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.

Bootleggers, Baptists, and E-cigs

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by Ardo, Apr 9, 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. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    They believe in "the harmful combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco," and show no glimmer of awareness about how the government's bogus studies are designed to falsely blame smoking for diseases caused by infection. So, they believe.
     
  2. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    And to Carol T....

    I of course have no way of knowing that. Regulation magazine is really an 'insider view' of regulation from a rather objective point of view vs. the bulk of policy analyses from other sources that want more regulation - Brookings Institute on the Left and Heritage Foundation on the Right. Cato is mostly libertarian. I'm guessing that it has a widespread readership including those who might want regulation but want to find out what the actual regulation is, rather than how the left and right spin it. It is one of the hardest publications for me to read because of the detail of the minutiae of regulations that they go into in most articles.

    Earlier Regulation articles on smoking have been some of the best against secondhand smoke - still railed against by tobacco control types and articles on how the 'smoking related death' statistic is also fudged. ANTZ attempt to tie them to the tobacco companies of course.

    Show Me the Documents - Reason.com
     
  3. Mossy

    Mossy Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 25, 2013
    Sydney Australia
    I think they came to the right conclusion whoever;s side they may be on.....last paragraph.

    "Bootlegger/Baptist political forces will not rest until e-cigs are
    subject to the state and federal taxes that apply to cigarettes and
    e-cig revenues become subject to MSA rules. There is an obvious
    irony here. To the extent that e-cigs provide a less hazardous
    alternative to consumers who seek to break their smoking habit,
    regulations that limit e-cig competition produce a social cost
    measured in lost opportunities to improve human health. Regulatory
    actions that limit e-cig marketability introduce uncertainty
    for yet-to-be-discovered smoking alternatives that also destabilize
    the markets for traditional tobacco and smoking cessation products.
    For the sake of human health and freedom of choice, such
    innovation should be encouraged, not restricted."
    I think, thank you for saying it.
     
  4. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    I just took that quote about "the harmful combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco" from the article itself. As I said, there's no glimmer of awareness that the whole story isn't like the government pretends.
     
  5. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    Ok. Here's the whole quote:

    "This happy Bootlegger/Baptist equilibrium is now threatened by
    the exploding sales of e-cigs, a new technology for delivering nicotine
    to all who want it without simultaneously bringing the harmful
    combustion-induced chemicals associated with burned tobacco.
    "

    I'm guessing - and it's just a guess - but based on my experience with how I assess and how I've seen others assess - what they think, not what any gov't pretends, the difference between (and why they vape) ecigarettes vs. smoking cigarettes. So evidently, the authors have likely read some of the same things about why 'all who want it'(nicotine) without the effects of smoking. Otherwise, why change?

    Are all who vape, just dupes? ... except for you of course.... :blink: That's really a rhetorical question.... I have no intent on responding further....
     
  6. CarolT

    CarolT Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2011
    Madison WI
    The problem is that the anti-vapers will use the same fraud the anti-smokers use against smoking - blaming vaping for diseases that are really caused by infection. Most vapers are drawn from the ranks of smokers, so they exploit the circumstance that smokers/vapers tend to be less wealthy, and less wealthy people are more likely to have been exposed to infections and at younger ages, particularly childhood, before they even start smoking/vaping. Cytomegalovirus is a big one - even when they try to pawn off as much of its effects as possible on "conventional risk factors," the population attributable fraction of 40% in cardiovascular disease is as large as the supposed smoking risk, and almost twice as many as either hypercholesterolaemia or hypertension! Yet the public knows nothing...
    Commentary: Understanding the pathophysiology of poverty
    Persistent pathogens linking socioeconomic position and cardiovascular disease in the US
     
  7. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    For the sake of taking this debate to the other level that it constantly dances on the line of, one needs to expound upon that bolded part or realize they haven't really explained anything. For an anti-tobacco article could say all it has to say and conclude with, For the sake of human health and freedom of choice, such innovation should be discouraged, not allowed."

    And all those that support such anti efforts, or lean in that direction, will praise the conclusion. Just as I support this bolded part. But I also recognize my bias, and also recognize this hasn't explained why it ought to encouraged, all that well. IOW, it is preaching to the choir.

    Until we get past that line where things become philosophical more than sound bite rhetoric meant to inspire the masses, the political choice that the debate appears to come down to is: a) are eCigs a smoking alternative as a recreational choice (mostly to only) or b) are eCigs an alternative as a health choice (only)?

    Crossing the line I speak of would go into recreational choice and healthy choice as if they aren't completely distinct pursuits toward happiness. Fairly certain I can make the case that they are one in the same, and fairly certain the propaganda war rests on keeping them as separate and as distinct as humanly possible.
     
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