Just want to clarify the bold part. Consumers (you and I) can refer to them as smoking cessation products all we want. Like, who's going to stop that? Only businesses that sell them may not do such a claim unless willing to apply with FDA that their product is a drug delivery (medical) device rather than recreational alternative to smoking.
Brace yourselves new Formaldehype junk study to be released Jan 21
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just want to clarify the bold part. Consumers (you and I) can refer to them as smoking cessation products all we want. Like, who's going to stop that? Only businesses that sell them may not do such a claim unless willing to apply with FDA that their product is a drug delivery (medical) device rather than recreational alternative to smoking.
Wow. Just wow. This is the kind of community that we have here? This is what's promoted? This is the way our "forum manager" talks to members?
.... this place. I'm staying. Forever.
Or at least as long as the moderators will let me.
That is quite correct.
From the [URL nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069"]nejm link description it appears vaporization was not high.Not high enough to cause dry hits.
It reads "(10 50-ml puffs over 5 minutes; 3 to 4 seconds per puff). With each puff, 5 to 11 mg of e-liquid was consumed, and 2 to 6 mg of liquid was collected".
Perhaps the ecig scientistslaugh
Again, that's not the whole story. The main reason this study is flawed is because the clearomizer used isn't designed to handle 5v of power. Besides that, let's take this part that you're so fond of: 10 50-ml puffs over 5 minutes; 3 to 4 seconds per puff
Atomizers rely on two things to cool the coil so that it operates at an optimum level, liquid coolant(the e-liquid) and air passing over the coil(the "puff"). A normal human breath is 500ml of air, while resting, puffing on an atomizer is active inhaling, so I will guesstimate and say we are pulling in 3-10x that amount of air with each "puff." So, again, if you use a device at a voltage it is not designed for, and your machine does not imitate a true human operation of inhaling, your results will be flawed. Not to mention using a clearomizer that is notorious for poor wicking action. I doubt the machine did the infamous "tip and twirl" to keep the wicks and coil saturated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Organisation of a proper media campaign is the key to success.
Two years ago every journalist was against us, there were not enough studies on the right topics, we didn't have any visible effect on smoking prevalence, no one knew what percentage of vapers were ex-smokers, the vaping community didn't have a loud enough voice, and we were getting massacred in the media.
Two years ago I used to bemoan the lack of media support in any shape or form, but I knew it would change - it had to, when the scribblers began to see the light. Under a 24/7 assault, I used to say: don't worry, the tide will turn when those comedians switch to vaping. It was a risky thing to say, given the scale of the attack from Grub Street (London's press and its global equivalent) but it turned out to be right. Now there are plenty of journalists who support us. This was bound to happen eventually because the news media have a greater proportion of smokers than the gen pop, like nurses. If you have a large group of smokers then soon enough you'll have plenty of vapers. Anyone who actually vapes will soon realise that the scale of the lies about vaping and ecigs is ridiculous, and if they're a journo with a voice then they won't be so ready to criticise and their support will be heard eventually. The tide had to turn sooner or later, and it did: we started getting positive media coverage. Now it's gone as far as it's going to go, in that direction, because all the journalists left sniping at vaping are either non-smoking hacks or working for an outlet that has big advertisers exerting pressure to crush ecigs. Advertising revenue is crucial to the media - especially newspapers and their online versions - and the big advertising revenue sources are all against vaping (pharma for example, who are frantic to to kill off ecigs in order to protect their drug sales for treating smoking-related illness).
Two years ago there was a shortage of useful studies in certain areas, but that's fixed now. Even a search of one source such as PubMed turns up hundreds of results. Heavyweights like the Burstyn study and the Cochrane Review all support us and cannot be ignored by any honest scientist. What's left are sockpuppets and shills working for fake charities and the like, owned by the pharmaceutical industry or funded by the giant MSA payments which have turned the Public Health industry into dollar addicts jonesing for their next fix. The thought of those $200 billions being cancelled out by ecigs is driving them insane. Who is going to pay the CEO of a pharma front group that $1 million salary once the MSA blood money has gone and pharma's lovely drug business from smoking sickness is on its knees? Answer: no one - they'll be on the job market again, looking for honest work, and the $2 million mortgage will be foreclosed. No fake charity management can stomach that - they've had years and years of nice gentle propaganda work at huge pay rates; real work doing actual health is no use to them: it's down and dirty, and pays peanuts in comparison.
Two years ago smoking prevalence was static and had been for many years. In the UK for example there had been no change since 2008, smoking was jammed at 20%, and in fact the number of smokers had slightly risen (because if a section of the population is a constant 20% year on year, but the population is growing strongly, then that 20% grows proportionately). Then suddenly Prof West's bang up to date smoking stats began to show something extraordinary: vaping prevalence was rising and smoking prevalence was falling at the same rate. The vapers were the smokers. After zero action for many years, despite all the millions spent on smoking cessation policies, THR was now the only thing reducing smoking, and no one was arguing with West as he has the most current and accurate (and un-massaged) smoking stats in the world. It also helps that the stats are government funded but independent of the Department of (Pharmaceutical) Health and all the industry-backed liars in the UK. As CV Phillips had been saying for years, after the plateau, only substitution (THR) can reduce smoking prevalence. Now we know that the 20% Prevalence Rule governs smoking rates, and vaping was showing up on West's stats as responsible for the sudden decline in smoking after years of stasis.
[It's useful to be able to use the UK as an example since it is a microcosm of the US: if you multiply any factor by about 10 - somewhere between 5 and 20, usually - you get the result in the USA; it's small enough that data is easy and cheap to get; it's small enough that it's too hard to falsify or misrepresent the data, as is occurring in the US with the CDC's outright lies (the later exposure of the lies does nothing to mitigate the effect that their lying has when it is first published, since without the data at that time it is impossible to show how they have misrepresented it or even avoided asking any embarrassing questions; and nothing beats a smear). The UK also has some honest public health staff, since the vast sums trickling down to the Public Health industry in the US from cigarette sales (billions in free money if you are prepared to lie loud enough and long enough) don't exist in the UK and so the biggest fraudsters weren't attracted to public health. Instead they get on the EU gravy train, where an endless supply of money is available for those willing to forget anything about ethics or morals; they get windfarms built in windless areas, for the massive grants; and suchlike.]
Two years ago there was no evidence for what percentage of vapers were ex-smokers, what percentage had quit entirely, what percentage reduction in smoking prevalence was due to vaping, or indeed if there was any evidence at all to support what is obvious to vapers: that vaping replaces smoking, and given enough time (and purchasing freedoms) will do a good job of replacing most of it. Then Robert West's Smoking Toolkit stats began to show the obvious: vaping is going up and smoking is going down. We now know that a third of vapers are ex-smokers. We now have the evidence to show that vaping replaces smoking and is easier to quit if that's what you want to do. We now know that vaping has kickstarted a new rise in successful smoking cessation attempts. Because the three most senior tobacco control figures in the UK now support ecigs, it is much clearer that only the paid liars are left on the other side. Britton: "We would save 5 million lives in the UK just among those alive today if all smokers switched to ecigs". West: "The risk is negligible and compared with smoking, there is no contest." Hajek: "Ecigs are about as safe as you can get". Of course, there is a slight problem here with the EU, as they provide all our laws; and the EU is the world's most powerful corruptocracy. An EU Commissioner can become fabulously wealthy, no one quite knows how, and they make the laws. The laws suit pharma for some reason. The last EU Commissioner sacked for corruption was caught out soliciting a bribe of €10 million from the tobacco industry, and then later caught moving a personal fortune of $100 million between offshore banks. Nice work if you can get it.
Two years ago, vapers had yet to make any real impact on the social media. Now they rule. Public health liars and parasites regularly get a thrashing when they come out with yet more rubbish.
Two years ago it was 10 - nil against us in the media. Now that some journalists are with us, and the community has mobilised, things are better. However we still face a multi-million dollar campaign in the media to bury us under a torrent of fraudulent research and paid-for propaganda. It doesn't matter how many journalists we have on our side or how much we do ourselves in the parts of the media accessible to us. We are still losing the propaganda war that the antis have successfully combined to wage against us. Unless we fight back with our own centrally-managed media information campaign, we must resign ourselves to seeing one-way traffic. Then, when harsh regulations come in and you can't buy the hardware you need to stay off smoking, or the refills you need to stay off smoking, you will at that stage see the result of lying down without a fight. A propaganda war can only be won by equalling the enemy's efforts and presenting the truth. You can't fight it with evidence and facts and honesty presented to regulators - the regulators work for and are paid by the people who need to kill vaping. You have to get in the trenches and beat the propagandists at their own game.
When Mrs Smith next door sees 'experts' (read: media clowns) telling her that ecigs cause cancer and tells you to stop vaping as a result of that, you need your own version to counter it. When bought regulators try to bring in corrupt laws to strangle vaping, and quote their sockpuppets in the media as a good reason, then you need the politicians who control them to have so much media pressure on them that they cannot operate in the dark and keep taking the money. Corruption survives in the dark, it doesn't do well in sunlight.
Media pressure has to be bought. If something like media exposure is free then it usually isn't much use. Half-page advertorials in the Washington Post aren't free, and that's what we need. Documentaries on how many millions of lives ecigs will save and how the government protects cigarette sales are not free, and that's what we need. Real experts speaking freely about the real health benefits as against the fabricated tosh presented by the anti's shills, on primetime TV, are not free - and that's what we need.
A centrally-organised well-funded media campaign is what we need to counter the opposition's propaganda. We don't need any more 'debates' about health, you'd have to be a cave-dweller with an IQ of 42 not to realise by now that vaping is 100% the way to go. We don't need any more evidence, there is enough to stretch to the moon and back; and anyone who says there isn't is clearly a liar. We don't need any more arguments about how if only we could persuade the politicians and regulators to look at the evidence, everything will be all right; when they are clearly bought and paid for by the opposition, there isn't much point.
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.
There are only two options to fill the advocacy and media campaign you allude to. The first is the consumers who typically speak through a collective organization that pools resources, in this case CASAA. The second is the more profitable companies in the market space either individually or through a trade association like SFATA. These two entities may be too young for this fight, but they will be in it non the less.
After your post I read more about Innokin iTaste VV V3.0 battery and the clearomizer.
I agree that 50 ML IS way smaller amount as against the 500 ml figure you gave, which I think,Is realistic.
500 ml air equals to around 500 mg weight which is considerable amount compared to amount of eliquid that actually resides on the coil/wick.I guess at any given point the wicks have about 0.25 ml (About 250 mg) eliquid.
That is quite correct.
From the [URL nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069"]nejm link description it appears vaporization was not high.Not high enough to cause dry hits.
It reads "(10 50-ml puffs over 5 minutes; 3 to 4 seconds per puff). With each puff, 5 to 11 mg of e-liquid was consumed, and 2 to 6 mg of liquid was collected".
Perhaps the ecig scientists
It is quite correct that the quote from NEJM reguarding the study proves that the "scientists" conducting it failed basic High School Physics and Chemistry.
If you take 5 mg of water, simple H2-O and vaporize it, collect the vapor and condense it in a closed system, your result must 5 mg of water. Vaporization is simply a change in physical state, not a chemical one.
What your quote is showing is their sample was reduced by about half, so either their equipment was sub-par or half of the sample was combusted and not vaporized. Was the missing part of the sample burnt to where the combustion byproducts were carried in their resulting condensate? Were their laboratory skills so poor that they just lost half of their sample?
In an e-cigarette NO combustion should take place, unless you apply enough power to the heating element to burn the eliquid. Combustion causes changes in the chemical state of matter, unlike vaporization. If this happens the result is a vapor, gas, smoke that any normal human would not be able to inhale.
Yes - partly. CASAA is not capable of infomarketing of this type, has other priorities, and is maxed out taking care of state-level threats. They do a great job in their sphere and because they are volunteers with limited funding and resources, could not do the job (and do not want to).
SFATA is not interested in this type of campaign since they haven't made a start and because they probably wouldn't want to take this approach. If you look at what the various trade associations like ECITA and SFATA do, it is not related to the propaganda war since they have enough to do with their other responsibilities. They have done some excellent work in many areas, such as ECITA's work with standards and SFATA's trade advocacy. Their funds are mostly allocated to administration and complex tasks they must complete in the legal and standards areas. The only topic I'd criticise them on is the lack of any transparency in quality. As far as I'm aware, there is no vendor anywhere in the world who displays a current, independent, full analysis of a single finished retail refill liquid to a proper laboratory standard fit for purpose, which is a 99.5% analysis. Until that is done - in an environment where Dr Farsalinos showed that 74% of them either lie about toxic ingredients or don't even know what their products contain - then it is impossible to claim they have even covered the basics.
So who can do the job I have outlined?
A group of vendors acting in concert, independent of any trade group, assisted by crowdfunding, monitored by trustees including community representatives, publishing their membership and governance for full transparency, would be able to achieve the desired result.
They need expert advice because anything to do with propaganda (including how to counter it) needs input that very few have access to. In general you don't find the skills required until an industry is large, and of course the pharmaceutical industry is the best example of how to create and manage a black propaganda campaign the world has ever seen outside of specialist government departments. When everything you think you know about nicotine is wrong, everything the guy on the street knows about vaping is wrong, and most of the stuff you know about tobacco is either wrong or hugely exaggerated but taken as fact by all, then whoever organised and paid for that is doing pretty well. That's pharma.
There is a large vendor in the UK who has done a reasonable job of creating and running what appears (from a quick surface view) to be a community-based advocacy campaign group. They got the visibility they needed and the column inches. However there are two basic faults with this approach:
- It's coming from the wrong side. Trying to make a commercially-funded campaign look as if it's a community effort is just wrong, wrong, wrong. This sort of thing cannot be concealed without enormous resources to conceal the origin of the funding together with extremely skilled operators. It costs pharma hundreds of millions to do this kind of thing well: good pressure and results achieved with the funding source effectively concealed.
- Because it's the wrong way of doing it, it has opened us up to accusations of astroturfing, which (in this particular case, only) are entirely accurate. That's something we really don't need. You can't get amateurs to do something well that takes skill and massive resources to pull off. In any case it's improper, and since we hold the high ground it is a serious error to descend into the bog and slug it out there. Bad judgement.
Unfortunately this approach displays an alarming level of naivety, which to be honest has plagued the ecig trade from the beginning. Ecig vendors are mostly vapers who turned pro, and their skill levels in the political arena reflect what you'd find on the street or in offices anywhere. It's not their game. You can easily judge their capabilities by what they haven't achieved when it is obvious what needed doing (firstly, an effective US trade association years ago; and secondly, verifiable quality standards and transparency); and obvious what shouldn't be attempted at all (astroturfing).
It is a fact that government is always twenty years behind the curve, and the medical profession are always ten years behind. The ecig trade are about three years behind in everything, and that is a fatal situation when your neck is on the chopping block.
If there was any real concern for people's health then tobacco would be a controlled substance.
Also...just want to get this out there...
"Teen suicide on the rise!" studies have shown that an increasing number of teenagers are watching nightly news reports on their local news channels and scientists are connecting this to the increased statistics.
Dr. Paidtosay has confirmed these findings.
Also...just want to get this out there...
"Teen suicide on the rise!" studies have shown that an increasing number of teenagers are watching nightly news reports on their local news channels and scientists are connecting this to the increased statistics.
Dr. Paidtosay has confirmed these findings.
Last edited:
Please let me explain this as there are probably many people who think that better research or better scientists can address this problem.
The people you refer to are paid to attack vaping. They are researchers willing to accept funding from the pharmaceutical industry to create junk science in order to smear vaping. Fraudulent research [1] of this kind cannot be fixed: there is an unending supply of it and an unending supply of fraudsters who are paid by the smoking economy and who will take money to protect it.
People need to realise that government at national and regional level depends on tobacco tax and the taxes from major industries who depend on smoking. The politicians, the regulators and the fake charities are all bought and paid for. You can't fix a situation like that with better science - the science is irrelevant to them. Health issues are irrelevant to them. Millions get sick in order to pay their wages and that situation is just perfect as far as they are all concerned. You buy government tobacco, after all, and perhaps it would be wise to ask why they would want to cut off their own arms and legs [2].
This is not a health debate or a science debate. Part of their skill lies in making you think so, when a million tons of excellent research would not make the slightest difference. They successfully take you into a battle zone where you cannot win, and where you expend all your ammunition. It's one of the greatest skills of the masters of regulated product markets. You cannot appeal to a regulator's better judgement as they are owned by your opponents.
The trade and community need to take the right action - the propaganda is seriously damaging us.
[thanks Kent]
-------------------------------
[1] These studies are beyond incompetent: a class of 15 year old chemistry students would know not to commit the basic errors revealed in this study. If they are not grossly incompetent then they are corrupt: willing to take money to smear the only method that has the remotest prospect of helping to significantly reduce smoking.
[2] In the UK, at any rate: the government has a greater than 90% stake in cigarette sales. You buy 18 out of 20 cigarettes in the pack from the government. The tobacco industry is strictly a minor partner who simply handle logistics and agree to act as scapegoat in order that the illusion can be maintained. (And there's good money in it of course; along with a guaranteed future, since no one can afford to kill off smoking. That would be the ultimate madness as far as they are all concerned.)
Understand this: you buy government tobacco. Think about it.
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.
Last edited:
They couldn't collect 100% liquid which they made a clear mention in the report.One need elaborate setup to condense everything except air.
The setup as such is not wrong,but The Airflow quantities they chose is definitely wrong.They chose airflow quantities based on nasal breathing.
The setup as such is not wrong,but The Airflow quantities they chose is definitely wrong.They chose airflow quantities based on nasal breathing.
There could be conflict of interests but the basic setup is not Junk even though they made some important mistakes.Even such mistakes could throw some useful Information regarding harms of vaping at very high temperatures though the harms are not perceived to be very significant at this point of time.
If I recall correctly, some of those biased studies did indeed threw some light on harms of poor soldering prevalent before.
I am totally oblivious of government(s) intention and have little to contribute to any such discussions.
If I recall correctly, some of those biased studies did indeed threw some light on harms of poor soldering prevalent before.
I am totally oblivious of government(s) intention and have little to contribute to any such discussions.
[removed]
--------------
Please let us not descend to insult, in this thread at any rate. It's a serious subject. The Outside is a better place for hot dispute.
Many people have inaccurate opinions based on successful propaganda, or do not know the whole story. Perhaps we should try to educate, not offend.
- Roly
--------------
Please let us not descend to insult, in this thread at any rate. It's a serious subject. The Outside is a better place for hot dispute.
Many people have inaccurate opinions based on successful propaganda, or do not know the whole story. Perhaps we should try to educate, not offend.
- Roly
Last edited by a moderator:
Cass Sunstein's tactics will not work on vapers. We are an active and informed community in tune with the state of science on the topic and painfully aware of the huge financial motives standing against us. Just saying...
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. I find it rather easy to counter the average person spouting ANTZ propaganda as they are very under equipped to handle the discussion beyond what they've read recently. While they may not visibly change their position when I encounter them, I truly believe a seed is planted, and will sprout if they truly care about the issue and/or the friend that is vaping now. I think they are very likely to turn the tide to favor vaping, but to varying degrees and at varying times. Some may "wake up" this year, some may not wake up this century. This seems to be true with any topic where waking up is necessary.
2 - All sides in the vaping propaganda war have a bias. I feel confident that BP is aware of their bias, feels it is righteous, but also knows junk science / smear campaigns are worthy tools in their fight and to promote their bias. I think at a certain, high end level, they don't hide their bias and do think creating as many ANTZ-like entities is a great thing. At lower levels of the BP food chain, I think they cower from the idea that they are ANTZ-like entities and pretty much think they show up like they are not biased and rely on objective science. IMO, these people are fooling themselves and if I had a conversation with them that was more than 15 minutes, I believe I would make this clear to them in as diplomatic fashion as I could muster up.
Our side (vaping enthusiasts, pro-nicotine usage) has varying biases. I feel well aware of my own bias. I don't hide it, and don't feel confused by things that I express which at times do appear to contradict themselves. I say all this, cause I do feel some on our side appear to be unaware of a bias or downplay it as if that isn't what is driving their political position. I feel the vaping enthusiasts bias, as it stands right now, and speaking in very general terms, is confusing. I've stated this many times before, but we appear like we are ANTZ-like towards smoking and even smokers, but pro nicotine usage. Our side tends to put all our political eggs in the THR basket, and in so doing, we can join the anti-smoking chorus. I find this disgusting at times. Not the THR part, but the anti-smoking expressions. We appear to be willing to throw smokers under the bus routinely, if it serves another milestone for vaping. As long as this is occurring, we stand a chance to alienate smokers (our most significant population segment from where nearly all new users come from) and I think it is very poor logic to not realize that we just aligned a whole lot of people with BT by doing so. IOW, if BT does win in the vaping market to come, and some vaping enthusiasts today hate that prospect, then I think some of those vaping enthusiasts ought to look in the mirror to see who made that happen.
3 - To beat ANTZ at their own game, I strongly believe means taking on smoking propaganda. Nearly all, if not all, vaping propaganda stems from this war that some consider already won. If that is true, then the vaping propaganda war is already won, as I see it. But because I don't see the smoking propaganda war as really finished, then the vaping war is not finished. If I were to be in charge of some full page ad in major newspaper that supports vaping, it might say something like this:
1 - They lied to you about smoking
2 - Now they are lying to you about vaping
Wake up! The real addicts among us are getting desperate to steal you money based on your own choices.
That's not intended as a final draft, but to make the point that vaping lies stem from smoking lies. If fellow vapers refuse to engage in that sort of battle, well then good luck. You are going to get smoked (pun intended) and IMO are partially responsible for making things much easier for our adversaries. Beat them at their own game. Their game is anti-smoking. Why would you join with them by ever denouncing smoking/smokers when you were (or are) likely one yourself, started at a young age, and lived decades while enjoying life as much as you did, which includes turning to vaping as another recreational choice for how you choose to live?
Imagine if ANTZ had to suddenly play defense on the anti-smoking campaign. If they had to back up all the junk science there (and there's lots). Why wouldn't we put them on the defense with what they deem their winning hand, when reality shows it is based on deception? The answer to this sort of question, that makes sense to me, can only be because of our (collective) bias. We appear like we are unaware that we fight for ANTZ on the one hand and denounce ANTZ on the other hand.
4 - A massive, well organized and presumably well funded media campaign for enthusiastic vapers could possibly work right now, but unless our bias is squarely addressed and the smoking propaganda war is included in our overall strategy, then I frankly don't see us having much of a chance, and rather not support crowd funding campaigns that feel some foolish need to bash smoking to gain brownie points for vaping.
With guerrilla tactics comes the freedom to fight the propaganda war without some central command telling a passionate fighter something ridiculous like "no, we won't be taking on the smoking data at this time."
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. I find it rather easy to counter the average person spouting ANTZ propaganda as they are very under equipped to handle the discussion beyond what they've read recently. While they may not visibly change their position when I encounter them, I truly believe a seed is planted, and will sprout if they truly care about the issue and/or the friend that is vaping now. I think they are very likely to turn the tide to favor vaping, but to varying degrees and at varying times. Some may "wake up" this year, some may not wake up this century. This seems to be true with any topic where waking up is necessary.
2 - All sides in the vaping propaganda war have a bias. I feel confident that BP is aware of their bias, feels it is righteous, but also knows junk science / smear campaigns are worthy tools in their fight and to promote their bias. I think at a certain, high end level, they don't hide their bias and do think creating as many ANTZ-like entities is a great thing. At lower levels of the BP food chain, I think they cower from the idea that they are ANTZ-like entities and pretty much think they show up like they are not biased and rely on objective science. IMO, these people are fooling themselves and if I had a conversation with them that was more than 15 minutes, I believe I would make this clear to them in as diplomatic fashion as I could muster up.
Our side (vaping enthusiasts, pro-nicotine usage) has varying biases. I feel well aware of my own bias. I don't hide it, and don't feel confused by things that I express which at times do appear to contradict themselves. I say all this, cause I do feel some on our side appear to be unaware of a bias or downplay it as if that isn't what is driving their political position. I feel the vaping enthusiasts bias, as it stands right now, and speaking in very general terms, is confusing. I've stated this many times before, but we appear like we are ANTZ-like towards smoking and even smokers, but pro nicotine usage. Our side tends to put all our political eggs in the THR basket, and in so doing, we can join the anti-smoking chorus. I find this disgusting at times. Not the THR part, but the anti-smoking expressions. We appear to be willing to throw smokers under the bus routinely, if it serves another milestone for vaping. As long as this is occurring, we stand a chance to alienate smokers (our most significant population segment from where nearly all new users come from) and I think it is very poor logic to not realize that we just aligned a whole lot of people with BT by doing so. IOW, if BT does win in the vaping market to come, and some vaping enthusiasts today hate that prospect, then I think some of those vaping enthusiasts ought to look in the mirror to see who made that happen.
3 - To beat ANTZ at their own game, I strongly believe means taking on smoking propaganda. Nearly all, if not all, vaping propaganda stems from this war that some consider already won. If that is true, then the vaping propaganda war is already won, as I see it. But because I don't see the smoking propaganda war as really finished, then the vaping war is not finished. If I were to be in charge of some full page ad in major newspaper that supports vaping, it might say something like this:
1 - They lied to you about smoking
2 - Now they are lying to you about vaping
Wake up! The real addicts among us are getting desperate to steal you money based on your own choices.
That's not intended as a final draft, but to make the point that vaping lies stem from smoking lies. If fellow vapers refuse to engage in that sort of battle, well then good luck. You are going to get smoked (pun intended) and IMO are partially responsible for making things much easier for our adversaries. Beat them at their own game. Their game is anti-smoking. Why would you join with them by ever denouncing smoking/smokers when you were (or are) likely one yourself, started at a young age, and lived decades while enjoying life as much as you did, which includes turning to vaping as another recreational choice for how you choose to live?
Imagine if ANTZ had to suddenly play defense on the anti-smoking campaign. If they had to back up all the junk science there (and there's lots). Why wouldn't we put them on the defense with what they deem their winning hand, when reality shows it is based on deception? The answer to this sort of question, that makes sense to me, can only be because of our (collective) bias. We appear like we are unaware that we fight for ANTZ on the one hand and denounce ANTZ on the other hand.
4 - A massive, well organized and presumably well funded media campaign for enthusiastic vapers could possibly work right now, but unless our bias is squarely addressed and the smoking propaganda war is included in our overall strategy, then I frankly don't see us having much of a chance, and rather not support crowd funding campaigns that feel some foolish need to bash smoking to gain brownie points for vaping.
With guerrilla tactics comes the freedom to fight the propaganda war without some central command telling a passionate fighter something ridiculous like "no, we won't be taking on the smoking data at this time."
So they used a very sub-par setup that would earn them a failing grade in any college Chemistry class, with no way to determine what percentage of the sample they were able to collect was the result of vaporization and what was a result of combustion due to their lack of understanding of the product they were supposed to be testing.
Nasal breathing makes sense, everyone smokes or vapes by stinking it up their nose, these supposed "scientists" are redefining incompetent.
The results as reported where 1/2 the sample is missing, and the sketchy description they have released of the procedures they used render this study as bogus as any claims made by Dr. Oz on TV or any such charlatan.
Real science does not rely on "CLOSE ENOUGH" procedures and testing.
Last edited:
As usual, the biggest obstacle in a campaign such as this is an uninformed citizenry who will faithfully believe that their g'ment somehow has their best interests at heart, and would 'first do no harm'. That's a big hurdle to overcome.
Then again, how do you persuade someone who has never smoked or vaped that it's a good idea for their g'ment to lose a revenue stream that might somehow end up with them having to cough up more in tax dollars in the not-so-distant future?
The problem is not so much the uninformed citizenry, or the greedy government(s) themselves, but that a system is firmly in place which actually requires both. Certain groups of citizens are always going to be 'thrown under the bus', 'for the greater good'.
Then again, how do you persuade someone who has never smoked or vaped that it's a good idea for their g'ment to lose a revenue stream that might somehow end up with them having to cough up more in tax dollars in the not-so-distant future?
The problem is not so much the uninformed citizenry, or the greedy government(s) themselves, but that a system is firmly in place which actually requires both. Certain groups of citizens are always going to be 'thrown under the bus', 'for the greater good'.
True dat! Close enough only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades!
< produced by 24,000 watts wicked with pure asbestos- Status
Similar threads
