Emily's Post: Why are Wisconsin newspapers shilling for e-cigarettes?

[mpetva]

Emily's Post: Why are Wisconsin newspapers shilling for e-cigarettes? - Isthmus | The Daily Page

 

[VapoMonkey]

I feel that I need to chime in here with this: What an uneducated .....!

What are e-cigarettes? Well, their manufacturers would like you to know them simply as the "tar-free and safe alternative to smoking" and not ask any further questions. They are tar and tobacco-free, yes, but what they do contain doesn't exactly make them all fuzzy bunnies and lollipops. There's artificial flavoring, vaporized nicotine and, as it turns out, a few other chemicals like diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

Really, diethylene glycol, did this person even take the time to find out what is really in our e-juice? I think not... If we were really taking in diethylene glycol, we'd dying off in droves. Yet another case of fear-mongering from an uneducated jerk-off, get a life, do your homework before you start crying wolf!

 

[VapoMonkey]

I also shot that fool an email telling them to do their homework before running their mouth...

 

[mpetva]

I feel that I need to chime in here with this: What an uneducated .....!

That is exactl the reason why I posted the link here!

 

[cliff5550]

My email response to the writer:
"After reading your article I must conclude you never really spoke to anyone who is using an e-cigarette. My wife and I have been using e-cigs for one year now and our health is dramatically better. I smoked for 45 years and was at 2-3 packs a day. Since switching to ecigs my doctor lists me as a non-smoker and has seen great improvement in my breathing and lung capacity.
The FDA and ALA, and others, seem to think we should go back to lighting chemically treated tobacco and paper, then inhaling THAT into our lungs.
I understand your passion as a non-smoker, but we can tell you we have added to the quality and length of our lives by switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes.
Contrary to what you think, the media would save many more lives if they would promote e-cigarettes and bash Big Tobacco for killing millions of Americans every year. E-cigarettes have been around for about 6 years. Have you heard of anyone dying from them? "

 

[kristin]

Wow, this one inspired another long post! (I'm getting tired of repreating myself!)

Emily said, "As the evidence mounts that e-cigarettes are not the "healthy alternative" they're cracked up to be."

The very opposite is true. Evidence is mounting that they are the healthier alternative as claimed. (No reputable company claims they are "healthy" - just "healthier" or "safer" than conventional cigarettes.)

Only the FDA, in their sensationalist press release, claimed that they were a great risk, in spite of the fact that their own testing showed that the vapor lacked any dangerous levels of carcinogens and toxic chemicals. What they said in the press statement and what they actually found in their testing were very different. A federal judge disagreed that the FDA had showed ANY risk from e-cigarettes to the general public and ruled against them in a court of law.

Several independent tests showed no dangerous levels of carcinogens and NO diethylene glycol. The FDA only managed to find approximately 1% DEG in ONE cartridge. All of the other cartridges they tested had no DEG. The FDA failed to report on the levels of TSNAs (carcinogens) they found, however, they reported that they found no TSNAs in the actual vapor. Independent testing found TSNAs at levels comparable to FDA-approved nicotine patches. If they consider those levels safe for patches, why the concern over those same levels in e-cigarettes?

As far as "marketing to children," that is a classic tactic to create fear and misunderstanding. If fruity, candy flavors were an indication that something is targeting children, then we must ban flavored alcohol, as well as the cherry, citrus, fruit chill and mint nicotine gums and lozenges.

Simply lacking age verification on some web sites doesn't indicate targeting children. If a child decided to buy an e-cigarette online or at a kiosk, they would also need a credit card and enough cash to cover the $50 - $160 starter kit. The majority of kiosk owners already have policies in place forbidding sales to minors. Why would a child go through all of the trouble to get an e-cigarette (which the majority of kids think are about as cool as a nicotine inhaler) when they can spend just $6 and get a pack of the real thing? Research shows that the most popular "flavor" of cigarettes for teens are Marlboro, Newport and Camel. The recently banned flavored cigarettes accounted for only 2% of cigarette sales overall. Claims that banning those fruit and candy flavors did anything to curb underaged smoking are completely false.

E-cigarettes are appealing to one group - older, long-time smokers. A recent survey of over 2,200 e-cigarette users showed 78% were over the age of 30, just 7.4% 22-25 and only 3% under the age of 21. In spite of the concern, this is obviously not a product which appeals to youth any more than chocolate Ensure does.

If sales to children are of concern, let the industry fall into the tobacco product catagory and they will automatically be illegal to sell to minors.

To Kyle Nabilcy: E-cigarette proponents want nothing more than the truth and transparency to come out about e-cigarettes. We've done the research. We've used them ourselves. In the SIX years on the market, there have been no reports of injury or illness due to e-cigarette use. Compare that to the death and mayhem, in the first year, attributed to the FDA-approved drug, Chantix.

To Josh Klessig: Your reports on nicotine fail to address the actual LEVEL of risk. Everything has risk - what matters is the LEVEL of risk. Certain grilled foods, fatty foods, herbal therapies, caffeine, DRIVING - all carry some risk. Nicotine, absent the smoke, is no more risky than many other things we do every day. The only thing that made nicotine use higher risk in the past (and essentially evil in the eyes of the public) was the damage cause by getting it through smoking. If nicotine was so dangerous, why is it allowed in gum, patches, inhalers, water, lozenges, etc? Don't bother to say as a short-term solution to help people quit smoking - the FDA is well aware that almost 40% of people who use those products to quit smoking never stop using them (long-term users) and the other 53% just go back to smoking.

Additionally, there are several promising studies that show nicotine (absent the smoke) to be beneficial for brain disorders. If nicotine were so high risk, the clinical studies would never have been allowed. There is something in tobacco/nicotine that people find beneficial (beyond addiction) or they wouldn't expose themselves to the great risks and costs of smoking to gain it. And it's not just the nicotine, it's the whole act of smoking they need or else e-cigs wouldn't work any better than the gums and patches they used in the past.

I do NOT sell e-cigarettes. I found e-cigarettes at the Wisconsin state fair last summer. I went online, did the research, bought a recommended device and haven't touched a tobacco cigarette since August 2009, after 20+ years of smoking. When I found out the lies that the FDA and other "public health" groups were telling in the media (the other irony of this article, since the majority of media reports about e-cigarettes have been NEGATIVE until these recent stories) I became an activist for the first time in my life. I am now on the board of directors for CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association.) We are a group that believe that the "quit or die" mentality is causing more people to die than quit. There has to be another way. Reduced-harm alternatives are the answer and e-cigarettes fit in perfectly with this approach. We are not the only ones who feel this way. The AAPHP, ACSH and a slew of anti-smoking doctors and researchers also feel that reduced-harm options, including e-cigarettes, will save millions of lives.

 

[D103]

Excellent response Kristin!!

 

[Vocalek]

Wow! I love this line: "In spite of the concern, this is obviously not a product which appeals to youth any more than chocolate Ensure does."

 

[kristin]

Thanks!

You know, I've been thinking about this line: "We are a group that believe that the "quit or die" mentality is causing more people to die than quit."

This could be used as a public service announcement for reduced harm in some way.

Maybe like: "The "quit or die" message from anti-smoking organizations is working...smokers are dying every day. Support reduced-harm alternatives and save lives."

 

[cozzicon]

Everyone should remember that the press, more and more, simply exists to attract attention and dollars. Please don't expect a reporter to actually do their homework. News outlets see news as profit...

The more sensational... the more profit.

The press has changed greatly during my life. I remember Watergate first hand. The press functioned in that case. But to think that CNN, FOX, or MSNBC are on that level... or some newspaper journalist in Wisconsin... is just naive.

Especially the newspapers these days... they are dying media. They print anything that sells papers.

 

[harmony gardens]

Thanks!

You know, I've been thinking about this line: "We are a group that believe that the "quit or die" mentality is causing more people to die than quit."

This could be used as a public service announcement for reduced harm in some way.

Maybe like: "The "quit or die" message from anti-smoking organizations is working...smokers are dying every day. Support reduced-harm alternatives and save lives."

Clearing throat,,, non smokers die everyday, too. The irony is that if smoking doesn't kill you, something else will. I don't know if it matters to them that not smoking can't prevent you from dieing.

 

[kristin]

The antis don't actually say, "Quit or die." That is just what we call it - the "quit or die mentality," because they don't want to accept reduced-harm alternatives. By misinforming the public about the relative risks and fighting smokeless tobacco products and ecigs they are leaving only two options to smokers - quit all tobacco products (quit) or keep smoking (die.)

My example message wasn't the best use of it - but there has to be a way to get that message out - smokers aren't quitting, so there needs to be an alternative!

 

[rothenbj]

The antis don't actually say, "Quit or die." That is just what we call it - the "quit or die mentality," because they don't want to accept reduced-harm alternatives. By misinforming the public about the relative risks and fighting smokeless tobacco products and ecigs they are leaving only two options to smokers - quit all tobacco products (quit) or keep smoking (die.)

My example message wasn't the best use of it - but there has to be a way to get that message out - smokers aren't quitting, so there needs to be an alternative!

Kristin, the problem is that the heads of this movement are getting rich on the conundrum. There is a percentage of society that finds the benefit of tobacco worth the risk of smoking. Why? From my perspective, no in depth study has really been done. Yes, nicotine has an addictive quality about it, but anyone that can get off cigarettes and in short order move to 0 nic juice could not have possibly been addicted to nicotine. Perhaps for them it's like a person chewing their nails. For others, no amount of nicotine replaces cigarettes. That's where snus, stonewalls,et al with those other alkaloids seems to help. I'm sure there is a third set that is truly addicted to the nicotine, but no more than there are some who just can't do without caffeine in their body.

It will be extremely hard to get those that have campaigned for abstinance so long to really look at alternatives to quit or die. That approach makes a lot of sense for those making money off the whole process. The numbers change so slowly that the effort guarantees the cash cow for decades, if not perpetually. Our only hope is those that understand harm reduction and can get the actual scientific numbers in front of the people (both smokers and non-smokers) and find a common ground. I'm thankful that not all of the anti-smoking group remained as the radicals took over. They are, more than likely, our best hope. A favorable court ruling sure would help.

 

[mpetva]

EMILY'S "ANSWER/REPLY" to all of the comments and e-mails here:

Emily's

Perhaps we can give her some good links to some of the studies etc?

PS: Comments towards bottom of the page!

 

[jamie]

The antis don't actually say, "Quit or die." That is just what we call it - the "quit or die mentality," because they don't want to accept reduced-harm alternatives.

Actually there have been at least two articles here with quotes from anti PR about how smokers who wouldn't abstain just need to die, or will die off anyway. They were quite a while ago (posted here) so I can't quote them but I haven't forgotten.

 

[CES]

Emily's response was fairly reasonable. And 3 of the 4 comments were great (one was clueless). It's the first time that I remember that someone has followed up and looked into the issue a bit further after getting comments and emails.

 

[rothenbj]

Kristin, you're the best. Great analogy with the rollercoaster.

 

[Vocalek]

Emily's response was fairly reasonable. And 3 of the 4 comments were great (one was clueless). It's the first time that I remember that someone has followed up and looked into the issue a bit further after getting comments and emails.

It was. Just when I was starting to think Emily might have a brain in her head, she posts a comment:

Kyle - I'm pretty sure you and I are still in agreement.

"I’m not even claiming that e-cigarettes are bad or that they’re the latest deceitful tactic of Big Tobacco, only that they shouldn’t be available for consumption until adequately researched."

That's exactly what I'm saying, too. That and yes, generally Don't Trust Big Tobacco.

I won't copy all of my comment in reply, but here are the salient portions:

If you insist on taking away my e-cigarette supplies, can you provide me with a guarantee that I won't start wheezing and coughing up phlegm again if I switch back to smoking? Can you? If you cannot provide such a health guarantee to all who would switch back to smoking, you have no business advocating the alternative products "shouldn't be available for consumption until adequately researched."

If the products are not "available for consumption," untold numbers of former smokers who, for health reasons, dare not go back to smoking will be looking to the black market for their e-cigarette supplies. Is the black market supposed to be safer than getting them from a reputable manufacturer? It's never worked out that way in the past.

[SNIP - a bunch of links to research, lab reports, etc.]

It never crossed my mind to get some kind of proof that these products were "safe" before I switched. I understood that smoking was unsafe. I was desperate to get away from killing myself with smoke. And if I appear to be "overwrought", well, you would be, too, in my situation.

Imagine that you have been adrift in shark-infested waters. Along comes a life-boat, and well-meaning people yank it away from you saying, "Don't get it that boat. It might have a leak."

What I don't understand is why it seems so important to you, Kyle and Emily, to drive these products off the market.

What is your stake in all this? Is your health threatened by our use of these products? Are you suffering financial losses from our failure to continue buying tobacco cigarettes? Why are you so eager to pull that life-boat out of reach of all those desperate hands?

 

[rothenbj]

It was. Just when I was starting to think Emily might have a brain in her head, she posts a comment.....

You know, I got back from poker this afternoon feeling really good. I won the first tournament and finished fourth the second. I made a few bucks and was trying to decide if I'd go back out and get the dogs some bones fearing they might be sold out tomorrow.

I just had to read my email and caught this post on my cell. Next thing I know it's three hours later and I'm finishing up commenting on Emily's second. This after telling myself that I wouldn't. I sure hope it makes some sense to these people that feel everyone that doesn't agree with them is a paid shill. I almost wonder if they aren't.

Anyway, I blew off a lot of steam and only in the last thirty seconds was it from my PV.

Now close off this thread before I get sucked it again. Have a happy 4th all.

 

[Vocalek]

You know, I got back from poker this afternoon feeling really good. I won the first tournament and finished fourth the second. I made a few bucks and was trying to decide if I'd go back out and get the dogs some bones fearing they might be sold out tomorrow.

I just had to read my email and caught this post on my cell. Next thing I know it's three hours later and I'm finishing up commenting on Emily's second. This after telling myself that I wouldn't. I sure hope it makes some sense to these people that feel everyone that doesn't agree with them is a paid shill. I almost wonder if they aren't.

Anyway, I blew off a lot of steam and only in the last thirty seconds was it from my PV.

Now close off this thread before I get sucked it again. Have a happy 4th all.

I agree with what you wrote. I'm angry, too. Pompous, arrogant little snots like Kyle irritate me to no end. Talk about hubris.


As Jonathan Edwards said, "He can't even run his own life. I'll be damned if he'll run mine." (Sunshine)

But I also share your anger at "those who know what's best for us." I wonder how many dead bodies can be credited to the lie, "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes."

View attachment 10570