"Cigarettes May Have Fewer Carcinogens and Chemicals than Electronic Cigarettes "

[sebt]

Mike Siegel has caught another one:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/tobacco-control-practitioner-tells.html#disqus_thread

Links to a Las Vegas Sun article. Any Nevadans out there can contact the paper?

I sadly agree with Siegel when he says:

I cannot honestly recall a situation in the past in which public health practitioners were lying almost every day to the public about a particular health issue. We're reaching the point where not a day goes by without anti-smoking advocates somewhere disseminating false or fraudulent information to the public about electronic cigarettes.

Over here in the UK it may not be quite as bad: I haven't seen any (or at least many) examples of individual medical practitioners coming up with anti-ecig statements. (Some GPs have publicly endorsed them).

We have more of a different problem: the BMA (British Medical Association) continues to insist that e-cigarettes are bad, and puts pressure on companies (e.g. pub companies; but even, as covered recently in that Scotsman article, football clubs) to ban them on their premises. So instead of individual practitioners coming up with bull****, influencing individual people directly, what we have is the big institutions (e.g. the BMA) putting pressure on other big institutions, often behind the scenes. Every individual ban (e.g. by a regional rail company, which is an effective monopoloy, but not subject to democratic pressure) of course comes with its own sickly-sweet little self-justification, citing health concerns - and the overall effect is a drip-drip effect of the "correct message" into peoples' minds.

And of course the companies find it much easier to ban something than to allow it - especially by using the moronic "it looks like smoking" justification. Which suggests that their staff have some problems with their visual and olfactory senses. So they'll pick the big-name institution which supports this position (the BMA), rather than one of the others (e.g. Cancer Research UK, or ASH UK, who are at least cautiously favourable towards e-cigs).

 

[AgentAnia]

Have you noticed the latest ANTZ/PANTZ* tactic? They're now claiming ecigs are "owned" by Big tobacco (or making statements based on that unspoken assumption), so they must be bad because BT is bad... I've been seeing more and more comments like this lately:

“The tobacco industry is taking everything out of their playbook and recycling it because it works,” Azzarelli said. “After lying for decades about carcinogens in cigarettes, are we going to trust the tobacco industry when they say e-cigarettes are safe?”

(I can't recall seeing anywhere any tobacco company, in fact, anyone, saying ecigs are safe... Safer, yes, but... )

*PANTZ = Public-health ANTZ, to distinguish them from private-sector ANTZ, though they are ANTZ all the same...

 

[pamdis]

Interesting. When I click on Michael's link to the article in question, the headline is different and the sections quoted do not appear in the article. Could it be they changed it and/or clipped it? Or maybe they have wizened up and put a different versions between print and on-line.

 

[Stubby]

Mike Siegel has caught another one:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/tobacco-control-practitioner-tells.html#disqus_thread

Links to a Las Vegas Sun article. Any Nevadans out there can contact the paper?

I sadly agree with Siegel when he says:



Over here in the UK it may not be quite as bad: I haven't seen any (or at least many) examples of individual medical practitioners coming up with anti-ecig statements. (Some GPs have publicly endorsed them).

We have more of a different problem: the BMA (British Medical Association) continues to insist that e-cigarettes are bad, and puts pressure on companies (e.g. pub companies; but even, as covered recently in that Scotsman article, football clubs) to ban them on their premises. So instead of individual practitioners coming up with bull****, influencing individual people directly, what we have is the big institutions (e.g. the BMA) putting pressure on other big institutions, often behind the scenes. Every individual ban (e.g. by a regional rail company, which is an effective monopoloy, but not subject to democratic pressure) of course comes with its own sickly-sweet little self-justification, citing health concerns - and the overall effect is a drip-drip effect of the "correct message" into peoples' minds.

And of course the companies find it much easier to ban something than to allow it - especially by using the moronic "it looks like smoking" justification. Which suggests that their staff have some problems with their visual and olfactory senses. So they'll pick the big-name institution which supports this position (the BMA), rather than one of the others (e.g. Cancer Research UK, or ASH UK, who are at least cautiously favourable towards e-cigs).

Nothing really new going on. Just look at the decades of bad information on smokeless tobacco here in the states (which contributed to the ban on snus in the EU). This has been happening a long time and in fact Siegal was among those spreading misinformation about ST. Siegal was among those that lied about the dangers ST, yet now he is complaining about his friends from tobacco control lying about the dangers of e-cigs. It all comes around.

 

[Concat]

So frustrating how everyone thinks ecigs are run by the tobacco industry.

 

[Ohyeathat]

There is a reason for all this. Many people will lose out on hefty sums of money if people chose not to smoke. Even those who are anti-smoking stand to lose out on thier enormous paychecks.

 

[blondeambition3]

Mike Siegel has caught another one:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/tobacco-control-practitioner-tells.html#disqus_thread

Links to a Las Vegas Sun article. Any Nevadans out there can contact the paper?

I sadly agree with Siegel when he says:



Over here in the UK it may not be quite as bad: I haven't seen any (or at least many) examples of individual medical practitioners coming up with anti-ecig statements. (Some GPs have publicly endorsed them).

We have more of a different problem: the BMA (British Medical Association) continues to insist that e-cigarettes are bad, and puts pressure on companies (e.g. pub companies; but even, as covered recently in that Scotsman article, football clubs) to ban them on their premises. So instead of individual practitioners coming up with bull****, influencing individual people directly, what we have is the big institutions (e.g. the BMA) putting pressure on other big institutions, often behind the scenes. Every individual ban (e.g. by a regional rail company, which is an effective monopoloy, but not subject to democratic pressure) of course comes with its own sickly-sweet little self-justification, citing health concerns - and the overall effect is a drip-drip effect of the "correct message" into peoples' minds.

And of course the companies find it much easier to ban something than to allow it - especially by using the moronic "it looks like smoking" justification. Which suggests that their staff have some problems with their visual and olfactory senses. So they'll pick the big-name institution which supports this position (the BMA), rather than one of the others (e.g. Cancer Research UK, or ASH UK, who are at least cautiously favourable towards e-cigs).

When I read garbage like this I just want to round up a Posse' and go kick me some of those lying butts!!!!!

I assure you, Not EVERYTHING that happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas....