I predict that this finding about smoking bans will be completely ignored by Tobacco Control.

[kristin]

Yes, I suppose "Zombies" would be good, too. My husband would get a kick out of that! LOL!

When I came up with "ANTZ" I was looking for an all-encompassing way to be specific - if that makes any sense. "tobacco control" technically refers to those who "make the rules." Now, they could be doing so because they truly believe they are promoting public health or they could just hate smokers - two very different types of people. "Anti" was similarly vague - anti what? Anti smoking but ok with smoke-free and nicotine? Anti ALL tobacco? Anti smoker? Anti public smoking but not anti smoker? Anti-addiction?

So, an ANTZ is a very specific segment of the tobacco control and anti-tobacco/smoking/nicotine community. They aren't in it about the health of smokers anymore and they are willing to deceive the public with junk science and trickery to achieve their agenda - whether that be monetary gain, control and/or power or the continued and escalating persecution of 20% of the US population that they simply despise. ANTZ say things like "It doesn't matter it's not smoke, it looks like smoking." "It's not a safe alternative to smoking." "We don't know." "Think of the children." "You're just trading one crutch for another." "Yeah, but you're still addicted." "Quit or die." "Smokers need to be denormalized." "The lives of 100 smokers quitting are not worth the risk of one child or non-smoker who may try it and become addicted to it just because we admitted it was safer."

They are zealots and like any other kind of zealot, they are so blinded by their beliefs that they cannot see the forest through the trees. We cannot change the minds of ANTZ, so our only option is to fight them politically and in public opinion arena by shining a very bright light on their shadowy lies and manipulations.

 

[Petrodus]

They are zealots and like any other kind of zealot, they are so blinded by their beliefs that they cannot see the forest through the trees. We cannot change the minds of ANTZ, so our only option is to fight them politically and in public opinion arena by shining a very bright light on their shadowy lies and manipulations.

More good 1-Liners
1. Blinded by unfounded personal beliefs.
2. More shadowy lies and manipulations.
Several other versions based on the content of posted articles

Personally, I enjoy 1 liners because they condense what is often a complicated subject.
The majority will just not read long comments anyway. 1-Liners promote thought and
can raise doubts. They can quickly reinforce or refute a subject. Lots of psychology
in well thought out 1-Liners. You don't have to "prove or justify" anything.

"Heck, everyone knows that's not true"
"Anyone who has done any research on the subject knows...."
Great way to influence those who have not taken the time to research...
which is the overwhelming vast majority.

 

[zoiDman]

A Little Off Topic but,

Is there a Centralized Location on the ECF, perhaps a Sub-Forum, where Published Data and or Scientific Studies are posted?

I looked around but didn’t see it.

 

[kristin]

A Little Off Topic but,

Is there a Centralized Location on the ECF, perhaps a Sub-Forum, where Published Data and or Scientific Studies are posted?

I looked around but didn’t see it.

I don't know, but I just redid the web site, so it's now pretty well organized at CASAA Research Library

We are going to be further defining the categories and adding research as it gets published, too.

 

[zoiDman]

I don't know, but I just redid the web site, so it's now pretty well organized at CASAA Research Library

We are going to be further defining the categories and adding research as it gets published, too.

Thank you kristin. This is Exactly what I am looking for.

I have been charged with Collecting Published Data on e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids for the Organization I work for. The purpose is to assist in Policy Decisions regarding e-Cigarette use.

I want to be able to link to the Document Source without having to link to threads on the ECF where personal views may Influence the Policy Outcome.

Thank you again.

 

[Vocalek]

Here is the SRNT Conference Abstract for the paper presentation that I reviewed yesterday.

New Investigator Award Paper Session
NIPA-1

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES DELIVER SIMILAR LEVELS OF NICOTINE AND
REDUCE EXPOSURE TO COMBUSTION TOXICANTS AFTER SWITCHING FROM
TOBACCO CIGARETTES
Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz, Ph.D.*, Michal Gawron, M.Sc., Margaret Peng, Peyton
Jacob III, Ph.D., and Neal Benowitz, Ph.D.

Significance: Electronic cigarettes (E-Cs) are purported to deliver nicotine vapor
without any toxic combustion products present in tobacco smoke. Survey studies found
that E-Cs are used by smokers to quit smoking or reduce number of cigarettes they
smoke. There are no data on whether E-Cs are effective as exposure reducing tools.
The aim of the study was to evaluate changes in nicotine delivery and selected toxicants
exposure after switching from tobacco cigarettes to E-Cs for two weeks. Materials and
methods: We recruited 20 cigarette smokers, average age of 31.1±9.7 years, 55%
female, CPD 16.5±9.3, FTND 3.8±2.7, and history of regular smoking for 12.1±7.5 years.
Subjects were provided with E-Cs with cartridges containing 16mg of nicotine and were
asked to substitute their regular tobacco cigarettes with E-Cs for 2 weeks. Subjects
provided urine samples at the day of switching (baseline) and after one and two weeks
of using e-cigarettes. We analyzed urine for nicotine metabolites, NNAL (metabolite of
tobacco-specific carcinogenic nitrosamine NNK), and hydroxyalkyl mercapturic acids
(HAMAs, the main urinary metabolites of several alkylating substances that possess
a carcinogenic potential). Results: All subjects reported significant reduction of tobacco
cigarettes smoked during the study; CPD decreased from 16.2 (95%CI 13.8; 18.5) to
0.6 (95%CI -1.7; 3.0, p<0.05) and exhaled CO decreased from 15.6 (95%CI 7.4; 23.8)
to 4.2 ppm (95%CI 2.4; 5.9, p<0.05) after two weeks of using E-Cs. There were no
significant changes in urine total nicotine metabolites (50.0 (95%CI 37.2; 62.9) vs. 44.7
nmol/mg creatinine (95%CI 25.2; 64.2), p=0.89). Urine levels of NNAL decreased by
64% from 225 (95%CI 148; 303) to 80 pmol/mg creatinine (95%CI 48; 112), p<0.05.
The average reductions in HAMAs varied from 54% (metabolite of propylene oxide) to
89% (metabolite of 1,3-butadiene), p<0.05. Conclusions: After switching from tobacco to
electronic cigarettes nicotine exposure is unchanged while exposure to selected toxins
is substantially reduced. Further research is needed to evaluate long term effects of
switching, including the health effects of continued use of E-Cs.
Supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland under grant
number N N404 025638, grants P30 DA012393 from The National Institutes of Health
and S10 RR026437 from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Bland Lane
Center of Excellence on Secondhand Smoke at UCSF. This study was conducted while
the first author was at Medical University of Silesia, Poland. First author is currently
supported by UK Center for Tobacco Control Studies (UKCTCS).
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Maciej Goniewicz, Ph.D., Research fellow, Queen Mary
University of London, Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, 56 Philpot Street, London,
E1 2JH, United Kingdom, Phone: 0447783780606, Fax: 0442073777237, Email:
m.goniewicz@qmul.ac.uk

http://www.srnt.org/conferences/2012/pdf/2012_Abstracts_H.pdf

NOTE: I am not sure whether the link above is open to the public. You might have to be an SRNT member.

 

[Vap0rJay]

I still have no idea how in the world they will ever be able to enforce any ban. I went to the movies this past weekend, took the eGo vs the darwin with me... Here I am sitting in super close proximity to complete strangers all around me vaping away... grant it, I made sure my thumb covered the little light totally and I held my breath a little longer to "stealth" but 2 1/2 hrs later vaping like it was going out of style... Not a single person noticed the entire time. Go figure.

Likewise, I have no idea if I can vape at work but I most certainly have been (for well over a year now) --- and again not a single person has noticed and/or commented. Just because I can blow out clouds of vapor doesn't mean I HAVE to blow out clouds of vapor...

That being said, I think they realize all of this and know since it's a lost battle from the gate the only way they can "control" them is to go after sales/equip/suppliers etc. etc. etc. Re-write laws, change definitions (which ironically I do not understand HOW one can change a definition... gold is gold, smoke is smoke, wood is wood, vapor is vapor - not smoke. it is what it is and you can't say for example gold is water, and water is sunlight.)

Who can tax the sunrise? Who can tax the trees? Who can tax the ocean and the breeze? The Government, the Government can! *sigh*

 

[Vocalek]

Who can tax the sunrise? Who can tax the trees? Who can tax the ocean and the breeze? The Government, the Government can! *sigh*

Sung to the tune of The Candy Man?

 

[MickeyRat]

I think there's something to that study. One of the many things I missed when I started vaping at my desk was going out to the smoking area with my buddies.

 

[Thulium]

Sung to the tune of The Candy Man?

 

[sailorman]

I still have no idea how in the world they will ever be able to enforce any ban. I went to the movies this past weekend, took the eGo vs the darwin with me... Here I am sitting in super close proximity to complete strangers all around me vaping away... grant it, I made sure my thumb covered the little light totally and I held my breath a little longer to "stealth" but 2 1/2 hrs later vaping like it was going out of style... Not a single person noticed the entire time. Go figure.

Likewise, I have no idea if I can vape at work but I most certainly have been (for well over a year now) --- and again not a single person has noticed and/or commented. Just because I can blow out clouds of vapor doesn't mean I HAVE to blow out clouds of vapor...

That being said, I think they realize all of this and know since it's a lost battle from the gate the only way they can "control" them is to go after sales/equip/suppliers etc. etc. etc. Re-write laws, change definitions (which ironically I do not understand HOW one can change a definition... gold is gold, smoke is smoke, wood is wood, vapor is vapor - not smoke. it is what it is and you can't say for example gold is water, and water is sunlight.)

Who can tax the sunrise? Who can tax the trees? Who can tax the ocean and the breeze? The Government, the Government can! *sigh*

You missed another way. More and more companies are going beyond "smoke free", they're flat out refusing to hire you if you smoke. That's the next step. The ANTZ will be encouraging employers to demand non-smoking employees only and urine tests won't discriminate between smokers and vapers. That'll be the way they cope with people going outside for smoke breaks. If clean air regulations don't persuade people to quit, maybe unemployment will do the trick. That will take care of those pesky vapers too. All they need to do is recruit the insurance companies and they'll have all the leverage they need.
I can envision state laws that make you ineligible for unemployment insurance if you can't find work because you can't pass a urinalysis for nicotine.

Already, I'm seeing more and more companies advertising for non-smoking employees. I have a strong feeling that I, as a vaper, would be denied employment at any of these places, just like a smoker would.

I handled the vaping at work situation by telling the boss that I finally quit smoking, as he had always encouraged me to do. Then, I told him how I did it and that I'd been vaping at my desk for months before it occurred to me that I should probably ask for permission. (which was a lie.) Since no one had objected, I couldn't see why he would have a problem with it. After a short demonstration, he gave me the o.k.. Then he asked for more info to pass along to his son. LOL..

 

[Vap0rJay]

You missed another way. More and more companies are going beyond "smoke free", they're flat out refusing to hire you if you smoke. That's the next step. The ANTZ will be encouraging employers to demand non-smoking employees only and urine tests won't discriminate between smokers and vapers. That'll be the way they cope with people going outside for smoke breaks. If clean air regulations don't persuade people to quit, maybe unemployment will do the trick. That will take care of those pesky vapers too. All they need to do is recruit the insurance companies and they'll have all the leverage they need.
I can envision state laws that make you ineligible for unemployment insurance if you can't find work because you can't pass a urinalysis for nicotine.

Already, I'm seeing more and more companies advertising for non-smoking employees. I have a strong feeling that I, as a vaper, would be denied employment at any of these places, just like a smoker would.

I handled the vaping at work situation by telling the boss that I finally quit smoking, as he had always encouraged me to do. Then, I told him how I did it and that I'd been vaping at my desk for months before it occurred to me that I should probably ask for permission. (which was a lie.) Since no one had objected, I couldn't see why he would have a problem with it. After a short demonstration, he gave me the o.k.. Then he asked for more info to pass along to his son. LOL..

I find employer based mandatory urinalysis an unwelcomed and unjust intrusion to my (or anyone's) body chemistry. Even without the *need* to, out of sheer principal alone I only ever give them a synthetic sample. My cost… $12. I mean my body is my own fraking business even if there is nothing to hide... and if they were looking for nicotine it's also none of their damn business!! Also, and just because... after giving the synthetic sample I *always* make it a point to also make a mess and get it all over the toilet too!

 

[sailorman]

I find employer based mandatory urinalysis an unwelcomed and unjust intrusion to my (or anyone's) body chemistry. Even without the *need* to, out of sheer principal alone I only ever give them a synthetic sample. My cost… $12. I mean my body is my own fraking business even if there is nothing to hide... and if they were looking for nicotine it's also none of their damn business!! Also, and just because... after giving the synthetic sample I *always* make it a point to also make a mess and get it all over the toilet too!

I'm with you, Brother. In my state, employers are extorted by their worker comp insurance companies to demand urinalysis. The rare company that refuses is penalized by a large increase in their insurance rates. The last company I worked for didn't test, both out of principle and because they couldn't afford to discriminate in that way. It cost them in insurance rates, but they were able to hire the most experienced personnel and their safety record was as good as anyone elses.

Personally, I will not submit to a urinalysis for a non-safety critical position, especially for nicotine, on principle alone. If they test for nicotine, at best they'll get synthetic urine from me, even if the job is safety-critical. Mark my words, it's coming to a neighborhood near you and as long as the unemployment rate is high, they'll get away with it.

 

[rothenbj]

OT, kind of. I just got some spam mail from AAA for life insurance. The premium rates are over twice as expensive for "Nicotine User" compared to "Non-Nicotine User". I suppose smoker discrimination is a thing of the past. BI likes those premium premiums.

 

[sailorman]

OT, kind of. I just got some spam mail from AAA for life insurance. The premium rates are over twice as expensive for "Nicotine User" compared to "Non-Nicotine User". I suppose smoker discrimination is a thing of the past. BI likes those premium premiums.

I used to be in the ins. business. It's funny how the terminology has morphed from "smoker rates" to "tobacco user rates" to "nicotine user rates".

There was a discussion recently in the beginners forum about life ins. rates. Despite my efforts to the contrary, many posters were given the impression that they were eligible for "non-smoker" rates. What they don't realize is that when an ins. co. says "non-smoker", the fine print clarifies the term to mean "non-tobacco product user".

Unlike, for example, homeowners insurance, the main underwriting of life insurance happens when a claim is filed. Agents will tell you that you qualify for non-smoker rates, knowing full well that they'll get their commission checks and the chances of you dropping the policy before you die is pretty good. If you die, and the ins. company finds nicotine in your system, your benefit amount will be adjusted accordingly. When your beneficiaries object, there will be no one there to testify that the agent misled you and the ins. company will either claim you were guilty of fraud by lying on the application, or that you took up smoking after the policy was issued.

[EDIT] Some state regulations may impose limits on the ins. company's ability to avail themselves of this weasel provision after a certain number of years have passed since policy issuance. This type of thing is why allowing ins. companies to sell across state lines without approval in the applicant's home state is a terrible idea. Check your local laws.

The same thing happens during the issuance of a group life ins. policy at your workplace. If you are told that you qualify for non-tobacco rates, even though you vape, you best insist on a rider to your policy that explicitly provides for it. Once the home office is aware of a vaping employee, they will adjust the rates and bill your employer the difference. If they don't, they'll adjust your benefit amount at the time of any claim.

Rule of thumb: When dealing with any ins. company, in the event of a dispute or any ambiguity, if it's not explicitly stated in writing, you lose. They are the professionals, not you. It is not their job to pay claims. Their job is to collect premiums and, whenever legally possible, NOT pay claims.

If you ever get a non-tobacco life insurance policy and fail to get a rider acknowledging that you vape, you best die in such a manner as there is not enough left of you for an autopsy or continine test. Being burnt to a cinder or lost as sea should suffice.

 

[kristin]

Wow - when did they start automatically doing drug testing (especially for nicotine) and autopsies for EVERY death?

The insurance industry has turned into a complete scam - especially for the lower and lower-middle class. To keep the premiums low enough to afford you are forced into accepting astronomical deductibles, which results in you essentially ending up paying for all of your average medical bills throughout the year and still getting in debt with the doctors. If you are generally healthy, you're almost better off just getting a major medical policy because that is what a regular policy basically ends up being by the time you pay all the deductibles. Our deductible is $1,500 per person/$3,000 family and by the end of the year we will have paid about $3,000 in premiums; not been covered for one claim and still owe the doctors "our share." If I had that extra $3,000 I was paying in premiums I wouldn't owe the doctors money. I'm just handing over $3,000 every year to the insurance company for NOTHING. The only way I would ever need it or it would ever pay is if there was a major illness, so why bother with anything other than major medical. (Sorry - it did pay for wellness checks for the kids, but that cost a lot less than what I paid in premiums!) If I had $3,000 laying around for non-emergency medical care I wouldn't need insurance!

It's s scam, I tell you! LOL! (Except home owners insurance - that one has been helpful and the premiums are much lower anyhow.)

 

[sailorman]

Yep, you're right. Health insurance is, and always has been, a scam. But you'd need to be extremely careful if you opt for a catastrophic policy like you're describing. They're just as filled with weasel clauses as the major medical policy you have now. (What you're describing you have is a major medical policy if it covers doctors, prescriptions and outpatient services).

When you think about it, what does health insurance really do? They take money from you, skim 20-30% off the top, then pay as little as possible from what's left over to medical providers. They don't cure anything. They don't invent new drugs. They don't perform surgeries or procedures. They don't even change bedpans. They're basically just leeches on the back of the medical system. Heck, if all an institution is doing is taking money into one hand, and paying it out the other, why would you need to skim 30% off the top? Oh yeah, you have $500,000,000 compensation packages for CEO's, fleets of private aircraft, palatial offices and private islands to pay for. Silly me. I almost forgot.

I guess that's why the VA and S.S. administration can do the same thing for only 3-5% overhead. Last I heard, the S.S. administration never missed a check, and they don't own any private islands either.

BTW, if your homeowners premiums are low, just thank the lord you don't live in a flood zone!! And if you don't live in one now, you might find yourself living in one tomorrow, even though you kept the same address!

 

[rothenbj]

"It's s scam, I tell you! LOL! (Except home owners insurance - that one has been helpful and the premiums are much lower anyhow.)"

It's caused by the difference in what's being insured. Many people buy homeowners insurance that never need to file a claim. Medical insurance and particularly life insurance almost guarantee that there will be claims and the payouts will be high, nicotine and non-nicotine users alike. Nobody gets out of here alive.

 

[sailorman]

"It's s scam, I tell you! LOL! (Except home owners insurance - that one has been helpful and the premiums are much lower anyhow.)"

It's caused by the difference in what's being insured. Many people buy homeowners insurance that never need to file a claim. Medical insurance and particularly life insurance almost guarantee that there will be claims and the payouts will be high, nicotine and non-nicotine users alike. Nobody gets out of here alive.

The unique thing about life insurance is that the claim rate is predictable to a much more accurate degree than any other form of insurance. They have highly accurate mortality tables from which to derive premiums. If they could get the regulators to go along with it (and often they can), they can structure premiums such that you they almost entirely avoid paying claims other than accidents. All they have to do is jack the premiums up so high on older people that they're virtually forced to drop the policy at the very time their mortality risk is starting to increase. Alternately, they can force them to re-qualify at an older age and rig it so you have to be the Juiceman to pass the standards.

When I was in the biz, I saw companies that paid out literally less than 100,000 in claims during an entire year. One I remember had a total payout of $40,000 for a whole year.

To the extent they're allowed to get away with it, that's what they do. Life ins. companies have a million ways to jigger the numbers in their favor. They make an Atlantic City casino look like a charity in comparison. You find very few older people with a significant amount of life insurance other than the permanent "whole life" policies bought decades before (in which case they're just getting their own money back), or policies taken out by businesses on key executives.

Health insurance companies avoid this problem by foisting people off on Medicare by the time they pose a serious risk to their profit margins. They always have to pay claims, but that's o.k.. They already skimmed their 25-30% off each premium dollar they collect.