E-cigs under fire by an Orwellian Shadowy Cabal

[Jman8]

It is also odd that if I type in any of the following into a google search:

"Changed Lab Solutions" AND controversy
"Changed Lab Solutions" AND criticism
"Changed Lab Solutions" AND complaints

...I get zero (actual) hits. I don't think there is another company/entity on the planet where that would be the case.

even "Mother Theresa AND criticism" will return a few hundred thousand hits.

 

[Kent C]

It is also odd that if I type in any of the following into a google search:

"Changed Lab Solutions" AND controversy
"Changed Lab Solutions" AND criticism
"Changed Lab Solutions" AND complaints

...I get zero (actual) hits. I don't think there is another company/entity on the planet where that would be the case.

even "Mother Theresa AND criticism" will return a few hundred thousand hits.

"ChangeLab Solutions" not "Changed Lab Solutions"

 

[Jman8]

"ChangeLab Solutions" not "Changed Lab Solutions"

I updated the search. Thinking google corrected my original searches anyway.

Still get zero (actual) hits on all 3 search types. Still find that amazing, and highly unique.

Kinda hoping we in this thread can dream up ways to make it so when other people do similar searches there are registered complaints and/or criticisms that create controversy around this company.

 

[Kent C]

I updated the search. Thinking google corrected my original searches anyway.

Still get zero (actual) hits on all 3 search types. Still find that amazing, and highly unique.

Kinda hoping we in this thread can dream up ways to make it so when other people do similar searches there are registered complaints and/or criticisms that create controversy around this company.

Try socialist, hoax, discredited, progressive, fraud.

 

[Nate760]

even "Mother Theresa AND criticism" will return a few hundred thousand hits.

Christopher Hitchens probably deserves most of the credit for this.

 

[Uma]

Try socialist, hoax, discredited, progressive, fraud.

+fraud brought up this interesting site publichealthlawcenter.org/programs/tobacco-control-legal-consortium
Which led me to this site "Applying TC lessons to Obesity". publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-obesity-2010.pdf

This law contract one by CLS for save the bay with descriptions banning anything inhaled that is not glued down by BP.
savesfbay.org/sites/default/files/news_release/Comp_Smokefree_Places_Ordinance_FINAL_20130104_0.pdf

 

[DC2]

+fraud brought up this interesting site publichealthlawcenter.org/programs/tobacco-control-legal-consortium
Which led me to this site "Applying TC lessons to Obesity". publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-obesity-2010.pdf

And what exactly are these "Tobacco Control lessons" they are advocating for applying to obesity?
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Denormalization efforts, shaming, demonization, and eventual ostracization.

It's what they did to us as smokers.
It's what they are trying to do to us as vapers.

And it's what they are going to do to overweight people in the years ahead unless we stop them.

What we need to do is turn the tables on them.
And the sooner the better.

 

[Kent C]

+fraud brought up this interesting site publichealthlawcenter.org/programs/tobacco-control-legal-consortium
Which led me to this site "Applying TC lessons to Obesity". publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-obesity-2010.pdf

One could make a very good case - and a better case than most ANTZ studies - that the ChangeLab Solutions et. al. were responsible for the 'obesity problem' through their anti-smoking programs. It is just correlative but perhaps causative - further studies should ensue (a favorite line in almost all studies)....

And it wouldn't be the first time that a government solution ended up creating more problems that it purported to solve. Again, "save the poor" = "institutionalizing poverty"; "low income housing" = "more slums"; "gov't insurance for banks" = "banks going bankrupt", etc. etc. etc.,

 

[AndriaD]

One could make a very good case - and a better case than most ANTZ studies - that the ChangeLab Solutions et. al. were responsible for the 'obesity problem' through their anti-smoking programs. It is just correlative but perhaps causative - further studies should ensue (a favorite line in almost all studies)....

And it wouldn't be the first time that a government solution ended up creating more problems that it purported to solve. Again, "save the poor" = "institutionalizing poverty"; "low income housing" = "more slums"; "gov't insurance for banks" = "banks going bankrupt", etc. etc. etc.,

Kent, we touched on a really excellent book a few days ago, "Anti-fragile"... I'm reading one now that touches on ALL that you just mentioned, the bloat of the "Western State" and how everyone is just furious about it -- except those who are profiting highly from it -- "The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State" -- one point I just ran across this morning is that those with a narrow interest have a much better chance of actually getting something done about it, than those with a broader, more encompassing interest. Surely that would apply to vapers? Our sole interest is that vaping should remain, in a form that actually works. I think we're all pretty much aware that it will soon be taxed, and considering the mayhem that tobacco-bond shortfalls are likely to cause, most of us would probably accept taxation over having the entire fed and most state gov't go bankrupt -- but that it must remain as varied and customizable as it is now, I think we're all pretty much in agreement on that. So WHY can't something be done, to further this very narrow interest?

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Kent, we touched on a really excellent book a few days ago, "Anti-fragile"... I'm reading one now that touches on ALL that you just mentioned, the bloat of the "Western State" and how everyone is just furious about it -- except those who are profiting highly from it -- "The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State" -- one point I just ran across this morning is that those with a narrow interest have a much better chance of actually getting something done about it, than those with a broader, more encompassing interest. Surely that would apply to vapers? Our sole interest is that vaping should remain, in a form that actually works. I think we're all pretty much aware that it will soon be taxed, and considering the mayhem that tobacco-bond shortfalls are likely to cause, most of us would probably accept taxation over having the entire fed and most state gov't go bankrupt -- but that it must remain as varied and customizable as it is now, I think we're all pretty much in agreement on that. So WHY can't something be done, to further this very narrow interest?

Andria

Appreciate the thought.... John Micklethwait is the author of "The Fourth Revolution..." and also chief editor of The Economist. Also a Bilderberg delegate. About the only editor of The Economist with which I might be have anything in common (not all though), would be Herbert Spencer (sub editor in it's first publication . I'm sure there are some good stuff in there, but not likely to break into my current long list of things to read. I hope you gain something from it - it seems you have.

The 'narrow vs. broad' aspect is a major point of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' with which I totally agree and it is part of the benefit of individual vape shops, imo. And the opposite is an example of Zeller's 'net population' argument - ie 'greatest good' - something that Herbert Spencer, btw, would have none of, or it's advocate at the time Jeremy Bentham.

 

[Uma]

Exactly. Very good points and thoughts!! I couldn't agree more.

That book sounds good, Andrea! I'll put it on my list.

While skimming through tons of CLS, bridging the gap, etc, a few things really stuck out.
1. The 1st amendment is protecting the rights of the BT and the antis hate that. Hence:
A. The reason the 1st Amendment right is under constant attack and the offenders are not thought of as "traitors" like they would have been just 20-30 years ago.
2. Addiction is a #1 argument towards taxing. Yep. They're buffaloed by non-addictive products.
A. The reason they keep instilling that nicotine is addictive, even though studies prove it isn't. It's the cigarette that's addictive, not the nicotine.
3. BP products are okay, including their nicotine products.
A. The word monopoly has been suggested as a means to banning BP competitive products.

 

[AndriaD]

Well, I didn't seek out the book; it was there on the "new non-fiction" shelf the last trip to the library, and as an individual who clearly sees the inevitability of revolution, the title grabbed me. Turns out he's not really advocating Minute Men or guillotines, but trying to shine a light on exactly what the problem is; not sure anyone really knows what can be done to fix it -- that might indeed require the proverbial Minute Men and/or guillotines.

Most of my life, I have been very pro-liberal, at least in the social-issue sense, but lately my thinking has been changing a great deal, mostly just from actually looking at the mess we're in and trying to think about what could possibly be done to fix it. One of the factors of the economic disaster in recent memory (so recent, we're still suffering it) was the repeal of laws that restrained the financial sector from the type of speculation that caused it, so "laissez faire" is clearly not workable when you're dealing with bankers and Wall Streeters, they're far too ruthless. But this willy-nilly bailing out of businesses that SHOULD fail due to their own bad decisions is not any kind of reasonable answer. The US gov't has turned into exactly the kind of Big Brother that Orwell wrote so prophetically about, and that is not the America of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we're all taught to revere, and the gov't lately has certainly not been "by the people, for the people, of the people", but more "by the Corporations, for the Corporations, and of the Corporations," but now that apparently ALL our lawmakers have been corrupted by all this corporate money, how do we get rid of that corruption? I just don't see an answer; corrupt lawmakers are not going to pass laws that deprive them of all that payola.

And just so you know that I'm not thrashing all this politics off-topically, this is very much at issue with all this crap we're facing about e-cigarettes -- that payola is why the gov't seems so deadset against them; it's got to be payola that's behind "Changelab" and all that nonsense. How do we get rid of that?

Andria

 

[DC2]

...but now that apparently ALL our lawmakers have been corrupted by all this corporate money, how do we get rid of that corruption? I just don't see an answer; corrupt lawmakers are not going to pass laws that deprive them of all that payola.

I think the first step is to destroy the two-party system.

I'm not sure if that will help or not, but it's the start we need to take.
And if that doesn't help, we at least get more information on how we can fix the problem,

 

[Nate760]

I think the first step is to destroy the two-party system.

It doesn't need to be completely destroyed, IMO, but a couple cracks in the foundation would do quite nicely. I've been saying for many years (and I still believe it) that if 25 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate were occupied by non-Republicrats, you'd start to see a lot of positive change in a hurry.

 

[dragonpuff]

Well, I didn't seek out the book; it was there on the "new non-fiction" shelf the last trip to the library, and as an individual who clearly sees the inevitability of revolution, the title grabbed me. Turns out he's not really advocating Minute Men or guillotines, but trying to shine a light on exactly what the problem is; not sure anyone really knows what can be done to fix it -- that might indeed require the proverbial Minute Men and/or guillotines.

Most of my life, I have been very pro-liberal, at least in the social-issue sense, but lately my thinking has been changing a great deal, mostly just from actually looking at the mess we're in and trying to think about what could possibly be done to fix it. One of the factors of the economic disaster in recent memory (so recent, we're still suffering it) was the repeal of laws that restrained the financial sector from the type of speculation that caused it, so "laissez faire" is clearly not workable when you're dealing with bankers and Wall Streeters, they're far too ruthless. But this willy-nilly bailing out of businesses that SHOULD fail due to their own bad decisions is not any kind of reasonable answer. The US gov't has turned into exactly the kind of Big Brother that Orwell wrote so prophetically about, and that is not the America of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we're all taught to revere, and the gov't lately has certainly not been "by the people, for the people, of the people", but more "by the Corporations, for the Corporations, and of the Corporations," but now that apparently ALL our lawmakers have been corrupted by all this corporate money, how do we get rid of that corruption? I just don't see an answer; corrupt lawmakers are not going to pass laws that deprive them of all that payola.

And just so you know that I'm not thrashing all this politics off-topically, this is very much at issue with all this crap we're facing about e-cigarettes -- that payola is why the gov't seems so deadset against them; it's got to be payola that's behind "Changelab" and all that nonsense. How do we get rid of that?

Andria

Everything about this is spot on with me.

I always feel like the current issues with vaping are the perfect representation of how broken our system is. It almost feels like we're at the center of it all. I try to tell myself that's not the case, but it always appears to be that way. At the very least vaping is one of the central issues that happens to tug at all facets of society in a deep way.

Vaping has changed a lot more than just my health. It has changed my mind, my life, in so many more ways than that. As a fresh college grad it has even drastically changed my future plans, to the point where right now I'm barely getting by while I try to figure out what to do with my career, as much of what I was trained to do now feels so immoral to me. It's amazing how one thing, one detail, can change your life so drastically. I look forward to seeing how my life turns out now that everything has changed.

And there's 6 million of us in the U.S. alone! We in this forum can't be the only ones who've been affected so much by this.

 

[Nate760]

I always feel like the current issues with vaping are the perfect representation of how broken our system is. It almost feels like we're at the center of it all. I try to tell myself that's not the case, but it always appears to be that way. At the very least vaping is one of the central issues that happens to tug at all facets of society in a deep way.

You're correct that this issue illustrates, in many facets and in stark relief, that extent to which our political system so often does the opposite of what it's supposed to. The biggest issue, of course, is federal and state governments that have a vested financial interest in protecting the combustible cigarette market and keeping the MSA revenue (much of which has already been spent many years in advance) flowing. Issues 2a and 2b, in no particular order, are a) public health organizations that are, for all intents and purposes, shock troops for the pharmaceutical industry, and b) a federal health agency that is, but shouldn't be, part of the executive branch. If they made me dictator, one of the first things I'd do is reconstitute the FDA as a politically independent entity along the lines of the Federal Reserve, i.e. its policy decisions would not be subject to presidential oversight and it would not receive budget appropriations from Congress.

 

[stevegmu]

It doesn't need to be completely destroyed, IMO, but a couple cracks in the foundation would do quite nicely. I've been saying for many years (and I still believe it) that if 25 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate were occupied by non-Republicrats, you'd start to see a lot of positive change in a hurry.

Hear, hear, get rid of those nut jobs who support the likes of Soros and Van Jones...

 

[AndriaD]

Everything about this is spot on with me.

I always feel like the current issues with vaping are the perfect representation of how broken our system is. It almost feels like we're at the center of it all. I try to tell myself that's not the case, but it always appears to be that way. At the very least vaping is one of the central issues that happens to tug at all facets of society in a deep way.

Vaping has changed a lot more than just my health. It has changed my mind, my life, in so many more ways than that. As a fresh college grad it has even drastically changed my future plans, to the point where right now I'm barely getting by while I try to figure out what to do with my career, as much of what I was trained to do now feels so immoral to me. It's amazing how one thing, one detail, can change your life so drastically. I look forward to seeing how my life turns out now that everything has changed.

And there's 6 million of us in the U.S. alone! We in this forum can't be the only ones who've been affected so much by this.

That's all true, but I have to say, this drastic change in my own circumstances is actually somewhat scary. One of my worst fears is that I should live so long that everyone I love is dead and gone -- extreme longevity is very common in the females of my family, particularly the females who manage to not become obese and diabetic, and so far I have avoided both, but I always comforted myself that with my smoking, I was unlikely to live to a ripe old age. Now... ? It gives me pause, to say the least.

I really don't foresee the revolution happening in my own lifetime; it's just too difficult to get complacent America to even recognize that everything has changed, nevermind get them off their couches and into the streets. And get them to cooperate, as a whole? Pft. It will take a great deal more outrage from Washington and Big Corp for anything to change. But I wonder if anyone in Washington even realizes how close we *could* be, to that kind of outrage?

But who knows. America finally toppled McCarthy's regime, finally noticing and preferring the truth that most Americans didn't give a hoot for communism, than the witchhunts. I suppose it's possible that the same could eventually be true of this witchhunt that's on for e-cigs; can vaping survive, in the interim?

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Most of my life, I have been very pro-liberal, at least in the social-issue sense, but lately my thinking has been changing a great deal, mostly just from actually looking at the mess we're in and trying to think about what could possibly be done to fix it. One of the factors of the economic disaster in recent memory (so recent, we're still suffering it) was the repeal of laws that restrained the financial sector from the type of speculation that caused it, so "laissez faire" is clearly not workable when you're dealing with bankers and Wall Streeters, they're far too ruthless. But this willy-nilly bailing out of businesses that SHOULD fail due to their own bad decisions is not any kind of reasonable answer.

It looks like you're moving in the right direction but the 'recent collapse' had an earlier cause than the bankers and Wall Streeters (most of who supported Obama - this time at least). The earlier cause was the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to make loans that in a laissez faire economy would never had been made. The resultant Credit default swaps and the trading of 'hot potatoes' (loan packages stuffed with the toxic loans from the CRA) would never had happened were it not for the loans that made those packages toxic. There's a lot more to it (other actions taken because of the CRA - having to do with loan targets for Fanny and Freddie (protected by Barney Frank and Co.) but that's the quickest summary.

If you or anyone else wants to read something other than the liberal presses spin on it, see here:

Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis? | Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp120.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa646.pdf

 

[AndriaD]

It looks like you're moving in the right direction but the 'recent collapse' had an earlier cause than the bankers and Wall Streeters (most of who supported Obama - this time at least). The earlier cause was the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to make loans that in a laissez faire economy would never had been made. The resultant Credit default swaps and the trading of 'hot potatoes' (loan packages stuffed with the toxic loans from the CRA) would never had happened were it not for the loans that made those packages toxic. There's a lot more to it (other actions taken because of the CRA - having to do with loan targets for Fanny and Freddie (protected by Barney Frank and Co.) but that's the quickest summary.

If you or anyone else wants to read something other than the liberal presses spin on it, see here:

Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis? | Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp120.pdf
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa646.pdf

I'm just really glad that our credit was so poor during the earlier part of the disaster, we were never on anyone's radar as a potential loan customer. After all the caca had hit the fan and interest rates and housing prices got so low that with the judicious use of $5k from my parents, we were able to repair our credit sufficiently to finally be able to obtain a mortgage, at an astonishingly low rate, for a really nice home that we got for an amazing price -- so thank you, you financial wizards; you leveled the playing field sufficiently even for poor people who had finally learned to use credit *wisely* to get into the game. Our realtor told us that if we had come to her 5 yrs earlier and asked for a home in Lawrenceville for the price we were looking at, everyone in the office would have laughed their posteriors off. Guess we got the last laugh. Last year we were a bit dismayed to see that our "new" home had lost $5k in value from the price we paid, but this year it somehow gained an additional $24k (over what we paid, so actually $29k from last year) worth of value; it means our escrow payments will go up to cover the higher taxes, but that they just *gave* us $24k of equity is just amazing to me. And it illustrates that purchasing a home here in Lawrenceville really was a good decision, even if the housing market hit a temporary slump.

Andria