what I just said.

 

[Lessifer]

If I remember correctly, CarolT believes that most if not all "tobacco related" diseases can be attributable to viruses and other causes. Without getting into that discussion, how accountable you hold the tobacco industry is directly related to how much you believe their products affected the general population. That is slightly different from believing that consumers have a responsibility to cover inflated expenses that don't take the entire equation into account.

 

[CarolT]

You're reading between the lines much more than I can find in that article. So anytime someone wants to be pro-vaping, they have to take on the entire anti-tobacco establishment?

The important difference between myself and the anti's is I see that people do things they enjoy and the government would need an overwhelming reason to restrict that, vs. the bad effects of regulation/prohibition. In fact, the government's record in that area is so poor they should be considered disqualified from continuing and the FDA should be abolished. I don't -- yet -- have any argument with the idea that smoking is unhealthy, however. The snowflake-like crystal formations of black dust that form on the high-voltage leads inside smokers' CRT TVs tell me that.

I'm reading outside the cramped little box of particular points and looking at the overall strategy here. It's doomed, because the anti-smokers will commit scientific fraud to pretend that there are "overwhelming health risks" from e-cigs, just as they did with secondhand smoke. Until you attack that fraud, you're toast.

Oh and don't tell me that crap about "snowflake-like crystal formations of black dust that form on the high-voltage leads inside smokers' CRT TVs" are supposedly proof of health risks of smoking. What do they cause, cancer of the high voltage leads or something? That stuff is whatever dust is in the air, particularly including loose aquadag, which is on the outside as well as the inside of the tubes. It's graphite. That's why it's black.
Aquadag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CarolT]

I don't want to throw smokers under the bus, especially using misinformation. The example here actually starts to throw vapers under the bus, seeing as how the latest claims of how much smokers cost society are discussing how society still has huge costs for covering smokers who have already quit. It's a narrative implying that people who've switched from smoking to vaping should still be taxed heavily.

CarolT seems to want to take on the entire anti-tobacco establishment, but I don't. Maybe just parts of it, though. I agree with some of what she's saying, the parts most aligned with what I just said.

If you think small, you lose. That's how we were sold out, piece by piece. The same thing will play out all over again.

 

[Katya]

I don't -- yet -- have any argument with the idea that smoking is unhealthy, however.

Smoking is unhealthy.

 

[mcclintock]

Oh and don't tell me that crap about "snowflake-like crystal formations of black dust that form on the high-voltage leads inside smokers' CRT TVs" are supposedly proof of health risks of smoking. What do they cause, cancer of the high voltage leads or something? That stuff is whatever dust is in the air, particularly including loose aquadag, which is on the outside as well as the inside of the tubes. It's graphite. That's why it's black.
Aquadag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not aquadag. The high voltage leads act as a form of electrostatic air cleaner. Potentially (no pun intended) fireplaces etc. can also cause noticable indoor air pollution and some of the same effects, but usually there are other indicators of heavy smokers when I have seen them. It's impressive -- scary even -- how much dust can get stuck together and the patterns it forms. There's other tests of course, such as exhaling cig smoke through a tissue, and just the effects on smoker's walls. Common sense and these simple indicators might even lead one to believe smoking is even more dangerous than the record suggests.

Back to the article, I think it plays up to the anti-smokers, which has its purposes even if ultimately wrong. I think familiarity with vaping will help reduce the fears of the public, so it's still a positive thing. It's not ideal nor do we here need to read it, but it's not really for us.

 

[CarolT]

It's not aquadag. The high voltage leads act as a form of electrostatic air cleaner. Potentially (no pun intended) fireplaces etc. can also cause noticable indoor air pollution and some of the same effects, but usually there are other indicators of heavy smokers when I have seen them. It's impressive -- scary even -- how much dust can get stuck together and the patterns it forms. There's other tests of course, such as exhaling cig smoke through a tissue, and just the effects on smoker's walls. Common sense and these simple indicators might even lead one to believe smoking is even more dangerous than the record suggests.

Back to the article, I think it plays up to the anti-smokers, which has its purposes even if ultimately wrong. I think familiarity with vaping will help reduce the fears of the public, so it's still a positive thing. It's not ideal nor do we here need to read it, but it's not really for us.

It's aquadag. All you have to do is handle the tube and it gets on your hands, and that loose aquadag dust gets electrostatically attracted to the high voltage wires. And where did you get your medical degree if you think that dusty wires or blowing smoke through a tissue are proof of human health effects? Must have been Anti-Smoker University. Those "simple indicators" only indicate the presence of a simpleton.

 

[mcclintock]

It smells like an ashtray and is completely lacking in non-smokers' TVs. Whatever. I found it interesting.

My claim is that yes, a simpleton could look at how gross smoking is and guess it would cause severe problems within 2 months and death within a year. I'm not claiming that's true, but it's definite evidence against.

If you don't believe smoking is dangerous, why are you here? Do you vape?

 

[CarolT]

It smells like an ashtray and is completely lacking in non-smokers' TVs. Whatever. I found it interesting.

My claim is that yes, a simpleton could look at how gross smoking is and guess it would cause severe problems within 2 months and death within a year. I'm not claiming that's true, but it's definite evidence against.

If you don't believe smoking is dangerous, why are you here? Do you vape?

The enemies of vaping use the same scientific frauds against vapers that they used against smokers, so I'm here to help fight our common enemy by exposing those frauds. And also to help prevent the anti-smokers from using vapers as mere tools to help them persecute smokers, after which they they will cynically dispose of the vapers, too.

 

[CarolT]

Smoking is unhealthy.

Anti-smokers deliberately commit scientific fraud to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking. Simply saying that "smoking is unhealthy" endorses that fraud - which gives you no moral standing against them when they lie about vaping, too.

 

[nicnik]

Anti-smokers deliberately commit scientific fraud to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking. Simply saying that "smoking is unhealthy" endorses that fraud - which gives you no moral standing against them when they lie about vaping, too.

Do you think it's not unhealthy?

 

[DC2]

Do you think it's not unhealthy?

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle...

--When I was smoking I could hold my breath for around 30 seconds
--After 12 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 90 seconds
--After 17 months of vaping I got a Pulmonary Function test and my results were slightly better than average
--After 30 months of vaping I could hold my breath for around 110 seconds

Also, I went from two colds/flu per year to almost none.
And the couple colds that I have had in the last six years have gone away in half the time.

Is smoking killing people at the rate that the liars suggest?
Almost certainly not.

Is it unhealthy?
Well...