Here's an objective article:
- Thread starter playerags
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I just checked the link. I don't know how to really use a computer that well. But the story is about 5 or 6th from the top. Sorry
And another good one that this reporter got some background from:
Electronic cigarettes: From China, electronic cigarettes head for the U.S. market - Los Angeles Times
Electronic cigarettes: From China, electronic cigarettes head for the U.S. market - Los Angeles Times
Just the nagging journalist once again pointing out the referenced item is NOT an article. It's an opinion column, where a writer has no obligation to present any side but his own opinion. There is a big, and important, difference between articles and opinion pieces, be they editorials or columns. Yes, favorable. But not a favorable article. A columnist, likely paid to "out there" and controversial, stated his opinion, without fairness or balance in his content. Take it or leave it, as with all opinion pieces, but don't use its content as a complete informational base the way you might an article's.
Since I cant create a new thread, I will add another article to this one.
Since I can even post the link I will just copy and paste the whole thing......
Boston Hearald 5-11-09
They look like cigarettes, but unlike the real thing these are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine using a vapor. Electronic cigarettes - now available online and at mall kiosks - contain no tobacco and produce no smoke. Thus, their risk is minimal compared to conventional cigarettes, which deliver not only nicotine but also more than 4,000 chemical toxins and more than 60 carcinogens.
As an additional benefit, e-cigarettes produce no secondhand smoke. Many smokers are using e-cigarettes to stay off conventional cigarettes. And because they look like cigarettes and simulate the act of smoking, they are proving to be far more effective in keeping smokers off cigarettes than nicotine replacement therapy.
Sounds like a public health win-win proposition, no?
Not so, based on the actions of some lawmakers and health groups. Rather than embrace e-cigarettes as a potentially life-saving alternative for many smokers, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and a number of health groups - including the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society - have called on the Food and Drug Administration to remove them from the market.
Lautenberg urges the FDA to ban the sale of e-cigarettes because they have not yet been proven safe.
At the same time that Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to keep e-cigarettes off the market, they are promoting legislation that would force the FDA to approve conventional cigarettes - which have been proven to be extremely hazardous - for sale and marketing in the United States. Proposed legislation would institutionalize all cigarettes now on the market and make it nearly impossible for new products - which might be much safer - from entering the market.
What’s behind the FDA regulatory scheme? Philip Morris, to be exact. The nation’s largest cigarette company is pushing this legislation because it would protect the existing cigarette market from potential competition like the e-cigarettes that are becoming popular.
It is clear that the real purpose and effect of the FDA tobacco legislation is to protect the conventional cigarette market from competition. And unfortunately, that competition - in the absence of FDA legislation - would come from truly reduced risk products, such as e-cigarettes. This is precisely why Philip Morris was brilliant in enticing the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other health groups into supporting FDA regulation of tobacco products.
Today, in extreme irony, these health groups stand as the most vigorous protectors of the current market of conventional cigarettes. As such, they stand as protectors, rather than opponents, of the death and disease caused by the nation’s most hazardous consumer product.
Michael Siegel is physician, a tobacco researcher and professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health.
Since I can even post the link I will just copy and paste the whole thing......
Boston Hearald 5-11-09
They look like cigarettes, but unlike the real thing these are battery-powered devices that deliver nicotine using a vapor. Electronic cigarettes - now available online and at mall kiosks - contain no tobacco and produce no smoke. Thus, their risk is minimal compared to conventional cigarettes, which deliver not only nicotine but also more than 4,000 chemical toxins and more than 60 carcinogens.
As an additional benefit, e-cigarettes produce no secondhand smoke. Many smokers are using e-cigarettes to stay off conventional cigarettes. And because they look like cigarettes and simulate the act of smoking, they are proving to be far more effective in keeping smokers off cigarettes than nicotine replacement therapy.
Sounds like a public health win-win proposition, no?
Not so, based on the actions of some lawmakers and health groups. Rather than embrace e-cigarettes as a potentially life-saving alternative for many smokers, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and a number of health groups - including the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids, American Lung Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society - have called on the Food and Drug Administration to remove them from the market.
Lautenberg urges the FDA to ban the sale of e-cigarettes because they have not yet been proven safe.
At the same time that Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to keep e-cigarettes off the market, they are promoting legislation that would force the FDA to approve conventional cigarettes - which have been proven to be extremely hazardous - for sale and marketing in the United States. Proposed legislation would institutionalize all cigarettes now on the market and make it nearly impossible for new products - which might be much safer - from entering the market.
What’s behind the FDA regulatory scheme? Philip Morris, to be exact. The nation’s largest cigarette company is pushing this legislation because it would protect the existing cigarette market from potential competition like the e-cigarettes that are becoming popular.
It is clear that the real purpose and effect of the FDA tobacco legislation is to protect the conventional cigarette market from competition. And unfortunately, that competition - in the absence of FDA legislation - would come from truly reduced risk products, such as e-cigarettes. This is precisely why Philip Morris was brilliant in enticing the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other health groups into supporting FDA regulation of tobacco products.
Today, in extreme irony, these health groups stand as the most vigorous protectors of the current market of conventional cigarettes. As such, they stand as protectors, rather than opponents, of the death and disease caused by the nation’s most hazardous consumer product.
Michael Siegel is physician, a tobacco researcher and professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health.
Umm...Venom, you should never copy a whole article. It can lead to trouble with fair use and a whole host of copyright regulations. If you can, it would probably be better if you just used a small portion of it and then gave the addy for the original. Just trying to help...
Agree, I check Jstor and some other ones from time to time for a Journal article about E-Cigs, but so far nothing, I also check various medical Jornals. It would be really really nice to have a few positive articles about the E-Cig in those.
It's pretty hard to find an article nowadays TB. Most of the media we see today are mostly biased, and based on the journalists opinions or agenda.
I am not saying you fall into that category because I don't know if I have ever seen any of your pieces. But I'm not saying you don't either.
Venom, don't go back to lurking because then you will never be able to make links, edit etc - this is not something that comes with time, but you need to have 15 posts to get these possibilities (I think a few possibilities come with ten posts).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
