Electronic cigarettes have a potential for huge public health benefit - 9 Dec 2014

[Anjaffm]

Electronic cigarettes have a potential for huge public health benefit
- 9 Dec 2014 Peter Hajek

BMC Medicine | Full text | Electronic cigarettes have a potential for huge public health benefit

Excellent reading - and excellent description of the ANTZ true motives

Although there is no doubt that smokers switching
to electronic cigarettes (EC) substantially reduce the risk to their health,
some tobacco control activists and health organisations discourage smokers from
using EC and lobby policy makers to reduce EC use by draconian regulation.

The hostility to EC may be related to a moral
belief that nicotine use should be eradicated rather than allowed to morph into
a relatively harmless activity. If EC are allowed to compete with cigarettes and
develop further, smoking is likely to all but disappear. Discouraging smokers
from making the switch and reducing EC competitiveness with cigarettes by
unwarranted regulation will delay this opportunity or squander it altogether.


In fact, there is now sufficient evidence available
for health professionals to recommend to smokers who cannot stop smoking with
existing treatments or do not want to do so, to try several types of
e-cigarettes to see if they can find one meeting their needs.

The field of public health is not always rational. Ideology and morality can
play at least as big a role as evidence and logic. Public health policies
struggle with ideology in areas ranging from abortion to harm reduction
strategies in drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases. One of the
possible explanations of the EC controversy is that for some tobacco control
activists, any nicotine use is ‘drug abuse’ and abhorrent even if it were to
carry no physical health risk.

Future commentators are likely to consider attempts to remove safer
alternatives to cigarettes from the market unethical, however virtuous the
missionaries of the nicotine eradication gospel may feel. In the meantime,
clinicians facing smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and who
follow evidence and common sense rather than ideologically and commercially
driven agendas should recommend that their patients try several types of
e-cigarettes to see if they can find one meeting their needs

 

[AndriaD]

Brilliant, Anja! I just tweeted it, and then ECF tweeted it too!

I love that "clinicians facing smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and who follow evidence and common sense rather than ideologically and commercially driven agendas should recommend that their patients try several types of e-cigarettes" -- in other words, if you're a doc and you know how to THINK, recommend e-cigs instead of that useless pharma crap!

Andria

 

[Anjaffm]

I love that "clinicians facing smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and who follow evidence and common sense rather than ideologically and commercially driven agendas should recommend that their patients try several types of e-cigarettes" -- in other words, if you're a doc and you know how to THINK, recommend e-cigs instead of that useless pharma crap!

Andria

absolutely
Yup, Professor Hajek does not mince words

 

[JAY73]

Wow that is the best. Article. I have seen. In some time

 

[DrMA]

Nicely done by Dr. Hajek! It's about time somebody exposes the ANTZ for what they really are.

But, did you see the companion article by C. Pissmonger? A piece of condensed ANTZ garbage full of renormalization and other charges along the lines of first- and second-hand thoughtcrime.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/226

 

[AndriaD]

Nicely done by Dr. Hajek! It's about time somebody exposes the ANTZ for what they really are.

But, did you see the companion article by C. Pissmonger? A piece of condensed ANTZ garbage full of renormalization and other charges along the lines of first- and second-hand thoughtcrime.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/226

ROFL... Pissmonger? Really? I guess there's really no point in reading THAT.

Andria

 

[LoveVanilla]

Excellent, excellent, excellent!!! Nail on the head and is so well spoken. We should all promulgate this exact message (and that we no longer smoke cigarettes because of ecig's).

 

[Anjaffm]

Excellent, excellent, excellent!!! Nail on the head and is so well spoken. We should all promulgate this exact message (and that we no longer smoke cigarettes because of ecig's).

Precisely, dear
This article, link and quotes from it, is precisely the right thing to reply to fearmongering crap
Written by a medical professor, no less, and not some quack like that unspeakable wizard of OZ snake oil salesman or some engineer masquerading as an "expert" on health

 

[DrMA]

<snip>

companion article by C. Pissmonger? A piece of condensed ANTZ garbage full of renormalization and other charges along the lines of first- and second-hand thoughtcrime.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/226

Charlotta Pisinger pats herself on the back for being a medical doctor and "public health" advocate, when, in fact, she is one of Hajek's "missionaries of the nicotine eradication gospel", or, as I like to call them, desk murderers. Her garbage opinion broken-linked above spreads the same one-sided slurry as all the other ANTZ publications in an effort to demonize vaping and restrict/ban its use, thus protecting the tobacco market and causing unspeakable harm to 1.24 billion smokers worldwide.

Let's make an example of her! I propose we take to social media and call for her medical license to be revoked for breaking the Hippocratic oath and for her prosecution for gross public health malpractice in her attempted mass murder of 1.24 billion people.

[tweet]542389952726573056[/tweet]

 

[Kent C]

The field of public health is not always rational. Ideology and morality can
play at least as big a role as evidence and logic.

Here, Hayek is being a bit too kind. There is nothing moral about prohibiting or denying choices.

Where there is no choice, no morality exists. When choices that are not harmful, are removed from the alternatives from which an individual can choose, then no moral judgment can be made. They are forced to follow only one.

"Force", unless used to protect rights or to carry out justice, is always immoral since it eliminates the one thing that defines morality - "choice". It is also why gov't should only be involved in crimes (where rights are violated) and not 'vices' where personal choices are made that involve harming no one but perhaps the individual themselves - with drugs, gambling, smoking, drinking, prostitution, etc. Sorry - 'secondary' or indirect results don't count - unless they involve an actual crime and then only the crime should be punished - eg. driving drunk and causing an accident - justice for the accident only, not the drinking, and the justice should be severe.

Hayek, to his credit (and perhaps his main point), does point to this with:

Future commentators are likely to consider attempts to remove safer
alternatives to cigarettes from the market unethical, however virtuous the
missionaries of the nicotine eradication gospel may feel.

Feeling that something is 'virtuous' and it actually being a virtue, are two different things. And the 'are likely to consider' is, again, 'too kind'. Removing choice is unethical and immoral, by definition - when choice is the necessary component for morality to have any meaning at all.

If we now go back to the first statement - Ideology and morality can play at least as big a role as evidence and logic. ... and see that a correct understanding of 'morality' shows it plays no role, then only Ideology is left. And this, then, given the control and money involved makes the most sense, and rather than the 'wringing of hands' over a false morality, the rubbing of hands with regard to the control and money gives a clearer picture of what motivates the "missionaries of the nicotine eradication gospel".

 

[Anjaffm]

Kent, dear, you lost me a bit up there. However, I am firmly convinced that feeling virtuous and being virtuous are two entirely separate things. Entirely separate.
I bet the rabble that delivered their neighbor women to the Inquisitors to be burned at the stake as "witches" felt very virtuous indeed.
As do the rabid Anti Tobacco and Nicotine Zealots. As do the (insert very negative noun for females) who screech at people who smoke in a parking lot. Before they themselves get into their big huge gas-guzzling, environment-polluting SUVs to drive 300 yards to the next shop.

Actually, I despise people who "feel" virtuous when bullying others who do not conform to their own twisted "morals".

And don't get me started on the idea of "morals". Don't get me started. Only one thing: the so-called "honor killings" where men of a certain religious persuasion kill (= murder) their female relatives for "besmirching the family honor" by not wearing a head scarf, those killings are motivated by "morals". Do.not.get.me.started.on."morals".

 

[edyle]

Charlotta Pisinger


char lotta pissing

is this another one of those satire things

 

[Kent C]

Kent, dear, you lost me a bit up there.

When Hayek offered the alternatives as an explanation against reason and evidence as 'ideology' and 'morality'.... he was 'too kind' to include "morality" since what the ANTZ propose has nothing to do with 'morality'.

I also don't accept the concept of 'your morality' and my morality' type thinking. I do accept that individuals will have preferences varying widely, but they only enter into the area of morality if harm is involved; crimes - when the harm is to others, vices - when to oneself, and then only when alternative choices are available.

If you are 'forced' to do something "good", there is no moral aspect to that action. Same when you are forced to do something bad. Only when you have a choice to do or not to do, or to choose and alternative, can morality be a factor.

And (back to Hayek's statement) if morality is not involved, then only 'ideology' is left as the driving force of ANTZ. And all indications of their statements and actions tend to confirm this. They use 'the greater good' as an excuse, but if that were truly a motivator, then they would accept ecigs as safe alternative to smoking.... so that is not a reason, only something that sounds good in a committee hearing to justify their actions

 

[AndriaD]

Kent, dear, you lost me a bit up there. However, I am firmly convinced that feeling virtuous and being virtuous are two entirely separate things. Entirely separate.
I bet the rabble that delivered their neighbor women to the Inquisitors to be burned at the stake as "witches" felt very virtuous indeed.
As do the rabid Anti Tobacco and Nicotine Zealots. As do the (insert very negative noun for females) who screech at people who smoke in a parking lot. Before they themselves get into their big huge gas-guzzling, environment-polluting SUVs to drive 300 yards to the next shop.

Actually, I despise people who "feel" virtuous when bullying others who do not conform to their own twisted "morals".

And don't get me started on the idea of "morals". Don't get me started. Only one thing: the so-called "honor killings" where men of a certain religious persuasion kill (= murder) their female relatives for "besmirching the family honor" by not wearing a head scarf, those killings are motivated by "morals". Do.not.get.me.started.on."morals".

I agree 500%. Morality is for the small-minded who can't decide for themselves what is right or wrong. I practice ethics -- which demands that one continually examine one's actions to determine the ethical course. "True, kind, necessary" are my basic guidelines.

On the subject of medical doctors... I saw mine today, my asthma doc. He goes "So, you quit, using e-cigarettes, for 3 1/2 months... had your appendix out, went back to smoking briefly... and then managed to quit a 2nd time... using e-cigarettes? WOW!" I think he's a convert. He's only been after me to quit smoking for 16 years.

Andria

 

[Steamix]

Brilliant, Anja! I just tweeted it, and then ECF tweeted it too!

I love that "clinicians facing smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and who follow evidence and common sense rather than ideologically and commercially driven agendas should recommend that their patients try several types of e-cigarettes" -- in other words, if you're a doc and you know how to THINK, recommend e-cigs instead of that useless pharma crap!

Andria

Unfortunately, docs don't get a cut from prescribing REO, Provari, innokin, what have you...

And e-cig makers paying visiting docs like the phrama reps do could be viewed as making medical claims.
Opening that perticular can of worms ... naw, better not.

So we have to rely on docs who value the health of their patients higher than the health of their bank accounts...

 

[Kent C]

I agree 500%. Morality is for the small-minded who can't decide for themselves what is right or wrong. I practice ethics -- which demands that one continually examine one's actions to determine the ethical course. "True, kind, necessary" are my basic guidelines.

Morality has gotten a bad name for the reasons you state, but that isn't morality - that's just one person forcing their ideas on others - an immoral action, in itself.

For me morality and ethics are virtually the same concept - a code of values to guide your choices and actions.

 

[AndriaD]

Unfortunately, docs don't get a cut from prescribing REO, Provari, innokin, what have you...

And e-cig makers paying visiting docs like the phrama reps do could be viewed as making medical claims.
Opening that perticular can of worms ... naw, better not.

So we have to rely on docs who value the health of their patients higher than the health of their bank accounts...

Mine does, I'm quite sure -- he doesn't even take credit/debit cards, like he's some throwback to the 19th century or something. Granted, his practice is in a small, rural town, and his patients mostly geriatric -- I'm 53, and without a doubt one of his youngest patients. But us middle-aged-and-older folks are very much in need of the news about e-cigs, since so many of us were/are smokers, and it does take many years for some of the worst damage of smoking to show up -- and most of us have long since figured out how useless the pharma NRT crap is.

Andria

 

[SthrnCelt]

First, great article!

One of the
possible explanations of the EC controversy is that for some tobacco control
activists, any nicotine use is ‘drug abuse’ and abhorrent even if it were to
carry no physical health risk

I wonder if they think Chantix is drug abuse, and if not, are they comfortable with the side effects?

Common adverse effects of Chantix include nausea, sleep disturbance, constipation, flatulence, and vomiting. Headaches, abnormal dreams and taste disturbance also occur. Chantix is not addictive and is not a controlled substance; however, some patients may experience irritability and sleep disturbance if varenicline is abruptly discontinued. Patients may experience psychiatric symptoms such as behavioral changes, agitation, depressed mood, and suicidal behavior while using Chantix.

Personally I've never been pushed into psychosis as a result of vaping. Eventually the truth will prevail.

 

[Anjaffm]

I agree 500%. Morality is for the small-minded who can't decide for themselves what is right or wrong. I practice ethics -- which demands that one continually examine one's actions to determine the ethical course. "True, kind, necessary" are my basic guidelines.

On the subject of medical doctors... I saw mine today, my asthma doc. He goes "So, you quit, using e-cigarettes, for 3 1/2 months... had your appendix out, went back to smoking briefly... and then managed to quit a 2nd time... using e-cigarettes? WOW!" I think he's a convert. He's only been after me to quit smoking for 16 years.

Andria

Absolutely!
And big congratulations on your sensible doctor!

Morality has gotten a bad name for the reasons you state, but that isn't morality - that's just one person forcing their ideas on others - an immoral action, in itself.

For me morality and ethics are virtually the same concept - a code of values to guide your choices and actions.

Well, there may be a different meaning to "morality" in philosophy.
In the understanding of the average person (like me) however, "morality" is hypocrisy, holier-than-thou bleating and sermonizing, and the attempt to force others to conform to one's own "morals". Whatever they might be. All in the name of "morality". Don't do this, don't do that. It is not "moral". Because I say so. Because I say that it is written in some book. You have to stop doing what you are doing. Because I say so. Or you are "immoral". And that is bad. Because I say so.

In the understanding of the normal person, "morality" and "ethics" are opposites. "Morality" is what some people want you to do. "Ethics" is what you yourself think is right.

And in most people, the word "morality" awakens the same positive, happy thoughts and feelings as the phrase "dog poop under your shoe".

.. And I think that this is precisely the kind of "morality" that Peter Hajek means in his commentary. The negative kind. The kind that I described above.

/edit:
You do remember the "Moral Majority", right?
Moral Majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Moral Majority was an organization made up of conservative Christian political action committees which campaigned on issues its personnel believed were important to maintaining its Christian conception of moral law, a conception they believed represented the opinions of the majority of Americans (hence the movement's name).

Of course, they were neither "moral" (in the sense that Kent describes) nor a "majority". But they and their bleating and bible-thumping greatly contributed to the current understanding of - and aversion to - the word "morality".

 

[TyPie]

Great article. Again, WAY too much common sense in there for one sitting for me........(I'm not accustomed to so much sense all at one time, especially when it comes to this subject).........I gotta go rest for a while..........