19 Aug 14 - Bill Godshall - Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes

[Sirius]

If it weren't for their inane economic policy, I'd label myself libertarian. However, a more accurate description would be social libertarian and economic liberal. My point is, labels and partisanship are arbitrary, compromising, and divisive. Or, just because party X appears to be accepting of vaping, doesn't mean we should agree with their policy of restricting other choices. Also to the point, everybody currently in politics from any party has some sort of blood on their hands, and some sort of ill gotten money in their pockets.

That being said, I really hope we can get back to the substance of Bill G's article, which makes for a great advocacy piece using a well regarded platform with an influential audience directly linked to the healthcare field.

I agree..and sorry, I will keep politics away from this issue. I know nothing of the influences besides BP. I've said plenty about how I think they have government officials in their pockets. I just can't name names.
There was a time when there was impartial investigative journalism that wasn't politically motivated. I'm afraid those days are long gone.

 

[dragonpuff]

I was planning a brief comment regarding the political issues up for discussion... But, I agree with DrMA's request to keep the thread on the topic of the article itself. So I will refrain from commenting further on those issues. Moving on...

Here is a quote from the article:

But instead of correcting or clarifying (or apologizing for) their many false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs (in a failed attempt to win a lawsuit), FDA officials (and other DHHS officials) have further misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence on e-cigs to lobby for their recently proposed Deeming Regulation, which will protect cigarette markets by banning >99.9% of all e-cigs, and will give the e-cig industry to the Big tobacco companies.

Instead of protecting cigarettes (under the deceitful guise of protecting children), public health officials have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and vapers that e-cigs are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to keep them legal and affordable.

This is absolutely perfect and I couldn't have said it better you rock, Bill!

 

[sonicdsl]

<...>

That being said, I really hope we can get back to the substance of Bill G's article, which makes for a great advocacy piece using a well regarded platform with an influential audience directly linked to the healthcare field.

Yes, please.

I was planning a brief comment regarding the political issues up for discussion... But, I agree with DrMA's request to keep the thread on the topic of the article itself. So I will refrain from commenting further on those issues. Moving on...

Here is a quote from the article:

But instead of correcting or clarifying (or apologizing for) their many false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs (in a failed attempt to win a lawsuit), FDA officials (and other DHHS officials) have further misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence on e-cigs to lobby for their recently proposed Deeming Regulation, which will protect cigarette markets by banning >99.9% of all e-cigs, and will give the e-cig industry to the Big Tobacco companies.

Instead of protecting cigarettes (under the deceitful guise of protecting children), public health officials have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and vapers that e-cigs are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to keep them legal and affordable.

This is absolutely perfect and I couldn't have said it better you rock, Bill!

Thank you

 

[AndriaD]

And this is the correct answer, for those who aren't aware of the correct answer, or wish it weren't the correct answer.


It would be nice it we could make this whole forum apolitical.
Or at least these legislative discussions.

But really?

These discussions, which are based on political legislation, are political by their very nature.

And there is one party that has been hounding the FDA to destroy what is best for us as vapers.
And it IS NOT the Republicans, and it is NOT the Libertarians.

That's a hard pill to swallow for some.
But the facts are not changed by how hard the pill is to swallow.

And please don't bother posting exceptions to the rule, because that just distracts from what is REALLY happening.

You're right, and it's yet more evidence that my late support for the Dems was extremely ill-advised, but hey, I really thought he might change things for the better -- I was wrong, and not too small to admit it. I'm just glad I finally saw the writing on the wall. I may hate the "rich people" who very often tend to be republican conservatives, but the other guys are just plain WORSE, when it comes to gov't.

At this point I think the only way to really fix anything is another revolution, to get rid of ALL of the politicos currently warming chairs in DC, by whatever means is necessary. And I see more and more signs of both its necessity and its advent every day, but I still doubt it'll happen in my lifetime, and I'm not sure if I'm glad about that or disheartened.

Andria

 

[2coils]

Thanks to all of the participants in this thread!!Pure enjoyment and really good points on a political front. It is clear, Those opposing E-cigs need to be voted out, if we want the tide to change. Some will sacrifice their Personal vaporizers if it means having to vote out those opposing them. This in no way is a dig at anyone. People are VERY LOYAL when it comes to supporting a party. It makes this issue quite complicated. People have to vote for what they think is right and what their beliefs actually are.

This issue has opened my eyes a lot as far as politics go. We really need to pay attention before we vote for anybody no matter what side of the aisle we sit on.

As for Bill G's piece.... I don't understand how some members of this forum CAN NOT see clearly his efforts on advocacy. In my eyes, they have been unwavering and quite deliberate since my join date to say the least. I thank him greatly for those efforts!!!!

 

[Tache]

As a Canadian this debate baffles me. Democrat, Republican - what does that actually mean?

Again looking from the "outside" I see the Republican position as "bible belt", "big brother" etc. In all honesty could someone please educate me?

 

[Sirius]

Was reading through some of Godshalls links and when I came across this one I got really angry. Isn't THIS (bold) what the regulations are supposed to be all about anyway. According to Rockerfeller it is.

Marketing of E-Cigarettes May Appeal to Young People
“E-cigarettes are also being marketed towards young people, who can purchase them in fruit flavors and online, without having to verify their ages.”
Statement of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (March 24, 2009)

“It looks like a cigarette and is marketed as a cigarette. There's nothing that prevents youth from getting addicted to nicotine.”
Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, Chairman, American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium (June 2, 2009)

“Finally, and of critical importance, information is not yet available as to whether e-cigarettes might actually encourage children and teens and young adults to take their first step toward smoking cigarettes, drawn in by the products' novelty and variety of flavors, including strawberry, banana and chocolate.”
American Legacy Foundation, Statement, “Electronic Cigarettes” (May 2009)
Concerns Voiced by the Public Health Experts About Electronic Cigarettes

 

[Sirius]

As a Canadian this debate baffles me. Democrat, Republican - what does that actually mean?

Again looking from the "outside" I see the Republican position as "bible belt", "big brother" etc. In all honesty could someone please educate me?

Republican = Conservative

Demarcat = Liberal


Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

 

[aubergine]

If it weren't for their inane economic policy, I'd label myself libertarian. However, a more accurate description would be social libertarian and economic liberal. My point is, labels and partisanship are arbitrary, compromising, and divisive. Or, just because party X appears to be accepting of vaping, doesn't mean we should agree with their policy of restricting other choices. Also to the point, everybody currently in politics from any party has some sort of blood on their hands, and some sort of ill gotten money in their pockets.

That being said, I really hope we can get back to the substance of Bill G's article, which makes for a great advocacy piece using a well regarded platform with an influential audience directly linked to the healthcare field.

Many, many likes (bold esp.), and very well said.

 

[Kent C]

That being said, I really hope we can get back to the substance of Bill G's article, which makes for a great advocacy piece using a well regarded platform with an influential audience directly linked to the healthcare field.

The general 'substance' of Bill's article is 'less gov't intervention' into the ecig industry. That's a political statement. The rest of it is the details 'why'. And that "All real public health advocates support smokers switching to e-cigs, and keeping e-cigs legal." aimed at that 'influential audience'.

 

[rolygate]

Republican = Conservative

Demarcat = Liberal

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

If one side is tagged conservative, the other would probably be tagged socialist or leftist in Europe. Liberals in Europe are a centrist group who may lean one way or the other depending, but are the people normally most associated with individual rights - although that is purely a joke in modern government of any flavour, of course.

I don't see how Democrats can be associated with traditional liberal views, as Dems align with the socialists in Europe and this is opposite to liberal. A statement like "..to protect civil liberties and individual.....rights" cannot possibly be applied to the Dems - they are all about big government and the removal of individual choice (and rights). We call that socialist in Europe (Labour in the UK). The population as a whole get the benefit of better social support by government, but they give away an increasing amount of choice and individual rights in proportion to the support and protection they receive. It's called socialism. You can't have both: you can't have support without loss of individual choice and individual rights: there is a price to pay, because it costs money, and money comes from controlling your income, your tax and your spending choices.

You have to choose one or the other. It's either: free choice and individual rights but social support is not a priority; or full social support but decreasing individual rights, freedoms and choice. Suggesting you can have both or that there is a party who offer both, is not logical and indeed incorrect - there is no such party, no matter what it's official or unofficial name is. There are no Liberals any more, because the cost of modern-style government is so immense.

 

[Sirius]

If one side is tagged conservative, the other would probably be tagged socialist or leftist in Europe. Liberals in Europe are a centrist group who may lean one way or the other depending, but are the people normally most associated with individual rights - although that is purely a joke in modern government of any flavour, of course.

I don't see how Democrats can be associated with traditional liberal views, as Dems align with the socialists in Europe and this is opposite to liberal. A statement like "..to protect civil liberties and individual.....rights" cannot possibly be applied to the Dems - they are all about big government and the removal of individual choice (and rights). We call that socialist in Europe (Labour in the UK). The population as a whole get the benefit of better social support by government, but they give away an increasing amount of choice and individual rights in proportion to the support and protection they receive. It's called socialism. You can't have both: you can't have support without loss of individual choice and individual rights: there is a price to pay, because it costs money, and money comes from controlling your income, your tax and your spending choices.

You have to choose one or the other. It's either: free choice and individual rights but social support is not a priority; or full social support but decreasing individual rights, freedoms and choice. Suggesting you can have both or that there is a party who offer both, is not logical and indeed incorrect - there is no such party, no matter what it's official or unofficial name is. There are no Liberals any more, because the cost of modern-style government is so immense.

I couldn't agree with you more. But the definition of Liberal I posted above is spoon fed to collage kids by Liberal professors (progressive zealots mostly) and the definition of Conservative did not include the far right, which is something totally different but is applied to conservatives by those progressive professors. Then there is the progressive media, criminalized politics, and a number of other factors that make it almost impossible for the new voter to even know what side one is on.
Platform | Libertarian Party
I don't 100% agree with Libertarians policies but 80% of it I do, More than the Dems or Republicans.

 

[Sirius]

The general 'substance' of Bill's article is 'less gov't intervention' into the ecig industry. That's a political statement. The rest of it is the details 'why'. And that "All real public health advocates support smokers switching to e-cigs, and keeping e-cigs legal." aimed at that 'influential audience'.

In all respects that piece was political. Obamas administration is what he was pointing to regarding the FDA and when you look into those links, the same progressives that are against e-cigs pops up and within other news bits. I've tried to see a way to not be political on this thread. I'll just say last post on this one.
Job well done Bill Godshall .. thanks for the information and the links.

 

[AndriaD]

It's also something of a sick joke to suggest that republicans are in favor of indivdual liberty -- they're only in favor of that if the individual is a white male who goes to the same fundamentalist church -- they're ALL about un-empowering women, particularly with respect to birth control and abortion. Basically they think that women should remain barefoot and pregnant and should be GRATEFUL to be that way! This is the primary reason I haven't supported them, but with the e-cig debate, it seems I have no choice. Just glad that at my age I no longer require birth control.

Andria

 

[Sirius]

Dems Repubs not much difference now a days imo Andria.

 

[dragonpuff]

Republican = Conservative

Demarcat = Liberal


Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

Allow me to present an opposing point of view:

Conservatives believe in maintaining the status quo at all costs. Work primarily for the affluent of our society. Cling to traditional values no matter who they harm. Emphasize the values of one religion, one race, and one gender above all others. Conservatives are not always republicans.

Liberals believe in a progression of law and government based on new knowledge and scientific evidence. Believe in equal rights for all races, religions, and classes. Believe in government assistance toward equal rights, but not in government control (yes there is a difference). Liberals are not always democrats.

Republicans emphasize smaller, local and state governments, while democrats emphasize the bigger, federal government. Many conservatives side with republicans, and many liberals side with democrats, but they are not one and the same.

(I know I said earlier I would try to get back OT, but this was impossible for me to ignore.)

 

[Sirius]

Whether we call ourselves conservative leaning or liberal leaning unless we find a common ground as Godshall has,(Harm Reduction) we are doomed already.
With reports like this coming out on a regular basis:



March 2014

As reported in Bloomberg-Businessweek: "As e-cigarettes become more popular, the federal government is looking for ways to regulate their use, especially among teens. A March study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics reported that 3.3% of 6th to 12th graders said they'd tried e-cigarettes in 2011. In 2012 the number more than doubled, to 6.8%. Using data from the CDC and Prevention, the study found kids who tried e-cigarettes were more likely to try real cigarettes than those who hadn't."
Source/Bloomburg

 

[dragonpuff]

Whether we call ourselves conservative leaning or liberal leaning unless we find a common ground as Godshall has,(Harm Reduction) we are doomed already.
With reports like this coming out on a regular basis:



March 2014

As reported in Bloomberg-Businessweek: "As e-cigarettes become more popular, the federal government is looking for ways to regulate their use, especially among teens. A March study in the journal JAMA Pediatrics reported that 3.3% of 6th to 12th graders said they'd tried e-cigarettes in 2011. In 2012 the number more than doubled, to 6.8%. Using data from the CDC and Prevention, the study found kids who tried e-cigarettes were more likely to try real cigarettes than those who hadn't."
Source/Bloomburg

Exactly.

I, for one, am registered independent and am more than willing to vote for whoever supports my views, through both their rhetoric and legislative history. Given the current state of affairs, vaping is now the #1 issue my votes will be based on. Other issues will be taken into account, for sure, but this is the most urgent issue. This also jibes well with my views, as I believe public policy should be science-based (at the very least). As the above quote shows, it is not.

 

[Kent C]

dragonpuff:Allow me to present an opposing point of view:

Conservatives believe in maintaining the status quo at all costs.

I'm not a conservative but I know this about them:

Wanting to reduce taxes, isn't maintaining the status quo. Neither is:
Wanting to reduce spending.
Wanting to repeal Obamacare.
Wanting to balance the budget.
Wanting to reduce the debt.
Wanting to reduce entitlements.
Wanting to reduce the size of gov't.
Wanting to reduce regulations - even on ecigs.
Wanting to return to a free market economy - mostly - and move away from the fascism (crony capitalism/mixed economy) the progressive have brought through heavy regulation and taxation and some nationalization of industry. (For Libertarians - delete the 'mostly')

Work primarily for the affluent of our society.

Reducing regulations and taxes on small and big businesses helps the affluent, small businesses, their employees and lowers prices for their customers.

Cling to traditional values no matter who they harm.

Traditional values can be rather good, but not because of tradition itself - that's their mistake, where 'tradition' trumps reason. Some tradition came from things that worked well. Some where it only worked well in certain contexts and not so much in other contexts - where conservatives hold on anyway for the sake of tradition - that makes no sense.

Emphasize the values of one religion, one race, and one gender above all others.

This is so ridiculous - but necessary for liberals to promote, in order to gain votes. Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, just to name a few, would disagree, as would 100% of the women on this side. One religion? Milton Friedman and all the conservative Jewish, male and female, so many others to mention....

Conservatives are not always republicans.

Actually most are. What is true though, is not all Republicans are Conservative.

 

[Sirius]

Published on Jul 7, 2014
In the Michael Russell Oration at the Global Forum on Nicotine, Professor Peter Hajek talks about: Michael Russell's seminal work; why harm reduction is controversial and whether alternative nicotine delivery systems increase or decrease cigarette use.