E-cigarettes evoke controversy
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I agree. I just cannot wrap my brain round this dumb argument that e.g. "e-cigs are dangerous and must be stomped on, mustn't sell them here, have nicotine in them" Oh Dear God! NO! NOT!!!!! NICOTINE!!! GASP!!!!!....oh but real cigarettes are ...what? ...OK? Legal? Fine to sell in stores? have nicotine in them? and arsenic... and MOAI's..... and ammonia and ...and...
If you take out of the equation "Health Canada", the FDA, anti-smoking lobbies and the agendas of the media ... then there would be no controversy. They are making up.
No, the legislation has not yet been passed to tax e-cigs and they don't want to lose the revenue stream in the meantime. Just the way con-men and criminals think.
Governments since the beginning of time ...
have been lying to the public to further their private agendas
and protect the profits of those who bribed them.
The truth may go underground and not be openly discussed
but regardless how hard they try ... They can't stamp out truth.
I really get a kick out of seeing lies published in articles and
people sarcastically posting comments screaming the truth
is public knowledge...making the autors look like total idiots !!!
have been lying to the public to further their private agendas
and protect the profits of those who bribed them.
The truth may go underground and not be openly discussed
but regardless how hard they try ... They can't stamp out truth.
I really get a kick out of seeing lies published in articles and
people sarcastically posting comments screaming the truth
is public knowledge...making the autors look like total idiots !!!
I think it's sadder than that Petrodus. Back in the old days the newspaper/nightly news was entertaining as one would need to do a bit of thinking in order to ascertain what those buggers were up to.
Nowadays it seems that the aforementioned buggers just slam their nefarious intentions right in your face accompanied with a big middle finger and a "Nah nah nee boo boo, so what are you going to do about it you worm?"
Nowadays it seems that the aforementioned buggers just slam their nefarious intentions right in your face accompanied with a big middle finger and a "Nah nah nee boo boo, so what are you going to do about it you worm?"
What I really miss is the practice of investigative journalism. Instead of striving to give a "balanced" report, merely parroting whatever claims either side makes, it would be better to give a biased report based on having really dug into the facts and formed an educated opinion about what's true and what isn't true.
Example: FDA holds press conference and states, "We found carcinogens in e-cigarettes." Reporter asks, "Are these same carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes? How about in a nicotine patch? How do the quantities in these three types of products compare? Have any cases of cancer been linked to using a nicotine patch?"
Another Example: CBS News reporter asks Health Canada, "So you have research showing that it is safer to continue smoking? No? You want them to use the government-approved treatments, instead? Well, what about those who have already tried that, and none of them worked? You're advising former smokers to stop using the product that did work and go back to using products that don't work--even if that makes it likely they will relapse to smoking?"
Example: FDA holds press conference and states, "We found carcinogens in e-cigarettes." Reporter asks, "Are these same carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes? How about in a nicotine patch? How do the quantities in these three types of products compare? Have any cases of cancer been linked to using a nicotine patch?"
Another Example: CBS News reporter asks Health Canada, "So you have research showing that it is safer to continue smoking? No? You want them to use the government-approved treatments, instead? Well, what about those who have already tried that, and none of them worked? You're advising former smokers to stop using the product that did work and go back to using products that don't work--even if that makes it likely they will relapse to smoking?"
I really do understand ... I'm well over 60 so you know I really understand
the "in your face and what are you going to do about it" thing.
Last edited:
For the benefit of those who weren't around or too young to remember...
Vocalek was NOT exaggerating or trying to be amusing ...
That's the way it was.
We can only give examples ... We wish we could share the emotions
of witnessing true Investigative reporters on TV.
Last edited:
Guess the comments didn't evoke the response they were looking for. Comments are no longer being accepted.
Good resource thanks!
But they still accept thumbs up
Well I have the honor of having the most thumbs-down votes. Wonder whether those came from Health Canada, the CLA, or reporters for CBC.
I'm confused...I just looked to see how many, but I saw 32 thumbs-up, and 0 thumbs-down.
I'm confused...I just looked to see how many, but I saw 32 thumbs-up, and 0 thumbs-down.
Oh, you're right. I was mistakenly looking at the scores for the post above mine. The only thing in that one that I might disagree with is that the Canadian Lung Association is a worthy organization. As soon as the CLA stops trying to prevent smoking cessation, my opinion of them will improve.
Very similar posts on other sites like the CBC were censored by the National Post.
Good on them for the objective article, not so good on responses.
Good on them for the objective article, not so good on responses.
Every time the e-cig bashing articles come out, my observation seems to be the truth comes out in the comments section. These people writting this nonsense have to get the hint sooner or later. They are no longer fooling anyone. Is it possible the FDA can pull a fast one with e-cigs, and get away with it?? I am not so sure.
Whenever I see these sort of articles in general, and specifically when some lung association issues a statement saying that they think the flavors of ecigs will be a "gateway drug" to get kids to start smoking it makes me a little bit more jaded because the corruption and backroom dealings are all too obvious. There is no way that any serious health organization could bash something like the electronic cigarette, which by all accounts is a viable option to get people off of traditional cigarettes without there being some shady goings on between them and Big Pharma. Also on the issue of kids being "lured" into smoking... first of all most credible retailers wouldn't sell to kids any more than they would sell regular cigarettes and second, lets suppose for a second that someone (we'll say an 18 year old to stay legit) started vaping and then from there tried a regular cigarette I would bet money that they would decide to stick with vaping once they realized what a real cigarette tastes like. I know when I first started smoking I thought they tasted absolutely awful but I got addicted to the nicotine and didn't have any other choice than to learn to like it. Given a choice from the start, the decision would be a no-brainer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
