Brace yourselves new Formaldehype junk study to be released Jan 21

[rolygate]

............

I am totally oblivious of government(s) intention and have little to contribute to any such discussions.

Not a problem. In the US it's a pressing issue, because both States and cities are paid to support smoking, in multiple ways. For example the MSA payments are substantial (billions of $$) and provide a every welcome additional income for States needing that cash. The payments are part-based on stick sales volume - cigarette sales basically - and it seems rather difficult to believe that financially-strapped States will voluntarily agree to have that income removed. Most of the Attorneys General are therefore trying to get ecigs banned or restricted as much as possible, in order to protect cigarette sales.

It would be nice to think that government would put the public's interest first, and work for genuine public health; but I haven't seen any evidence for that in northern Europe, the UK or the USA. Indeed the opposite is the case: regional, national and federal governments are doing everything possible to protect cigarette sales. Realistically, they have to, or face real economic hardship.

Essentially, you can measure how hard governments are working to protect cigarette sales by the volume of rhetoric they utter about how bad smoking is and how they are working hard to reduce it: there is a direct relationship, rather than the inverse relationship you might expect. The louder the noise they make about reducing smoking prevalence, the harder they are paddling beneath the surface to protect it. There is no better example than the EU, the world's most successful corruptocracy and dearly loved by all governments who belong to it.

Just as the main function of the tobacco industry is now, principally, to act as the scapegoat for the entire business (and get well paid for it, of course)*, one function of the EU is to act as scapegoat for any government that needs to explain that they can't do anything about a problem because the EU make the laws. It's all, somehow, extremely convenient.

* This is true of anywhere such as the UK where tobacco tax revenues and other income channels and cost savings are a significant proportion of government income/spend. tobacco makes/saves the UK government at least £20bn a year even after all costs are paid. It's 2%+ GDP equivalent, and about two and a half times the cost of EU membership, for example.

 

[Kent C]

........................

 

[rolygate]

Not every ......Libertarian Reason Magazine - Jacob Sullum, John Stossel and a few others have been on our side early on.

Good point

Honest journalists can be hard to find. Some places they're in the graveyard.

 

[Kent C]

Good point

Honest journalists can be hard to find. Some places they're in the graveyard.

One could add Forbes and Fox but not sure about over two years ago for them. I'm more familiar with Reason

 

[Kent C]

BTW, your "When will people realise this and wake up?" is not to far from 'oblivious'.

 

[Placebo Effect]

While this study has done and will continue to do great damage to public health and rational e-cigarette public policy, I'm glad that myself, Bill Godshall, Clive Bates, Dr. Farsalinos, and Dr. Siegel were able to get out ahead of this story and stop it from doing even more damage.

 

[Krashman Von Stinkputin]

Not every ......Libertarian Reason Magazine - Jacob Sullum, John Stossel and a few others have been on our side early on.

FDA Regulation Threatens Cigarette Alternatives
Jacob Sullum|April 1, 2009

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum on Smoke-Free Cigarettes
Jacob Sullum|April 8, 2009

Where's the Fire?
The rush to ban electronic cigarettes is hazardous to smokers' health.
Jacob Sullum|April 8, 2009

The rush to ban electronic cigarettes is hazardous to smokers' health.
Will People 'Mistakenly Perceive' Health Benefits From Not Smoking?
Jacob Sullum|April 14, 2009

FDA to Ban Electronic Cigarettes
Jacob Sullum|May 1, 2009

'We're About Harm Reduction...Except I Can't Say That'
Jacob Sullum|May 6, 2009

If It's Not Regulated, How Can It Be Safer Than Sucking Smoke?
Jacob Sullum|June 3, 2009

When Carcinogens Are FDA-Approved, You Needn't Worry About Them
Jacob Sullum|July 22, 2009

State-by-State E-Cigarette Bans?
Jacob Sullum|August 3, 2009

E-Cigarettes Look More Effective Than Nicotine Gum or Patches
Jacob Sullum|August 10, 2009

What If All Smokers Used Smokeless Tobacco Instead?
Jacob Sullum|August 13, 2009

The FDA Is Not Sure Whether Smoking Is Worse Than Not Smoking
Jacob Sullum|October 2, 2009

Federal Judge Rebukes FDA for Seizing E-Cigarettes
Jacob Sullum|January 15, 2010

Ban E-Cigarettes—for the Children!
Jacob Sullum|February 17, 2010

Good Conflicts of Interest vs. Bad Conflicts of Interest
Jacob Sullum|June 9, 2010

New E-Cig Menace: You Can Put Your Weed in There
Jacob Sullum|June 23, 2010

Are Guns Medical Devices?
Jacob Sullum|July 8, 2010

Appeals Court Says FDA May Not Ban E-Cigarettes
Jacob Sullum|December 7, 2010

The Public Health Case for Electronic Cigarettes
Jacob Sullum|December 22, 2010

What About 'Corrective Statements' for the Government?
Jacob Sullum|February 28, 2011

FDA Will Regulate E-Cigarettes As Tobacco Products
Jacob Sullum|April 27, 2011

E-Cigarettes Will Remain Legal but Unregulated Until the FDA Issues New Rules
Jacob Sullum|May 2, 2011

Muddying the Hookah Water
Jacob Sullum|June 1, 2011

Better Off Vaping
Jacob Sullum|November 9, 2011

The FDA Kills Smokers
Banning e-cigarettes won’t save lives.
John Stossel|November 17, 2011

Banning e-cigarettes won’t save lives.
New at Reason: John Stossel on the FDA Killing Smokers
November 17, 2011

Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because
Jacob Sullum|December 2, 2011

IOM Report Recommends That the FDA Continue Suppressing Lifesaving Information About Cigarette Alternatives
Jacob Sullum|December 14, 2011

Nicotine Gum and Patches May Not Work, but at Least They're Officially Approved
Jacob Sullum|January 13, 2012

6th Circuit Approves Cigarette Warning Labels and Suppression of Risk Information but Rejects Ad Limits
Jacob Sullum|March 19, 2012

George Will: Drug Prohibition Is an Awful Flop. We Like It.
Jacob Sullum|April 5, 2012

WHO Says Vaping Must Be Banned Because It Looks Like Smoking
Jacob Sullum|October 26, 2012

UCLA to Introduce Campus-Wide Smoking Ban in the Spring
Ban will include electronic cigarettes
October 31, 2012

And.. thanks to Bill Godshall who is mentioned in many of these articles.

Add Greg Gutfeld from The Five.

Like Fox News or not, they own the primetime news ratings slot and he's been championing our cause for months.

 

[rolygate]

The way I see the media campaign thing working is:

1 - Guerrilla tactics can't be dismissed lightly. Yes, they are easily outmatched, but they can be effective. There is many reasons why "other stuff" is becoming legal, and one of those is because guerrilla tactics through media have been in it for the long fight. Had that topic had access to social media campaigning 70 years ago, or even 30 years ago, I think legalization would have already occurred. With vaping it is clearly having an effect.

OK, MJ use is getting some freedom from the drugs war now, in some respects. It's taken at least 50 years though, IIRC. As you say, that timescale would have been shortened some if social media had existed before. But the real victory is when full federal permissions are granted. After all, that's what we need for vapers and vaping products. How long will it take for this to come to fruition for that alt product? Maybe another 20 years, maybe 50, maybe never.

But I agree that community organisation and social media are vital. It's complicated though, because we know a technology change like this is successful after about 30 years, even when the incumbents fight as hard as they can against progress. The key is to reduce the timescale for full acceptance, as 30 years is a long time to have to wait to be able to legally buy a mechmod or a regulator boxmod or decent refill liquids at your local store or indeed anywhere. That's what it's all about.

The cooperation with the smoking lobby is an interesting one. We are all smokers or ex-smokers (or 99.9% are). I'm still a smoker, I smoke the occasional cigar.

The problem I have with cooperation is twofold:

1. To win a war you need allies, it's true. But what if the ally you choose are the H[drug ref here] users and their community orgs? Smokers are perceived in the same light as H addicts or lepers and anything/everything they touch is contaminated politically. It's a very brave choice to pick them as allies. If we are honest, of course, then they need our support as much as we need theirs. Others have suggested linking with the MJ users, as they may appear to be successful. However there is a big difference between bravery and realpolitik, and you might justifiably call it suicide to be linked with such groups.

In any case the MJ users have not succeeded by any stretch of the imagination: they've just got some backwoods counties or the equivalent to reckon up the tax advantages and take the bait.

2. I can't think of any more useless bunch of worthless incompetents than the smokers' reps. If someone told me that with 30% or 40% of the population and unlimited funds you or I couldn't have done better to protect their rights, I'd have to say that person has taken leave of their senses.

In truth, what you are looking at is a done deal. The industry screwed their customer base over in order to guarantee its own cast-iron future. The whole smoking shebang is a disaster area: the industry deliberately sabotaged the smoking community for a guaranteed future, and the community leaders couldn't run a hot-dog stand. You couldn't do a worse job with such huge resources if you got blind drunk and signed anything put in front of you.

The smokers deserve sympathy, for sure, but figuring out who to work with among thousands of proven sellouts and proven incompetents is a bit of a tall order. They deserve what they got, because in this life, you deserve what you get. And they got royally screwed. It would be like choosing Captain Schettino to pilot your ship, given his history: a person who (allegedly) sunk the ship through gross incompetence then (allegedly) tripped to find himself in a lifeboat ahead of the passengers, somehow. The people associated with the smokers' 'fight' are of that quality.

If you want to tally up exactly how well the smokers' representatives did (and are doing), then compare them with people who know what they're doing like the NRA. The NRA had a fraction of the userbase and a fraction of the potential funding, and how did they do compared to the smokers' orgs? Yes, that's right: about a million times better. Now ask why smokers' reps are a dismal failure on every count, then tell us we should work with them. That'd be like diving with a half-ton weight round your neck.


Luckily, it's not a decision that needs to be made. Cooperation with other groups won't change the fact that everyone in power needs to protect smoking and therefore needs to ban or restrict ecigs to the point of uselessness. Complaints based on ethics do not have much traction. What does have traction is a large-scale media campaign that points out someone is coining it to protect smoking; and a forensic accountancy investigation of a regulator's personal financial affairs that reveals unexplained sources of income. They all have them or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to kill so many millions of people; nobody does it for free. Just follow the money.

 

[T4T3Z0R]

Now i could be misreading the info, but as i understand it the didnt even fin actual formaldehyde but i COMPOUND containing formaldehyde that they BELIEVE COULD release formaldehyde when inhaled.

 

[caramel]

The industry screwed their customer base over in order to guarantee its own cast-iron future. The whole smoking shebang is a disaster area: the industry deliberately sabotaged the smoking community for a guaranteed future, and the community leaders couldn't run a hot-dog stand.

Amen......

 

[LaraC]

Now i could be misreading the info, but as i understand it the didnt even fin actual formaldehyde but i COMPOUND containing formaldehyde that they BELIEVE COULD release formaldehyde when inhaled.

You are on the right track.

In his criticism of the ill conceived "study" Dr. Farsalinos put it this way:

For start, the authors did not find formaldehyde but formaldehyde hemiacetals. This is a combination of formaldehyde and alcohols (formaldehyde-propylene glycol or formaldehyde-glycerol). The authors characterized them as formaldehyde-releasing agents, providing a reference to a study evaluating contact dermatitis from such agents. However, looking at the study referenced, it is clear that those formaldehyde-releasing agents have nothing to do with formaldehyde hemiacetals found in e-cigarette aerosol. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that hemiacetals are toxic or carcinogenic. In fact, it is possible that the formation of hemiacetals might protect against damage induced by formaldehyde. Nevertheless, the authors considered the risk equal to formaldehyde and calculated the risk of cancer.

The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure

 

[Jman8]

Certain groups of citizens are always going to be 'thrown under the bus', 'for the greater good'.

I hear ya. With this in mind, I say we throw ANTZ under the bus. And then back that bus up and run 'em over again.

For the greater good.

 

[DrMA]

I hear ya. With this in mind, I say we throw ANTZ under the bus. And then back that bus up and run 'em over again.

For the greater good.

That's the spirit!

For vapers to survive Tobacco Control industry must be completely destroyed. Let's expose the fraud, degrade the lies, diminish their fame, and convict the leadership. If we don't end the ANTZ fundamentalists, they will end us.

 

[philoshop]

That's the spirit!

For vapers to survive Tobacco Control industry must be completely destroyed. Let's expose the fraud, degrade the lies, diminish their fame, and convict the leadership. If we don't end the ANTZ fundamentalists, they will end us.

...and if governments weren't so fat with people trying to raise tax revenue, they wouldn't need the revenue in the first place.

 

[pennysmalls]

I hear ya. With this in mind, I say we throw ANTZ under the bus. And then back that bus up and run 'em over again.

For the greater good.

I drive a school bus, will that do?

 

[DC2]

What we do need, on the other hand, is a properly-managed fight against the torrent of propaganda. It has to be organised and it has to be paid for. Someone needs to wake up.

I remember hoping that John Cameron would bring some money to the fight...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJyUICkseFE

Maybe some day folks like Leonardo DiCaprio and Katherine Heigl will get involved.

 

[LaraC]

Rolygate, I looked at your stickied post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...r-winning-war-against-ecigs.html#post15105212

The link you put in it took me to about the middle of this long thread. Not anywhere close to your excellent posts # 225, 244, 248, 250, 261, or 268.

Perhaps you have changed the landing point by now. If so, disregard this. And thanks for all the work you do!

 

[Jman8]

OK, MJ use is getting some freedom from the drugs war now, in some respects. It's taken at least 50 years though, IIRC. As you say, that timescale would have been shortened some if social media had existed before. But the real victory is when full federal permissions are granted. After all, that's what we need for vapers and vaping products. How long will it take for this to come to fruition for that alt product? Maybe another 20 years, maybe 50, maybe never.

Hard to agree that real victory comes via full federal permissions. I think we are experiencing real victory right now, and feds are in process of delivering a setback for which we (includes feds) have to overcome that in way that will mean better than outright ban but not as great as under regulated golden era that existed at least thru Jan. 2015.

Here in the information age, I think things happen exponentially faster. What was a 30 year fight in the past, is now closer to 3 years. 10 at the most and is based on which side of the partisan coin holds power. Do we not rejoice right now that Pubs control both houses for at least 2 years? If 5 years from now the political makeup looks like it did in 2009, I think we lose a lot in terms of favors toward eCig industry, but 5 years after that, industry (and consumers) could have damage undone to a degree.

But I agree that community organisation and social media are vital. It's complicated though, because we know a technology change like this is successful after about 30 years, even when the incumbents fight as hard as they can against progress. The key is to reduce the timescale for full acceptance, as 30 years is a long time to have to wait to be able to legally buy a mechmod or a regulator boxmod or decent refill liquids at your local store or indeed anywhere. That's what it's all about.

The cooperation with the smoking lobby is an interesting one. We are all smokers or ex-smokers (or 99.9% are). I'm still a smoker, I smoke the occasional cigar.

The problem I have with cooperation is twofold:

1. To win a war you need allies, it's true. But what if the ally you choose are the H[drug ref here] users and their community orgs? Smokers are perceived in the same light as H addicts or lepers and anything/everything they touch is contaminated politically. It's a very brave choice to pick them as allies. If we are honest, of course, then they need our support as much as we need theirs. Others have suggested linking with the MJ users, as they may appear to be successful. However there is a big difference between bravery and realpolitik, and you might justifiably call it suicide to be linked with such groups.

In any case the MJ users have not succeeded by any stretch of the imagination: they've just got some backwoods counties or the equivalent to reckon up the tax advantages and take the bait.

Agreed that smokers are perceived on same rung of totem poll as lepers and the like. I honestly, truly think ex-smokers, more than anyone else (including non-smoking or never smoking ANTZ) are responsible for this. I think some vapers, perhaps a majority, have fallen into this trap and if anything are more likely to stay in that mindset unless our leadership strongly suggests differently.

If we align haphazardly, it might justifiably be called political suicide. If we are not sure what we are even aligning for, i.e. simply to grow our numbers, I think it will be suicidal. At same time, doing what we are doing now is equivalent of political homicide and long term suicide toward our own cause. Here in the information "long term" means 10 years.

To win a propaganda war, I think one just needs to be extra careful who you are dismissing and who you are, on the face of things, seemingly agreeing with. We do appear to agree with ANTZ that BT and stubborn smokers are political trouble and that calling smoke products by cutesy, albeit disparaging, names is helpful for vaping. I'm guessing ANTZ loves us for that while smokers resent it and wonder how long we will last on our cutesy electronic gizmos that so far look like a fad that a 12 year old might be involved with.

To be clear, I don't think we need to align with BT per se, but just stop trying to dismiss smokers and acting as if they need the cure that we've found. Guess who else would like to cure smokers?

2. I can't think of any more useless bunch of worthless incompetents than the smokers' reps. If someone told me that with 30% or 40% of the population and unlimited funds you or I couldn't have done better to protect their rights, I'd have to say that person has taken leave of their senses.

In truth, what you are looking at is a done deal. The industry screwed their customer base over in order to guarantee its own cast-iron future. The whole smoking shebang is a disaster area: the industry deliberately sabotaged the smoking community for a guaranteed future, and the community leaders couldn't run a hot-dog stand. You couldn't do a worse job with such huge resources if you got blind drunk and signed anything put in front of you.

Gotta pause here cause you are saying things that I disagree with, without saying what you mean exactly. I see it as industry made some missteps and ANTZ capitalized on this and spun it in way that is part of propaganda war. Akin to diketones in eLiquid. That's still occurring despite 2013-14 information. 10 years from now that may look like clear political misstep by eCig industry and could, rather easily, be seen as eCig industry lying to its base all in the name of profit. Heck the fomaldehype scare of 2015 could go that route. IMO, it is ANTZ leaning scientists and smear campaign setting industry up like a bowling pin, knocking them down, and then blaming industry for the misstep from start to finish. But perhaps you have other things in your arsenal to back your claims up and to make this discussion a little more interesting.

The smokers deserve sympathy, for sure, but figuring out who to work with among thousands of proven sellouts and proven incompetents is a bit of a tall order. They deserve what they got, because in this life, you deserve what you get. And they got royally screwed. It would be like choosing Captain Schettino to pilot your ship, given his history: a person who (allegedly) sunk the ship through gross incompetence then (allegedly) tripped to find himself in a lifeboat ahead of the passengers, somehow. The people associated with the smokers' 'fight' are of that quality.

So, ANTZ are not the issue in the smokers fight, and BT and it's reps are entirely to blame for their plight?

Brainwashed much?

If you want to tally up exactly how well the smokers' representatives did (and are doing), then compare them with people who know what they're doing like the NRA. The NRA had a fraction of the userbase and a fraction of the potential funding, and how did they do compared to the smokers' orgs? Yes, that's right: about a million times better. Now ask why smokers' reps are a dismal failure on every count, then tell us we should work with them. That'd be like diving with a half-ton weight round your neck.

Ex-smoking ANTZ is the reason why I see smoking being a million times worse than other political fights. How many ex-gun owners are coming out claiming that the guns, not them, are entirely responsible for all the damage they encountered each time they discharged their device? I see gun lobby as having made it's political position very clear: that people using the product are the issue, not the product. If a gun owner went the other way, the rest of the gun lobby would throw that person under the bus and run them over, swiftly. With smoking (especially ex-smokers), if the product is stated as THE reason why "I" had the problem that I did, then many people, who are of the anti-smoking variety, would be right there to support me in my path toward overcoming the evil makers of that product. And will gladly support me in lawsuits against the industry. May even put me on a poster if I will say these things loud and proud. And if I ever venture into territory of "perhaps the issue was with me," then I shall be accused of astroturfing and being a tobacco shill.

Luckily, it's not a decision that needs to be made. Cooperation with other groups won't change the fact that everyone in power needs to protect smoking and therefore needs to ban or restrict ecigs to the point of uselessness. Complaints based on ethics do not have much traction. What does have traction is a large-scale media campaign that points out someone is coining it to protect smoking; and a forensic accountancy investigation of a regulator's personal financial affairs that reveals unexplained sources of income. They all have them or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to kill so many millions of people; nobody does it for free. Just follow the money.

A large scale media campaign can work, I grant that. But if BT is not on our side (by our choice) and clearly BP is not (by their choice) and BG is appeasing them who has the most to gain, then our campaign is only one of ethics or at best to preserve BV. And you think ANTZ is going to have a problem with BV after dismantling BT with help of ex-smoking ANTZ? You don't think there will be ex-vaping ANTZ someday who are glad to be liberated not only from the nicotine, but the diketone and formaldehyde issues?

Um, yeah, good luck with that.

 

[rolygate]

Rolygate, I looked at your stickied post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...r-winning-war-against-ecigs.html#post15105212

The link you put in it took me to about the middle of this long thread. Not anywhere close to your excellent posts # 225, 244, 248, 250, 261, or 268.

Perhaps you have changed the landing point by now. If so, disregard this. And thanks for all the work you do!

Interesting.

I clicked the link in Firefox, not logged in, as Guest, with the default 10 posts per page operating, and it took me directly to the target post at #225.

Same again with the latest version of Opera: direct to the post.

Then with an old version of Opera, logged in, with my default set to 20 posts per page: direct to the post.

Then I went to another PC and ran the Firefox/guest condition again - direct to post #225.

So it's difficult to see where the problem is as I can't reproduce it. Sometimes if I click on the page before it's loaded (maybe even move the cursor) then the page won't load to the anchor correctly, maybe this could be the problem? (The anchor is the target point on the page that a link points to.) Can you try with a browser that is not logged in, and then again logged in, leaving the page alone until it's stabilised, please?

Thanks for keeping an eye out

 

[zoiDman]

Interesting.

I clicked the link in Firefox, not logged in, as Guest, with the default 10 posts per page operating, and it took me directly to the target post at #225.

Same again with the latest version of Opera: direct to the post.

Then with an old version of Opera, logged in, with my default set to 20 posts per page: direct to the post.

Then I went to another PC and ran the Firefox/guest condition again - direct to post #225.

So it's difficult to see where the problem is as I can't reproduce it. Sometimes if I click on the page before it's loaded (maybe even move the cursor) then the page won't load to the anchor correctly, maybe this could be the problem? (The anchor is the target point on the page that a link points to.) Can you try with a browser that is not logged in, and then again logged in, leaving the page alone until it's stabilised, please?

Thanks for keeping an eye out

I'm not sure if this Helps?

But I use IE11/WIN7 and my ECF profile is set to 40 Posts per page. And no links from outside of the ECF direct me to the Proper Post. But if I change my ECF Profile to the Default setting, then they do.