ECigs Just Not Dangerous Enough

[LaceyUnderall]

This is an interesting post:

I Guess They?re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . . The Enterprise Blog

"... the totally weird observation that e-cigarettes would be free of all this controversy if only they were more dangerous (by putting real smoke in the lungs, for example) and if they didn’t seem to help people quit smoking cigarettes. In today’s strange public health regulatory environment, cigarettes are OK and smokeless substitutes are not."

 

[wv2win]

Logical article. Unfortunately, AHA, ALA and Smoke Free kids groups who are funded by big pham would find their purpose significantly diminished if PV use successfully moves people away from tobacco use and they are proven to be what logic tells us they are, a much safer alternative. The hypocracy of these groups knows no bounds.

 

[happily]

Very good article as he stated clearly ALA, ACS are funded by litigation induced taxes on smokers

 

[harmony gardens]

Very good article as he stated clearly ALA, ACS are funded by litigation induced taxes on smokers

All in the name of protecting the public health, too, of course. They are paid to discourage us from smoking, but want to prevent us from a safer alternative,,, whew. If they were truely doing thier job, they would embrace a safer alternative.

 

[LuckySevens4U]

No matter what happens, I'm NOT going back to analogs so they aren't going to get any tax dollars out of me, that's for sure.

 

[RatInDaHat]

well if everyone quit, the government would just bail out the companies that used to get revenue from tobacco taxes.

 

[RsL]

well if everyone quit, the government would just bail out the companies that used to get revenue from tobacco taxes.

haahaa Good point! By the way, your the guy I stumbled across one day on the Internet (one of your videos) and you got me into vaping. Thanks !!

 

[WerkIt]

They are paid to discourage us from smoking, but want to prevent us from a safer alternative

There are only two options, you either smoke analogs or you don't. Can you say 'false dichotomy?'

 

[willsgirlie]

No matter what happens, I'm NOT going back to analogs so they aren't going to get any tax dollars out of me, that's for sure.

ditto that !

 

[scintar]

No matter what happens, I'm NOT going back to analogs so they aren't going to get any tax dollars out of me, that's for sure.

Im With Ya Lucky!

 

[juliemeyer]

Neither am I. The tobacco companies are not getting one dime from me for their deadly products. That also means that the federal government won't be collecting big taxes from me for the approved deadly products.

 

[nitewriter]

There are only two options, you either smoke analogs or you don't. Can you say 'false dichotomy?'

It's that "quit or die" mentallity again. They already treat us like we're dead and don't have a voice.

 

[harmony gardens]

It's that "quit or die" mentallity again. They already treat us like we're dead and don't have a voice.

Well, most of us have quit, but they don't accept that someone has quit smoking if the nicotine addiction remains, even though they say nicotine is not a cancer danger. Nicotine addiction only dangerous if it's satisfied by tobacco.

 

[ramblingrose]

And here's another from reasononline
Amazing how those so many who don't have a reason to support BP and BT see it so differently.

 

[Surf Monkey]

As Slate magazine said, the problem here is that the fight to reduce smoking has become a culture war. Rationality and logic has nothing to do with it anymore. Why do anti-smoking warriors attack e-cigarettes? Because they look like smoking and they're called cigarettes. Nothing more, nothing less. Logic and reason have nothing to do with it. If they allow something called "cigarette" to be used, they've failed in their crusade, even if the device ends up being beneficial to the health of the user.