The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by BuGlen, Aug 22, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. BuGlen

    BuGlen Divergent ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 6, 2012
    Tampa, Florida
    This is an excellent article from Dr. Carl Phillips which I feel that anyone who is doing any type of vape advocacy should read and take to heart.

    Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

    Here's an excerpt that I think summarizes the point of the article quite nicely:

     
    • Like Like x 14
  2. skoony

    skoony Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jul 31, 2013
    saint paul,mn,usa
    excellent article.
    thank you.
    mike
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. AndriaD

    AndriaD Reviewer / Blogger Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 24, 2014
    LawrencevilleGA
    That's true... which is why I now would never trust them again about anything -- if they'll lie about one thing, they'll lie about ANYTHING. They've sold out their own integrity, and now have nothing useful to say about anything at all.

    Andria
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. BuGlen

    BuGlen Divergent ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 6, 2012
    Tampa, Florida
    I will give the CDC credit on the Ebola crisis of last year, and I think they handled it well, as they usually do for actual disease issues (which is why they were founded to begin with). They need to stay out of the smoking / vaping issues altogether, which is about consumer choice of legal products and not disease related.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. AndriaD

    AndriaD Reviewer / Blogger Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 24, 2014
    LawrencevilleGA
    I thought they pretty much sucked on the Ebola thing, not setting up a quarantine in that african country IMMEDIATELY, *or*, their failure to forbid any flights from that country to land in the US, *or* immediate quarantine for any person whose journey originated in that country... which is how those cases got back to the US.

    Given that total FUBAR, and the stuff about vaping... nah, I don't trust a single thing they say anymore. They could say they've discovered a new cross between smallpox and bubonic plague, and I'd figure they were just shilling for some new BP drug.

    One "aw poop" wipes out 100 attaboys; with the "aw poops" on both vaping and ebola... they've wiped out their entire history of attaboys, and have become functionally useless.

    Andria
     
    • Like Like x 5
  6. englishmick

    englishmick Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Sep 25, 2014
    Naptown, Indiana
    On the other hand, sorry I just have to throw this in.

    Even if all the stuff about smoking causing disease is wrong, the folks making that case - lost. They lost that fight in the court of public opinion as conclusively as any similar fight has ever been lost. By now almost everyone thinks they are wrong. They are taken about as seriously as Luddites.

    I'm not saying there isn't a possibility that they are right, false ideas have gained traction before. Just pointing out how that argument is currently perceived. Maybe that fight can be won some time in the future if convincing evidence comes along. For example if smoking goes away in one or more countries, and the rates of lung cancer and COPD etc remain constant, it would be hard to continue blaming cigarettes. But it would take something that conclusive to make the case.

    And then, it's certainly true that cigarette smoke has a very strong smell, it's unpleasant to almost everyone except smokers, it lingers more tenaciously than just about any other odor, and anyone who is around smokers for 8 hours a day will take it home with them because it settles in the hair and clothes. They don't like that. In fact they loathe it. Clearly that would make non-smokers receptive to any other anti-smoking arguments, even if they did happen to be bogus. Maybe we could eventually persuade them to let us vape around them, but not a chance in hell if we allied ourselves with the idea that smoking bans in the workplace and elsewhere should also be lifted.

    If we go into this fight saying cigarettes and vaping alike are getting the same bad rap we will be laughed out of school. Especially if, like Dr Phillips, we simultaneously promote THR, the idea that vaping is so much safer than smoking. Huh? Or was he just talking about chewing tobacco? Hard for me to tell after reading his rather incoherent Blog.

    In practical terms the argument that we are not cigarettes is the best argument we have. That even sounds cynical to me. But I don't want to march into battle with a gigantic, universally loathed, long lost cause strapped to my back.
     
    • Like Like x 7
  7. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    An article that I whole heartedly agree with. Been saying some of these same things for awhile. My favorite quote from the piece, that I really think every politically aware vaper ought to be fully aware of:

     
    • Like Like x 11
  8. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    It's great to see someone actually thinking things through. He usually doesn't post my comments, so I'll put it here in case he doesn't:

    Here's something you need to keep in mind about the 'individual liberty' argument. "In most instances, courts require that a discriminatory law be 'rationally related' to a 'legitimate' government goal. This requirement is very easy for the government to meet, since a discriminatory law will be upheld so long as it is not totally irrational or arbitrary... Courts are quick to find that smoke-free legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government goal, since they have long held that protecting the public’s health is one of the most essential functions of government."
    There is No Constitutional Right to Smoke: 2008 | Public Health Law Center
    Ultimately, the only way to fight them is to attack the legitimacy of their "public health" claims. That means expose and attack the scientific fraud which is the very foundation of their crusade: They falsely blame smoking (and other lifestyle choices) for diseases that are really caused by infection. And yes, the impact of this fraud is huge enough to matter. I estimate that more than half of all supposed smoking related deaths, and nearly all supposed deaths from secondhand smoke, are the product of this fraud. Heart disease is the source of the largest number. (They haven't concocted any supposed deaths from vaping that I know of, but these would be as phony as for secondhand smoke.)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. BuGlen

    BuGlen Divergent ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 6, 2012
    Tampa, Florida
    You and I see the Ebola crisis differently. In my view, the media hype about the danger to US homeland was way overblown (much like the SHS issue), but they reacted in proportion to the actual threat instead of the perceived threat. So, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that one. :thumb:

    As for their credibility on other issues (vaping especially), and the credibility of the other 3 letter orgs, I completely agree.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    I disagree with this. I see a form of this routinely, but feel it is simply justification for not fighting the war, while thinking this battle can be won. If you think smoking politics is lost in court of public opinion, and can't be won, then I do not see how vaping can be won, except for some small scraps, which will be the EXACT SAME SCRAPS that smoking has, though (smoking is) arguably better in almost every way conceivable.

    A prime example of the scraps I speak about is that no one is calling for a ban on smoking products. It's existence is not threatened on the planet. Yet, (some) vapers think that the existence of vaping products is threatened, and are doing what they can to prevent that threat. And yet, in doing so, there are factions within the vaping community that are clearly serving need for BV up on a silver platter. That is a sure way to ensure that vaping products survive an existential threat, but also will mean that the (legal) vaping market is, in reality, no different than the legal smoking market.

    I'll also just note that the fight for "other stuff" was clearly "lost" about a hundred years ago. It was banned from society and thus anyone say in 1985 arguing that there is still a fight worth having on that front would've shown up as "fighting a battle that was already lost." And yet, we live in a world today where other stuff is making a very strong comeback, to become legal. Did that happen because people kept fighting the war, or because magical fairies decided to allow humanity one more shot to get that correct?

    If the majority of vapers were staying consistent, the argument for lifting smoking bans would be that it ought to be entirely up to the owner of the establishment, and not based on junk science for what makes for "clean air." If a bar, restaurant, movie theater, or even hospital wishes to allow it in either all locations of the establishment or in certain, well ventilated locations, then those who are so put off by the smell/action, can make the decision to never ever visit that establishment. While smokers / tolerant people can make perhaps the opposite decision. By disallowing it, and based on the reasons currently put forth, it really has very little chance of being a successful battle for vaping/vapers.

    Though a vaper such as myself, who vapes everywhere with respect, will likely break the law because of how silly it is and how unlikely I am to be caught. Again, a hospital is easily one of the best places to vape indoors. I cannot say the same about smoking.

    Let me know what parts of the article you found incoherent. I'll be glad to help you understand what was being stated.

    In a nutshell, the piece is saying you can't say ANTZ were right about smoking, but are wrong about vaping, without leaving the door wide open to the notion that they may be "proven" right about vaping. Proven by their own made up lies and facts, or the ones you've accepted as "truth" about smoking.

    A prime example of this is that vapers one day will die. And that a stat will be created to say, "x thousand people die from vaping annually." The vaping community, on forums especially, will dissect such a claim, and show that it is made up and based on a whole lot of junk science. But if the public is under the impression of "vaping kills" then the battle will be as over for vaping as it is, in your opinion, for smoking.

    I would say in practical terms, the best argument we have is that vaping is a recreational choice for adults, and needs to remain a recreational choice that is made available on the legal/open market. All the scientific, moral and philosophical stuff is important (to me) but is not all that practical and not something that non-vapers will care a whole lot about. They might not care a lot about a recreational product they don't choose to engage in, but pretty sure they'd care if a black market ensued and lots and lots of money is being spent to try to enforce a silly ban on something that even they see as rather tame.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    That's why we need a lawsuit to take this issue (anti-smoker scientific fraud) to a REAL court, where the REAL case can be made.

    The shocking truth is that nobody anywhere (except me) has EVER attacked the scientific fraud, particularly including the tobacco industry and all the Anti-Smoker-Approved Fake Opponents, such as Jacob Sullum. The whole thing has been nothing but a vast charade, orchestrated by the mass media, to brainwash the public with a humongous Big Lie, namely that studies that ignore the role of infection are legitimate science. They are not legitimate science, and THAT is the point we need to make.

    (By the way, did you know that rates of asthma HAVE remained constant, yet those charlatans get away with blaming smoking for it anyhow? And I don't know how many times I've seen phonies like Jacob Sullum miss the opportunity to make that point. In fact, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to make any point that matters. They repeatedly fall flat on their stupid faces, yet their delusional followers think they scored a gigantic victory!)

    As for bar and restaurant smoking bans, if smoking really was as universally loathed as you've been brainwashed, then bans wouldn't be necessary. But the anti-smokers know it's a lie, and that it would be exposed for what it is if they ever allowed so much as one bar or restaurant to allow smoking. Not just smokers and their open-minded friends would flock to it, but also any open-minded person who enjoys the ambience of personal freedom. Remember, it was the non-smoking places that couldn't stay in business - unless they stifled their competition with smoking bans!

    As for other workplace smoking bans, in my state they even prohibit constructing shelters that make smoking less uncomfortable at 20-below-zero F. This proves that their real motive is to make smokers as miserable as possible, in the supposed name of public health.

    These are reasonable points, and you have succumbed to the anti-smokers' disgraceful tactics of creating the atmosphere of a lynch mob when you believe that criticizing smoking bans would be "a gigantic, universally loathed, long lost cause" strapped to your back. And as Carl Phillips points out, it's not necessary to enthusiastically endorse the anti-smokers' health lies to simply point out that vaping is less objectionable to many people than regular smoking.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  12. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    Some, yeah, but not all. I've argued against using the junk science of 'smoking deaths' and the 'smoking related deaths' scam as shown by Cato Institute, as well as the second-hand smoke junk science also exposed by Cato and others and have put forth the smoking rights arguments as well. See:

    Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

    ... the video/thread that likely fueled Carl's response. The first paragraph is a summary of the replies to that thread even though it is not mentioned or sourced.

    Also agree with Jman on this comment. In fact the use of "Luddites" has been completely flipped by the Left global warm-mongers in that they were the Luddites/anti-science/tech people, to begin with - all their 'solutions' are 'back to nature type' (even though they proclaim to use science to get there)... but now they are calling their 'deniers' "Luddites" :facepalm: :laugh: So the true "luddites" - the global warmers - are taken very seriously, by some.... "Liberalism is what smart looks like to stupid people."

    Maya, a Black Conservative, Lays Some Wisdom on Us: "Liberalism Is What Smart Looks Like to Stupid People" - The Rush Limbaugh Show

    No matter how 'ingrained' a concept (in this case - lies) seem to be, that's no reason not to try to correct them, no matter how 'politically incorrect' it may be (see Trump and others), or how much it may offend those with super-sensitivities - "sensitivities" not based on what actually offends them personally, but what offends them politically.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  13. englishmick

    englishmick Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Sep 25, 2014
    Naptown, Indiana
    I know I'm in a minority of one in this thread, and I don't have the time or energy to debate every point. I'll address your conclusion though.

    I can agree that this is the best argument, in terms of being authentic and reasonable. If we were starting with a clean slate, like if vaping wasn't arriving in the aftermath of decades of brutal warfare over smoking, this might be all we would need. But that's not where we are. The other side has been quite successful in persuading people that vaping is a new form of smoking, and equally dangerous. To get past that It seems to me that we either have to argue that smoking isn't as bad as it has been painted, or argue that we are completely different and much safer. I think to a large extent those two positions are mutually exclusive. If we didn't address smoking at all and just used the recreational choice argument we would be leaving the anti vaping side with their vaping = smoking position intact. Our options are quite limited.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    It is refreshing to see your position as the minority, but this thread has managed to collect the very vocal anti-anti-smoker types.

    I don't see the two positions as mutually exclusive, and do see the "we are not like smoking" as being set up like a bowling pin. They get the default position of "we don't know" while assuming everyone is part of the we, and while assuming the constant role of double speak, in that they seem to know about certain risks, but apparently have no knowledge of any benefits. So, they downplay (or ignore) all benefits and touts risks, while we downplay risks (though do not ignore them) and tout benefits.

    Yet, our side knows it is a little like smoking, otherwise we vapers wouldn't be a majority of smokers/ex-smokers who use the product. If we were to meet a current smoker who was interested in trying it, we'd likely sell them on idea that it is a lot like smoking minus all the bad things that come with smoking. Our industry has run ads in this vein. So, it is really both sides doing this comparison to smoking, but because one side has played entirely unfairly with smoking data, then some on our side will use that as way to prop vaping up even more. And as Carl P. noted, that does have merits, but is a tricky line to walk on, because it is suggesting that they were right about some things (or all things) with regards to smoking.

    To me, it can clearly be a recreational choice that is safer than smoking. Where things get tricky, and ultimately convoluted, is when there is the argument being made for "it is better than smoking." For a personal choice, not so tricky. For a political choice, very tricky. Especially if there are people around who would love nothing more than for smoking to no longer be a recreational choice for adults. And ridiculously tricky when those who want smoking eliminated, understand it pretty much never will be, and then realize they can make a living off the notion that smoking harms/kills and obtain lots of money to research that in various ways. Then suddenly things like THR make sense to counter that whole mindset. But becomes another political force to help confuse and detract from the simple, practical things that laypeople are generally concerned about.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. englishmick

    englishmick Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Sep 25, 2014
    Naptown, Indiana
    Personally I'm not in favour of banning smoking in bars. There were plenty of choices and customers could have made their own choices.

    Workplaces, not so much. They banned smoking in my place of work in the early 90's. They held a series of all-employee meetings to discuss it. There were a few mentions of SHS, but almost all the talk was about the smell. People stood up one after another and complained about it. They talked about how they went home in the evening and their families complained about the smell they took home with them. A few people asked for a section for smokers with big fans or whatever. Management decided that would be too expensive, and impractical since people worked in teams. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of smokers who stood up and argued that their right to smoke trumped their coworkers right not to have to endure the smell of the smoke. That was my personal experience and it might not be universally the case.

    I work with a guy who smokes and we travel a lot in the same truck. We smoked together for years so I don't complain about his smoking. If I go from a day of that to a non-smoking house people wrinkle up their noses and ask me if I started smoking again. It's real.

    I formed an opinion. So did you.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    A bar is a workplace.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. skoony

    skoony Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jul 31, 2013
    saint paul,mn,usa
    interestingly enough at least here in Minnesota bars,eateries and
    other quasi-public venues were the first targets of the bans.
    it wasn´t until after it was realised that spot bans such as these
    would probably be unconstitutional and the advent of second
    hand theory that it was decided that blanket bans were needed
    regards
    mike
     
  19. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    Kent, that Cato Institute junk is the crap that lost the war for us!!!! I am referring to: Levy R, Marimont R. Lies, damned lies, & 400,000 smoking-related deaths. Regulation.1998;21:24-29.

    The Cancer Society people simply performed their little magic ritual of "Adjusting for the lower educational and socioeconomic characteristics of modern-day smokers" on that CPA data and triumphantly announced that it "had little impact on the relative or attributable risks associated with smoking. The absence of evidence of epidemiologic confounding may help resolve at least one aspect of the ongoing tobacco debate." (JAMA 2000 Aug 9;284(6):706-12. Smoking vs other risk factors as the cause of smoking-attributable deaths: confounding in the courtroom. Thun MJ, Apicella LF, Henley SJ.)

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192965

    And that was 15 years ago. The anti-smokers are more than pleased to see incompetent people trying to peddle that Levy & Marimont garbage as our best argument against them, because it's completely worthless. It's worthless because it ignores the role of infection, just like the anti-smokers do. It's worthless because when you compare say, heart disease in 65-year-old smokers with 65-year-old never-smokers you're comparing people who are more likely to be infected by CMV with people who are less likely, not to mention that the smokers were infected at a younger age. And those CPS studies have no data with which such a comparison could be done in the first place.
     
  20. Stubby

    Stubby Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 22, 2009
    Madison, WI USA
    One of the real downfalls of the vaping movement (or whatever you want to call it) is that to a large extent it did not embrace tobacco harm reduction more then it did. There has been way to much ink spilled trying to push the idea that "we are not tobacco", and we are something different (while spending essentially no time defining what that something is). How is that working out.... as the EU goes down the rabbit hole in a few years, and the USA, if the deeming is anything like the initial regulation will be even worse. Running away from tobacco and the lies of TCI never had a chance.

    Many in the vaping community have played along with the lies about ST and SHS because they thought they could get an advantage from the lie, but it doesn't work that way. It is amazing that people thought the tobacco control industry would magically stop at vaping. It didn't, and it won't. That is not their mode of operation.

    THR is not complicated or confusing even to the layperson with other concerns. It only gets confusing when you try and play along with tobacco control by picking and choosing which lies you support and reject.
     
    • Like Like x 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice