Flavors are necessary for me to prefer to vape over smoking. Dr. F has studied this, but he tends to agree with tobacco companies that something needs to be added to eliquid and make it more addicting for smokers to choose to vape. I've argued with him on this on Facebook because it is one of my worst fears if the vaping industry ends up in the hands of either tobacco or pharmacetical industries. We loose more control over the quality of eliquid.
Do you really think diacetyl is on the agenda anywhere in the FDA? It's probably already present in cigarettes. Anyway, getting into this topic here is not what's being discussed. I do feel I'm on solid ground in my belief that no one associated with deeming has any interest in the health of a smoker
I do disagree with the last point. I think individuals and/or organizations, associated with deeming, have interest and/or genuine concern in the health of a smoker. If part of your point is there is evidence that strongly suggests otherwise, I would concede to that, but I think the superficial interest is there, and that at least some ANTZ do have genuine concern. If I were speaking directly with those (ANTZ) that have concern, and I determined the concern was genuine, I strongly believe I would tell them directly at some point that their messaging comes off as misguided and working against them.
I think the diacetyl issue provides suitable inroad for anyone that is concerned about vaping in terms of health and wishes to address flavoring both politically and in terms of possible health consequences. I also think prior to my knowing about the specific diacetyl issue that such an issue was bound to arise with vaping. And I think industry will have various opinions on this in terms of need for correction and immediacy toward resolution. Plus I think there are vaping enthusiasts and for sure ANTZ types that will exploit the diacetyl issue as absolutely needing correction. And I further believe that ANTZ will spin this in a way that is akin to tobacco companies missteps though nowhere near that magnitude because I honestly am not sure if there has ever been a product that has been scrutinized as much as tobacco, though alcohol admittedly isn't too far behind.
So tell me, if it became widely know that FDA / public health agencies / certain industries hide the truth from the public about non-combustionable products for another 30 years, lied to Congress and the medical industry about what they had known, and intentionally mislead media and public relations to keep the truth hidden such that millions of people continued smoking, causing needless illness and death - would you blame them? Find them guilty? Or blame smokers for their choice even if they weren't aware of alternatives?
I do believe the buck stops with individual responsibility of smokers, but don't see reason to blame these individuals (of which I am currently one) for their choice, nor their addiction. I think the messaging from FDA / public health agencies leaves much to be desired and is very worthwhile calling out when it utilizes deceptive propaganda to support its aims. I think the "truth available to the public" is there and downplayed for many reasons, some of which is that is very challenging to stick up for tobacco companies just based on perceived harm, much less the stigmatization and idea that one can quickly be relegated to category of shill for daring to speak up. I think the diacetyl issue will provide good example of how challenging it is for someone to stick up for an issue based on perceived harm. If say a situation arises where many vapers prefer taste of flavoring with diacetyl in there and that goes onto be 'major health issue' (in terms of popularity), then I can see some vapers saying they want it in there, and understand the risk. But I see those people being ignored within vaping community or understood as giving ammunition to ANTZ and so the argument will be that it is best to distance ourselves from that type of vaper as they have become a political liability and do not represent the majority who recognize the problem and who seek/found a solution.
You might want to look at some old cigarette ads from the 40's - 60's. Even into the 70's and 80's that appear to be promoting better health, weight loss, more energy if people smoked.
I've seen these type of ads, and actually think there is something to them, some validity, but I recognize that they have become political liability. I do think some of these ads stretch the limits of credibility. Feeling confident I can find similar ads in any popular industry.
Earlier than the 40's, cigarettes were promoted for children. Christmas cards with children smoking around the tree.
I would like to see these ads. I believe they may exist, but would want to see a bit of context. I know I've seen ads from way back when showing kids using chew, as if chew was being directly targeted to kids, and so I concede that it is possible an ad exists that was targeting kids, but at a time when kids weren't treated like the little idiots many see them as today. I also believe that once tobacco became big tobacco from smoking industry booming, that kids weren't publicly, actively targeted, but also understood by pretty much everyone that the younger a person starts, the better it is for those who profit off of tobacco use. And the worse it is, arguably, for public health.
But again, they're good at it. Better, unfortunately, than their opponents most times, but times are changing.
