The future of E figs ?

[Caro123]

This.
And do you know what really makes me mad about the England example - one that is to be repeated in Portugal in 2020?
Those businesses only closed their doors because non-smokers, the ones who demanded "clean air" inside pubs, NEVER showed up to replace the smokers they managed to throw out of pubs. I could imagine non-smokers complaining about cigarette smoke because they LIKED to go to pubs, but did not want to breathe smoke WHILE doing so. Of course, this never happened. Was it reeeealy a big trouble for them, that people were allowed to smoke in places they did not go to anyway, nor did they INTEND to go in the future ??
This same model will be adopted in Portugal in 2020. A business owner will not be able to choose his own business model anymore. And this, after owners being forced by law to spend hard-earned money on air extraction equipment - a condition required currently for a place to allow smoking.

If owners have spent money in order to be able to allow smoking inside, then it is because the MAJORITY of his patrons are smokers, and allowing smoking is GOOD for business in that specific place. Otherwise, a much *cheaper* non-smoking sign at the door would be enough to care for a majority of non-smoking patrons, IF that was the case.

But no. There's the need of control, for "health's sake".

People who are jogging OUTSIDE, in the street, and only enter a coffe shop to have a quick coffe - or to ask for a FREE glass of water, because they have been running - now want to have a say on what people who spend their time INSIDE, SUPPORTING the business, can, or can not do. Because they do NOT want to be "troubled" by cigarette smoke int the five minutes or so they spend there. Even when, by the OWNER's choice, there is a "smoking allowed" sign clearly visible at the door.

tobacco control an almost successful social engineering program, I say almost because general public is beginning to see the charade. sorry about Portugal the coffee shops here in Canada complied built partitions about 10 years ago, etc lasted perhaps two years before total ban , pubs fought back hardest but a few were charged and penalized and they too were forced to ban indoor smoking I am uncertain if casinos ever went completely smoke free

 

[caramel]

tobacco control an almost successful social engineering program, I say almost because general public is beginning to see the charade. sorry about Portugal the coffee shops here in Canada complied built partitions about 10 years ago, etc lasted perhaps two years before total ban , pubs fought back hardest but a few were charged and penalized and they too were forced to ban indoor smoking I am uncertain if casinos ever went completely smoke free

The short timeline shows that they had their minds made from the beginning, they just split the opposition in time stages so they don't have to fight all of it at once. They were lying all the time while they were doing this.

 

[gpjoe]

...every State would look like Detroit...

Lame.

The only thing lazier when trying to make a point would be using Nazi Germany or Hitler as an example.

 

[Caro123]

Lame.

The only thing lazier when trying to make a point would be using Nazi Germany or Hitler as an example.

hum maybe except if we fail to learn from the masters of disruption and coercion regarding a people/ society then we provide the culture for repeats - find something/someone to hate -blame all woes personal and individual on said something/someone and we can create mass destruction -many will follow win- win except for the something/someone who suffers loss

 

[bluecat]

Don't worry, guys, they are from the government and they're here to help.

This made my morning.

 

[hashtag]

Not really. All those no smoking ads and propaganda are paid by tobacco companies as part of a civil settlement.
The government knows smokers are addicted, so the can keep slowly adding taxes to tobacco products.

This is what a lot of people don't seem to realize, all the anti smoking propaganda is created by the big tobacco companies and they do their homework. They know the ads don't work and if one of the ads is overly effective they will change it out.

 

[skoony]

This.
And do you know what really makes me mad about the England example - one that is to be repeated in Portugal in 2020?
Those businesses only closed their doors because non-smokers, the ones who demanded "clean air" inside pubs, NEVER showed up to replace the smokers they managed to throw out of pubs. I could imagine non-smokers complaining about cigarette smoke because they LIKED to go to pubs, but did not want to breathe smoke WHILE doing so. Of course, this never happened. Was it reeeealy a big trouble for them, that people were allowed to smoke in places they did not go to anyway, nor did they INTEND to go in the future ??
This same model will be adopted in Portugal in 2020. A business owner will not be able to choose his own business model anymore. And this, after owners being forced by law to spend hard-earned money on air extraction equipment - a condition required currently for a place to allow smoking.

If owners have spent money in order to be able to allow smoking inside, then it is because the MAJORITY of his patrons are smokers, and allowing smoking is GOOD for business in that specific place. Otherwise, a much *cheaper* non-smoking sign at the door would be enough to care for a majority of non-smoking patrons, IF that was the case.

But no. There's the need of control, for "health's sake".

People who are jogging OUTSIDE, in the street, and only enter a coffe shop to have a quick coffe - or to ask for a FREE glass of water, because they have been running - now want to have a say on what people who spend their time INSIDE, SUPPORTING the business, can, or can not do. Because they do NOT want to be "troubled" by cigarette smoke int the five minutes or so they spend there. Even when, by the OWNER's choice, there is a "smoking allowed" sign clearly visible at the door.

watch what happens in Portugal.the air filtration systems will be yanked at the last
moment and only zero smoking will be allowed.
they pulled the same game hear in Minnesota after telling owners for two
years restrictions were coming here's what you do to get ready.
these bans do not happen in a vacuum. a lot of MAD types back them
religiously. a lot of social elitist love bans as they disrupt the normal social
discourse. remember the American Revolution started in a pub.

mike

 

[gpjoe]

hum maybe except if we fail to learn from the masters of disruption and coercion regarding a people/ society then we provide the culture for repeats - find something/someone to hate -blame all woes personal and individual on said something/someone and we can create mass destruction -many will follow win- win except for the something/someone who suffers loss

Yeah, except that.

 

[bluecat]

All the public smoking prohibitions aren't to curb smoking?

Not really. Think about it. Does it really curb smoking? I have never understood the need to be constantly vaping. I can go into a store for 15 minutes without the need to take a puff.

If the government thinks it can curb smoking by restricting it in public places, they are just idiots. Well.. I just let that one slide.

To really curb smoking they would need to hit private places. I doubt they really want to try that.

Personally I am a big believe in choices. Wrong or right. Let the individual decide and of course live with the consequences.

 

[Caro123]

Not really. Think about it. Does it really curb smoking? I have never understood the need to be constantly vaping. I can go into a store for 15 minutes without the need to take a puff.

If the government thinks it can curb smoking by restricting it in public places, they are just idiots. Well.. I just let that one slide.

To really curb smoking they would need to hit private places. I doubt they really want to try that.

Personally I am a big believe in choices. Wrong or right. Let the individual decide and of course live with the consequences.

uh me thinks my personal vehicle with me own offspring sitting in the car seat beside me might be a hit on private places, of course you do need to time it right and raise a generation who has been inundated with the evils thereof could never have done it in the 80 s or dare I say the 90s not enough evils thereof flowing forth from the masters house.

 

[bluecat]

uh me thinks my personal vehicle with me own offspring sitting in the car seat beside me might be a hit on private places, of course you do need to time it right and raise a generation who has been inundated with the evils thereof could never have done it in the 80 s or dare I say the 90s not enough evils thereof flowing forth from the masters house.

I would agree with you on that to a point. Say you are sitting in the back seat of your friend's car. You decide to pop open a can of beer. You can be cited for open container. Private vs public.... stranger than fiction.

 

[caramel]

I would agree with you on that to a point. Say you are sitting in the back seat of your friend's car. You decide to pop open a can of beer. You can be cited for open container. Private vs public.... stranger than fiction.

While at first sight refrigerated car coffee cups may look like a stupid invention, they definitely have a purpose.

 

[englishmick]

While at first sight refrigerated car coffee cups may look like a stupid invention, they definitely have a purpose.

I bet you could build a mod into one of those fancy plastic water bottles. Then if you mastered the technique of not exhaling visible vapor you could wander around vaping anywhere.

 

[Caro123]

I would agree with you on that to a point. Say you are sitting in the back seat of your friend's car. You decide to pop open a can of beer. You can be cited for open container. Private vs public.... stranger than fiction.

uhmm didn't know that I suppose that law makes some sense the person could give it to the driver or I suppose a person could be drinking and driving and say I wasn't it was joes brew so I can see the rationale behind the law the other would seem to me to be a step beyond and venturing in to blurring of lines re private but of course I could be wrong

 

[TyPie]

The first thing that jumped into my mind upon reading the title of the thread is e-fig newtons. Now THAT would be a delicious vape. (Despite the seriousness of the topic......)

 

[rolygate]

Lame.

The only thing lazier when trying to make a point would be using Nazi Germany or Hitler as an example.

Sorry if I have got this wrong, but Detroit is held up (here) as an example of terrible city management that led to collapse of public services, a wasteland situation in many suburbs, and widespread crime? Appreciate we are a long way away so the info may have got distorted by the time it reached here - apologies if this is wrong.

 

[The Ocelot]

I'm waiting for E oranges.

 

[440BB]

Sorry if I have got this wrong, but Detroit is held up (here) as an example of terrible city management that led to collapse of public services, a wasteland situation in many suburbs, and widespread crime? Appreciate we are a long way away so the info may have got distorted by the time it reached here - apologies if this is wrong.

Much like ecigs, the perception is affected by the interests giving you the information. Corrrupt leaders led the city into a financial quagmire, but Detroit is rebounding from the worst of it's post-industrial phase. Lofts and downtown are very popular and surrounding suburbs were never a wasteland. Crime is in pockets where the poor feel hopeless, like any major city, but has been declining for some time.

 

[rolygate]

Good. Thanks for the correction. Sorry about believing the propaganda - should know better

 

[Stubby]

Which sooooo clearly explains exactly why Snus is STILL being banned in the EU, after 20 years - even with sound statistics showing how less harmful other forms of tobacco are when compared to smoking.

This clearly is NOT about OUR health. It is about THEIR wealth.

For those that do not get out much past the vaping world, the FDA recently denied RJR's petition to change the warning labels on smokeless tobacco to more truthfully inform consumers as to the low risk of ST. The current warnings grossly misrepresent the risk of ST. Most people in the US (and I have to assume the EU) mistakenly believe ST is at least as harmful as cigarettes, if not more so. The denied petition simply carries on the status que.

Even though it is not a finale ruling, the Swedish match application for a modified risk designation for general snus got an initial negative vote by the FDA, despite a huge amount of studies showing the low risk for snus. I don't have much hope for the final ruling expected in August.

Smokeless tobacco products are not included in the MSA payments. Unlike the EU, smokeless tobacco is legal in the US and will stay that way as most ST is grandfathered into the 2009 tobacco control act. But with the huge amount of propaganda on the dangers of ST in is very unlikely we will have the large population shifts to ST that we see in Sweden (I might add that Norway is following the same pattern as Sweden. Norway is not part of the EU so snus is legal). The biggest danger to this house of cards is for the general population to figure out that there are ways of using tobacco and nicotine that have vanishingly low risk. That's what the powers that be, on both sides of the pond, are fighting tooth and nail.

Tobacco Truth: FDA Rejects Reynolds Petition to Change Smokeless Warning

If you haven't read Carl Phillips piece on the FDA fiasco it is a good read

TPSAC meeting on Swedish Match MRTP application: is there a scientist in the house? | Anti-THR Lies and related topics