Great response... would love to see the counter from ASH. Im sure its nothing but twisting of words, and ignoring the points.
My best,
-VP
Also need to stop these fools!
- Thread starter vaportiger
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Great response... would love to see the counter from ASH. Im sure its nothing but twisting of words, and ignoring the points.
My best,
-VP
TB is probably (ok... definitely) right on here that they won't respond. As they know they are lying and being as big as they are, they don't have to.
It's that old thought process: If you say the lie enough times, it becomes truth. ASH is a prime example of a group that says the lie enough times that they forget what they are peddling is a lie.
That's ok though. Personally, I think groups like this are privately shaking in their boots because they know damn straight that their propaganda foothold days are quickly coming to an end.
They did not see this product coming (which I think speaks highly of their ignorance) and now, even some of their very own fanboys are going "Wait? Didn't we want to end SHS? Didn't we want to get people off of tobacco? What seriously is so wrong with this?"TB is probably (ok... definitely) right on here that they won't respond. As they know they are lying and being as big as they are, they don't have to.
It's that old thought process: If you say the lie enough times, it becomes truth. ASH is a prime example of a group that says the lie enough times that they forget what they are peddling is a lie.
That's ok though. Personally, I think groups like this are privately shaking in their boots because they know damn straight that their propaganda foothold days are quickly coming to an end.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think these groups have not only contemplated the concept but have fought the battle before. Ash is not for the harm reduction umbrella that encompasses the e-cig and any other form of nicotine other than safety tested but ineffective NRT. ASH's main arguments currently center on the welfare of children...which is a hard concept to fight.
ASH and others have founded their ideas and rhetoric on a questionable premise developed by epidemiologists called the "precautionary principle". Basically, the principle is that one need not wait for studies to "prove" something is dangerous, one simply could act on the premise it might be harmful. Thus, traditional scientific research has been turned up-side down and are in the position of proving something the epidemiologists have already warned the masses about. Framing...they're experts at it.
Link to more on the precautionary principle (PP):
"Precautionary Principle
Excerpts: "A precautionary principle decision-making tool must be developed based upon this policy framework. Preliminary research into the precautionary principle has found that rather than being a quantitative tool, potentially limited by a lack of data, uncertainties, and assumptions, the precautionary decision-making protocol must establish qualitative criteria for decision-making.
Thus, the protocol must consist of methodological guidelines for weighing scientific evidence and qualitative decision-making criteria that will instruct policy makers on how to proceed when dealing with limited or uncertain scientific evidence. It would consist of a two part decision tree analysis: (1) one section for decision-making based on potential hazards which already exist; and (2) a second part for decision-making regarding the introduction of new chemicals, products, and activities with potential impacts. Precaution would serve as a default decision if clear evidence of harm or safety were absent.
The precautionary principle provides a new approach to weighing scientific evidence and making decisions in the face of uncertainty. As such, the precautionary principle can provide the basis of a policy framework and decision making tool to allow agency policy makers and scientists to deal with current and future environmental challenges. It will help to streamline environmental decision-making, providing a mechanism to address decision-making barriers posed by uncertainty. The precautionary principle lends itself to pollution prevention approaches and multi-stakeholder, participatory decision-making, central to the agencies' and the public health community's missions. It provides a model to advance the development of new policies and technologies designed to prevent pollution, and environmental damage, at the source.
My Remarks:Why do you think most of the smoking bans were enacted using the "Clean Indoor Air Act". Every state has one. Think baby steps..
Another, site with more verbage but good examples and be warned takes a long time to load
:The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science
You can use any search engine to find how the precautionary principle has permeated the mentality of our scientific fields and are the foundation for the anti-anything group's zeal such as that modeled by ASH. One could see where precaution would and should rule the day, but applying it across the board is foolish and prevents new products from being developed (especially when nicotine has quantitative research in place).
I offered the pollution example, with it's subsequent act/board, as an example of how the PP was used against smoking...at least the e-cig can bypass the pollution allegations if the e-cig can prove no pollution. A viscious circle of logic isn't it?
Ladyraj, that was well put. I personally think there are several interests that feed on each other even within the same group/organization. What complicates this even more is that ASH is also promoting an ideology (TropicalBob touched on that I think). Reasoning often doesn't work in such situation, it is almost like arguing about religion, you can't win. (What sometimes can work is going after those other interests the group may have.)
The capitalism you mentioned has probably the best chance to keep the door from closing on vaping. But the vendors and suppliers need to be much better organized, build/expand a trade group with co-ordinated lobbying and PR. That will happen when the businesses commit more capital into this (which is already starting to happen somewhat with some businesses getting into manufacturing, technology design, etc).
I don't think that the big US tobacco is ready to exploit vaping. These giants are just not agile enough for that (look at the US car manufacturers). They already have hundreds of lawyers on the payroll, so it will be cheaper for them to get vaping stopped instead of competing...
Im with you Ladyraj... agreed. Well said, well thought out.
My best,
-VP
Thanks VP! It's nice to know someone not only reads what I write but they are of a like mind as well!
"I still buy cigarettes and every time I light up I am contributing to my country...do I get a thank you for being so patriotic?" Thank you for your contribution to America and especially "for the children" who will be saved by the SCHIP taxes you and I pay. I will light one up also.
As for the rest of your post, Ladyraj....brilliantly said. I especially agree with the idea that vapers begging on their knees to please let me continue vaping, and I will hide over there in the darkness so "the children" can't see me is especially true. By buying products that look like crack pipes to please the masses who cannot stand the sight of something that looks like a cigarette, we are feeding their addiction to control. Do what you do and don't beg or apologize. It will get you NOWHERE
As for the rest of your post, Ladyraj....brilliantly said. I especially agree with the idea that vapers begging on their knees to please let me continue vaping, and I will hide over there in the darkness so "the children" can't see me is especially true. By buying products that look like crack pipes to please the masses who cannot stand the sight of something that looks like a cigarette, we are feeding their addiction to control. Do what you do and don't beg or apologize. It will get you NOWHERE
The little rebel in me loves the terminology because the words are delivered in a language I understand...logic. But I am troubled by these words:
"You recently linked to our website, www.ECigaretteDirect.com, from a page on your website calling for an anti-electronic cigarette petition. Strangely enough, given your position, you linked to a page where a doctor, Joel Nitzkin, Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, called for an end to opposition to the electronic cigarette."
The above indicates a rather "trickster" approach that may offend petition signers even more and give the impression that hijackers are corrupting their website links. I can imagine all of the people wanting to sign logging off quickly to run an anti-virus. Which may be good in the short run...but does nothing for the image of e-cig users as honest and responsible citizens who seek a less hazardous choice. The disclaimer that "strangely enough, given your position" can be perceived as insulting that a mere accident occurred and a verbal assault on people who have already made up their minds and are therby less open to the message that follows.
Ok I know that I am hung up on how things are framed and phrased but that very hang-up comes from years of formal training and experience. (I took a vocational inventory once that resulted in one position open to me...scientific linguist).
I'm just saying....Thanks TBob!
I've been thinking about your situation as reported on this forum...particularly when it comes to that little something you miss from smoking cigarettes. I am not an herbalist or alternative medicine follower but I did find a vitamin that gives me the cognitive kick I love so much that I find lacking in vaping. What worked for me is a bottle of 500 mg flush-free niacin. Niacin, as you may have heard, is suspected to occur in the combustion of tobacco products. I take 1 every morning and night. If I vape more I add a third dose.
The Precautionary principle can not be used on it's own. If it were (or had been) applied to Mobile (Cell) Phones, for instance, would this have lead to a ban? Could it lead to a ban in the future? There are other factors at play including a group with a need to save others from a perceived 'deadly' threat. This blueprint works for tobacco, alcohol and the obese yet fails for automobiles, eletricity pylons and mobiles (at the moment).
At this time the e-cig could go either way.
Of interest http://www.tobaccofreemc.com/Ginzel/The%20Future%20of%20Tobacco%20only%20Gray%20and%20KHG.pdf written in 2005 by N Gray IARC.
Mr Gray's idea of not prohibiting tobacco is allowing 'grow your own' only!. Although this argues for a tabacco free future it does show that some people were interested in harm reduction, though if you read the BMJ RR http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7522/972#119890you come across the hard line position from John R Polito...
It does not matter that the e-cig is healthier or safer. For some the fact that it contains Nicotine at all is a problem . Mr Polito was railing against the use of NRT as a harm reduction product and to some extent he is right since the NRT failure rate is high and has not worked. The RR discussion shows once more the Pharmaceutical/tobacco dicotomy.
Again the e-cig (IMHO) falls into its own category.
Which way the e-cig goes could well depend on the general public's sentiment and acceptance. A little science and a lot of emotion.
----
Edit: Link correction
At this time the e-cig could go either way.
Of interest http://www.tobaccofreemc.com/Ginzel/The%20Future%20of%20Tobacco%20only%20Gray%20and%20KHG.pdf written in 2005 by N Gray IARC.
Mr Gray's idea of not prohibiting tobacco is allowing 'grow your own' only!. Although this argues for a tabacco free future it does show that some people were interested in harm reduction, though if you read the BMJ RR http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7522/972#119890you come across the hard line position from John R Polito...
He also says
It does not matter that the e-cig is healthier or safer. For some the fact that it contains Nicotine at all is a problem . Mr Polito was railing against the use of NRT as a harm reduction product and to some extent he is right since the NRT failure rate is high and has not worked. The RR discussion shows once more the Pharmaceutical/tobacco dicotomy.
Again the e-cig (IMHO) falls into its own category.
Which way the e-cig goes could well depend on the general public's sentiment and acceptance. A little science and a lot of emotion.
----
Edit: Link correction
Last edited:
Hey Sar, thank you for the kind words. I am of the mind that ASH, as a quasi-religious group will falter with their extremism. It only takes one miss-step with hyperbole or a bevy of out-dated and out-landish claims for the organization to become unfavorable. Proof that what we as individual's write about ASH can and has effected the way they adapt their website is evident in the lambasting of a "moral credo" for a christian return to values that was posted by the host last month. It was at the top of the page...but no more.
Further, the concept that the smokers could become protected by the ADA has precipitated Banzhaff himself to set his students on writing nonsmokers initiatives ouside of the US using the WHO's FCTC platform (the US has not adopted the FCTC). The ADA in the US may weigh allergic (cough-cough) nonsmokers in the balance but they do it on a case by case basis. Between me, you, and the fencepost...the ADA is very aware that it is not the medical aspects of how one suffers from the SHS exposure...it is the mental aspect of perception of the level of suffering and almost delusional contentions. By the time you make it to the ADA with nothing but an allergy and abhorance of cigarette smoke they know whats up! A NEW WEAPON TO PROTECT NONSMOKERS ABROAD
Capitalism, yeah baby! If one shares the pie wheels are greased rather quickly. For instance, part of the reports gathered for the feasibility of the pending FDA bill before our legislators is a cost benefit analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) if the bill passes. Needless to say the funds to set up and regulate tobacco are from the tobacco company themselves. Of course what is added on to the bill is automatic enrollment into the Thrift Savings Plan TSP (government employment retirement acounts) with a percentage of matching funds. That part isn't talked about much and consists of the last few pages of a bill about 287 pages long...and counting. So the cost benefit analysis proves that the whole thing is do-able and promises a return for TICAP contributions in 6 months. Oh...and they regulate tobacco too!!!
CBO analysis at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10025/hr1256.pdf
HR 1256 and TSP: News Articles: Tobacco and the Thrift Savings Plan: What Is the Link Between Them?
TSP website: TSP Talk - Thrift Savings Plan
I suspect the tobacco companies may have something up their sleeves regarding e-cigs but maybe that's because I find it hard to believe that China beat us to it!
Hey West, I understand your points but I submit that although the Precautionary Principle appears to not be the default stance of all dangers that may be lurking, it does set a pseudo-scientific precedent for anti-nicotine groups to hang their lack of proof hats on. The use of PP appears evident in the animosity demostrated towards the e-cig and the argument that e-cigs have not been proved safe. I'm confused on your point about how e-cigs are different and have their own category...how so?
It's a stretch to use the PP with mobile phones because that aspect of harm, compared to smoking, was something that seemed outside the realm of possibility except on airlines...where it was used The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science. There are groups in Arizona who would argue the harm of cell phone towers, mobiles, and electrical pylons because of various alleged harmful effects and they are calling for goverment intervention in the matter. The PP is currently being used to not build schools next to power lines (I suppose the existent schools must devise aluminum hats for the children and insulated clothing). The use of PP was instrumental in developing acceptable emissions from automobiles that required retrofitting not only for the manufacturers but also the development of unleaded gas and compliance of gas stations. And last but not least...the pink elephant in the room...the justification for the above, air pollution and global warming. My favorite response to that can be found here:
Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu - Times Online
PP strikes again, this time it's due to what you eat and of course lifestyle choices.
PS-The PP's origin was for environmental and epidemiological issues. Food, alcohol, and smoking were secondary issues. (one could argue that epidemiology encompasses everything but I wish they would focus on epidemics of infectious disease that kills 33% of the world's population Cause of Death). I'm just waiting for the study of methane to declare an epidemic of lamb burps.
I think you need to ask what the cost versus benefit is to come to the most sensible balance. What would it cost to ban all cell phones? You always make value judgment trade offs: cell phones are used by millions and there are 500 deaths that are attributed to them each year (I am making these numbers up). You need to decide if benefit to the society outweighs the cost of 500 deaths. But you are also moving into very tricky territory. What if the deaths were 5,000 or 50,000?
I want to have the freedom to vape and theoretically vaping can cause harm to at least one person or even death (lets say the vaper decides to drink all the liquid). You need to figure out what the cost really is, how many could really be harmed by vaping. Groups like ASH may say that even one death from vaping is too many, which is irrational. But what is the threshold? What is the acceptable "price" for freedom to vape?
Of course, ASH would probably stop here. But there is another side to examine: what is the benefit of vaping, what is the upside? How many smokers may avoid health problems or early demise? How many fires could be prevented?
ladyraj, good points and I agree with what you are saying. I was suggesting that PP may not be the only factor, although once invoked and accepted that it applies, it is difficult to argue against. (I deliberately avoided AGW). I was suggesting that PP+Public=Ban and that the e-cig is in a precarious position. It is quite possible that the PP invocation may not work as well with the e-cig as a number of clinicians are not on board.
ladyraj wrote
There is much science that runs counter to any PP claim. The ingredients in the e-liquid have been studied and in the main found safe. The FDA position of a new drug is tenuous. I liked the comment made about Potatoes and Gravy. So it is not quite so easy to invoke the PP and as the ASH epetition shows, outrageous claims of toxic nicotine eminating from vapours is required to raise the threat level. ASH et al want to associate e-cigs with tobacco, because of the time and effort they have put into demonizing tobacco and their disdain for anything that looks like smoking. I was suggesting that ecigs are not in the same category as tobacco and should be treated on their own merits (a separate category).
Sar makes some interesting comments on Cost/Benefit. Which to a certain extent goes to the heart of the issue. Will the 'public' accept the benefits or be persuaded by the ASH machine and hysteria generated about anything to do with smoking? It also ties back into the point made by ladyraj "it [the PP] does set a pseudo-scientific precedent for anti-nicotine groups to hang their lack of proof hats on."
----
ladyraj wrote
There is much science that runs counter to any PP claim. The ingredients in the e-liquid have been studied and in the main found safe. The FDA position of a new drug is tenuous. I liked the comment made about Potatoes and Gravy. So it is not quite so easy to invoke the PP and as the ASH epetition shows, outrageous claims of toxic nicotine eminating from vapours is required to raise the threat level. ASH et al want to associate e-cigs with tobacco, because of the time and effort they have put into demonizing tobacco and their disdain for anything that looks like smoking. I was suggesting that ecigs are not in the same category as tobacco and should be treated on their own merits (a separate category).
There have been studies on the links with Brain cancer, something that could affect any mobile phone user. It is known that the handset (a low power RF transmitter) does warm the brain and also that digital RF at high frequency, as from a mobile handset, may impact on thought processes. In the UK the recommendation is to limit the amount of time a mobile is used by children under (if I recall correctly) 12. It would have been easy for a campaign group to invoke the PP, yet there is so much public acceptance, it hasn't happened.
Sar makes some interesting comments on Cost/Benefit. Which to a certain extent goes to the heart of the issue. Will the 'public' accept the benefits or be persuaded by the ASH machine and hysteria generated about anything to do with smoking? It also ties back into the point made by ladyraj "it [the PP] does set a pseudo-scientific precedent for anti-nicotine groups to hang their lack of proof hats on."
----
Hey West, just a few counterpoints:
There are in fact more clinicians that hold a wait and see approach. Trust me once you put your hand up and swear that 1st you will do no harm, classically trained clinicians know the PP is inherant in their oath. A lot of proof for reduced harm must be researched before a majority of clinicians will publicly tout e-cigs.
The available science may prove that liquid contents in our e-cig may be safe but the queries making the news refer to the lack of studies regarding the coctail of nicotine and PG/VG paired with possible interaction effects. Further, there are no studies of the atomizers, that deliver a substance via direct inhalation of a fine mist, that may have detrimental effects on our tiniest airsacs and crosses the blood-brain barrier making e-cigs more addictive in nature. The FDA has, as the group has been tasked for the job to regulate medical devices, the marketing of the e-cig has made health allegations with these devices.
Regarding the cell phone and the PP...Airlines use it to prevent any miscues to their electrical system based on this premise. What a shame it didn't create havoc for the planes on 9-11-01. Your mentioning that your Country recommends limiting usage with warnings of digital RF signals on thought processes and age restrictions is an example of the PP, not a ban but "suggestions" of prevention of possible harm until longitudinal studies prove one way or the other.
The FDA stance: Cell Phones
Cell Phones
Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and similar wireless devices before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices. However, FDA does have the authority to take action if cell phones are shown to emit radiofrequency energy (RF) at a level that is hazardous to the user. In such a case, FDA could require cell phone manufacturers to notify users of the health hazard and to repair, replace or recall the phones so that the hazard no longer exists.
More at: OET -- RF Safety FAQ's
ladyraj
I can go around the houses sometimes! I was trying to give examples where the PP has been succesfully employed by campain groups to get bans and where it hasn't and trying to understand where and why it does or does not work. In soime circumstances we have the 'if one life is saved, it is worth it' at any cost and others where people either do not think about it or do not seem bothered. VP mentioned 'perception' and this does seem to be important.
It is a pity health claims were made as this has opened the door. It is easy to see why those claims were made when comparing cigs to e-cigs.
Agreed on the atomizers. Though on the mist.....
Interesting article --> Air Germicide (1942)
Whatever happened to this research?
This study shows that PG does appear to be safe, even at high levels, Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Inhaled Cyclosporine in Propylene Glycol --> Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Journal of Aerosol Medicine - Dec 2007
The ASTDR ([US]Agency for Toxic Substances and Dsicease registry) do have a lot of information on PG at --> ATSDR - Toxicological Profile: Propylene Glycol with specific information on health --> PG - Health Effects
So the issue becomes the mix or Potato and Gravy. Potatoes are safe to eat, gravy is safe to eat, is it safe to eat potatoes covered in gravy or is this a new 'mix' that needs investigation?
We have discussed at length the addiction question. Wrt the e-cig there are no studies (afik) only anecdotal evidence.
The 'non-addictive' nature of NRT has been put down to the slow delivery and the idea of targeting the minimum number of NARs (nicotinic-acetylcholine receptors) to satisfy cravings while avoiding addiction.
E-cigs do much more than NRT. It is interesting that people vape 0 nic and that people seem to stop cigs almost as a side effect. This is the most confusing aspect of the e-cig and challenges the nicotine addiction theory head-on.
Are e-cigs safe? A pretty meaningless question really. Are they safe compared to other acceptable products? Short term, given the evidence so far it appears that way.
Should a clinician employ the PP? Well given that they could be sued if they endorsed e-cigs and it later turned out that they were not a safer alternative then the answer would be yes and many would adopt this approach. Others recognise that they do appear safer and could impact public health (for both user and bystander) dramatically and so are willing to endorse them.
Many will take a cautious approach and more research is needed, yet the benefits seem to outweigh some of the concerns. The research is limited but so far positive. (Aside, what if people switch and it becomes obvious that all the illness apparently associated with tobacco use does not decline? )
It will be interesting to see what happens in LI (Suffolk county) as this is a direct test of some of the points raised in this thread.
----
I can go around the houses sometimes! I was trying to give examples where the PP has been succesfully employed by campain groups to get bans and where it hasn't and trying to understand where and why it does or does not work. In soime circumstances we have the 'if one life is saved, it is worth it' at any cost and others where people either do not think about it or do not seem bothered. VP mentioned 'perception' and this does seem to be important.
It is a pity health claims were made as this has opened the door. It is easy to see why those claims were made when comparing cigs to e-cigs.
Agreed on the atomizers. Though on the mist.....
Interesting article --> Air Germicide (1942)
Whatever happened to this research?
This study shows that PG does appear to be safe, even at high levels, Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Inhaled Cyclosporine in Propylene Glycol --> Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Journal of Aerosol Medicine - Dec 2007
The thing here is that Cyclosporine is an immunosuppresant used to stop lung rejection in transplants. To use PG as the vehicle in these circumstances would clearly suggest it was safe to inhale.
The ASTDR ([US]Agency for Toxic Substances and Dsicease registry) do have a lot of information on PG at --> ATSDR - Toxicological Profile: Propylene Glycol with specific information on health --> PG - Health Effects
So the issue becomes the mix or Potato and Gravy. Potatoes are safe to eat, gravy is safe to eat, is it safe to eat potatoes covered in gravy or is this a new 'mix' that needs investigation?
We have discussed at length the addiction question. Wrt the e-cig there are no studies (afik) only anecdotal evidence.
The 'non-addictive' nature of NRT has been put down to the slow delivery and the idea of targeting the minimum number of NARs (nicotinic-acetylcholine receptors) to satisfy cravings while avoiding addiction.
E-cigs do much more than NRT. It is interesting that people vape 0 nic and that people seem to stop cigs almost as a side effect. This is the most confusing aspect of the e-cig and challenges the nicotine addiction theory head-on.
Are e-cigs safe? A pretty meaningless question really. Are they safe compared to other acceptable products? Short term, given the evidence so far it appears that way.
Should a clinician employ the PP? Well given that they could be sued if they endorsed e-cigs and it later turned out that they were not a safer alternative then the answer would be yes and many would adopt this approach. Others recognise that they do appear safer and could impact public health (for both user and bystander) dramatically and so are willing to endorse them.
Many will take a cautious approach and more research is needed, yet the benefits seem to outweigh some of the concerns. The research is limited but so far positive. (Aside, what if people switch and it becomes obvious that all the illness apparently associated with tobacco use does not decline? )
It will be interesting to see what happens in LI (Suffolk county) as this is a direct test of some of the points raised in this thread.
----
- Status
Similar threads
