FORBES article points out that "reduced harm" products might not become a reality

[Horselady154]

The reason why those on the far left and far right
constantly disagree on almost every issue is simple.
They don't even speak the same language.

Yes, but the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed a lot too. Now, the establishment "liberals" and the establishment "conservatives" may have different rhetoric, but their actions are almost identical. They're all just one big government pile of &^^%$.

 

[Horselady154]

Who do you think gains the most by keeping it that way? Not flesh-and-blood people. Hmmm, maybe both The Beltway and Wall Street? Gov't "masters" and 1-percenter robber barons? Gun-toting nannies and big-money chemical companies? Big Brother and Big Credit Bureaus and Big Marketing.

I don't think the winners are you and me.

Don't forget about the labor unions.

But, you know, someone is not bad because they have become successful. They're bad if they paid off government to give them special favor. Government is not supposed to choose the winners and losers and most certainly are not supposed to sell laws/regulations based upon who lines their pocket more. Both so-called sides of the aisle are simply the best that money can buy. If any of us peons do what they have done, we'd be in prison. But, for some reason, we let them get away with it and keep putting them back in office to do it some more, or actually believe that these same people who we all know are lining their pockets with payola, will all of a sudden write rules to kill their golden goose. Common sense should tell us this isn't going to happen. Think about it. The only reason for example Goldman Sachs was able to do what they did and not only get away with it, but be bailed out for actions that should have resulted in their bankruptcy, was totally because of government actions. Every single bit of it. Now, go check to see how many ex-Goldman Sachs employees line President Obama's cabinet and a sudden feeling of nausea will wash over you.

 

[PaulB]

I totally don't buy into most of the conservative/liberal blahblah I read here because conservatives have historically supported or stood by unhelpfully in response to various tobacco control strategies across the decades. Think SCHIP, one of the only major bipartisan things Congress has passed since 2009.

Don't worry, sugar and fatty food lovers: There is a difference between smoking and ALL the other issues that come up. The difference is popular reaction. Michael Bloomberg and his ilk can do pretty much anything they want about smoking and smokers in NYC and he's got a whole country full of fans. But he sure got a lot of national blowback after his sugared drink restriction. Gun control is a controversial public issue; tobacco control isn't at all, as far as I can tell. Everybody hates smoking; everybody hates smokers. As I see it, we are uniquely treated in the popular mind: poorly. (I say "we" because I still insist on smoking a bit, and even if I didn't, I consider myself a smoker for life.) And this relates to regulation of e-cigarettes because it's terribly hard to drum up much popular sympathy for anything that smokers might use to curb their habits in a pleasurable way.

 

[Berylanna]

Everybody hates smoking; everybody hates smokers. As I see it, we are uniquely treated in the popular mind: poorly. (I say "we" because I still insist on smoking a bit, and even if I didn't, I consider myself a smoker for life.) And this relates to regulation of e-cigarettes because it's terribly hard to drum up much popular sympathy for anything that smokers might use to curb their habits in a pleasurable way.

I think there is a way around this. We have no credibility, we are "addicts." But our FAMILIES can have credibility. If my city tried to outlaw outdoor smoking in the park, and I objected, my family would NOT back me! But if they try to limit vaping, my family WILL back me. This difference in behavior might come as a surprise to politicians and reporters, and might allow us to re-frame the debate as anti-smoking instead of pro-nicotine.

We need our relatives to say "I am not a smoker or tobacco user, and I want you to know that my loved one is safer now, and safer to be around, now that she has quit smoking with e-cigs. Please help keep the focus on NOT lighting things on fire, NOT leaving cigarette butts around. Treating smokeless alternatives the same as combustibles sends a message that deadly smoke is no more dangerous than things that have the same risks as nicotine patches and gum -- that is the wrong message to send to the public, and especially to smokers who might be thinking of quitting with e-cigs."

Or they can quote the American Association of Public Health Physicians: American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco

3. Almost all tobacco-attributable mortality in the USA is due to cigarette smoking.

10. Harm Reduction: Smokers who have tried, but failed to quit using medical guidance and pharmaceutical products, and smokers unable or uninterested in quitting should consider switching to a less hazardous smoke-free tobacco/nicotine product for as long as they feel the need for such a product. Such products include pharmaceutical Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products used, off-label, on a long term basis;, electronic “e” cigarettes, dissolvables (sticks, strips and orbs), snus, other forms of moist snuff, and chewing tobacco.

14. The tobacco page of the AAPHP web site should be configured to serve as an informational resource to physicians, other health-related organizations and the general public.

 

[Petrodus]

I totally don't buy into most of the conservative/liberal blahblah I read here because conservatives have historically supported or stood by unhelpfully in response to various tobacco control strategies across the decades. Think SCHIP, one of the only major bipartisan things Congress has passed since 2009.

Don't worry, sugar and fatty food lovers: There is a difference between smoking and ALL the other issues that come up. The difference is popular reaction. Michael Bloomberg and his ilk can do pretty much anything they want about smoking and smokers in NYC and he's got a whole country full of fans. But he sure got a lot of national blowback after his sugared drink restriction. Gun control is a controversial public issue; tobacco control isn't at all, as far as I can tell. Everybody hates smoking; everybody hates smokers. As I see it, we are uniquely treated in the popular mind: poorly. (I say "we" because I still insist on smoking a bit, and even if I didn't, I consider myself a smoker for life.) And this relates to regulation of e-cigarettes because it's terribly hard to drum up much popular sympathy for anything that smokers might use to curb their habits in a pleasurable way.

Allow me to make just 1 correction in what you wrote ...

"And this relates to regulation of e-cigarettes because it's terribly hard IMPOSSIBLE
to drum up much popular sympathy for anything that smokers might use to curb their
habits in a pleasurable way."

 

[JerryRM]

And why are smokers hated? Because, going back to the early 1960s, they have been attacked by the ANTZ and the attacks have become more harsh as the years went by. This second hand and third hand smoke nonsense, sealed the public's opinion of smokers.

I'm in no way defending smoking, it's not healthy and potentially harmful to the smoker. But the second and third hand smoke nonsense, has led the sheeple to believe that just being in the presence of a smoker can cause them serious health problems. The propagandists have done their job well. Next, they will be demanding that smokers and other nicotine users be isolated, for the good of society.

The attacks have just started on those who love sugar and fatty foods. I may not be around to see it, but eventually they will be treated like smokers are being treated today.

 

[Berylanna]

And why are smokers hated? Because, going back to the early 1960s, they have been attacked by the ANTZ and the attacks have become more harsh as the years went by. This second hand and third hand smoke nonsense, sealed the public's opinion of smokers.

I'm in no way defending smoking, it's not healthy and potentially harmful to the smoker. But the second and third hand smoke nonsense, has led the sheeple to believe that just being in the presence of a smoker can cause them serious health problems. The propagandists have done their job well. Next, they will be demanding that smokers and other nicotine users be isolated, for the good of society.

The attacks have just started on those who love sugar and fatty foods. I may not be around to see it, but eventually they will be treated like smokers are being treated today.

I actually think there is harm in long-term exposure to smoke in enclosed spaces. Even from fireplaces. NOWHERE NEAR what they've been saying, though, certainly not from little whiffs going out a door! Third hand, NO WAY.

But I did see a lot of cigarette butts and broken beer bottles in the sand in kids' playgrounds. And, smokers STINK! People who stink are hated. I'm appalled at how I behaved regarding smoking in the 1970's, leaving butts all over the street.

But if they outlaw vaping and I have to go back to smoking, I'll GO BACK to leaving butts all over the place and smoking next to non-smokers -- if my right to avoid the consequences of cigarettes is not going to be respected, then I'll return the disrespect in spades.

If they stab us very deeply, we should have a smoke-in on the Capitol steps, and leave butts all over the place.

 

[JerryRM]

I actually think there is harm in long-term exposure to smoke in enclosed spaces. Even from fireplaces. NOWHERE NEAR what they've been saying, though, certainly not from little whiffs going out a door! Third hand, NO WAY.

But I did see a lot of cigarette butts and broken beer bottles in the sand in kids' playgrounds. And, smokers STINK! People who stink are hated. I'm appalled at how I behaved regarding smoking in the 1970's, leaving butts all over the street.

But if they outlaw vaping and I have to go back to smoking, I'll GO BACK to leaving butts all over the place and smoking next to non-smokers -- if my right to avoid the consequences of cigarettes is not going to be respected, then I'll return the disrespect in spades.

If they stab us very deeply, we should have a smoke-in on the Capitol steps, and leave butts all over the place.

I have believed for a long time, that the real culprit is emissions from internal combustion engines and that cigarette smoke has been made the scapegoat, because banning internal combustion engines would destroy the economy.

 

[Berylanna]

I have believed for a long time, that the real culprit is emissions from internal combustion engines and that cigarette smoke has been made the scapegoat, because banning internal combustion engines would destroy the economy.

Actually, lead from cars running over fly-away lead weights from wheels is a bigger deal still.

But my parents smoked in the house and cars with us, and I had lung issues before I ever started smoking. So did my younger daughter, who I smoked around, in the car and house, constantly. And when I was growing up, the air where we lived was really clean, it was a wind tunnel from the sea. Someone else commented that woodfire kitchen stoves for cooking 3x/day were one of the leading cause of cancer before cigarettes (and gas/electric stoves) got to be so common.

Smoke inhalation is harmful. Particulate inhalation is harmful. Smog inhahlation is harmful. The American Lung Association used to fight all of these before they changed their direction to a crusade to drive cigarette companies out of business. Now, they are one of the world's most influential pro-smoking advocates -- going around implying smoking is as harmless as e-cigs and snus. When cornered they say that's not what they mean, then they go back to state legislatures and city councils and resume lying, all to make SURE the tobacco companies go bankrupt. We and our families are just collateral damage.

 

[Thomasis]

It's because the ANTZ would rather us die from smoking, than them be wrong about the hazards of vaping. Don't think for a minute you can talk sense into these people. It's never been about public/personal safety, there are a few mentally inept people in this world that need something, anything, to make them feel better about themselves and vapers in this case is what makes them feel better. The writing in my opinion, is on the wall. The more smokers find out about vaping, the louder the ANTZ will scream.

 

[DC2]

I think there is a way around this. We have no credibility, we are "addicts." But our FAMILIES can have credibility. If my city tried to outlaw outdoor smoking in the park, and I objected, my family would NOT back me! But if they try to limit vaping, my family WILL back me. This difference in behavior might come as a surprise to politicians and reporters, and might allow us to re-frame the debate as anti-smoking instead of pro-nicotine.

We need our relatives to say "I am not a smoker or tobacco user, and I want you to know that my loved one is safer now, and safer to be around, now that she has quit smoking with e-cigs. Please help keep the focus on NOT lighting things on fire, NOT leaving cigarette butts around. Treating smokeless alternatives the same as combustibles sends a message that deadly smoke is no more dangerous than things that have the same risks as nicotine patches and gum -- that is the wrong message to send to the public, and especially to smokers who might be thinking of quitting with e-cigs."

Or they can quote the American Association of Public Health Physicians: American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco

Now here is someone who gets it!

We are going to need our family and our friends behind us and ready to speak out.
I'm confident that when the time comes, many will.

I know mine will.

 

[kazimir]

This second hand and third hand smoke nonsense, sealed the public's opinion of smokers.

Don't forget the rest...

"Fourth-Hand Smoke – Sight of real people smoking outdoors or seeing a film, photograph or painting of a person(s) smoking indoors.

Fifth-Hand Smoke – Seeing a building knowing for sure that people are smoking inside

Sixth-Hand Smoke – Thinking that people just might be smoking in that building and thinking you might smell it

Seventh-Hand Smoke – Even though you looked in the window and the building is absolutely empty, completely quiet and the lights are off, you can smell something and you think it might be smoke

Eighth-Hand Smoke – Speaking to or thinking about a current smoker

Ninth-Hand Smoke – Speaking to or thinking about a person who used to smoke

Tenth-Hand Smoke – Thinking of or speaking to a deceased relative who used to smoke"

 

[Berylanna]

Or they can quote the American Association of Public Health Physicians: American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco

Now here is someone who gets it!

Why do I think maybe the AAPHP is not funded by BP?

 

[rothenbj]

Yes, but the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed a lot too. Now, the establishment "liberals" and the establishment "conservatives" may have different rhetoric, but their actions are almost identical. They're all just one big government pile of &^^%$.

That is exactly the problem we face. A lot of rhetoric to persuade a shift in a few votes to get elected. After that it's business as usual.

 

[Trick]

Yes, but the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed a lot too. Now, the establishment "liberals" and the establishment "conservatives" may have different rhetoric, but their actions are almost identical. They're all just one big government pile of &^^%$.

It's not even a recent change. It's been going on like that for a very, very long time. It just gets easier to see it for what it is after you've been looking at it for a while.

Politics is just marketing in another hat. It's all about getting a vote. They may be pitching to different primary audiences, but they all really want the same thing: to get enough votes to keep their jobs.

 

[jtpjc]

It's all in your genes and mine are getting old so I'm looking for some newer ones at the thrift store.

It seems that with the newest 3D printers you can print your own. Including the syringe to inject them. Just add PG.

 

[PepNYC]

"films that dissolve on the tongue, and flavored sucking sticks"

 

[Ardo]

Get mad vapers. We have to beat these creatures at their own game and it's going to be a long long nasty fight.

Hell yea! That's the spirit!

 

[Petrodus]

Everyone today seems to want a "sound byte" answer.

As long as those opposing e-cigarettes keep making up health concern lies...we can beat them.
When they throw up their arms in frustration & admit they are simply opposed to anything
which reminds them of smoking or tobacco ... We're screwed !!

 

[Kweb]

What we need are some really cool filmmakers - Tarantino, Scorsese, etc. to have their actors vape on camera. Change public opinion and make it hip to vape. Sad, but true. If we start pushing vaping as cool (think Cherry UV Vodka) then everyone will be a ok with it.