GREAT article on the toxicity of nicotine!!

[Kent C]

I'm sorry, but I can't participate in drawing out slippery slope to full-on absurdity. I believe that most thinking people are not drawn to the morally absurd nor the logically absurd argument. One loses audience that way. They tune out.

There is a smallish group of conspiracy theorists who might enjoy it, but I don't think that is who we are trying to win over, is it?

Besides which, ANY comparisons of not being allowed to vape in certain venues, placed against the greatest crimes against humanity, past, present, or future, tends to marginalize the horrors that real human beings have and are experiencing on this planet. Somalia comes to mind.

For me, there is a very clear distinction here.

It's not equating one with the other. For you to think that is the case, is beyond debate, and you should take Orb Skewer's advice.

It's how one thing leads to another. And yes, not everything is on a slippery slope but tobacco connected products have been for decades. I hope I don't have to link to all the spots on the slope on that one.

Stopping people from smoking in their own home is one of those points of gov't overstepping their bounds and when you let them get away with that, you only encourage people like Mayor Bloomberg in attempting to make into law, everything that HE finds to be a 'problem'. The fact that he was able to enact many of his own personal aversions into law is the problem and there is no 'conspiracy theories' about that - it is fact. Some were overturned but it didn't stop him. Unfortunately, there are many in office with many of his same 'we know what's best for you' attitude and are in position to make it so.

Oh and, while I don't agree with Sen. Paul on that issue, there is this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeff...lip-down-the-slope-from-gay-marriage-n1767429

 

[AegisPrime]

I'm sorry, but I can't participate in drawing out slippery slope to full-on absurdity. I believe that most thinking people are not drawn to the morally absurd nor the logically absurd argument. One loses audience that way. They tune out.

There is a smallish group of conspiracy theorists who might enjoy it, but I don't think that is who we are trying to win over, is it?

I agree in that in order for us to be taken seriously we need be rational and use science, personal testimony, social media and gatherings to get our point of view across and to make legislators understand that we won't just be swept into a corner to be marginalized like smokers already have been.

However, vaping is just part of the wider issue of the erosion of personal liberties that's of ongoing concern to many people - perhaps this forum isn't the best place to get into those discussions but when people start seeing legislation get passed without even an opportunity to get their point of view across (i.e. the Oklahoma ban) then tempers rapidly get frayed.

Making comparisons between the US and EU governments and various regimes that have committed terrible atrocities may be sensationalist but to me at least, I see more similarities than I'd like in the way they view their citizens and we'd be wise - all of us - to keep our eyes open because honestly, we need to prevent more of this happening:

A US federal judge has ruled that the NSA is within its rights to harvest millions of innocent Americans' telephone call records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act – and that the dragnet is fine under the Fourth Amendment since the data was collected by a third-party telco, not the government.

 

[AegisPrime]

To paint 'BP' as always bad or only profit driven is inaccurate. Some people think that if they found a cure for cancer, they would withhold/suppress it because the current treatments would get them more money - like how some think that the oil companies suppress ways to run cars on water. I simply don't think that to be the case.

Found this on Twitter

*Edit* Found another image related to this thread:

World Health Organization perpetuating misinformation about nicotine LD50 and other erroneous facts about e-cigarettes

 

[Fulgurant]

It's not equating one with the other. For you to think that is the case, is beyond debate, and you should take Orb Skewer's advice.

It's how one thing leads to another. And yes, not everything is on a slippery slope but tobacco connected products have been for decades. I hope I don't have to link to all the spots on the slope on that one.

The accumulation of power, the erosion of limitations on accumulated power, is always a slippery slope. That is the nature of power. Whether you believe that any particular concession is appropriate, necessary, or harmful, history teaches us that precedents investing legal power in the state or in other parties should not be given away cheaply.

Give a child the keys to your car, and you should expect that eventually he'll use the car for some purpose of which you do not approve. Maybe not this week, maybe not this year, maybe a particular child won't do it at all, but as a general principle, kids push the boundaries of their privileges. So, too, do adults. More important, so do institutions.

It would be insane to believe otherwise.

So sure, treat the slippery slope as a logical fallacy; it certainly is a fallacy in many cases to assert that a particular thing must lead to an ever more extreme trend of similar-seeming things. But also remember the nature of power and precedent.

Stopping people from smoking in their own home is one of those points of gov't overstepping their bounds and when you let them get away with that, you only encourage people like Mayor Bloomberg in attempting to make into law, everything that HE finds to be a 'problem'.

Yep. It's also (the bolded section) just freaking creepy. Although I understand objections to Anja's stark example, her point is a good one: once you allow the state to regulate your behavior in the home -- and further than that, once the state sets up a framework of behavioral guidelines their enforcement of which relies upon citizens informing on one another, then you really have started down a dangerous path.

Whether you agree with the particulars of a given measure is irrelevant. The test should always be whether you're comfortable with the prospect of your political opposites wielding the same power. So if you like Bloomberg, then maybe you're ok with what he proposes. Maybe you're even ok with the next guy and next guy; it's all fun and games until one of these self-important blowhards gets the idea he can do something you don't like with the outrageous power you've ceded to him via his predecessors.

That's why people of all political persuasions should be opposed to the increasingly absurd measures put forth by our opponents in the tobacco control industry. They're not looking out for your health; they're just inventing reasons to keep themselves relevant, and thus to keep themselves getting paid. Call it a redistribution of joy; they steal your joy in order to finance their own personal lives.

 

[AegisPrime]

The accumulation of power...[snip!]

Beautiful post - couldn't have put it any better!

 

[Kent C]

The accumulation of power, the erosion of limitations on accumulated power, is always a slippery slope. That is the nature of power. Whether you believe that any particular concession is appropriate, necessary, or harmful, history teaches us that precedents investing legal power in the state or in other parties should not be given away cheaply.

Give a child the keys to your car, and you should expect that eventually he'll use the car for some purpose of which you do not approve. Maybe not this week, maybe not this year, maybe a particular child won't do it at all, but as a general principle, kids push the boundaries of their privileges. So, too, do adults. More important, so do institutions.

It would be insane to believe otherwise.

So sure, treat the slippery slope as a logical fallacy; it certainly is a fallacy in many cases to assert that a particular thing must lead to an ever more extreme trend of similar-seeming things. But also remember the nature of power and precedent.



Yep. It's also (the bolded section) just freaking creepy. Although I understand objections to Anja's stark example, her point is a good one: once you allow the state to regulate your behavior in the home -- and further than that, once the state sets up a framework of behavioral guidelines their enforcement of which relies upon citizens informing on one another, then you really have started down a dangerous path.

Whether you agree with the particulars of a given measure is irrelevant. The test should always be whether you're comfortable with the prospect of your political opposites wielding the same power. So if you like Bloomberg, then maybe you're ok with what he proposes. Maybe you're even ok with the next guy and next guy; it's all fun and games until one of these self-important blowhards gets the idea he can do something you don't like with the outrageous power you've ceded to him via his predecessors.

That's why people of all political persuasions should be opposed to the increasingly absurd measures put forth by our opponents in the tobacco control industry. They're not looking out for your health; they're just inventing reasons to keep themselves relevant, and thus to keep themselves getting paid. Call it a redistribution of joy; they steal your joy in order to finance their own personal lives.

Good post but I'd submit that Bloomberg IS the "self-important blowhard" - you don't have to wait for the next guy or the next - it was him. And again, mentioned in another thread, it certainly wasn't the money that drove Bloomberg - it was the control. It wasn't the money for Ralph Nadar to lead the auto consumer from the small corvair to bigger cars to the small Japanese cars, then all cars with his and others' 'safety/pollution' devices where the costs tended to keep older cars on the road - it was either for fame or control. So to reduce actions to profit or even personal finances is a mistake made, mainly by the Left, but because of the propaganda default mentioned earlier, that seeps into almost all other factions - less so in the libertarians, although not non-existent.

The Jefferson quote takes in both your main concepts: liberty yields, gov't gains and the current president may not be bad.. but....

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, & government to gain ground. As yet our spirits are free. Our jealousy is only put to sleep by the unlimited confidence we all repose in the person to whom we all look as our president. After him inferior characters may perhaps succeed and awaken us to the danger which his merit has led us into."

Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788

full letter here:
The natural progress of things... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

 

[Uma]

+100000000000 Fulgurant! (& all who have spoken up on this)

 

[Racehorse]

Making comparisons between the US and EU governments and various regimes that have committed terrible atrocities may be sensationalist

Aegis,

Even in the earliest days of Usenet groups, once Godwin's Law was invoked, that debater was laughed out of the room. That person automatically forfeited the argument.

That's not conjecture......that's a given.

We all agree on the goalposts, so that's good. But we don't all agree on the methods of how to get there. I was voicing my thoughts on the latter.

I fully understand why certain analogies are used, and the parallels that make them appear applicable.

It's just that once they are invoked, you can pretty much start watching your ships sink in the sea of I-Want-To-Be-Taken-Seriously.

Don't blame the messenger, I didn't make those rules.

 

[Kent C]

Aegis,

Even in the earliest days of Usenet groups, once Godwin's Law was invoked, that debater was laughed out of the room. That person automatically forfeited the argument.

That's not conjecture......that's a given.

I spent many hours on usenet groups and that was only a given in liberal based groups (or those with liberal moderators) and for good reason. You'd have to read "Liberal Fascism" to fully understand and I'm guessing that's not going to happen, but the policies put forth in liberal/progressive history from the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, et. al. to Saul Alinsky and his disciples, outline the fascist (not necessarily Germany's but Italy's) "we elitists know what's best for you" movement in the US.

And I might add, it is of the utmost importance to the current movement not to allow such analogies or attempt to discredit anyone who points out the slippery slope on issues where there actually is a slippery slope. You mention the atrocities of Stalinist Russia - how do you suppose it got to that point?

That's rhetorical, as I see no reason to waste any more time discussing the issue with you. Have a nice life.

 

[AegisPrime]

Aegis,

Even in the earliest days of Usenet groups, once Godwin's Law was invoked, that debater was laughed out of the room. That person automatically forfeited the argument.

Well as I've already said, my own opinion is that each attempt at negative propaganda vs vaping needs to be countered with rational argument backed by science - but we're a diverse and passionate community and patience will be worn thin and tempers will flare.

We're all free to express ourselves as we see fit here (with due respect to our fellow forum members) so I wouldn't seek to influence or censor anyone's opinions - they just are what they are. At the end of the day, it won't be our comments here on ECF that get vaping bans repealed or fair legislation for e-cigs, it'll be petitions and rallys and the support of organizations such as ECITA and CASAA as well as prominent individuals such as Bill, Clive and Dr. F.

 

[Uma]

Wait. Let me get this straight. Every day, even here at ECF, people are being told to do this, don't do that, ... controlling issues, controlling personalities, ridiculing others who voice differently, shaming people for silly things such as differing mental visualizations of what the term "everywhere" means, blaming other passionate people for the misgivings of others... yet this is not happening in the real world with real control freaks with real money with real power? Methinks I'm the saner one here. In fact, I've even changed my signature to suit.
Every day people are AWAKENING.
I've tried to calm down & not be pesky about it, but it's right hard sometimes! I don't care if people call me crazy, but pesky hurts. I'll try not to pesterize, if y'all try not to control my life so much. These where, when, how, I can enjoy my life threads get old!

 

[Racehorse]

I {personally} don't think you can effect positive change with a negative mindset. Life isn't fair but our response to the wrongs affects our ability to right them. Staying positive and not focussing on fears, avoiding bitterness, etc.

we're a diverse and passionate community

Vapers are a very mixed lot with diverse politics and backgrounds.

The causes I work for required working with some Federal research groups, Federal licensing laws, state laws, tracing legislative histories, etc. Some laws were draconian 12 years ago when I started.

We are changing them. For those we haven't yet succeeded in changing, we work toward a reasonable compromise that makes it possible for us to at least continue to do our work. We toil on, and wait for another day.

During many years of "face time", we have been able to garner respect from those who strongly disagree with us. We keep the conversations going. But------we can't do that if people are leaving the room.

It requires keeping a certain emotional composure. We want to influence people.

We're all free to express ourselves as we see fit here

Well that is what I did.

I shared MY experience on what has proved effective. That I personally don't believe that framing issues with a lot of hyperbolic slippery slope arguments works, because, in my own experience, I've watched initiatives crash and burn that way. And the damage control that has to be done when people lose their composure by getting too emotional.

I shared what I believe are less-productive methods, and get told to "have a nice life".

So, I will.


Just remember that when people leave the room, you have lost the ability to communicate with them. And that is what hostility toward "mouse vapers", vapers who believe they shouldn't vape where you can't smoke, liberals, et. al. accomplishes.

And, I'm not a liberal, by the way. (But if I were, I certainly wouldn't advertise it on ECF, especially inside any vaping advocacy topics. )

 

[Kent C]

yet this is not happening in the real world with real control freaks with real money with real power? Methinks I'm the saner one here. In fact, I've even changed my signature to suit.
Every day people are AWAKENING.

I like your new sig. People are awakening because they see something - a pattern - and they connect it with similar patterns of the past that haven't turned out so well. And NOT because some say, go back asleep, there's nothing to worry about, don't make such a fuss.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Ok, I've just fixed a very large serving tray with Margeuritas, anyone ?

 

[Uma]

I like your new sig. People are awakening because they see something - a pattern - and they connect it with similar patterns of the past that haven't turned out so well. And NOT because some say, go back asleep, there's nothing to worry about, don't make such a fuss.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks.

Ok, I've just fixed a very large serving tray with Margeuritas, anyone ?

Memememememememe!
Surely it's five o'clock somewhere!

 

[NGAHaze]

I find that a graphic often lends itself well to illustrating a particular point ...

​

 

[Uma]

I've always wondered a few things, such as: if SHS was so dangerous to non-smokers, why didn't the ALA, ACA, TSET, etc, provide zero interest loans to the businesses who needed better ventilation, HVAC systems to assure a cleaner air environment? Why did they instead suggest for business owners to put smoking sections at the entry so that everybody had to walk through a now congregated area of smoke? Their next remedy was to make the smokers congregate the smoke outside by the entry, making everybody walk through all the oh so dangerous smoke. This has always bugged me, especially with the hourly fear mongering campaigns raging in the media. The non smokers (9/10 of the population, tolerated the habit of others & would sidestep the streams of smoke quite easily and without ordeal. But once the combo of hate spam adds & forced pathways through compressed smoke areas, the public soon learned to not tolerate it at businesses. Yet, most were ok with it elsewhere. It always seemed so deviously plotted, especially so when the hate spam continued on with 3rd hand lies, apts, cars, parks, beaches... yet the people are still remembering the compressed pathways at entries and not fighting.
Whoever plotted that out, sure knew what they doing. I would think people would be smarter than that, but when we stop to remember the Flouride in the water, the aluminum in deordorants, the pills that just everybody was on for one ailment or another, I guess that too was part of the plot. Crazy isn't it. Isn't that illegal to do? Mass hypnotic suggestion, spamming, lies, deception, ruining companies, etc, for a ... For a what exactly? But anyway, why did they FORCE non smokers to walk through newly compressed pathways of smoke? Isn't that a weird form of plotted abuse? Why didn't the people complain about the situation forced instead of blaming the smokers? Maybe this for another thread, but it's always bugged me to no end, & something said here in this thread triggered my urge to voice it.

 

[AgentAnia]

I've always wondered a few things, such as: if SHS was so dangerous to non-smokers, why didn't the ALA, ACA, TSET, etc, provide zero interest loans to the businesses who needed better ventilation, HVAC systems to assure a cleaner air environment? Why did they instead suggest for business owners to put smoking sections at the entry so that everybody had to walk through a now congregated area of smoke? Their next remedy was to make the smokers congregate the smoke outside by the entry, making everybody walk through all the oh so dangerous smoke. This has always bugged me, especially with the hourly fear mongering campaigns raging in the media....

I've been thinking about air handling systems since someone commented on the Darkroom article, about how clear the air looked in the Henley Vaporium despite all the vapers. It reminded me of several articles I read around a year ago (that sadly I didn't bookmark) about the obvious solution to secondhand smoke in bars, which was to increase the air filtration capacity. As I remember, they cited experiments that showed that small improvements would pretty much remove the problem. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Henley's air handling system is top of the line.

I think, Uma, that by the time the ANTZ were set to implement smoking bans, they were beyond solving problems and were immersed in their hatred of smokers, so only punative measures would satisfy them.

 

[Uma]

I've been thinking about air handling systems since someone commented on the Darkroom article, about how clear the air looked in the Henley Vaporium despite all the vapers. It reminded me of several articles I read around a year ago (that sadly I didn't bookmark) about the obvious solution to secondhand smoke in bars, which was to increase the air filtration capacity. As I remember, they cited experiments that showed that small improvements would pretty much remove the problem. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Henley's air handling system is top of the line.

I think, Uma, that by the time the ANTZ were set to implement smoking bans, they were beyond solving problems and were immersed in their hatred of smokers, so only punative measures would satisfy them.

They hated us before we smoked, just because our elders smoked. It gets passed down through the genes y'know.

 

[Kent C]

I've always wondered a few things, such as: if SHS was so dangerous to non-smokers, why didn't the ALA, ACA, TSET, etc, provide zero interest loans to the businesses who needed better ventilation, HVAC systems to assure a cleaner air environment? Why did they instead suggest for business owners to put smoking sections at the entry so that everybody had to walk through a now congregated area of smoke?

From the results in reality, I'm guessing there was no intent on finding a solution to the smoke/air problem but to 'highlight the lepers' by corralling them in one area for others to show their 'disgust', perhaps thinking that would provide an incentive to quit smoking. I always found the people in the smoking designated areas as good people, communicative and in general, smarter than average.

One other thing that puzzled me (besides what you mention) was the disappearance of outdoor ashtrays or like in some confined smoking areas, the scarcity of them along with the 'fuming' tubes that never extinguished cigarettes, producing more sidestream smoke than normal. The results of the 'no ashtray' places were more cigarette butts on the ground (something that disgusts even responsible smokers) - something that virtually disappeared (cig butts) in earlier times (I know, not entirely).