E-Cigs By Prescription Only? Fox News

[Kent C]

NO if they were rx only and on prescription as cessation aids they would still be included in public use bans because of the visible vapour. The WHO have stated that they should be treated as medicinal products and included in tobacco legislation.
It's all nonsense anyway, how could they prescribe something that they claimed wasn't proven safe or effective. Until something is tested as a medicine it cant be prescribed except in trials. Dr. Tom Frieden has a mouth on him but seems to not understand how medicine works. Which is scary in it's own way.

It's a stupid idea, but as I said in the other thread on the same subject, I think this perhaps is Dr. Marc Siegel's way of transitioning over to 'pro-ecigarette', or not looking as foolish as he has compared to almost all the other Fox News commentary on the subject.

All his other pieces have been all negative and this one while bad from our point of view isn't as bad as the others. He starts out with: Ecigarettes work! A perfect 'pragmatic approach'

 

[Sirius]

It's a stupid idea, but as I said in the other thread on the same subject, I think this perhaps is Dr. Marc Siegel's way of transitioning over to 'pro-ecigarette', or not looking as foolish as he has compared to almost all the other Fox News commentary on the subject.

All his other pieces have been all negative and this one while bad from our point of view isn't as bad as the others. He starts out with: Ecigarettes work! A perfect 'pragmatic approach'

Seems like every time one of those talking heads opens their mouth about e-cigs it sounds pretty stupid. Well, not Gutfeld but hes a jerk..lol

 

[Kent C]

Seems like every time one of those talking heads opens their mouth about e-cigs it sounds pretty stupid. Well, not Gutfeld but hes a jerk..lol

I used to have RedEye in the background when I was on the computer and I had to mute. However, I like watching him. When it's only his voice, I can't take it. lol. But with RedEye and The Five, there's been plenty of positive ecig stuff. Greg has an edge and is a bit of a jerk, but so is Matthews at MSNBC, Stewart and Colbert. Stossel is more to my liking - watching and politically....

 

[Vocalek]

It is important not to confuse the two doctors with the last name of Siegel.

Dr. Micheal Siegel, who was quoted in the story, is a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. He is critical of the work of Dr. Glantz and has written favorably about e-cigarettes. His blog is here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Dr. Marc Siegel is the resident doctor that Fox News calls upon for "expert opinion." He doesn't understand the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction and is no more "expert" about e-cigarettes than the mechanical engineer, Stanton Glantz. Dr. Marc K. Siegel Home Page

 

[Sirius]

Dr. Marc Siegel is the resident doctor that Fox News calls upon for "expert opinion." He doesn't understand the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction and is no more "expert" about e-cigarettes than the mechanical engineer, Stanton Glantz. Dr. Marc K. Siegel Home Page

You got that right Vocalek.

 

[Sirius]

I used to have RedEye in the background when I was on the computer and I had to mute. However, I like watching him. When it's only his voice, I can't take it. lol. But with RedEye and The Five, there's been plenty of positive ecig stuff. Greg has an edge and is a bit of a jerk, but so is Matthews at MSNBC, Stewart and Colbert. Stossel is more to my liking - watching and politically....

Yeah I like John Stossel too. He sure makes more sense than Gutfeld. I do watch FNC but only because I feel they are a bit more fair and balanced than most cable news networks.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah I like John Stossel too. He sure makes more sense than Gutfeld. I do watch FNC but only because I feel they are a bit more fair and balanced than most cable news networks.

Gutfeld is more of the 'Stewart/comedic school' but on the other side. Stossel is not that comedic - although he does like 'props' FNC appears more balanced (except to the Media Matters parrots) because it's not leftist. It isn't as 'right' as some think. Bill O'Reilly is a good example - he's a mixed bag, no consistent philosophy. Greta's another. And the 'grim reaper' Geraldo. Beck and Judge Napolitano were too libertarian for Fox, which is why Stossel will likely be kept on Fox Business News with only late night/weekend spots on FNC

 

[Sirius]

Gutfeld is more of the 'Stewart/comedic school' but on the other side. Stossel is not that comedic - although he does like 'props' FNC appears more balanced (except to the Media Matters parrots) because it's not leftist. It isn't as 'right' as some think. Bill O'Reilly is a good example - he's a mixed bag, no consistent philosophy. Greta's another. And the 'grim reaper' Geraldo. Beck and Judge Napolitano were too libertarian for Fox, which is why Stossel will likely be kept on Fox Business News with only late night/weekend spots on FNC

Stossel is Libertarian too but like me a more moderate one. Yeah, less government I do agree with but some of Ron Pauls ideas are way out there. I wouldn't legalize some of the things he is advocating for.

 

[Fulgurant]

Gutfeld is more of the 'Stewart/comedic school' but on the other side. Stossel is not that comedic - although he does like 'props' FNC appears more balanced (except to the Media Matters parrots) because it's not leftist. It isn't as 'right' as some think. Bill O'Reilly is a good example - he's a mixed bag, no consistent philosophy. Greta's another. And the 'grim reaper' Geraldo. Beck and Judge Napolitano were too libertarian for Fox, which is why Stossel will likely be kept on Fox Business News with only late night/weekend spots on FNC

O'Reilly's a Truman Democrat with a nasty puritanical streak. Unfortunately, he represents the unprincipled (and by extension, often authoritarian) viewpoint of millions upon millions of (generally older) voters, and hundreds if not thousands of Republican politicians and power brokers.

Bill O'Reilly is the reason I cringe a little every time someone here talks about how our opponents reside on the Left. Most of our political opponents, so far, reside on the Left, but Bill O'Reilly and his ilk could and likely will turn on us in a New York minute. His withering disdain for smokers is already on record, and he trots out appeals to child welfare on an almost daily basis.

And he's an absolute .... for the logical trap that is government largesse: as soon as the government gives money to anyone, O'Reilly's all for restricting the recipients' rights, on the basis that public money is always the public's business -- even if he didn't agree with the giving in the first place. That's a very dangerous line of thought these days, a line of thought that will bring both Democrats and Republicans on board with lifestyle restrictions advanced by our corrupt friends in public-health industry.

 

[Kent C]

Stossel is Libertarian too but like me a more moderate one. Yeah, less government I do agree with but some of Ron Pauls ideas are way out there. I wouldn't legalize some of the things he is advocating for.

Stossel is more of an Objectivist. The 'legalize' issue is for elsewhere, but the underlying principle of libertarianism is that you don't initiate force against another, (but that doesn't restrict self-defensive measures); and you have the right to ingest, inhale, do stuff with your own body, so long as no one's rights are violated. If you are driving a car under the influence of alcohol for example, and you harm someone, in a libertarian world, you would be punished for the harm done, OR behavior that is a clear and present danger to others.... not for ingesting or inhaling something. It separates the 'crime' from the individual moral issue. The morality is for you or your loved ones, church, friends to handle Not much has been said by libertarian leaning politicos on ecigarettes. I just emailed Rand Paul the one NIH study posted here that was fairly positive:

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

Many people don't know that Ron Paul voted for the Afghan war initially as a defense issue, but went against it when it became a 'exporting democracy' and a building infrastructure/welfare for the country-type 'war'. He was always against the Iraq war. I won't 'argue' these issues, just pointing them out.

 

[Sirius]

Stossel is more of an Objectivist. The 'legalize' issue is for elsewhere, but the underlying principle of libertarianism is that you don't initiate force against another, (but that doesn't restrict self-defensive measures); and you have the right to ingest, inhale, do stuff with your own body, so long as no one's rights are violated. If you are driving a car under the influence of alcohol for example, and you harm someone, in a libertarian world, you would be punished for the harm done, OR behavior that is a clear and present danger to others.... not for ingesting or inhaling something. It separates the 'crime' from the individual moral issue. The morality is for you or your loved ones, church, friends to handle Not much has been said by libertarian leaning politicos on ecigarettes. I just emailed Rand Paul the one NIH study posted here that was fairly positive:

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

Many people don't know that Ron Paul voted for the Afghan war initially as a defense issue, but went against it when it became a 'exporting democracy' and a building infrastructure/welfare for the country-type 'war'. He was always against the Iraq war. I won't 'argue' these issues, just pointing them out.

Well put. Yeah Ron Paul, Rands son isn't as extreme as his father and seems to be on par with my political beliefs. Did you know Gutfeld is Libertarian also? Idk anyone else besides Stossel and Gutfeld on FNC that is. Those are the only ones that I have heard say they were Libertarians. Yes and Gutfeld speaks out on the stupidity of banning e-cigs. I've seen him do several monologues on the subject.

 

[Sirius]

O'Reilly's a Truman Democrat with a nasty puritanical streak. Unfortunately, he represents the unprincipled (and by extension, often authoritarian) viewpoint of millions upon millions of (generally older) voters, and hundreds if not thousands of Republican politicians and power brokers.

Bill O'Reilly is the reason I cringe a little every time someone here talks about how our opponents reside on the Left. Most of our political opponents, so far, reside on the Left, but Bill O'Reilly and his ilk could and likely will turn on us in a New York minute. His withering disdain for smokers is already on record, and he trots out appeals to child welfare on an almost daily basis.

And he's an absolute .... for the logical trap that is government largesse: as soon as the government gives money to anyone, O'Reilly's all for restricting the recipients' rights, on the basis that public money is always the public's business -- even if he didn't agree with the giving in the first place. That's a very dangerous line of thought these days, a line of thought that will bring both Democrats and Republicans on board with lifestyle restrictions advanced by our corrupt friends in public-health industry.

O'Riley claims to be Independent but I think you have him pretty much pegged. lol

 

[certus11]

vaping is an alternative to smoking, that is all it is.

lose all your vape gear tomorrow and chances are you will be right back to the smokes.

 

[Kent C]

O'Reilly's a Truman Democrat with a nasty puritanical streak. Unfortunately, he represents the unprincipled (and by extension, often authoritarian) viewpoint of millions upon millions of (generally older) voters, and hundreds if not thousands of Republican politicians and power brokers.

Bill O'Reilly is the reason I cringe a little every time someone here talks about how our opponents reside on the Left. Most of our political opponents, so far, reside on the Left, but Bill O'Reilly and his ilk could and likely will turn on us in a New York minute. His withering disdain for smokers is already on record, and he trots out appeals to child welfare on an almost daily basis.

And he's an absolute .... for the logical trap that is government largesse: as soon as the government gives money to anyone, O'Reilly's all for restricting the recipients' rights, on the basis that public money is always the public's business -- even if he didn't agree with the giving in the first place. That's a very dangerous line of thought these days, a line of thought that will bring both Democrats and Republicans on board with lifestyle restrictions advanced by our corrupt friends in public-health industry.

O'Reilly's popularity has appeal from both parties. Part of it is his Catholicism - which can run from the Kennedys to the McCarthys, ... and his age - and 50's style authoritarian combined with a traditionalism that makes up the whole. It's the traditionalism (with more principle) that you also saw in Buckley (and hence Rush). Beck has chucked some of that (but not all) and Napolitano never had it, nor did PJ O'Rourke - a 'local', Toledo favorite. My grandfather and his grandfather used to run rum together across Lake Erie.

And O'Reilly's own confusion on principle shows up in his emails where some think he's conservative and some think he's liberal - which he actually thinks is a 'plus' on his side and frankly, for his ratings, it likely is. What is interesting to me, anyway, is when Beck was gaining his audience and Stossel, his, O'Reilly pulled them both on to the Factor to berate them (in a 'friendly' way of course...) and since he has so much power on Fox, they pretty much had to show up there.

 

[swampergene]

To the original topic, most over the counter meds are NOT FDA approved and could be fatal if misused or mistreated. I keep using the very pertinent example of Vicks Vaporub. It's not FDA approved, is made with "generally safe ingredients" including TURPENTINE OIL, and people will casually let their kids vape this stuff all night long.

You could literally make hundreds of cases for worse products than ecigs/PV's, the difference is, there isn't a SIN TAX being lost by using any of those. Funny...well, sad really, that if the feds got their way and saw a per-cigarettes-used similar tax on vaping items, all this scare tactic stuff would probably disappear overnight.

 

[Kent C]

Well put. Yeah Ron Paul, Rands son isn't as extreme as his father and seems to be on par with my political beliefs. Did you know Gutfeld is Libertarian also? Idk anyone else besides Stossel and Gutfeld on FNC that is. Those are the only ones that I have heard say they were Libertarians. Yes and Gutfeld speaks out on the stupidity of banning e-cigs. I've seen him do several monologues on the subject.

Beck has turned some. Even Hannity to some degree. The 'Independents' on Fox Business - Kennedy from MTV and other hosts are varieties of libertarians, and the guests that they Stossel and Napolitano had were largely libertarians - Nick Gillespie (black leather jacket, and frequent guest at RedEye), Jacob Sullum, Matt Welsh, and a girl from Reason mag forget her name.

 

[Sundodger]

" PJ O'Rourke"

OMG, used to love his work in the old National Lampoon Mag!!

 

[patkin]

Well, if you have to get a prescription, the Feds know what you're doing and will adjust your Fed-funded insurance accordingly. Think I'm joking or wearing a tin hat? Not.

 

[Kent C]

" PJ O'Rourke"

OMG, used to love his work in the old National Lampoon Mag!!

I've met him a few times. One time, I was grabbing a smoke between the doors of the Seagate Center in Toledo before one of his shows, and he came in for the same - just us two. Talked a while, probably held up the show Verified the rum running, which was a rumor in our family. His grandfather owned O'Rourke Buick in Toledo and my grandfather had worked for him at one point. Later, PJ signed my book 'With memories for Jake and Hank'. That was nice ;-)

"Holidays in Hell" is probably my favorite book by him, but I have several and all are quite good, if you have that same sense of humor.