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

[AndriaD]

Because we are wholly inconsistent with what we think clean air means in many situations. Arguably all situations.

Yeah, someone around here said that they started making commercial docks smoke-free, which just makes me want to facepalm so hard it's a wonder my hand didn't emerge from the back of my head -- I lived, briefly, near the Detroit River, a massive commercial waterway, and the diesel fumes could choke a horse and gag a maggot all at the same time, anywhere near that river. And somehow cigarette smoke is worse than THAT???

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Please keep to the subject, instead of blasting out ever more ideological irrelevancies. I said nothing about "Koch's studies," I simply pointed out that nobody in either camp made the crucial point about EBV infection and NPC. How you interpret that as supposedly blaming Koch for the NTP's existence is simply incomprehensible. It is likewise incomprehensible to accuse me of blaming Levy & Marimont for the EPA report on secondhand smoke. It resembles nothing that I've ever said about them. You're just getting wilder and wilder, flailing away at an imaginary strawman. Perhaps you should go take your meds or something.

You didn't simply point out that nobody in either camp made the point you keep making. In post #19 of this thread, you said the Cato Institute was junk, and that it is (and I quote): "the crap that lost the war for us!!!!" You then said these sort of things are worthless, because it ignores the role of infection.

All that strikes me as inflammatory language that has taken two people essentially on the same side as what OP of this thread was getting at, and managed to create a divide where none was present.

I am glad when you like my posts, which is rare, but it seems like everyone on this thread is a potential enemy of your cause, which I wonder how well that's going to work out for you / us.

 

[DC2]

I don't think the ideas that smoking is not as bad as we were led to believe, smokeless tobacco is significantly less harmful than smoking, and vapor products are not tobacco products are mutually exclusive.

I'll just quote this instead of writing numerous paragraphs about what I think.
But I will add that smoke from cigarettes does in fact stink really bad.

Smoke from a campfire or BBQ smells wonderful though.

 

[BuGlen]

I'll just quote this instead of writing numerous paragraphs about what I think.
But I will add that smoke from cigarettes does in fact stink really bad.

Smoke from a campfire or BBQ smells wonderful though.

And from a meat smoker (not technically a BBQ). I love the smell of meats being smoked in the smoker!

 

[DC2]

I am glad when you like my posts, which is rare, but it seems like everyone on this thread is a potential enemy of your cause, which I wonder how well that's going to work out for you / us.

I haven't made up my mind on legal availability of vaping for people of some random age...
But I might remind you that your time on this forum has often been met with similar objections...

 

[AndriaD]

I'll just quote this instead of writing numerous paragraphs about what I think.
But I will add that smoke from cigarettes does in fact stink really bad.

Smoke from a campfire or BBQ smells wonderful though.

Cigarette smoke only smells *good* to smokers... and not all the time to all of them -- once I actually got accustomed to the smoking bans in restaurants, I found I actually appreciated not having to smell it while eating -- and I was still very chimney-like at the time. Now I'm even more grateful for it, in restaurants, since it really does stink to me now. I don't even like to smell it when walking thru parking lots -- but that doesn't mean I make a big issue of it, or try to make the smokers feel bad about it -- I know how that felt when I was one of them. But if any of them show any interest in my mod, I try to be as accommodating as I possibly can, with info, prices, places to get the stuff, etc. and especially when they ask the #1 question: is it really as good as smoking? My answer: BETTER!-- in EVERY POSSIBLE way. Anyone who really wants to know, needs and deserves to know!

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Cigarette smoke only smells *good* to smokers... and not all the time to all of them -- once I actually got accustomed to the smoking bans in restaurants, I found I actually appreciated not having to smell it while eating -- and I was still very chimney-like at the time. Now I'm even more grateful for it, in restaurants, since it really does stink to me now. I don't even like to smell it when walking thru parking lots -- but that doesn't mean I make a big issue of it, or try to make the smokers feel bad about it -- I know how that felt when I was one of them. But if any of them show any interest in my mod, I try to be as accommodating as I possibly can, with info, prices, places to get the stuff, etc. and especially when they ask the #1 question: is it really as good as smoking? My answer: BETTER!-- in EVERY POSSIBLE way. Anyone who really wants to know, needs and deserves to know!

Andria

I still like the smell of smoke after over 6 years of non-smoking. And I like the people in smoking designated areas better than most in the general population :- )

 

[AndriaD]

I still like the smell of smoke after over 6 years of non-smoking. And I like the people in smoking designated areas better than most in the general population :- )

My calling it a "stink" is partly knee-jerk, and partly self-protective -- last time I had to hang out at the Chevy dealership to get some work done on the truck, I was outside vaping, and a guy lit up about 15 ft from me... and that very first waft of smoke smelled uncomfortably good. I can't afford to enjoy that smell, or it might start my idiot brain to thinking... can't be having that, when the thoughts it might be thinking are in any way positive, about cigarettes. MUCH better for me to hate the smell... as most of the time, I do. Can't bear the taste of grain alcohol anymore either, which is why I have to use Ventolin instead of Proventil/generic, since they went to the hydrofluoroalkane propellants instead of CFCs -- GSK has removed 99.9% of that taste from Ventolin.

Andria

 

[DC2]

Now I'm even more grateful for it, in restaurants, since it really does stink to me now.

I grew up in California, and I don't believe anyone has ever smoked in a restaurant here in my lifetime.

18 years ago we went to Paris as part of our honeymoon trip to Europe.
And we had a very expensive dinner at a very nice restaurant.

Then a guy a few tables away from us lit up a smoke after they finished eating.
And it COMPLETELY ruined my dinner for about 10 minutes.

I basically just stopped eating until he was done.

I'm all for restaurant owners to have the freedom to allow smoking if they wish.
But I most certainly won't be eating there if they do.

Unless, of course, they have the proper ventilation installed.

 

[Kent C]

My calling it a "stink" is partly knee-jerk, and partly self-protective -- last time I had to hang out at the Chevy dealership to get some work done on the truck, I was outside vaping, and a guy lit up about 15 ft from me... and that very first waft of smoke smelled uncomfortably good. I can't afford to enjoy that smell, or it might start my idiot brain to thinking... can't be having that, when the thoughts it might be thinking are in any way positive, about cigarettes. MUCH better for me to hate the smell... as most of the time, I do. Can't bear the taste of grain alcohol anymore either, which is why I have to use Ventolin instead of Proventil/generic, since they went to the hydrofluoroalkane propellants instead of CFCs -- GSK has removed 99.9% of that taste from Ventolin.

Andria

Yeah... IF one is still affected toward wanting one, I'd suggest avoiding it. Hate of the smell may be more about hating that you still may like it a bit :- )

 

[AndriaD]

Yeah... IF one is still affected toward wanting one, I'd suggest avoiding it. Hate of the smell may be more about hating that you still may like it a bit :- )

Exactly -- I HATE that even knowing what I know, how quickly it hooked me in again last summer, I still could be at risk, even a year smoke-free, because I never want to go back to being enslaved by a stupid, filthy, expensive habit; of the 39 yrs I smoked, I spent probably the last 30 of them wishing I could quit, trying to quit over and over, and never being able to -- until vaping. If I have to vape the rest of my life and go out of my way to avoid the smell of it, I will -- but not to the extent of making smokers feel any worse about their habit than they may already -- I know that feeling too well.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

If I have to vape the rest of my life and go out of my way to avoid the smell of it, I will -- but not to the extent of making smokers feel any worse about their habit than they may already -- I know that feeling too well.

How would you have felt reading a message like yours, calling smoking stupid and filthy? Not that I don't agree.

 

[Lessifer]

I grew up in California, and I don't believe anyone has ever smoked in a restaurant here in my lifetime.

18 years ago we went to Paris as part of our honeymoon trip to Europe.
And we had a very expensive dinner at a very nice restaurant.

Then a guy a few tables away from us lit up a smoke after they finished eating.
And it COMPLETELY ruined my dinner for about 10 minutes.

I basically just stopped eating until he was done.

I'm all for restaurant owners to have the freedom to allow smoking if they wish.
But I most certainly won't be eating there if they do.

Unless, of course, they have the proper ventilation installed.

If it was anything like the restaurants we visited in Paris, you probably could have lit the cigarette for him, without getting up from your seat.

 

[caramel]

If it was anything like the restaurants we visited in Paris, you probably could have lit the cigarette for him, without getting up from your seat.

Get a room with terrace and use room service. Helps with the cigar too.

 

[AndriaD]

How would you have felt reading a message like yours, calling smoking stupid and filthy? Not that I don't agree.

I knew it was stupid and filthy even when it was attached me to like a ball and chain, but I couldn't get free of it. Everytime I lit up, I asked myself just how insane was I really, to still be doing that.

Andria

 

[CarolT]

Carol brought up the USSR. And your conjecture about 'whether the population was not happy' is just that - conjecture.

First you say that there is not Stated outcome and then when I say what it is, you seem to be saying that they are not the 'REAL objectives'. As if freedom isn't an end in itself. It's why we started this country.

The real ruse in outcomes is on your side - to 'help the poor', 'to gain equality', 'to save the children' and yet the REAL outcomes have been more poverty, less equality and gov't schools have made children into liberal robots, who ask questions about OUTCOMES when the answer is obvious.

Any 'faith' is on your side - a faith in gov't. Sorry, on that, I'm an atheist - I've seen the OUTCOMES and know the OBJECTIVES - to enslave.

Don't blame me. I didn't advocate it. I made an ever-so-brief mention in passing, to make the point that that it's no excuse to pretend that a system's failures mustn't be judged because the system isn't a perfect replication of theoretical ideals (which it never will be). And that triggered you into a lengthy spiel of stale stock talking points that has no place in this discussion. And I made it clear that I don't give a damn for arguing about theoretical utopias.

 

[CarolT]

Yep. We established our own Objective and Means - freedom and the upholding of rights. Next question

edit: can we agree to discontinue this since it's obvious that it won't be resolved here?

I won't even ask Carol that - I already know that answer

All of this consisted of you flailing at a strawman.

 

[CarolT]

Lol... that's rich, where on every thread you bring up your 'infection hobbyhorse' and proceed to derail almost every thread where you post.

Your ilk are the reason they've gotten away with all their crimes. You are dinosaurs clinging to 1940s-era chemistry, who refuse to acknowledge the science implicating infection. And that disqualifies you from any pretext of being scientific, because in real science you must look at ALL of the evidence.

 

[CarolT]

Nope. Because you're back to something that Carol already told you - that the discussion on "upholding of rights" can't lead anywhere. And I explained you why: because for every right you raise, the opponent can find a counter-right to raise too. Your "right to smoke" can be (and actually was) countered with the "right to fresh air".

Actually, it's because the courts uphold that the government can act to protect public health. But as I point out, those health claims are based on scientific fraud, which therefore nullifies the legitimacy of the government's actions.

 

[CarolT]

You didn't simply point out that nobody in either camp made the point you keep making. In post #19 of this thread, you said the Cato Institute was junk, and that it is (and I quote): "the crap that lost the war for us!!!!" You then said these sort of things are worthless, because it ignores the role of infection.

All that strikes me as inflammatory language that has taken two people essentially on the same side as what OP of this thread was getting at, and managed to create a divide where none was present.

I am glad when you like my posts, which is rare, but it seems like everyone on this thread is a potential enemy of your cause, which I wonder how well that's going to work out for you / us.

Anybody who knows what they're talking about in epidemiology knows that Levy & Marimont is junk, even if they don't subscribe to the infection hypothesis. They confuse "insignificance," which is a judgment call, with non-significance, which is a defined statistical term, and they pretend that they're entitled to toss out anything with an RR of less than 2. Also, the Cancer Society re-analyzed its CPS data while controlling for the confounding factors that L&M made an issue about, and showed that it made no difference. L&M have been as thoroughly refuted as it's possible to be, and those who represent otherwise are just making our side look stupid.
http://acsh.org/1999/10/a-critical-assessment-of-lies-damned-lies-400000-smoking-related-deaths-by-robert-levy-and-rosalind-marimont-published-in-regulation-fall-1998/
(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

I say "lost the war" because some people have been wasting everyone's time pushing Levy & Marimont, while ignoring the extremely important mounting evidence that implicates infections in supposed smoking related diseases. As a result, Tobacco Control has rolled steadily onward. But it didn't have to happen that way. It's the dinosaurs who believe in L&M (and therefore the anti-smokers' junk science) who have held us down.