Australian expert argues against smokescreen on e-cigarette research

[Lori2014]

And he has some clout:

"Professor Hall is an advisor to the World Health Organisation and the director of UQ’sCentre for Youth Substance Abuse Research."

Health News - Expert argues against smokescreen on e-cigarette research

 

[CarolT]

I don't like his underlying motive, which only appears in the last paragraph: “If research proves e-cigarettes are much safer than cigarettes and are an acceptable substitute, we would have a strong case for removing cigarettes from convenience stores and supermarkets.”

 

[this is my name]

I don't like his underlying motive, which only appears in the last paragraph: “If research proves e-cigarettes are much safer than cigarettes and are an acceptable substitute, we would have a strong case for removing cigarettes from convenience stores and supermarkets.”

I initially felt the same reading that. But perhaps he said it just to contrast the opposition's point of view. "If you are going to the extreme you need to make sure you get rid of the more harmful option."
Something like that.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I initially felt the same reading that. But perhaps he said it just to contrast the opposition's point of view. "If you are going to the extreme you need to make sure you get rid of the more harmful option."
Something like that.

If you add his prior paragraph:

“I do not advocate laissez faire, but rather closely-regulated e-cigarette sales for current smokers as a step towards an increased regulation of the most harmful tobacco products – cigarettes.

I think he meant exactly what he said.

 

[caramel]

I don't like his underlying motive, which only appears in the last paragraph: “If research proves e-cigarettes are much safer than cigarettes and are an acceptable substitute, we would have a strong case for removing cigarettes from convenience stores and supermarkets.”

Prohibitionism is a big failure on all grounds, from justification to implementation. Anyone still promoting it should have an IQ test and/or psychiatric evaluation performed.

 

[AndriaD]

Prohibitionism is a big failure on all grounds, from justification to implementation. Anyone still promoting it should have an IQ test and/or psychiatric evaluation performed.

I think the psych eval is definitely needed. These people have a problem with the free choices that adults make to use a LEGAL product -- that's just plain insanity, a pathologic need to control others -- Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is about one step removed from
Sociopath -- their reality is the only reality that exists!

Andria

 

[navigator2011]

I think the psych eval is definitely needed. These people have a problem with the free choices that adults make to use a LEGAL product -- that's just plain insanity, a pathologic need to control others -- Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is about one step removed from
Sociopath -- their reality is the only reality that exists!

Andria

True that. None of these academic types ever propose any sense of liberty--it's always about control, bans, draconian taxes, and the like. I never hear about just letting society make better choices without coercion. The only time I ever hear about freedom of choice is when it serves some other political agenda . . . usually once every four years.

 

[CarolT]

caramel, AndriaD, and navigator2011, they're guilty of things much more serious than 'nannyism' and it's not just personal peccadilloes, but a conspiracy to perpetrate crimes against society by committing scientific fraud, with the use of our tax dollars. Whining about nannyism is for six year olds. It's guaranteed to be as ineffectual as the resistance of small children, because 'nannyism' is not any kind of an actionable offense. Nor does it impugn their credibility by one iota. And only the health fascists benefit when the important points about scientific fraud get drowned out by thoughtless clamor about nannyism. That's how they've gotten away with it for so long.

 

[skoony]

caramel, AndriaD, and navigator2011, they're guilty of things much more serious than 'nannyism' and it's not just personal peccadilloes, but a conspiracy to perpetrate crimes against society by committing scientific fraud, with the use of our tax dollars. Whining about nannyism is for six year olds. It's guaranteed to be as ineffectual as the resistance of small children, because 'nannyism' is not any kind of an actionable offense. Nor does it impugn their credibility by one iota. And only the health fascists benefit when the important points about scientific fraud get drowned out by thoughtless clamor about nannyism. That's how they've gotten away with it for so long.

you may be right.
when they do announce the deeming regulations it will be
interesting to note in their official statements how many
times the terms e-cigarettes,e-juice,tanks and or battery
is used as opposed to the terms tobacco product and or
nicotine delivery systems.
they seem to run loose with the language. i see no harm
in the term nannyism. it is after all an accurate description.

regards
mike

 

[caramel]

I think the conspiracy is about making boatloads of money, and the fraud is just an instrument.