Ecig on NBC's TODAY (May 9/09)
- Thread starter Preston Girl
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think that was fair. They did say that the ecig has less nicotine and it addresses the oral fixation part of the addiction.
Honestly, if the e-cig does get regulated and only safe levels of nicotine are allowed, then the industry wins.
I think the argument that kids will use them is bull because they are using analogs anyway. If they decide to use them and they are deemed safer than analogs then the harm factor decreased to the youth population.
Honestly, if the e-cig does get regulated and only safe levels of nicotine are allowed, then the industry wins.
I think the argument that kids will use them is bull because they are using analogs anyway. If they decide to use them and they are deemed safer than analogs then the harm factor decreased to the youth population.
I think it was not fair at all. The news shows just one side of opinions. It does not show any pro e-cig opinion.
So, I think it is a little bit unbalanced.
So, I think it is a little bit unbalanced.
on both sides there is simple opinion. No science is available. It was not biased, it was yet another video that expressed opinion. You say you want more from our side, yet all we have is opinion as well. Someone needs to get a study done already to put this to rest.
Again....no balance to the report. Very one sided.[/quote]
The last thing we need is the government trying to save us from nicotine! How about saving us from fat? Caffeine? Alcohol? I can't really see hordes of teens ponying up the money for a starter kit, but even if they do, it's better than smoking analogs. Government needs to stay out of this one.
The last thing we need is the government trying to save us from nicotine! How about saving us from fat? Caffeine? Alcohol? I can't really see hordes of teens ponying up the money for a starter kit, but even if they do, it's better than smoking analogs. Government needs to stay out of this one.
I agree, the govt really needs to let this one go. One of the people in the video said that with the ecig, we have the potential for a public health disaster. Um, what about all the people smoking analogs who will get lung cancer and who should have the option of something that doesnt have all the carcinogens that are in cigarettes?
Both of those women were of the mindset that if it's allowed to continue, that it should be regulated as a stop nicotine addiction device (they said "stop smoking", but they really meant stop nicotine use). Why is nicotine use so much more evil than caffeine; so what if I want to continue to use nicotine? They really should have had one expert that was pro-ecig instead of two antis in order to make it a balanced interview.
Both of those women were of the mindset that if it's allowed to continue, that it should be regulated as a stop nicotine addiction device (they said "stop smoking", but they really meant stop nicotine use). Why is nicotine use so much more evil than caffeine; so what if I want to continue to use nicotine? They really should have had one expert that was pro-ecig instead of two antis in order to make it a balanced interview.
[/quote]The last thing we need is the government trying to save us from nicotine! [/quote]
If this was truly their goal they would have banned cigarettes years ago. I honestly think that this is such a new concept to people that they don't know what to do with them. They're just stalling until someone comes up with an idea where someone (government?) other than the suppliers can make $$$.
If this was truly their goal they would have banned cigarettes years ago. I honestly think that this is such a new concept to people that they don't know what to do with them. They're just stalling until someone comes up with an idea where someone (government?) other than the suppliers can make $$$.
The Today Show really advances a biased interview here that misses the issue. To only worry about the effects of nicotine and the use of the devise by children and not make one mention of the benifits of e-cigs as a safer alternative to cigarettes really is a rank travesty.
Yes you can come on here and blast away screaming at the top of your lungs about "no studies", but after reading the New Zeland Study, the Ruyan Lab Reports, and using plain common sense--IMO to argue that the e-cig is not a viable alternative to cigarettees really shows ignorance----------Sun
Yes you can come on here and blast away screaming at the top of your lungs about "no studies", but after reading the New Zeland Study, the Ruyan Lab Reports, and using plain common sense--IMO to argue that the e-cig is not a viable alternative to cigarettees really shows ignorance----------Sun
Two people interviewed, both on the same side of the debate is pretty useless. It's about as credible as a Lou Dobbs broadcast.
This is like having a debate about the effects of Satan worship with Jesus and the Pope....You need A Rob Zombie or Ozzy Osbourne to balance the post video Q/A. Epic fail in regards to our cause.
More people die in this country every day from tabacco than died in the past 2 weeks from pig flu.....now THAT'S a public health disaster!
Isn't it funny, that in all the other interviews, the 'experts' were complaining that they WERE being tooted as a smoking secession device, which had not be approved by the FDA, and now they complain when it's called an alternative to analogs??
They were going to, but couldn't find one from a major foundation that wasn't bankrolled by big tabacco taxes.....
I will admit, I thought the video segment at the beginning was pretty good. My first impression was the reporter was impressed with the e-cig; asked a lot of questions; showed the star power behind it (although, had they mentioned Pres. Obama reportedly has one, there would have been a rush for them!) and I love how they left the guy's comment in about it being a scientific miracle (or what ever he called it).
And then; the interview. tsk tsk.
I will give the interviewer credit, he at least gave the impression that he had done his homework and could appear to ask informative questions, but it could have been better. I won't even discuss those two women who will say ANYTHING to keep the tabacco money coming in...
Funny; when I used the patch, it was new and could ONLY be obtained by perscription. Isn't the patch now an OTC?
Theoretically, without the e-cig, a person could wear the 21mg patch (or what ever the highest is now), smoke a Camel unfiltered (due to oral fixation) and have a strong cup of coffee and that's OK per the FDA 'cause it's been <gasp> studied..... It's probably not a wise or healthy thing to do, but there was a STUDY! Therefore, it's ok to do.
Well, Mr. Interviewer: had you really done your homework, when they kept talking about nicatine, you could have pointed out that you can use an e-cig with 0 - zero - niltch - zip nicotine?? Then what would there argument be?
Of course! The children!!
What I want to know is it's hard enough for a kid to hide that $6 pack of smokes & matches in his room. How in the he$$ are they going to pony up $100+ for starter sets, spare parts and dripping??
So, while I'm puffing away on my e-cig with no-nic, what's going to be their excuse as to why I should be smoking an analog??? My teeth are too white and it's creating a glare onto oncoming traffic??
Hmm...feel better now....LOL
if i could i so would go onto the show and debate it with some of those ney sayers who have nothing better to do then try and restrict are right to choose. that is what this boils down to IMHO.
Wall of text mode On
(please forgive errors of grammar, and spelling)
1. NRA vs gun control - while the idea of a safer less gun filled gang is good but what about the hobbist who likes to collect and go to the range.
2. Prohibiton vs drinking - i really wont have to go into that one do i
3. analogs vs e-cigs - Now i really think it is one thing to protect the un-informed consumer but when a person knowingly buys some thing that can and will kill them (analogs) all they say is no you can not smoke in a bar,in a club or in your home with the way things are going. i can understand the no smoking where kids maybe but in clubs and bar that would not have kids should still allow smoking. then you take e-cigs which to date have no known harmfull chemicals other then the nic if used and on the rare issue of inhaled battery acid from a leaking batt. and they still are tring to say no you can not do that..."your smoking" is what i hear...then they dont even want to hear a counter claim that it is vape...to those nay sayers i just got one thing to save.
With my respect and acceptance of your opition will you at least respect my choice it does not effect you with regards to e-cigs that is. and with regards to analogs you dont want us smoking but you want us to spend are hard earned money on your ideas of NRT's that dont work but for 5% of the time. we choice to smoke you choice to complain why not complain about something that effects more people like the unemplyment rate or the costs of living going up niether of those are affected by my choice to vape or smoke but are effected by your misplaced complaining.
Wall of text mode Off
in short i agree mlrgrl
Wall of text mode On
(please forgive errors of grammar, and spelling)
1. NRA vs gun control - while the idea of a safer less gun filled gang is good but what about the hobbist who likes to collect and go to the range.
2. Prohibiton vs drinking - i really wont have to go into that one do i
3. analogs vs e-cigs - Now i really think it is one thing to protect the un-informed consumer but when a person knowingly buys some thing that can and will kill them (analogs) all they say is no you can not smoke in a bar,in a club or in your home with the way things are going. i can understand the no smoking where kids maybe but in clubs and bar that would not have kids should still allow smoking. then you take e-cigs which to date have no known harmfull chemicals other then the nic if used and on the rare issue of inhaled battery acid from a leaking batt. and they still are tring to say no you can not do that..."your smoking" is what i hear...then they dont even want to hear a counter claim that it is vape...to those nay sayers i just got one thing to save.
With my respect and acceptance of your opition will you at least respect my choice it does not effect you with regards to e-cigs that is. and with regards to analogs you dont want us smoking but you want us to spend are hard earned money on your ideas of NRT's that dont work but for 5% of the time. we choice to smoke you choice to complain why not complain about something that effects more people like the unemplyment rate or the costs of living going up niether of those are affected by my choice to vape or smoke but are effected by your misplaced complaining.
Wall of text mode Off
in short i agree mlrgrl
- Status
Similar threads
