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

[AndriaD]

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.)

And this interpretation is why I have tended to the Dem side, because *I* believe in: "law and government based on new knowledge and scientific evidence, equal rights for all races, religions, and classes, and government assistance toward equal rights," rather than in the Old Rich Christian White Mens' Club.

Ain't it funny though, that the Dems, for all their faith in science, are totally disregarding, just steamrollering right over, the science regarding e-cigs and harm reduction. It makes me sick, it makes me angry, and it's making me into a republican.

Andria

 

[aubergine]

In contentious political discussions, everyone attempts to dominate the narrative by defining crucial terms in a way that promotes their own position.

I could argue at great length against the characterization of US liberalism presented by right wing libertarians and conservatives here. Elsewhere, I do.
Throwing up caricatures of a president that many in here respect and support, however much they disagree with him on this issue, patently biased "definitions", endless and apparently irrepressible baiting of those of us who really are trying to focus on the issue in a way that allows us to work together... bah.
Might be illuminating and instructive if the function of this forum were political debate between hostile factions.
Frankly, I'd rather eat glass than argue larger politics here. I come here to work on opposing a specific issue. I've argued that people would do well to stop bearing down on political differences within this community, in the name of working together.
To acknowledge that Obama is ultimately responsible for signing the bill which our opposition has seized in order to impose draconian and ill-advised regulation on e-cigs is not to say that I'd concede ground on hundreds of other issues, or accept absurd misrepresentation of liberalism/progressivism and etc.; to counter those specifically would simply take this thread down the garden path.
I'm tired of it and not a little bored, as it's redundant, incessant and mostly tedious - carry on, continue to pretend that it's not explicitly inflammatory to many members (who also simply abandon the forum), and this time I'm truly outta here. The provocateurs really aren't going to acknowledge (or even grasp) the issue here, despite lip-service.

 

[Kent C]

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

Liberals believe in a progression of law and government based on new knowledge and scientific evidence.

Many liberals hate the technology that comes from science - it's where the Luddite tag comes from. The back to nature crowd. On the other hand, they couch socialist policies in science - mainly junk science of global warming and here as it applies to ecigarettes. All the Democratic Senators who have sent letters to the FDA for eliminating flavors, and as Bill says on a virtual ban of 99% of ecigs, have cited Glantz, Prue Talbot, et. al and the junk science of no constants, contaminated rooms to analyze vapor and smoke together, and so much more that we've all read. Both Global Cooling in the 70's and Global Warming of the 90's had one thing in common - socialistic solutions. Higher taxes and more regulation.

Believe in equal rights for all races, religions, and classes.

They say that but their policies favor (unequal handling) certain races via quotas and race norming and now certain religions. There are 'prayer rugs' in some public schools now, but no 'Christmas Carols'. The 'Rich' is also a 'class' and their unequal treatment through taxes mainly, which the truly rich can afford to escape, end up hurting those who could become more wealthy - small entrepreneurs or working people that might want to become small business owners but the amount of red tape discourages them doing so. It costs them dearly and is the one thing most significant in doing away with the middle class. Welfare has created institutional poverty and while it might be said that it 'helps' people, a good argument can be made that it destroys natural human ambition and creativity.


Believe in government assistance toward equal rights, but not in government control (yes there is a difference).

It takes government control in order to achieve that. Ask anyone on welfare what rights have been taken away and what hoops they have to jump through in order to receive any assistance at all.

Liberals are not always democrats.

True. Chris Christie, Maine Senators, and many more Republicans and Bernard Sanders, Carol Browner, and many more - Socialists.

Liberals used to have a strong civil libertarian gene but it's been all but snuffed out by politically correct progressives. Where speech, press and certain ideas are considered totally 'inappropriate'. The 'Old Left' would have never tolerated that. Certain speakers would never have been 'banned' or shouted out of colleges. Civil libertarians thought - let them speak - and you will see They thought liberal minds could handle it without being affected. No longer - it's too much of a danger to them.



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.

True for the most part. And libertarians are mostly neither - although there are what are called 'left-libertarians' and 'right-libertarians'. Some libertarians have invaded the Republican party.

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

Same here.

Ignore back on for me.....

 

[dragonpuff]

Kent, you know I always appreciate your point of view the point of my post was to rebut another post that painted conservatives as all good and liberals as all bad, by presenting the opposite view. Thus, when combining the two views (as people who read through all these posts will do), it presents a more well-rounded picture.

That said, while I do disagree with some of what you said in rebutting me, I will step out of that debate and let you have the last word because I have no interest in continuing to debate this topic on this thread. This is not the place for such a discussion. Of course, e-cigs always involve politics, but when we get into discussing political topics that are quite far from the issues surrounding e-cigs, it is off topic here.

I will close my end of this political topic by stating flatly that all republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. are all at least partly evil and corrupt when involved in politics. These days you need to be corrupt just to be a politician, so I see no point in drawing thick lines between groups. It is not about their views, what they say they want or will do - it is about which financial interests are backing them. That is what matters most. We need to focus on their actions, not their intentions.

 

[Sirius]

In contentious political discussions, everyone attempts to dominate the narrative by defining crucial terms in a way that promotes their own position.

I could argue at great length against the characterization of US liberalism presented by right wing libertarians and conservatives here. Elsewhere, I do.
Throwing up caricatures of a president that many in here respect and support, however much they disagree with him on this issue, patently biased "definitions", endless and apparently irrepressible baiting of those of us who really are trying to focus on the issue in a way that allows us to work together... bah.
Might be illuminating and instructive if the function of this forum were political debate between hostile factions.
Frankly, I'd rather eat glass than argue larger politics here. I come here to work on opposing a specific issue. I've argued that people would do well to stop bearing down on political differences within this community, in the name of working together.
To acknowledge that Obama is ultimately responsible for signing the bill which our opposition has seized in order to impose draconian and ill-advised regulation on e-cigs is not to say that I'd concede ground on hundreds of other issues, or accept absurd misrepresentation of liberalism/progressivism and etc.; to counter those specifically would simply take this thread down the garden path.
I'm tired of it and not a little bored, as it's redundant, incessant and mostly tedious - carry on, continue to pretend that it's not explicitly inflammatory to many members (who also simply abandon the forum), and this time I'm truly outta here. The provocateurs really aren't going to acknowledge (or even grasp) the issue here, despite lip-service.

Unfortunately that's the way the world works. Disregard or cheat on evidence to gain converts to a particular stance whether on moral grounds, where they think cheating is okay because they are saving lives, or for other reasons. Like the good doctor said in the video, ANTZ want to eradicate tobacco period. They use unfounded scientific theory or cheat on the evidence. To them all that matters is the goal and to create converts.
If you show ANTZ proof e-cigs are harmless that makes no difference to them. They would say, well if it helps to eradicate smoking and the use of tobacco to NOT have ecigs lets do away with them. They want people on their side badly enough that they will lie about statistics of the number of children that have been poisoned with e-liquids or have tried e-cigs and went straight to smoking cigarettes.

 

[AndriaD]

Unfortunately that's the way the world works. Disregard or cheat on evidence to gain converts to a particular stance whether on moral grounds, where they think cheating is okay because they are saving lives, or for other reasons. Like the good doctor said in the video, ANTZ want to eradicate tobacco period. They use unfounded scientific theory or cheat on the evidence. To them all that matters is the goal and to create converts.
If you show ANTZ proof e-cigs are harmless that makes no difference to them. They would say, well if it helps to eradicate smoking and the use of tobacco to NOT have ecigs lets do away with them. They want people on their side badly enough that they will lie about statistics of the number of children that have been poisoned with e-liquids or have tried e-cigs and went straight to smoking cigarettes.

And that's where they make their biggest mistake, because I know for a fact that if I couldn't vape, and do it in a satisfying manner, I WOULD go back to smoking. Period. And I'm probably very far from the only one. So how does that advance their Cause? It doesn't. They're cutting off their noses to spite their idiot faces, and they're too stupid and hidebound to even realize it. It's like they think that not having e-cigs will mean that all those using them will just stop using nicotine in any fashion -- AND THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE! A great many of us would just go back to smoking.

That's probably exactly what BT and BP are counting on -- but the ANTZ are just fantasists, dreaming that they can impose their puritanical values on everyone, everywhere.

Andria

 

[dragonpuff]

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.

I have seen this before, and I loved it! Definitely a must-see

 

[Kent C]

Kent, you know I always appreciate your point of view the point of my post was to rebut another post that painted conservatives as all good and liberals as all bad, by presenting the opposite view. Thus, when combining the two views (as people who read through all these posts will do), it presents a more well-rounded picture.

That said, while I do disagree with some of what you said in rebutting me, I will step out of that debate and let you have the last word because I have no interest in continuing to debate this topic on this thread. This is not the place for such a discussion. Of course, e-cigs always involve politics, but when we get into discussing political topics that are quite far from the issues surrounding e-cigs, it is off topic here.

I will close my end of this political topic by stating flatly that all republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. are all at least partly evil and corrupt when involved in politics. These days you need to be corrupt just to be a politician, so I see no point in drawing thick lines between groups. It is not about their views, what they say they want or will do - it is about which financial interests are backing them. That is what matters most. We need to focus on their actions, not their intentions.

I agree except for the last paragraph, in that I wouldn't say 'all' - some in all parties/politics (and Dems I respect) are not corrupt and some base their votes on their own politics, even though I might not agree with them. Some refuse earmarks:

https://www.opensecrets.org/earmarks/index.php?type=N&cycle=2009

... and although it is not an absolute indicator, it is somewhat of an indicator.

That said, I'd 'edit' to: "a large majority" of them are corrupt and take money from financial interests, but I'd also say that it is they who are responsible for that. If they all refused what are in reality 'bribes', then the financial interests would be on equal footing in a free market. And those that did well would survive and those that didn't couldn't buy congress in order to survive. They'd all be working for someone else, which is the way it should be, imo.

If on the other hand, there were people who wanted to go into business and couldn't because of 'private' opposition for whatever reason - race, gender, orientation, etc. - then the gov't should prosecute any of those type of crimes to the fullest extent, but not prop them up by discriminating against, taxing, regulating others. Only leveling the playing field - not tipping it.

 

[Kent C]

I know for a fact that if I couldn't vape, and do it in a satisfying manner, I WOULD go back to smoking. Period.

As would I. At this point, I'm good for about 10 years (nic base in a freezer) of vaping unless they get to confiscation.

 

[sonicdsl]

Bring back on topic now please:

19 Aug 14 - Bill Godshall - Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes
in Physicians News Digest

Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes


- This is the great text by Bill Godshall (advocate of tobacco harm reduction) that we have been reading as a comment in several publications. Now we can link to it

The growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence consistently indicates that electronic cigarettes (e-cigs):
- are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes,
- are consumed almost exclusively (i.e. >99%) by smokers and exsmokers who quit by switching to e-cigs,
- have helped several million smokers quit and/or sharply reduce cigarette consumption,
- have replaced about 1 Billion packs of cigarettes in the US in the past five years,
- are more effective than FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges, patches and inhalers for smoking cessation and reducing cigarette consumption,
- pose fewer risks than FDA approved Verenicline (Chantix),
- pose no risks to nonusers,
- have further denormalized cigarette smoking,
- have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker, and
- have never been found to precede cigarette smoking in any daily smoker.

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.

All real public health advocates support smokers switching to e-cigs, and keeping e-cigs legal.

Bill, you rock!

 

[Kent C]

Bring back on topic now please:

For as much 'to do' that has been made about second hand smoke, one would think that this:

pose no risks to nonusers

... would be huge! But it is rarely mentioned by ANTZ - who are the ones that made the big 'to do' over SHS.

 

[dragonpuff]

For as much 'to do' that has been made about second hand smoke, one would think that this:

pose no risks to nonusers

... would be huge! But it is rarely mentioned by ANTZ - who are the ones that made the big 'to do' over SHS.

This is another instance where they deny the truth and twist the studies. We know that vapor isn't harmful to bystanders, but because studies found that the vapor contains something, they claim that something is harmful and the unsuspecting innocent populace should not be subject to that something (despite that there is actually nothing harmful there above trace amounts).

My favorite was the twisting of the micro droplets issue - that study showed nothing other than that the size of the droplets in the vapor is tiny, and that if there were something harmful in the vapor it would be carried deep into the lungs... and they twist this to say that all those harmful noxious substances (which do not exist in vapor) are going to cause harm to deep lung tissue!

For shame...

 

[AndriaD]

For as much 'to do' that has been made about second hand smoke, one would think that this:

pose no risks to nonusers

... would be huge! But it is rarely mentioned by ANTZ - who are the ones that made the big 'to do' over SHS.

Thus proving that ANTZ really are just puritanical idiots. Anything that THEY wouldn't do... well it's just BAAAAAAAAD. That's all they know, and all they care about is having everyone do just exactly what THEY would do. They're fascists, pretending to care about "the chiiiildren" when all they really care about is getting their own way -- just exactly LIKE chiiiiildren.

Andria

 

[Sirius]

Even the public health officials will falsify data in the name of saving the children as Godshall pointed out in order to gain converts to their position. That's nothing new and I for one have even read where one such official lies about their being anti freeze products in e-liquid that were poisonous. I forget her name or even the piece I read it in, but I did see that.
That official was desperate to grab at anything to be able to say, see I'm right. She clearly was confusing the facts there. True Propylene Glycol is used in Dynalene Heat Transfer Fluid and Anti Freeze, but is the same food grade used in many products and isn't harmful at all. It's the PG in your eliquid as well as you must know.

 

[Kent C]

This is another instance where they deny the truth and twist the studies. We know that vapor isn't harmful to bystanders, but because studies found that the vapor contains something, they claim that something is harmful and the unsuspecting innocent populace should not be subject to that something (despite that there is actually nothing harmful there above trace amounts).

.

So true and imo, it is a vestige of the idea that individuals' actions must harm someone else for the gov't to be involved. Although, they blatantly intervene in other areas without a scent of that idea

 

[Sirius]

So true and imo, it is a vestige of the idea that individuals' actions must harm someone else for the gov't to be involved. Although, they blatantly intervene in other areas without a scent of that idea

Kent you mustn't use e-cigs because they have the exact thing in them as anti freeze..lol

 

[Kent C]

Thus proving that ANTZ really are just puritanical idiots. Anything that THEY wouldn't do... well it's just BAAAAAAAAD. That's all they know, and all they care about is having everyone do just exactly what THEY would do. They're *........* pretending to care about "the chiiiildren" when all they really care about is getting their own way -- just exactly LIKE chiiiiildren.

Andria

... but you're right

 

[Kent C]

Kent you mustn't use e-cigs because they have the exact thing in them as anti freeze..lol

Lol... PG in anti-freeze saved my cat dog!

PG good for dogs, not so much for cats ;- )

 

[Stosh]

Bill's article is right on and very well written, hits all the important parts HARD. Hope someone somewhere in a position of power reads it and takes it seriously.

RE: the politics, if the personnel in your chain of command (those you can vote for) of whatever flavor, in whatever country fails to perform, ignores the points Bill made in his article.....then. It is the duty of everyone to point out their short comings WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY to the political nimrods and get them to change their views or vote them out of office.

Let the elected officials at every level know that if you don't change your views that you can't support them in any fashion, and this applies for any issue not just vaping.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Nevermind .....