Establishments Banning E-Cigs - 2 reasons

[kristin]

An interesting fact about relative risk. The WHO study on SHS (that they buried) found an increased risk for lung cancer of 1.16, which is an increased risk of 16%. Compare that to an increased risk of 2,300% for lung cancer in male SMOKERS (Mayo Clinic). The risk increase for SHS is 144 times LESS than the risk of smoking.

Now consider that only 10% (1 out of 10) smokers actually get lung cancer, even with that 2,300% increased risk. So, does a 16% RR increase really sound as statistically significant as the ANTZ claim? Now think about vapor being 99% less risk than SHS. Are those risks anywhere near what a reasonable person would consider any kind of a public health hazard?

 

[AttyPops]

@g.m. What I don't understand (I guess I am missing the point ....well, sort of) is that you keep falling back to smoking studies to make your points. But we're discussing vaping.

Now I know you're discussing strategy and the anti-ANTZ posts about their tactics. But it's beating a dead horse (if you'll pardon the phrase). Look at the link that Fulgurant just posted about the 4dangers. "Smokers breath" is dangerous to others now.....

So isn't it OK to admit that some of the anti-smoking stuff is a bit...extremest and fraudulent?

 

[Anjaffm]

Yeah.. generic mutant.. and do not forget to read - and defend? - Fulgurant's linked 4 dangers

hm... as to the first of the 4 horrible Horsemen of the Apocalypse.. uhm... "dangers" .. the explanation is quite simple, actually.

More than one half of all New Yorkers tested have elevated levels of a nicotine byproduct.

Yeah. I do suppose that those people from NY consume food. But never mind.... it is your turn to do the work and provide the links

 

[Fulgurant]

It's like I keep saying...
They won't stop until we make them look like idiots.

 

[kristin]

I've removed the refs and page numbers, but done nothing to deliberately alter the meaning.

Tobacco Litigation Documents | UCSF Library

You're suggesting my sources are biased? Does this scan like the C.V. of an "innocent victim of an ANTZ smear campaign"

Do you realize that source is UCSF, the home of Stanton Glantz, the premier ANTZ that was a direct participant in the smear campaign? Sorry, I don't believe anything coming out of UCSF regarding tobacco or e-cigs.

Also, it was fairly common practice to take tobacco funding. The only time it came up was if the results didn't fit the agenda. A lot of respected scientists got funding and it wasn't frowned upon because "the science speaks for itself regardless of funding sources." It wasn't until fairly recently that TC scientists started seriously avoiding it. It wasn't until 2013 that BJM started refusing research funded by the tobacco industry.

That whole quote was a smear campaign because billions in tobacco settlement dollars was on the line.

If he was such an established and untrusted tobacco shill, why did the ACS give him funding for a SHS study in the first place?

 

[LDS714]

You're suggesting my sources are biased?

Yes. Completely.

 

[generic mutant]

Do you realize that source is UCSF, the home of Stanton Glantz, the premier ANTZ that was a direct participant in the smear campaign? Sorry, I don't believe anything coming out of UCSF regarding tobacco or e-cigs.
...

It's a court judgement. The United States Government is the plaintiff. Are you insinuating that they've edited it to fit an agenda?

@g.m. What I don't understand (I guess I am missing the point ....well, sort of) is that you keep falling back to smoking studies to make your points. But we're discussing vaping.

Now I know you're discussing strategy and the anti-ANTZ posts about their tactics. But it's beating a dead horse (if you'll pardon the phrase). Look at the link that Fulgurant just posted about the 4dangers. "Smokers breath" is dangerous to others now.....

So isn't it OK to admit that some of the anti-smoking stuff is a bit...extremest and fraudulent?

I freely accept that a lot of the threat of tobacco, second hand smoke, etc, is exaggerated by many groups.

I just find it very frustrating listening to people trying to defend vaping by implying (or indeed outright stating) that "second hand smoking is a myth", and that "they'll use the same tactics by making it seem dangerous when it isn't". You think I'm flogging a dead horse? I think having two arguments about this in the 7 odd months I've been a member here is positively restrained... I'd say the dead horse being flogged here is "it's a conspiracy, the government are spreading lies to get us just like they were when we were smokers".

 

[JulesXsmokr]

There is no proof that the clouds of vapor is harmless.mi mean some people have reported acne problems from vaping. And it still has nicotine in it, so to a non vaper, or non smoker i think it is rude to use in an establishment. I will use in say walmart if no one else is in the aisle. I do also vape in my home around my children. But am careful when my two year old is around, because i dont really know the side affects of second hand vape.

I just believe we need to resort to the same tactics our opponents are using !!!!
You say there is no proof of vapor being harmless, and "that" is what all the opponents are saying.
We have to make them bear the proof of burden that it is harmful !
Mean time we should all say that it is "harmless" and not fret about the "mays" and the "if's"
It something ever comes up about vaping we will be the first to know, and can take the situation good or bad from there.
Your not going to win a fight from being on the bottom..

 

[Anjaffm]

@generic mutant:

Not a conspiracy. Not at all.
It is a multi-billion dollar business. Big difference.

Now excuse me please while I go and greatly elevate my levels of a dangerous nicotine by-product. (I am going to eat something ) After all:

The presence of nicotine and its metabolite cotinine in the body fluids of nonsmokers is usually taken as evidence of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied 800 people, both smokers and nonsmokers, all of whom tested positive for urinary cotinine1.

do read on please

oh-so-horribly-dangerous food

on the other hand, of course, vegetables have recently been "found" to contain oh-so-precious "anti-aging" ingredients

Like fruits, vegetables are one of the best sources of antioxidants available and they can go a long way toward fighting free radicals and slowing the effects of aging.

Oh, whatever shall I do?
Die of the oh-so-horrible nicotine, or live forever from the oh-so-wonderful anti-aging ingredients contained in precisely the same food?

Decisions, decisions

 

[DancingHeretik]

I'm sick to my stomach.

Me too. Me too.

 

[LDS714]

I seriously hope people will take 20 minutes and read this excerpt: http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=19

If you can walk away from that still believing that the ANTZ aren't manipulating SHS research to support their agenda and how deeply they hate anything associated with smokers and smoking (including nicotine use like vaping) then I don't know what will.

People need to understand the history and agenda to understand what we are up against.

Taking substantially more than 20 minutes to read (lulls on conference calls only allowing intermittent reading ), but it's a nice compendium of information I've seen from other sources over the years.

And it brings up the question...

If research funded by BT is inherently bad because of the funding source, then why is research funded by ANTZ less bad? Come to think of it, didn't a significant amount of the funding for the ANTZ stuff actually come from tobacco sales? So in essence, they shouldn't accept even the conclusions they get from cherry-picking the researchers and research methodologies because, well, some of their funding came from tobacco...

 

[RosaJ]

@generic mutant:

Not a conspiracy. Not at all.
It is a multi-billion dollar business. Big difference.

Now excuse me please while I go and greatly elevate my levels of a dangerous nicotine by-product. (I am going to eat something )

Money is always a BIG motivator behind some people's stance on issues. Glantz and his ilk make their livelihood from monies received from grants/donations/etc. so their passion is a result of their fight for survival. And, they probably don't pay any taxes because they may have Non-Profit organizations.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Money is always a BIG motivator behind some people's stance on issues. Glantz and his ilk make their livelihood from monies received from grants/donations/etc. so their passion is a result of their fight for survival. And, they probably don't pay any taxes because they may have Non-Profit organizations.

Not for profit organisations-thats a whole new cheatin currency right there !

 

[DC2]

I'd say the dead horse being flogged here is "it's a conspiracy, the government are spreading lies to get us just like they were when we were smokers".

Except that it is precisely the FDA and the CDC that are currently originating lies about vaping.
And then the ANTZ are spreading those lies with the help of mainstream media.

It's not a conspiracy, it's business as usual.
And when I say business as usual, I mean since caveman times.

 

[DC2]

Your not going to win a fight from being on the bottom..

Unless you have mad jiu-jitsu skills.

 

[generic mutant]

DC2 - I guess my point is simply this: if we restrict our arguments to things we can solidly demonstrate to be true, we are more credible, and more politically potent.

I just find it *baffling* that anybody arguing to promote vaping would bring up or defend something like E&K. They're hacks, and they make us look like hacks.

 

[JulesXsmokr]

I am with the "Vape Everywhere" policy of some others here. Proclamate the forces of good that vaping is doing.

If we don't pursue this course of action, and make it so that Federal and State law that "says vaping is not part of in any way connected to the Tobacco Industry and rules of tobacco products".. We will slowly lose our rights on the vape.

Now, businesses, and towns can freely pursue their own agendas, and allow the right or they can refuse the right in their private establishments for their understandable reasons in doing so..
We can always fight the little battles with our voices, pockets, and votes easier. The BIG money opponents won't spread into each little corner of our country, it'll be spread too thin..

 

[LDS714]

DC2 - I guess my point is simply this: if we restrict our arguments to things we can solidly demonstrate to be true, we are more credible, and more politically potent.

I just find it *baffling* that anybody arguing to promote vaping would bring up or defend something like E&K. They're hacks, and they make us look like hacks.

They weren't hacks until they went to report what they actually found in lieu of reporting what the initial financial backers wanted them to find.

You know, flying in the face of 'common knowledge' and all that...

 

[Anjaffm]

And it brings up the question...

If research funded by BT is inherently bad because of the funding source, then why is research funded by ANTZ less bad? Come to think of it, didn't a significant amount of the funding for the ANTZ stuff actually come from tobacco sales? So in essence, they shouldn't accept even the conclusions they get from cherry-picking the researchers and research methodologies because, well, some of their funding came from tobacco...

You hit the nail right on the head, dear

And, of course, it is always nice and convenient for the ANTZ to claim "there are no studies". (They love to do that in Germany)
Then, when studies ARE done and presented, the same ANTZ summarily wave them away "because they were funded by X".
Hm.. somebody needs to fund studies. They do not just happen out of thin air.
They do not, however, fund studies themselves. Or - at least - they do not publish them, if they ever did fund any. Maybe because the findings are not to their taste?

Or, of course, like in the case of that SHS study.. first they fund them, then they do not like the results, then they withdraw their support, then the researchers have to get funds from somebody else to PUBLISH the study.. and then the ANTZ summarily wave it away and try to smear the researchers because the study "was funded by X".

Hm.... if any of us - normal people - had behaved like that as children, our mommas would have smacked us right upside the head

edit:

They weren't hacks until they went to report what they actually found in lieu of reporting what the initial financial backers wanted them to find.

You know, flying in the face of 'common knowledge' and all that...

And you hit the nail right on the head again.

.........

.. Yes, yes.. of course I can understand that it may be difficult to wrap one's mind around the fact that one has been lied to all this time. That is not always easy. But such experience comes with life. One can close one's eyes. And defend "common knowledge" - like the Earth is flat. "Because I say so!" Or one can open one's eyes. And see.

That is a matter of personal preference.

 

[DC2]

DC2 - I guess my point is simply this: if we restrict our arguments to things we can solidly demonstrate to be true, we are more credible, and more politically potent.

I don't believe in taking one approach, as it limits us and our movement.

I believe in fighting in every way possible, on all fronts.
But the "end game" is discrediting the ANTZ the FDA and the CDC.

And believe me, there are a lot of disenfranchised people that have beefs with the FDA and will understand our position.
The problem is that not enough people in this world understand the real problem.

If you want to argue that CASAA should not be indulging in public attacks on the aforementioned liars, I will agree.
And so does CASAA, when it comes to presenting their "public" face.

If you want to argue that we as vapers should not expose the lies, I have to disagree.
If you want to argue that independent Tobacco Harm Reduction people should not expose their lies, I also have to disagree.

Exposing their lies is the "end game" for all of us.
It is the only way we can win the war, regardless of the battles and skirmishes being fought in the meantime.