I had too, but I had not tried to quit - I loved smoking - knew the downsides and accepted them.
FDA FDA's Zeller: Let's Reframe Debate to Focus on Nicotine
- Thread starter sofarsogood
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I had too, but I had not tried to quit - I loved smoking - knew the downsides and accepted them.
They should but they know that they might not have to. Although more current studies are showing no/low harm and not that addicting.
I'm not going to argue against socialized health care, because I believe if it were done right, it would actually be beneficial. IMO the problem with our system is that it is a hybrid of socialized and private. Whenever they try to address the costs of healthcare the focus is always on the individual, what is person A doing that costs the healthcare system more, as opposed to why does the healthcare system cost so much. I'm sorry, but capitalism isn't always the answer.
Also, even if I agreed with you, the fact is that a large portion of Americans do receive government funded healthcare, and I don't believe that's going away anytime soon. Keeping costs down can have a part, but like most of our policies, belief has more influence than fact. People believe that smokers cost the system more, so they applaud actions taken against smokers. Thanks to their highly successful media machine, a significant portion of the American populace probably now believes that vapers will cost more than smokers.
True. I not only loved smoking but was involved in all the pro-smoking rights agendas all along the road. I knew of some of the TC and THR people before I ever started vaping. Working against them. :- )
I heard about ecigs on another non-ecig forum - 'it's the future of smoking' basically and I looked it up - hadn't heard of it before that, got a supermini/4081/cigalike which didn't produce enough vapor at the time (50%+ of the habit) and then got a Janty Dura C (510 based batt -thin, but longer than the super minis). I decide when I got the 'urge' I'd hit the 510 for three hits and if I still wanted a cigarette, I'd have one. That never happened. When the nicotine hit the bloodstream, I was 'good'. There were times it was harder - having coffee and cigarettes on my porch over looking a pond, etc. But I stuck with that 'formula' and it continued to work. That will be 7 years in June.... in between getting the supermini and ordering the Janty, I found ECF!
If vaping is banned, I'd go back smoking....after my prepper cache is used up..... lol.
You've made some of your positions know to me a while back - I haven't forgotten that. And I'm sorry as well - capitalism and freedom is the answer. Many of the "problems" with free enterprise - there are some but they get worked out if allowed, are anecdotal incidents that those who favor socialism of fascism hop on to and promote - some are lies, some are overemphasized for PR reasons. And they play well in certain segments of society, usually uneducated poor. People who are easily drawn to victimhood - not saying 'all poor' or 'all uneducated' - but enough to form a constituency. And a base with which to grow it.
Some of the so-called problems in free enterprise are the business cycles that occur when new technology is allowed to occur. Some industries die and new ones created and there are loss of jobs, economy slumps, then new jobs and a growing economy, but if allowed to work out, they self correct. What socialists/liberals/progressives do is intervene - in many cases just when the turn around is about to happen and make things worse or continue the cycle longer than it would have - it is how the phrase 'knee jerk liberal' was coined.
I have no intent of continuing this or arguing this or that in this thread - only to answer your assertions in your post. I hope that is sufficient to give my view vs. yours, even if, as I suppose, you don't agree, but if you want to continue, you can PM me. Otherwise, I won't reply here.
I agree about the knee jerk reactions, that ties into my belief vs fact point.
I'm not saying I have all the answers, far from it. I could be wrong, but to me the current situation of insurance companies profiting at the expense of health care workers AND health care consumers seems to be a product of capitalism, though it has definitely been helped along by socialist half measures.
A quickie - 'helped along' by socialist half measures - also means not a product of capitalism but a product of gov't intervention. If we return to what is now catastrophic health insurance (and medical savings accounts) - what used to be called 'hospitalization' where such cases that would wipe out your entire savings - or throw you into deep debt - which is what it covered at a relatively lower expense than 'total health care' from pre-birth to death, then we'd all be better off - health wise and financially.
I admit that the phrase I used was a bit sloppy when I said
no matter how good it is for the individual or the population at large'. That should have been separated with at least a period, and worded better as it wasn't meant to imply that Zeller actually believes in the above (he believes any increase in tobacco/nicotine use is bad no matter small the risk), but as statement on how wrong he is on his stance.
It would be a good idea for you to stop highjacking threads with obvious trivial nit-picking.
Explanation accepted.
My original post, explained how Zeller can say one thing, but in full context says another. Directly on topic and by 'likes' appreciated for those who had some questions of the obvious contradictions from him.
You highjacked the thread by not liking/knee jerking the 'collective' comment - even thought it describes his view. You started the nitpicking by questioning it, and by confusing what was meant by his 'net population'. It would be good if you'd reconsider and take a breath before replying to my posts. But I'm up for whatever you have to say, regardless.
Regardless of questions over Zeller's collectivism/individualism, the "tobacco issue" is one with deep roots that go way, way back.
I strongly advise this excellent piece by Jason Hughes: E-Cigarettes and the ‘Civilising’ of Smoking
I strongly advise this excellent piece by Jason Hughes: E-Cigarettes and the ‘Civilising’ of Smoking
Perhaps, if medical savings accounts were expanded, and some kind of reform were implemented to lower the cost of specialist office visits. Chronic illness can be just as costly as catastrophic events, if more spread out.
he forgets to mention use by all tobacco products is still at historic lows none the less.
Regards
Mike
You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced it's all BS. Collectivist, puritan, doesn't really matter. To any rational person, it would be clear the potential for vapor products to severely diminish the popularity of smoking, in our lifetime. If the goal truly was to eliminate tobacco, why wouldn't you let the new guy kill off the stubborn old guy(that you've been unable to kill for decades), and THEN wrangle in the new guy?
The only reason I can think of to fight vapor products as hard as they are doing, is to protect the smoking market. It's all about the money. What was the last U.S. national move against smoking?
The only reason I can think of to fight vapor products as hard as they are doing, is to protect the smoking market. It's all about the money. What was the last U.S. national move against smoking?
Sounds like your prepper cache isn't big enough.
At this point it's probably good for 10 years. If the Appropriations bill gets signed into law, that would help. Either way, I'm good - although cigs will be more costly.
Interesting.... a sociologists looks at it as a socializing behavior - making smoking more acceptable to others. Kinda like a carpenter with a hammer only sees nails.
But for me and I suspect the majority of other vapers, it's an individual/personal choice, either for their own health, or their own taste or their own costs of using nicotine. That it is also 'socially acceptable' for others is a 'good' side effect. But it is also still a socially unacceptable behavior for others. Either way, it is no concern of mine what others think, unless they attempt to stop it.
And there is no question of Zeller's mind set - there's no 'individualism' there, except for, perhaps, his own self-interest to keep his job. And he may have misestimated that once again.
Definitely an interesting read, thank you!
The part that policy makers seem to gloss over would be this:
"There is an even more radical possibility here, one that is perhaps unsayable in policy circles. But if it is the case that e-cigarettes are, on the whole, not that much more harmful than, say, drinking coffee, then might it be appropriate to accept that certain social groups should be permitted to ‘vape’ without them having the intention of ever stopping? On what grounds would we reject recreational nicotine use if it no longer causes serious harm to the user? Moral grounds? Aesthetic grounds? The long-term history of the use of intoxicants would suggest that human beings are essentially a drug-using species. Might it then be more realistic to accept that there will always be a demand for the recreational consumption of tobacco (albeit as nicotine solution)?"
For some it's about money, for others it's control. I think control is the dominate factor. It's the Tobacco Control department. :- ) The initial moves were more puritanical - same with alcohol. Some people didn't like the 'looks' of smoking. It's why vaping with vapor is attacked where NRT's are not. And it is part of the collective/authoritative/we-know-what's-best-for-you mindset as well. Any 'question authority' behavior ticks them off - sometimes violently.
It's been a while back but a state trooper stopped a car on one of our highways with a stolen car license plate. The trooper frisked the guy, put him in the rear of the cruiser. The driver insisted that he borrowed his brother's car and a simple phone call would clear it all up. They stopped at a phone booth (I said it was a while back right? :- ) where the driver appeared to make a phone call, but then took off running in the field nearby. The trooper shot him in the back and killed him. He was not charged, even though the guy was knowingly unarmed and of harm to no one. The trooper would be charged now, though. The guy tricked him and defied his authority and lost his life for it.
That's the level of control in many of those in authority. They don't all respond that way of course, but that's their mindset. You see it in some, not all, teachers, cops, congress critters in hearings, and gov't officials who are the subject of hearings, some nurses, some orderlies, the DMV, welfare and almost all gov't agencies. When the money is good, that's also a factor but imo, again, not the dominate one.
I have no doubt that puritanism and collectivism are large motivators, especially for the "foot soldiers" of the TC movement. I also agree that control is a dominant factor for some individuals, it's obvious by their actions. However, this is a systematic campaign of misinformation relying on the collusion of multiple federal agencies and congress/the president.
I have a hard time believing that there aren't more people involved that know exactly what they're doing. Perhaps "money" is too simple, but the continued existence of the Tobacco Control industry is a powerful motivator.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
