found this little gem on my AOL news popup

[kristin]

EXCEPT, if you are no longer inhaling smoke from a burning plant material then you are no longer smoking. There is NO SMOKE. It doesn't matter what you call it - switching, substituting, whatever. Using nicotine in vapor form isn't "smoking" anymore than using nicotine in gum or patch form, so you DID quit smoking - you just didn't quit nicotine. To say otherwise is like claiming that a caffeine user who used to drink coffee and now takes caffeine pills instead, because coffee caused him stomach ulcers, is still "drinking coffee" just because he still uses caffeine.

People (vapers especially) need to stop treating "nicotine/tobacco use" and "smoking" as the same thing. It's that deceptive interchanging of "tobacco" and "nicotine" for "smoking" that the ANTZ use to get these safer products banned or severely restricted and users discriminated against. For example, look at this paragraph from Campaign for tobacco Free Kids - a very vocal opponent to e-cigarettes and safer alternatives:

Tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States and around the world.

Tobacco killed one hundred million people worldwide in the 20th century — and if current trends continue, it will kill one billion people in the 21st century.

Every year, tobacco kills more than 400,000 Americans and more than five million people worldwide. The vast majority started smoking as children.

The truth is - SMOKING tobacco and not other "tobacco" or nicotine use is what is supposedly linked to those deaths. They cleverly make ALL tobacco sound equally dangerous. (Notice how the word smoking wasn't used until the very end?)

Would you be willing to drink the water in the U.S. if you were told the fact that U.S. water kills over 3,000 people a year and is especially hazardous for children? An estimated 5,000 children ages 14 and under are hospitalized due to water each year; 15 percent die in the hospital and as many as 20 percent suffer severe, permanent neurological disability.

This is absolutely TRUE! But what if you were told the whole truth - that those 3,000 deaths and 5,000 incidents were actually caused by DROWNING and near-drowning and not from people DRINKING it? Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

By lumping them together, they justify banning the use and sale of tobacco products which are 99%+ safer than smoking and encourage companies to not hire or fire employees for "tobacco use," even though the health risks from e-cigarettes and smokeless products is extremely low. While adult smokers should not be discriminated against for using a legal product in the first place, CASAA believes smoking does carry unnecessary risks that can be significantly reduced by smokeless alternatives. So, the last thing we want to see is smokeless products banned using these tactics while cigarettes remain readily available!

People need to keep in mind how what they say actually supports the ANTZ agenda and could lead to the banning or restriction of smokeless/e-cig sales. Keep it up and you WILL be back to smoking because nothing else will be available.

(Bluemoods - this isn't directed at you specifically but as food for thought for others who may read this and don't realize these things. Just used your post as a springboard. )

 

[DC2]

EXCEPT, if you are no longer inhaling smoke from a burning plant material then you are no longer smoking. There is NO SMOKE. It doesn't matter what you call it - switching, substituting, whatever. Using nicotine in vapor form isn't "smoking" anymore than using nicotine in gum or patch form, so you DID quit smoking - you just didn't quit nicotine. To say otherwise is like claiming that a caffeine user who used to drink coffee and now takes caffeine pills instead, because coffee caused him stomach ulcers, is still "drinking coffee" just because he still uses caffeine.

People (vapers especially) need to stop treating "nicotine/tobacco use" and "smoking" as the same thing. It's that deceptive interchanging of "tobacco" and "nicotine" for "smoking" that the ANTZ use to get these safer products banned or severely restricted and users discriminated against.

Sometimes one Like button just isn't enough.

 

[cigarbabe]

Well, for me vaping is not quitting, it's just an alt. means of smoking, a bit like using a lighter vs a match. I know healthier and all, but it's just modernized inhaled nicotine. I mean at one time humans cooked everything on an open fire and burned tobacco to get nicotine, now we have infrared stove top0s and we vape.

As for health, add a few years - you know, I really don[t want 10, 5, 1, even a week more life if that means I can't have or do a gd thing I want and have to be miserable to get it. I'll do and use what I like and die a bit younger but, a heck of a lot happier.

I'm not picking on only you but I have to ask you BlueMoods why you think vaping is the same as "smoking" when it clearly is not lighting up a tobacco product which burns to produce smoke? I just cannot comprehend why people say " it's just an alt. means of smoking" as if now using nicotine is synonymous with vaping/smoking.
FYI "vaping" is quitting smoking for most of us unless otherwise noted.
I find it really frustrating because these type of statements fuel some folks notions that using a pv is somehow "smoking."
On some sites when we rebut those types of statements they say "that's just junkie thinking" as if that makes it true. *sigh*.
C.B.

 

[Anima]

Well, for me vaping is not quitting, it's just an alt. means of smoking, a bit like using a lighter vs a match. I know healthier and all, but it's just modernized inhaled nicotine. I mean at one time humans cooked everything on an open fire and burned tobacco to get nicotine, now we have infrared stove top0s and we vape.

Yesterday I was sitting in a restaurant bar reading an ebook and vaping while I waited on my food. I thought, "I'm in the future!". I carry a library, a record store, a phone booth and a magical cigarette that smells good on my person every day. The future rules.

ETA: A guy sitting near me asked about my PV and before he left he asked me where to get one because he wants to quit smoking. I told him where I got my PV, cartos and juice and told him to come join the e-cig forums. Another convert, perhaps.

 

[cigarbabe]

Yesterday I was sitting in a restaurant bar reading an ebook and vaping while I waited on my food. I thought, "I'm in the future!". I carry a library, a record store, a phone booth and a magical cigarette that smells good on my person every day. The future rules.

I'm not so sure my future is going to be terribly bright with all the legislation taking away my rights to do what I want especially when it doesn't impinge upon anyone else.
Such as the not hiring smokers bans that some companies have in place now.
C.B.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

BlueMoods, The VA disagrees with you, they changed me from heavy smoker to nonsmoker /quit when they found out I hadn't had a cigarette in over 7 months. They do know that I vape if I'm awake.

 

[Vocalek]

BlueMoods, The VA disagrees with you, they changed me from heavy smoker to nonsmoker /quit when they found out I hadn't had a cigarette in over 7 months. They do know that I vape if I'm awake.

Very weird, in view of the fact that Dr. Petzel has just issued an announcement telling providers to recommend to patients that they stick with the stuff that doesn't work, because of all the "concerns" that the FDA and WHO have pointed out reegarding how dangeous e-cigs might be. See this post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...department-veterans-affairs-e-cigs-no-go.html

Let's hope that your medical providers aren't sticklers for following orders from headquarters, regardless of how misguided those orders might be.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Very weird, in view of the fact that Dr. Petzel has just issued an announcement telling providers to recommend to patients that they stick with the stuff that doesn't work, because of all the "concerns" that the FDA and WHO have pointed out reegarding how dangeous e-cigs might be. See this post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...department-veterans-affairs-e-cigs-no-go.html

Let's hope that your medical providers aren't sticklers for following orders from headquarters, regardless of how misguided those orders might be.

Just noticed the date on that letter, my appointment was on the 4th and they hadn't got the company line to follow before they changed mine. Probably won't happen any more.

The best part was when I told the doctor that I had never needed to use the inhaler that he had prescribed 8 months ago, the look on his face was priceless as he knew that I had trouble walking from my house to the barn with out having to rest for 5 min to catch my breath. I don't think I'll ever be able to run up there but a quick walk is doable and I can still function when I get there.

 

[kristin]

Just noticed the date on that letter, my appointment was on the 4th and they hadn't got the company line to follow before they changed mine. Probably won't happen any more.

The best part was when I told the doctor that I had never needed to use the inhaler that he had prescribed 8 months ago, the look on his face was priceless as he knew that I had trouble walking from my house to the barn with out having to rest for 5 min to catch my breath. I don't think I'll ever be able to run up there but a quick walk is doable and I can still function when I get there.

Elaine, getting vets like NorthofAtlanta to write letters to go along with your CASAA letter might be good?

 

[Vocalek]

Elaine, getting vets like NorthofAtlanta to write letters to go along with your CASAA letter might be good?

I think it would be excellent.

Can we issue a Call To Action - Attenion Users of the Veteran's Affairs Health System?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I think it would be excellent.

Can we issue a Call To Action - Attenion Users of the Veteran's Affairs Health System?

Hi Elaine,

I would be glad to write a letter telling my story, but I agree with ocamilo in the VA thread that it would be better with as many Vets as we could get telling their stories.

Jack

 

[rothenbj]

Now I understand. Reading this thread I thought I could write of my experience with E Cigs being a veteran, but I didn't know what the eligibility for health benefits was. After researching it, I now know the importance of their RIF at the end of Viet Nam. Without 24 months of continuous active duty, you're not eligible. Had they kept us around for three more months they would have assumed a liability which was avoided by releasing us from service. At least I got a VA loan and some education dollars for my involuntary servitude.

 

[Vocalek]

Hi Elaine,

I would be glad to write a letter telling my story, but I agree with ocamilo in the VA thread that it would be better with as many Vets as we could get telling their stories.

Jack

Absolutely, which is why I suggested that we direct this CTA to people to use the Veteran's Administration Health System (i.e. Vets -- who go to the VA for their medical services.)

 

[Jammin]

Exactly.
Jammin do you and anima vape with regularity?
C.B.

I do. And I have agreed thus far with everything anima has said on this thread. I didn't even know what ANTZ meant until someone posted it in this thread. Nice to throw a label on someone when they have never even heard of it.

Smoking is horrible in anyway shape or form. I can't believe some of you here advocate it or condone it in such a fashion I have read here. Not saying you personally, but with your "exactly" response, seems you do too. I would think that is one of the reasons you now vape, because analogs are not exactly a healthy thing to do.

I am not ANTZ just to think analog smoking is extremely unhealthy and downright nasty. It's why I quit.

 

[Jammin]

zeal·ot/ˈzelət/Noun


Back when I started smoking, every other person over age 18 was a smoker. So telling someone they smell bad used to be considered rude.

.

Apparently you started smoking way before anyone really knew how bad it was. And yea, it stinks. HORRIBLY. I hated smelling like that. I remember very vividly my mother telling me, you care so much about your appearance, but don't you hate smelling like cigarettes? It actually resonated in me loud and clear, because yea, they make you smell extremely offensive.

 

[Jammin]

Thanks for picking up where I left off - you all hit on exactly what I was trying to say.

Until you get deeper into the tobacco harm reduction world and see what deceptive tactics the ANTZ have been using, you simply don't know what you don't know. Reading these posts just tells me that so many people are still as in the dark as I was 2 years ago. And seeing the lies being told by the ANTZ about smokeless alternatives and addictions just makes you question everything else that you have been told by them. Choose to delve even deeper and you will find all of the deceptions they'd been using even before e-cigarettes hit the market.

I apologize to the other posters if I came off as snippy - it gets frustrating for me sometimes (that our mission to get the truth out and accepted isn't happening nearly fast enough nor to enough people) and my impatience can get the best of me. I'm sorry for being ungracious.

Well, your posts did nothing to help your cause with me. Yea, you did quite 'snippily' refer to me as ANTZ without even knowing what I stand for at all. And hopefully if you are on some mission, you adjust your tactics as the only ones you will have in your camp are those who think exactly like you do, and that won't help you to win many of the 'other side' over.

For the record, I don't equate vaping with smoking. I am smart enough to know the difference between the two. But anyone who is "for" analogs IMO is really ill informed. And that is how some of your posts came off to me. And if you were really for them, you would be smoking them, and not vaping.

I am not anti nicotine, but i am anti tobacco in the form of analog cigarettes. There is absolutely nothing good about them, they are addictive, and they make you STINK.

 

[Jammin]

But if that was all it took for you then you would have been able to quit smoking by going cold turkey.

Hence my many posts equating the addiction to other illegal drugs. Even knowing the health effects, many smokers still fail to quit. Hmm, why? Because it is as addictive as all the other addictive substances out there. It might not make you rob liquor stores, but mainly because they are not as hard to obtain. Some of you might find solace in believing your addiction was more benign than an alcoholic or her-on addict, but I do not. I was a slave to cigarettes just like the others are a slave to their drug of choice. Whatever gets you through, makes no difference to me. I know they are incredibly addictive. I've been there.

 

[kristin]

Well, your posts did nothing to help your cause with me. Yea, you did quite 'snippily' refer to me as ANTZ without even knowing what I stand for at all. And hopefully if you are on some mission, you adjust your tactics as the only ones you will have in your camp are those who think exactly like you do, and that won't help you to win many of the 'other side' over.

For the record, I don't equate vaping with smoking. I am smart enough to know the difference between the two. But anyone who is "for" analogs IMO is really ill informed. And that is how some of your posts came off to me. And if you were really for them, you would be smoking them, and not vaping.

I am not anti nicotine, but i am anti tobacco in the form of analog cigarettes. There is absolutely nothing good about them, they are addictive, and they make you STINK.

I do not believe anyone referred to YOU as an ANTZ, especially me. I'm sorry you took it that way, but that was not what was said. Nor was anyone here "for tobacco cigarettes." You are missing the points being made because you are unaware of the legal and social battles we have been facing. We aren't "for" cigarettes, but we are using what we learned about ANTZ tactics with cigarettes to understand what we are facing and have to acknowledge the lies we have been told along with the truths.

The fact that you are unaware if our mission/cause (which is YOUR cause, but you obviously just don't know it yet) tells me that you need to do a lot of catching up. No offense intended, but get back to us once you are more knowledgeable of the history of e-cigarettes, the legislation and discrimination that we have been fighting for YOUR right to have that e-cigarette in your hand and the facts about ANTZ and tobacco harm reduction. Like I said before, I'm not trying to be mean, but at this point you simply don't know what you don't know about all of these things. Your opinions are still strongly colored by what the ANTZ have taught you and you do not know the WHOLE truth about a lot of things. I'm not suggesting you are stupid or anything, because I wouldn't consider myself stupid and I didn't know these things at first, either. And we've had these conversations with many new members who insist they know the truth and yet come back later finally understanding that they really hadn't. We've ALL been there.

Check out casaa.org to see what you can learn about THR - especially the articles and the Call to Action page at casaa.org/cta to see what our "cause" and "mission" has been battling ANTZ for the past 2 years.

 

[Vocalek]

Well, your posts did nothing to help your cause with me. Yea, you did quite 'snippily' refer to me as ANTZ without even knowing what I stand for at all. And hopefully if you are on some mission, you adjust your tactics as the only ones you will have in your camp are those who think exactly like you do, and that won't help you to win many of the 'other side' over.

For the record, I don't equate vaping with smoking. I am smart enough to know the difference between the two. But anyone who is "for" analogs IMO is really ill informed. And that is how some of your posts came off to me. And if you were really for them, you would be smoking them, and not vaping.

I am not anti nicotine, but i am anti tobacco in the form of analog cigarettes. There is absolutely nothing good about them, they are addictive, and they make you STINK.

Help me out here. I am lost. I have gone back throught the posts in this thread and cannot, for the life of me, find a post where Kristin called you an ANTZ. Can you point me to which response # gave you that idea?

ANTZ is a collective term for the groups that are using half-truths, perjorative language, and even downright lies to achieve their aim. They want every tobacco product (including e-cigs) removed from the market.

Allow me to introduce just a few examples.

In July 2009, I very nearly went back to smoking after having been free of smoke for nearly 4 months. Why?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

The story was picked up, repeated, and exaggerated across the country. Had it not been for the critique of the FDA's testing and press confereence by Dr. Elizabeth Whelen of the American Council on Science and Health, I very likely would have retreated to inhaling tobacco smoke, in fear for my life. The FDA actually succeeded in making people believe that e-cigarettes are more harmful than smoking. This idea is still being repeated by doctors in present-day news stories.

Green says with no real data on e-cigarettes, the three year old tobacco alternative may actually be more harmful than traditional cigarettes. "The doses of nicotine that you get could, conceivably, be higher than what you would get in a typical cigarette," he said.

So the FDA put out a false story and the idea stuck. That's what we are talking about when we used the word "brainwashed." Dr. Green was literally brainwashed.

As it turns out, the folks who organized that press conference were very much on purpose trying to mislead the public. I began looking up and studying propaganda techniques so that I could learn to recognize them. Two glaring examples are in the text from the FDA press relese quoted above.

-Word choices: What emotional reaction are the words "carcinogens" and "anti-freeze" calculated to evoke?
-Half-truths: Leave out important information so that people come to the opposite conclusion from what reality is.

What if instead of selecting those words, the FDA masterminds had used more precise language, and what if they had supplied the imporant missing facts? What if they had reported this:

The FDA tested for Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) that occur naturally in tobacco. In the quantities delivered by cigarette smoke, TSNAs can cause cancer. However, the largest quantity found in any cartridge was 8 nanograms / gram, which is equivalent to the amount in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. Testing also detected a trace of Diethylene Glycol (DEG), a tobacco humectant, in one cartridge. The FDA limits the percentage of DEG permitted in products that are consumed; and although the quantity of DEG measured (0.01 mg) is well below toxic levels, its presence points to a need for better quality control measures.

Here is a second example: A certain Harvard medical school professor spoke at the FDA public hearing on dissolvable tobacco products. He stated that tobacco products are a "major cause of childhoold poisoning." At one point he said, "Even one death is one death too many." He also mentioned something about it being cruel not to be upset at the death of a child.

From that, most listeners would conclude that Tobacco causes the majority of pediatric deaths from poisoning, no? And since the topic of the meeting was dissolvables, folks might think that dissolvables represent a large percentage of the tobacco poisonings.

Well as it turns out, of 1.2 million poison exposures each year, tobacco products account for about 7,000 (less than 1%). Tobacco doesn't make it into the top 3, the top 5, or even the top 25. I'm not sure what place it falls in the list, but I can say with assurance that it is not a MAJOR cause of poisoning. He claimed that he did find ONE case where a dissolvable product triggered the call to the PCC. However, there are been ZERO deaths caused by these products.

As it turns out, pediatric deaths from any poison expoure are rare. 2009 was the worst year in two deacades, with 47 deaths of children under the age of 5. The average hovers nearer to 30. I checked back ten years of American Assocation of Poison Control Centers data and found ZERO pediatric deaths from tobacco.

The American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Assocation, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, and other anti-smoking organizations are the ANTZ. They keep repeating the half-truth, "There is no safe tobacco product." Not untrue, but misleading. It implies that all tobacco products are equally hazardous, when there is tons of research showing that smokers who switch to smoke-free alterantives enjoy significant health improvements. Telling the public the truth about these alternatives could save millions of lives.

To get products banned, lobbyists for these organizations show up at public hearings at the state and local level and make false statements:

These products are being sold to children.
These products are intended to addict children.
These products are a gateway to smoking.
Nicotine causes cancer.
Nicotine causes heart attacks.

I don't promote smoking analogs. But I don't think it is right to escalate punishment of those who do smoke to the point where they are kicked out of their homes and denied employment. These punishments began in the mid-1980s and have escalated well beyond protecting bystanders.

New York's Central Park is 843 Acres. There are a lot of drug deals going down and drug users in the park, yet the person most likely to get a ticket would be someone caught smoking--tobacco. Surely out of 843 acres, they could set aside an acre here or an acre there--maybe the lucky number 13--designated as outdoor smoking areas, and locate them far from the children and far from the normal traffic patterns--leaving (oh let's say) 830 acres for eveyrone else. So the 20% who smoke would be legally able to use 1.5% of the area.

I think its time to back off the punishments and instead hold out a helping hand to those who become confused, forgetful, miserable, anxious, depressed, angry, etc., etc. when they refrain from all nicotine use. Before I found e-cigarettes, it was sheer agony for me to be forced to go for hours and hours and hours without nicotine.

Folks can feel free to point their finger and call me an addict, but that doesn't change the fact that nicotine provides therapeutic benefits that I happen to require. And I recognize that many smokers don't become dysfunctional without nicotine, but they might appreciate being able to use nicotine as a tool to stay alert and be able to concentrate, the same way other workers would use a Grand Latte from Starbucks.

I really think, though, that we should reserve the pejorative term "addict" for those who use their drug of choice to escape from reality, rather than using it to help them deal with reality. JMO.

The aforementioned ANTZ groups have lots of smart people and lots of money. They could apply some it figuring out ways to help smokers find safer alterantives--or even to develop pharmaceutical nicotine products that provide sufficiently therpeutic dosages and that meet some of the other needs of smokers.

 

[Anima]

The fact that you are unaware if our mission/cause (which is YOUR cause, but you obviously just don't know it yet) tells me that you need to do a lot of catching up. No offense intended, but get back to us once you are more knowledgeable of the history of e-cigarettes, the legislation and discrimination that we have been fighting for YOUR right to have that e-cigarette in your hand and the facts about ANTZ and tobacco harm reduction. Like I said before, I'm not trying to be mean, but at this point you simply don't know what you don't know about all of these things. Your opinions are still strongly colored by what the ANTZ have taught you and you do not know the WHOLE truth about a lot of things. I'm not suggesting you are stupid or anything, because I wouldn't consider myself stupid and I didn't know these things at first, either. And we've had these conversations with many new members who insist they know the truth and yet come back later finally understanding that they really hadn't. We've ALL been there.

Check out casaa.org to see what you can learn about THR - especially the articles and the Call to Action page at casaa.org/cta to see what our "cause" and "mission" has been battling ANTZ for the past 2 years.

The condescension! It's getting in my eyes!

You can't possibly know what in her life has colored her opinions. She has indicated several times that her opinion is mainly informed by her own unwanted cigarette addiction. She thinks that cigarettes are nasty and addictive, and she's happy to have found a better way to use nicotine. Big deal.

It seems that you assume that anyone who thinks tobacco products are harmful must be brain-washed and in favor of anti-tobacco legislation. You also seem to assume that merely bringing up the harmful aspects of smoking on a forum for nicotine users is tantamount to advocating for said legislation. Neither assumption is rational.

The condescension and sanctimony does not help OUR cause. (See how obnoxious emphasizing words like that is?)