Right, this looks as if it could be an IE problem then. Other browsers seem to work.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Brace yourselves new Formaldehype junk study to be released Jan 21
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
A Problem with IE. Or a Problem with the way the Forum Software interacts with IE.
All I know is I have Never seen this Problem with any other Browser other than IE11 on Win7.
@Jman8
OK, I know some people won't agree with me, but this is how it seems to me:
1. Aligning with the MJ user groups
The MJ users have achieved a lot, considering, but the only thing that matters to us in vaping is full acceptance at national level. A win at the same levels that the MJ community have won is no real use to us. We can't grow ecigs here, they have to be imported, so full federal permissions to import are required.
If the MJers had won at federal level then that would be a strong argument that they are doing something right. However, as far as I can see, all they achieved is to get some bankrupt States to agree that a new source of tax revenue sure looks good.
Our situation is the direct opposite: we are trying to take away vital tax dollars from bankrupt States and cities. Ecigs kill smoking revenues by removing tobacco tax revenue, MSA funding, and incomes from treating sick smokers. If you take money from pharma then you put at risk all the other payments that trickle down from smoking, as they control everything. They hate us with a deep and vicious anger that cannot be fixed any way at all. We're stopping the tobacco tax revenue, stopping the giant payments of free money from the MSA, and stopping the billions of dollars in drug revenues from treating sick smokers. (The smoking cessation drugs trade is chump change in comparison with that - virtually invisible.) We're stopping the gravy train that keeps all the parasites afloat - not giving them entirely new revenue channels, as the MJ people have done.
The MJ situation is a win-win for any States that are not paralysed by incompetence: you save all the money you had to spend on the drugs war against MJ, and you get an additional major tax revenue source. What's not to like?
We are the opposite of MJ users as far as the States are concerned. We are to be killed off as soon as possible, by any means possible. Look at what the AGs are doing for the purest definition of corruption you'll ever find. Asking them to like us is asking the impossible. The MJ model is no use to us.
2. Aligning with smokers' rights groups
I think I made a good comparison with regard to the NRA: look at how the NRA have done compared with the smokers' rights groups, with a fraction of the resources - a much smaller percentage of the population and much smaller funding.
If the smokers' rights people are not grossly incompetent by comparison, what are they? They had about 40% of the population to work with, and potentially unlimited funds. A far, far better position than the NRA ever had. And what did they achieve? The worst defeat in the history of mankind.
Aligning with the worst incompetents around does not seem a good idea to me. Although it is hard to see how they could be so incompetent as to lose everything when they had enough resources to win a crushing victory. If someone was to make the argument that maybe they got paid to fall over, then maybe I wouldn't disagree too much. There is a limit to incompetence, after all, and a defeat on that scale is hard to understand.
It's generally best to align with proven success, not partial local improvements or massive, crushing defeat and dismal, utter failure. The disabled rights, gay rights and AIDS patients' rights people, on the other hand, did a whole lot better. They are a better model for successful community action against establishment opposition. They succeeded at federal level and with a fraction of the resources the smokers' rights people had.
If it were to be suggested that we take a leaf out of the disabled rights activists' book, then I couldn't disagree.
OK, I know some people won't agree with me, but this is how it seems to me:
1. Aligning with the MJ user groups
The MJ users have achieved a lot, considering, but the only thing that matters to us in vaping is full acceptance at national level. A win at the same levels that the MJ community have won is no real use to us. We can't grow ecigs here, they have to be imported, so full federal permissions to import are required.
If the MJers had won at federal level then that would be a strong argument that they are doing something right. However, as far as I can see, all they achieved is to get some bankrupt States to agree that a new source of tax revenue sure looks good.
Our situation is the direct opposite: we are trying to take away vital tax dollars from bankrupt States and cities. Ecigs kill smoking revenues by removing tobacco tax revenue, MSA funding, and incomes from treating sick smokers. If you take money from pharma then you put at risk all the other payments that trickle down from smoking, as they control everything. They hate us with a deep and vicious anger that cannot be fixed any way at all. We're stopping the tobacco tax revenue, stopping the giant payments of free money from the MSA, and stopping the billions of dollars in drug revenues from treating sick smokers. (The smoking cessation drugs trade is chump change in comparison with that - virtually invisible.) We're stopping the gravy train that keeps all the parasites afloat - not giving them entirely new revenue channels, as the MJ people have done.
The MJ situation is a win-win for any States that are not paralysed by incompetence: you save all the money you had to spend on the drugs war against MJ, and you get an additional major tax revenue source. What's not to like?
We are the opposite of MJ users as far as the States are concerned. We are to be killed off as soon as possible, by any means possible. Look at what the AGs are doing for the purest definition of corruption you'll ever find. Asking them to like us is asking the impossible. The MJ model is no use to us.
2. Aligning with smokers' rights groups
I think I made a good comparison with regard to the NRA: look at how the NRA have done compared with the smokers' rights groups, with a fraction of the resources - a much smaller percentage of the population and much smaller funding.
If the smokers' rights people are not grossly incompetent by comparison, what are they? They had about 40% of the population to work with, and potentially unlimited funds. A far, far better position than the NRA ever had. And what did they achieve? The worst defeat in the history of mankind.
Aligning with the worst incompetents around does not seem a good idea to me. Although it is hard to see how they could be so incompetent as to lose everything when they had enough resources to win a crushing victory. If someone was to make the argument that maybe they got paid to fall over, then maybe I wouldn't disagree too much. There is a limit to incompetence, after all, and a defeat on that scale is hard to understand.
It's generally best to align with proven success, not partial local improvements or massive, crushing defeat and dismal, utter failure. The disabled rights, gay rights and AIDS patients' rights people, on the other hand, did a whole lot better. They are a better model for successful community action against establishment opposition. They succeeded at federal level and with a fraction of the resources the smokers' rights people had.
If it were to be suggested that we take a leaf out of the disabled rights activists' book, then I couldn't disagree.
Handicapped people don't have to pay for certain metered parking spots where I live.
And these are valued spaces.
And my wife says they can park in a red zone if all handicapped spaces are taken.
I have not yet verified that yet, so don't quote me.
No wonder so many douchebags get bogus handicapped designations.
I do not begrudge truly handicapped people the "right" to park appropriately.
But I hate anyone who twists the system to their own benefit.
I guess this may be a bit off-topic though...
Handicapped people don't have to pay for certain metered parking spots where I live.
And these are valued spaces.
And my wife says they can park in a red zone if all handicapped spaces are taken.
I have not yet verified that yet, so don't quote me.
No wonder so many douchebags get bogus handicapped designations.
I do not begrudge truly handicapped people the "right" to park appropriately.
But I hate anyone who twists the system to their own benefit.
I guess this may be a bit off-topic though...
So I guess using something like the Americans with Disabilities Act to say that we are All Nicotine Addicts and that we have certain protects is Out of the Question?
Thanks, Roly. I tried what you suggested.
Used two different browsers; logged into the forum on each, and logged out coming back in as a guest on each.
___________________________
With Chrome (my usual browser) ver. 40.0.2214.91 m
Instead of going to your link, it consistently takes me to Kent C's post #111
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15086748
And stays there. Does not switch to your post.
____________________________
With IE 11 (I rarely use it) ver.11.0.9600.17501
It briefly takes me first to Kent C's post #111
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15086748
Then switches quickly to your link:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15103800
______________________________
You have enough work to do, and it's likely just a minor glitch in my Chrome. Appreciated your looking at it!
My edit: I have Windows 7.
Used two different browsers; logged into the forum on each, and logged out coming back in as a guest on each.
___________________________
With Chrome (my usual browser) ver. 40.0.2214.91 m
Instead of going to your link, it consistently takes me to Kent C's post #111
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15086748
And stays there. Does not switch to your post.
____________________________
With IE 11 (I rarely use it) ver.11.0.9600.17501
It briefly takes me first to Kent C's post #111
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15086748
Then switches quickly to your link:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-study-released-jan-21-a-12.html#post15103800
______________________________
You have enough work to do, and it's likely just a minor glitch in my Chrome. Appreciated your looking at it!
My edit: I have Windows 7.
Last edited:
Given that I am not a nicotine addict...So I guess using something like the Americans with Disabilities Act to say that we are All Nicotine Addicts and that we have certain protects is Out of the Question?
And that many of us here are no longer nicotine addicts...
And that many who Think They Are Still Nicotine Addicts may not really be any longer.
Then no.
Not any more than others...
Most of the 'truly handicapped' I know, esp. vets, are not the victim-types. The douchebags are. And it's their doctors (not all doctors) that hand out handicap placards like candy.
When smokers - one of the most demonized groups ever - haven't gotten 'handicap status' - there's now way vapers will. And not a path we should pursue, imo.
Given that I am not a nicotine addict...
And that many of us here are no longer nicotine addicts...
And that many who Think They Are Still Nicotine Addicts may not really be any longer.
Then no.
So it sounds like the Americans with Disabilities angle is Definitely Out.
Skipping this one cause I didn't bring it up and well, because it isn't a group I would ever throw under the bus.
And I thought I made a good point that NRA's political position is clear: it's the person, not the product that leads to perceived problems in their market. With eCigs, the jury is still out, and with smoking, some of the jury are ex-smokers who are convinced that BT did something to them which they are not, in any way, responsible for. I believe vaping will go this way, for surely there will be ex-vaping ANTZ, as well as BV that is in it for the profit.
They didn't have 40% of the population on their side. I hang with smokers today who display smoker's guilt. I see it on ECF routinely. These people are ones that have bought into ANTZ rhetoric as reason why they have a problem with smoking. These are the people that are convinced "smoking kills" and have names like "cancer sticks" for the product they use. Get those same people off of cigarettes (via NRT, cold turkey, vaping) and voila, an ex-smoking ANTZ is wandering through society, blaming BT for the addiction they once had (and likely enjoyed, though smoker's guilt will never ever allow them to admit to this).
I don't know what the percentage is that smoking reps ever had. I would venture to say 5% at the highest, most liberal estimate I could come up with. I routinely challenge people on ECF to show me data on "smoking kills." I'm actually surprised that NO ONE to date has provided any. The only reason I think it hasn't come up is because I usually stipulate that by saying, "I reckon the same sources you will provide are all vehemently anti-vaping. But if you have other data to help support the smoking kills meme, I am very up for reviewing that." And I mean that. I am very very interested in looking at that data. Just as if someone came to ECF with attitude of "vaping kills." We'd all want to see where that data is coming form, what methodology was used to arrive at that conclusion and if we are being intellectually honest (as opposed to dismissive), we'd wade through the scientific jargon to discover how sound is this sort of study, really.
Right about now, I would say vaping industry likely enjoys 75% support of its users to varying degrees. Probably 5% or less that are passionate enough to attend political meetings, write to congress, write to the press, and participate actively on vape forums. It's not that the other 95% don't care, but just have other concerns in life that are more important to them. Yet, that number is bound to go down if ANTZ takes full swings at the industry. I review other threads (today) and friends/family of vapers are starting to go the other way, starting to believe these reports. Get these vapers free of vaping (nicotine) and suddenly they'll be "liberated." Some will likely stay on our side and not become zealots against nicotine vapers. Others will, undoubtedly, become ex-vaping ANTZ. That type of ANTZ is what ought to make us nervous. Current ANTZ has very little clue on what vaping is and the nuances. An ex-vaping ANTZ will have very clear understanding of what the devices are, how eLiquid works, and how much a vaper is likely to use daily.
Then add in the notion that there will be industry reps that will make boneheaded decisions as we go forward. Ones that ANTZ will capitalize on and spin in way that has you believing that BT / smoking reps really bungled things up all on their own accord. Right now, with all the support within the community that we have (I feel it is pretty high), I think it is easy to deflate air from ANTZ rhetoric that is floated out there intended to smear the industry and it's passionate users. 10 years from now, I can see a bunch of ex-vapers "seeing the light" and leading propaganda battles that don't have ANTZ show up as clueless about what is an eCig and how do normal people use it.
Refuse to identify with what smoking industry went through and moreover throw them under the political bus for hope of scoring brownie points for vaping, and I think the defeat that vaping is being set up will make smoking one look like a walk in the park.
There's no formal alignment with smoking industry that I'm aware of. BT is becoming BV and is going to do what they do. We already have players that are BV and that don't speak kindly about smoking, but also don't appear to hate on smoking industry. It's to the community that I make this plea. Cause from within this community, perhaps someone reading this sentence, will come the ex-vaping ANTZ. That person wields way more political power than the cheap shots ANTZ are currently taking and not doing all that well with. Within this same community, there often appears to me to be a bunch of ex-smoking ANTZ-like people. Not full on ANTZ, but fairly zealous about the idea that BT is the problem and not adhering to the notion that (perhaps) the user is the one that had a problem.
I also wish to make as clear as possible that there are many vapers (here on ECF and elsewhere) who are not haters of smoking / smokers, nor of BT. They get what I'm conveying here. I actually think many of our leaders (i.e. CASAA board) gets this. The anti-smoking faction is so entrenched, it is very rare that I find a person that doesn't have at least some degree of ANTZ occurring within their expressions. But most people, and really I mean most non-smokers, are not zealots. Never were, and likely never will be. Whereas, the members who once identified with a community, but feel liberated from that which enabled their addiction/habitual use are the ones that are prone to zealotry. Not all of them, but certainly some of them.
In practical terms, the alignment I speak of is rethinking your own views on smoking, smoking industry and who is really responsible for your (previous) choice to be a smoker for x number of years? Same question applies to vaping / vaping industry.
And I would suggest we take a leaf out of all these groups advocacy efforts, but realize that 99% of us didn't come from the disabled, gay or AIDS community.
What I'm interested in is the methods used by all these groups for advocacy and political gain, not the individual issues or specific gains only applicable to their own areas.
As for throwing anyone under the bus, this is unrelated to what I am referring to: either looking at the campaigns they ran, or suggestions we align ourselves with them and/or join forces to go forward.
Separately, regarding the percentages of the population available to an advocacy group: what I'm saying is that if you have 40% of the population to work with, and you end up getting support from 5%, then you have failed (as the smokers' rights people did). It's part of the failure profile, and part of the debacle they are responsible for.
Equally, if vapers' advocates have 2% of the population (say) to potentially draw on, and they manage to engage 0.01% of the population, then this is a fail.
The proportion of the potential supporters that are engaged or lost is part of the success/failure profile. It's no one's fault what proportion become supporters or not except the advocacy leaders.
As for throwing anyone under the bus, this is unrelated to what I am referring to: either looking at the campaigns they ran, or suggestions we align ourselves with them and/or join forces to go forward.
Separately, regarding the percentages of the population available to an advocacy group: what I'm saying is that if you have 40% of the population to work with, and you end up getting support from 5%, then you have failed (as the smokers' rights people did). It's part of the failure profile, and part of the debacle they are responsible for.
Equally, if vapers' advocates have 2% of the population (say) to potentially draw on, and they manage to engage 0.01% of the population, then this is a fail.
The proportion of the potential supporters that are engaged or lost is part of the success/failure profile. It's no one's fault what proportion become supporters or not except the advocacy leaders.
And I agree with you about the scale of the defeat that awaits the vaping trade and community - it's going to be monumental in comparison to the defeat inflicted on smokers. Unless there are legal challenges, the entire trade will be handed over to the cigarette industry both in the US and EU, and there will just be a few minis and cartos for sale legally.
The trouble with legal challenge is that it is, yet again, a reactive approach not a proactive one. It treats the symptoms not the causes. In a way this is like medicine now, it treats symptoms instead of the cause, and as a result the costs are enormous and very little can be cured.
The best policy is proactive because it fixes the cause not the result. It's cheaper, more efficient, and gets a better result. The last legal challenge to the FDA cost $500,000 and only succeeded because they didn't have a leg to stand on. That's quite expensive for a challenge to a groundless interference with business. This time round, the FDA hold all the cards, and the bill will be $5m for a small gain.
It never pays to wait and see how big the damage is going to be before trying to fix it.
Apparently we don't have the ability to put any counter-propagandists we may be able to call on in touch with the funding they need to stop the financially-driven oppression. Because of that, we are going to pay a heavy price.
Where are the half-page ads in major media drawing attention to the fact that the most senior tobacco control scientists in the world have stated as fact that ecigs will save millions of lives? And that anyone who says different needs to explain their sources of income?
Where are the videos that should be everywhere all over YouTube and the media, featuring the top names in tobacco control - like Britton, West, Hayek, and others - explaining that ecigs have a tiny fraction of the risk of smoking and therefore disease and death among smokers will be reduced to a tiny fraction of today's figures if smokers switch?
Where are the TV interviews with top names in public health such as Phillips and Bates explaining that opposition to vaping is groundless on any health basis, and will cost millions of lives?
Where is the media drive to counter the continual propaganda assault that is helping to destroy vaping?
We are going to pay heavily for our lack of any counter-propaganda effort.
The trouble with legal challenge is that it is, yet again, a reactive approach not a proactive one. It treats the symptoms not the causes. In a way this is like medicine now, it treats symptoms instead of the cause, and as a result the costs are enormous and very little can be cured.
The best policy is proactive because it fixes the cause not the result. It's cheaper, more efficient, and gets a better result. The last legal challenge to the FDA cost $500,000 and only succeeded because they didn't have a leg to stand on. That's quite expensive for a challenge to a groundless interference with business. This time round, the FDA hold all the cards, and the bill will be $5m for a small gain.
It never pays to wait and see how big the damage is going to be before trying to fix it.
Apparently we don't have the ability to put any counter-propagandists we may be able to call on in touch with the funding they need to stop the financially-driven oppression. Because of that, we are going to pay a heavy price.
Where are the half-page ads in major media drawing attention to the fact that the most senior tobacco control scientists in the world have stated as fact that ecigs will save millions of lives? And that anyone who says different needs to explain their sources of income?
Where are the videos that should be everywhere all over YouTube and the media, featuring the top names in tobacco control - like Britton, West, Hayek, and others - explaining that ecigs have a tiny fraction of the risk of smoking and therefore disease and death among smokers will be reduced to a tiny fraction of today's figures if smokers switch?
Where are the TV interviews with top names in public health such as Phillips and Bates explaining that opposition to vaping is groundless on any health basis, and will cost millions of lives?
Where is the media drive to counter the continual propaganda assault that is helping to destroy vaping?
We are going to pay heavily for our lack of any counter-propaganda effort.
While it is understandable to talk about groups that can influence politicians, one can address those who actually make the decisions - the politicians themselves. I'm not saying this is an easy task, but neither is debunking junk science by groups who have most of the media on their side.
Going back to Mr. Sparkle's question - 'What can I do?' You can seek out those representatives, or during an election, those candidates, who have supported pro-vaping views, either by supporting legislation that would help them or voting against bills that would restrict their use. Again, this isn't always easy because if a candidate hasn't been asked or hasn't promoted explicitly pro-ecigs views, then one has to take a broader look at their views on regulation in general. Are they more likely to support free market, less regulation and less taxes policies or are they quick to 'save the children' or 'promote regulation' for control under the guise of 'promoting safety' rather than allowing adults to make their own decisions about things that harm no one except, perhaps, themselves.
As we have seen time and again, it is not the 'progressive' politicians or candidates that are on our side. In fact, they are very much against it and have sent up bills and regulations that would tend to eliminate 99% of ecig products. And, mostly, on the state and local levels, not only do the progressives promote anti-ecig bills but there are certain Republicans - mainly establishment-types, not conservative or libertarian, who by their puritanical views tend to think any action such as smoking, vaping and other activities which are outside of their comfortable decorum, where they will side with regulations against, rather than allow adults the 'free will' of choice. [while that is a general observation that is backed by the experience we've had here - there will be exceptions, but that is something one has to seek out and find out - it's not always easy.]
Support and vote for, campaign for even, those who are pro-vape and against those who are not, because those are the people who actually vote on things that affect our lives. All the other smoke/vape free and pro-vape groups who try to buy or influence that support are secondary, imo. Although we should support the pro-vape groups as well, but the decision makers are the office holders.
Going back to Mr. Sparkle's question - 'What can I do?' You can seek out those representatives, or during an election, those candidates, who have supported pro-vaping views, either by supporting legislation that would help them or voting against bills that would restrict their use. Again, this isn't always easy because if a candidate hasn't been asked or hasn't promoted explicitly pro-ecigs views, then one has to take a broader look at their views on regulation in general. Are they more likely to support free market, less regulation and less taxes policies or are they quick to 'save the children' or 'promote regulation' for control under the guise of 'promoting safety' rather than allowing adults to make their own decisions about things that harm no one except, perhaps, themselves.
As we have seen time and again, it is not the 'progressive' politicians or candidates that are on our side. In fact, they are very much against it and have sent up bills and regulations that would tend to eliminate 99% of ecig products. And, mostly, on the state and local levels, not only do the progressives promote anti-ecig bills but there are certain Republicans - mainly establishment-types, not conservative or libertarian, who by their puritanical views tend to think any action such as smoking, vaping and other activities which are outside of their comfortable decorum, where they will side with regulations against, rather than allow adults the 'free will' of choice. [while that is a general observation that is backed by the experience we've had here - there will be exceptions, but that is something one has to seek out and find out - it's not always easy.]
Support and vote for, campaign for even, those who are pro-vape and against those who are not, because those are the people who actually vote on things that affect our lives. All the other smoke/vape free and pro-vape groups who try to buy or influence that support are secondary, imo. Although we should support the pro-vape groups as well, but the decision makers are the office holders.
Sometimes I want to scream when reading these studies. Let's pretend that the experimental design actually was sound, and was fully disclosed.
Even then, humans do not all smoke or vape the same, and using one or two or ten products in only one or two or ten different ways to generalize to thousands is a dangerous assumption because you may have very poor criterion and/or external validity. Hell, with the different ways people use the same product, it's even harder to generalize a lab study to many different people. Studies that have examined "light" cigarettes have shown that lab testing is a poor substitute for trend data. While not completely useless, it's not far from it. Using machines to make conclusions about a personal-use product isn't necessarily reliable either...what one produces in a lab may not be reproduced when tested with thousands of actual people.
Unfortunately, researchers are going to have to accept that conclusive evidence needed to accurately quantify the risks of use of electronic cigarettes will need to be trend data from a series of longitudinal studies that can literally control for different types of products, as well as the different way these products are used. In other words, it needs to be years of data that log and follow users. It needs to also be able to account for health issues NOT related to electronic cigarette usage, and weight the data accordingly. It needs to run controls against people who use no nicotine products, people who use NRT long-term, people who smoke lightly, and people who smoke heavily. This kind of information cannot be generated in a few months, or even a few years. It will require massive efforts, a very large sample size, and a model that can handle, store, categorize, and summarize what will be a massive quantity of data. We are talking literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of outputs from a program like SAS or Stata.
Making regulatory decisions without sufficient trend data has harmed consumers in the past. There are almost surely risks of using an electronic cigarette. These risks are almost surely much less than a regular cigarette. But that is a lot of wiggle room in between and more data on this subject is needed prior to making more definitive statements.
I think the point that there is significant variation in the quality of fluids used is a valid point, and I think it's not unreasonable to explore the possibility of if regulation here can be beneficial since there could be chemicals in some poor quality fluids which carry more risks than others. HOWEVER, there IS NOT currently sufficient evidence to quantify this issue, to rank it relatively against other products that were considered for regulation, and make an intelligent decision based on the findings using some sort of a threat assessment model. In other words, this is what I like to call, "data-deficient."
This formaldehyde conclusion doesn't offer much more conclusive evidence than research that quantifies the amount of bugs the average human unintentionally consumes in their food, or a statistic on how bananas are radioactive. It has some shock factor, and even if the methodology of this research was sound, the findings here have a practical application that is questionable at-best.
Even then, humans do not all smoke or vape the same, and using one or two or ten products in only one or two or ten different ways to generalize to thousands is a dangerous assumption because you may have very poor criterion and/or external validity. Hell, with the different ways people use the same product, it's even harder to generalize a lab study to many different people. Studies that have examined "light" cigarettes have shown that lab testing is a poor substitute for trend data. While not completely useless, it's not far from it. Using machines to make conclusions about a personal-use product isn't necessarily reliable either...what one produces in a lab may not be reproduced when tested with thousands of actual people.
Unfortunately, researchers are going to have to accept that conclusive evidence needed to accurately quantify the risks of use of electronic cigarettes will need to be trend data from a series of longitudinal studies that can literally control for different types of products, as well as the different way these products are used. In other words, it needs to be years of data that log and follow users. It needs to also be able to account for health issues NOT related to electronic cigarette usage, and weight the data accordingly. It needs to run controls against people who use no nicotine products, people who use NRT long-term, people who smoke lightly, and people who smoke heavily. This kind of information cannot be generated in a few months, or even a few years. It will require massive efforts, a very large sample size, and a model that can handle, store, categorize, and summarize what will be a massive quantity of data. We are talking literally hundreds and hundreds of pages of outputs from a program like SAS or Stata.
Making regulatory decisions without sufficient trend data has harmed consumers in the past. There are almost surely risks of using an electronic cigarette. These risks are almost surely much less than a regular cigarette. But that is a lot of wiggle room in between and more data on this subject is needed prior to making more definitive statements.
I think the point that there is significant variation in the quality of fluids used is a valid point, and I think it's not unreasonable to explore the possibility of if regulation here can be beneficial since there could be chemicals in some poor quality fluids which carry more risks than others. HOWEVER, there IS NOT currently sufficient evidence to quantify this issue, to rank it relatively against other products that were considered for regulation, and make an intelligent decision based on the findings using some sort of a threat assessment model. In other words, this is what I like to call, "data-deficient."
This formaldehyde conclusion doesn't offer much more conclusive evidence than research that quantifies the amount of bugs the average human unintentionally consumes in their food, or a statistic on how bananas are radioactive. It has some shock factor, and even if the methodology of this research was sound, the findings here have a practical application that is questionable at-best.
Last edited:
Let's not. It wasn't. Basically you've laid out the 'we don't have enough information yet' ANTZ argument.
"There are almost surely risks of using an electronic cigarette." Not known - so far there's no evidence that suggests that. But "reasonable ANTZ" and media types say this a lot, trying to appear to be 'fair and balanced' when the rest of their piece is not.
i agree with you in general.
i believe its more that the general population of 80% non-smokers are to busy
leading their lives to give a hoot one way or the other. they are worried about their
own ox's being gored. most non-smokers i know don't care because the government
is going to ban them any way.
regards
mike
I find it very hard to understand why each vaper doesn't get at least five non-smokers on their side...
--Family
--Friends
--Coworkers
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
