A reasonably balance newspaper article

[CountBoredom]

E-cigarettes appear much less risky than smoking, scientists say

Provides a reasonably balanced perspective, particularly regarding some of the more alarmist "studies" that have been performed.

 

[Marc411]

That is one of the most balanced and researched articles I have read to date. He based his report on interviewing Doctors that are researching vaping and used direct quotes. He also mentions how the information gets twisted and provided links to studies. The writer went so far as to learn the different types of delivery systems and their price points.

Overall I think it's a damn good article.

 

[KY_Rob]

E-cigarettes appear much less risky than smoking, scientists say

Provides a reasonably balanced perspective, particularly regarding some of the more alarmist "studies" that have been performed.

Just the facts please...and that's all that was provided. Stanton Glantz probably had to change his shorts after reading that peice

 

[r77r7r]

How comes CASAA or similar entities Don't write articles like these? I only usually see blogs.

 

[EBates]

Great article! The really sad part is this article has so many points that contradict the Media/Govmt Pushed Propaganda that it will be buried for the benefit of Govmt Prohibition and/or Unjust Taxation.
Govmt Mantra:
Have a Camel and Keep The Tax Money Comin'

 

[FishingBuffalo]

Great article and unbiased. A reporter that reports, not leaning. The more of these articles get out, the better chance of reaching a smoker that has had doubts recently. Too much direct negative publicity and not enough unbiased (in this report)/positive. Got to admit seeing a guy running out of a convenience store with his pocket on fire does not sit well with public perception.

 

[EBates]

Great article and unbiased. A reporter that reports, not leaning. The more of these articles get out, the better chance of reaching a smoker that has had doubts recently. Too much direct negative publicity and not enough unbiased (in this report)/positive. Got to admit seeing a guy running out of a convenience store with his pocket on fire does not sit well with public perception.

The incident you refer to was a Mis-Handled Battery Not an E-Cig fire. But the Media-For Hire didn't see fit to headline it that way. Just sayin'

 

[FishingBuffalo]

Mishandled by his own admission, I saw the interview-yes. Still brings negative perception to general public. The interview came after the fire vid. At least a major city newspaper had some kind of positive light. We need more of that. The "Face on Fire Bouncy House Guy" didn't have blame put on the bouncy house as all could see.

 

[Kent C]

Another 'apparently balanced' piece that isn't.

"However, that raises a question now being fiercely debated: Have vapers really improved their health or have they exchanged one bad habit for another?"

There's many studies that show this isn't the case.

"Smoking cessation brings undisputed health benefits. In contrast, scientists can only make an educated guess about the effects of switching to e-cigarettes."

Educated guess??? Scientists know that it is the smoke and tar that causes the lung problems/cancer/emphysema and they know that those factors - smoke and tar - aren't part of the e-cigarette experience. All real scientists should say outright - that what makes cigarettes harmful is NOT present in ecigarettes. No guessing needed. They should know this.

"Researchers said it’s their impression that vaping is much safer than smoking, which is backed by a few studies. But many more years will be needed to draw firm conclusions."

The 'we don't know' argument when in fact they either know or at least should know. All the long term effects of VG and PG inhalation from industry studies is known - they are harmless, and they have long term studies for their patches and gum - one conclusion is that the addiction is not as strong with NRT as with cigarettes.

"Nicotine itself brings health hazards. It constricts blood vessels and may interfere with fetal brain development. There’s no clear evidence whether it increases the risk of cancer or heart disease."

Many substances constrict blood vessels - including some medicines but caffeine as well. And another use of the word 'may' (which can be attributed to almost anything - I may win the Republican nomination if it goes to a brokered convention lol.) And there IS clear evidence that nicotine is NOT a carcinogen. They state that in the next paragraph - "But the main concern with cigarette smoking is not nicotine."

And that's just the first page.... several other "balanced" views that continue to repeat the negatives - but throw in a few positives - standard propaganda technique - if you're too negative then your article is dismissed out of hand - if you appear to be "balanced" you can sneak in the negatives which is where people tend to focus.

 

[skoony]

@Kent C Have you noticed a slight trend lately? What I mean is in these types
of articles with their faint praise that the good things about e-cigarettes are
gradually gaining column space and the rehashed bad things are losing space.
This is the most balanced article covering both I have seen so far. If this trend
continues I already have a tin foil hat hatched theory concerning it.
Anyway it's just something I picked up on and i'm just wondering if it is just
me.

Regards
Mike

 

[Kent C]

@Kent C Have you noticed a slight trend lately? What I mean is in these types
of articles with their faint praise that the good things about e-cigarettes are
gradually gaining column space and the rehashed bad things are losing space.
This is the most balanced article covering both I have seen so far. If this trend
continues I already have a tin foil hat hatched theory concerning it.
Anyway it's just something I picked up on and i'm just wondering if it is just
me.

Regards
Mike

For the last year, maybe year and a half, the articles have been mostly negative - something I've always considered as the setup propaganda for a severe 'deeming' either in a ban or real high taxes, so that when that 'comes down' - everyone (except vapers) go "of course" - given the blast of negatives.

What goes against that is the continued sales and outright enjoyment of vapers, young vapers and people getting off cigarettes or not starting to smoke but vaping instead. Hence, imo, the 'delay' in the deeming. There is going to be a huge backlash at any real ban and a thriving black market if that's where it goes.

 

[skoony]

@Kent C I agree with you so far up to know. I am sensing a little of it's bad but,not that bad
but,still bad enough to make sure we handle the commercial end and BP will handle the
medicinal end kinda bad.
I told you about my tin foil hat didn't I?

mike