I've been of the opinion that e-cigs are always now going to be e-cigs...that's how they were marketed in the beginning, that's how all the testing that has been done has referred to them. Since we here are consumers rather than manufacturers it seems rather silly to try to re-name them the Washington Monument.
But this movement is for sure a "Social Advocacy For Effective Replacement (SAFER)" , how could that be wrongly interpreted. And Prove it? It's been proven that "smoking kills". That's all we hear from anti-smoking groups all the time, the horrible stats.
Wow, we could just fish through the posts on ECF and find thousands of probable causes for that theory, although they're not really stats; I can breathe, I can smell things, my blood pressure medication was stopped, bronchitis went away. Just those lists floating around here with lab certified testing of cigarette chemicals and carcinogens, the reports of safer alternatives that are known (snus, for one) and the list of benefits of nicotine, it goes on and on. If someone wants proof I guess there's probably going to have to be a few deaths, autopsies, and resurrections before that could honestly happen. There have been quite a few that did (self) cotinine testing for metabolized nicotine, which would never stand up in any lab, but living breathing people won't necessarily have toxicology tests to prove what they now already. You don't go to a Doctor after your cold is better, then go get tested to see if it was a cold. So
I love that above quote I emboldened, but what to follow, "of tobacco Smoking", or "of smoking", or just "tobacco", because it's catchy but stops short of 'what' is replaced. Ha, I'm repulsed by the word 'smoking', isn't that something. But it's probably the right one. The politically acceptable one.
It's like a divorce, once you get one, you can't call you kid's Mom anything but "the kid's Mom", you have to be real. So I say keep it all real.
But this movement is for sure a "Social Advocacy For Effective Replacement (SAFER)" , how could that be wrongly interpreted. And Prove it? It's been proven that "smoking kills". That's all we hear from anti-smoking groups all the time, the horrible stats.
Wow, we could just fish through the posts on ECF and find thousands of probable causes for that theory, although they're not really stats; I can breathe, I can smell things, my blood pressure medication was stopped, bronchitis went away. Just those lists floating around here with lab certified testing of cigarette chemicals and carcinogens, the reports of safer alternatives that are known (snus, for one) and the list of benefits of nicotine, it goes on and on. If someone wants proof I guess there's probably going to have to be a few deaths, autopsies, and resurrections before that could honestly happen. There have been quite a few that did (self) cotinine testing for metabolized nicotine, which would never stand up in any lab, but living breathing people won't necessarily have toxicology tests to prove what they now already. You don't go to a Doctor after your cold is better, then go get tested to see if it was a cold. So
I love that above quote I emboldened, but what to follow, "of tobacco Smoking", or "of smoking", or just "tobacco", because it's catchy but stops short of 'what' is replaced. Ha, I'm repulsed by the word 'smoking', isn't that something. But it's probably the right one. The politically acceptable one.
It's like a divorce, once you get one, you can't call you kid's Mom anything but "the kid's Mom", you have to be real. So I say keep it all real.
