Interesting debate over at The Counterfactual

[Spazmelda]

That article is very interesting. I'm in the middle of an 8 hr car trip, so I had to read it on my phone. I'll have to read through it again when we get to our destination. I have a couple of thoughts about it regarding the divide between conservative thinkers and liberal thinkers, but that will have to wait for a keypad bigger than 1x2", lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rothenbj]

That article is very interesting. I'm in the middle of an 8 hr car trip, so I had to read it on my phone. I'll have to read through it again when we get to our destination. I have a couple of thoughts about it regarding the divide between conservative thinkers and liberal thinkers, but that will have to wait for a keypad bigger than 1x2", lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure hope you were the passenger. You could have become the second fined for using an electric device while driving.

 

[Spazmelda]

Lol, yes. I'm the navigator. I couldn't have formulated that thought while driving, much less type it out. Ug. I'm ready to get there. Just stopped for some highly addictive hot caffeine beverage... About 2.5 more hours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonicdsl]

<...>

Smokers were happy to comply, but what happened was that smokers compensated for the lack of nicotine by smoking more cigarettes, inhaling more deeply, or by unconsciously overcoming the mechanisms the tobacco companies put in place to lower exposure. For example, many companies added air holes near the filter to dilute the toxins in smoke. Many smokers covered up the air holes (without realizing what they were doing) with their fingers while holding the cigarette in place to inhale. "Light" Cigarettes and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

<...>

I used to put scotch tape over those little holes when I bummed a light cig sometimes, especially ultra-lights - drove me nuts!

 

[Sundodger]

I used to put scotch tape over those little holes when I bummed a light cig sometimes, especially ultra-lights - drove me nuts!

Ha, you had it made. I smoked Pall Mall non-filters. If I had to bum a smoke (which was very seldom) I'd rip the filter off, and it still tasted like ............................

 

[DrMA]

Have you guys noticed Stan's threat that another paper is about to come out? I wonder what new nonsense we'll have to contend with next. SS seemed to indicate that the new publication is under embargo, which means it'll probably come out in the next few days.

 

[Spazmelda]

Have you guys noticed Stan's threat that another paper is about to come out? I wonder what new nonsense we'll have to contend with next. SS seemed to indicate that the new publication is under embargo, which means it'll probably come out in the next few days.

I did notice that. It will be interesting to see what it's all about. And it will be especially interesting to see if the press release actually bears any relation to the data.

 

[DrMA]

I did notice that. It will be interesting to see what it's all about. And it will be especially interesting to see if the press release actually bears any relation to the data.

I'm more concerned about the situation where the data have been manufactured to match the press release in the infamous Pruebot style. This is the next logical step in the ANTZ machine... Having been called out on the lying with the JAMA Dutra/Glantz study by their funding source, the Legacy Foundation, the Slantz faction cannot risk damaging that relationship any further. My guess is they're gonna be more careful next time.

 

[tommy2bad]

This morning we had the head of tobacco free Ireland on the radio celebrating 10 years of the smoking ban. When he was asked if ecigs were a good thing as they were safer his reply was 'that's not the issue'
This is now the standard reply from tobacco control because they have lost the safety argument and want to move the goalposts to renormalization and having the tobacco industry pack up their tent and go away.
Again the themes of conformity and punishment.
OK so Dr Luke Clancy is on the extreme end of tobacco control, he wants smoking areas made less attractive and is campaigning for bans in cars and open spaces.
I wouldn't hold my breath for any study showing harm to users or bystanders from ecigs, any studies from now on will be about the gateway effect and the undermining of the smoke free laws. Such studies will be nonsense because they can't have laboratory conditions or control groups but that won't stop the antz from using this 'data' but they insist that any evidence of lack of harm have lab conditions and controls.
It's a PR war now, probably always was.

 

[rothenbj]

This morning we had the head of tobacco free Ireland on the radio celebrating 10 years of the smoking ban. When he was asked if ecigs were a good thing as they were safer his reply was 'that's not the issue'
This is now the standard reply from tobacco control because they have lost the safety argument and want to move the goalposts to renormalization and having the tobacco industry pack up their tent and go away.
Again the themes of conformity and punishment.
OK so Dr Luke Clancy is on the extreme end of tobacco control, he wants smoking areas made less attractive and is campaigning for bans in cars and open spaces.
I wouldn't hold my breath for any study showing harm to users or bystanders from ecigs, any studies from now on will be about the gateway effect and the undermining of the smoke free laws. Such studies will be nonsense because they can't have laboratory conditions or control groups but that won't stop the antz from using this 'data' but they insist that any evidence of lack of harm have lab conditions and controls.
It's a PR war now, probably always was.

Hey, it worked with second hand smoke and their fictitious appx 30k deaths. They've got it down to even a whiff killing you, thus the outdoor bans. The next step will be cars running on the "public" highways. You could be smoking and a car with children could be beside or behind you causing instantaneous death.

 

[sebt]

This morning we had the head of tobacco free Ireland on the radio celebrating 10 years of the smoking ban. When he was asked if ecigs were a good thing as they were safer his reply was 'that's not the issue'
This is now the standard reply from tobacco control because they have lost the safety argument and want to move the goalposts to renormalization and having the tobacco industry pack up their tent and go away.

Well spotted ANTZ-rhetoric.

Did you notice that the BMA's Martin McKee used the same tactic, as quoted in a Guardian article a few weeks back? Exactly the same. Confronted with "e-cigs are not harmful", he moved the goalposts to "renormalisation" and undermining of the smoking ban exactly as your man over in Ireland did.

Expect to see this trope more and more often!

And I hate to say it, but I have a horrible feeling that your prescience about the next wave of "science" "proving" things about renormalisation and undermining of the ban is absolutely correct. To make a pun: we already have the desired pre-science conclusion, now it's time to go out and find (fund) the science to "prove" it!

 

[AgentAnia]

I'm more concerned about the situation where the data have been manufactured to match the press release in the infamous Pruebot style. This is the next logical step in the ANTZ machine... Having been called out on the lying with the JAMA Dutra/Glantz study by their funding source, the Legacy Foundation, the Slantz faction cannot risk damaging that relationship any further. My guess is they're gonna be more careful next time.

Beg to disagree, in one respect. I don't think they're ever going to be careful. They will simply try to be more clever. It's all about flinging crap to the wall and seeing what sticks. As tommy2bad says, it's a PR war: they're going to see what generates the most headlines, and go with that. Truth figures nowhere in the equation.

(On a side note: the ANTZ have had the playing field to themselves for so long; now that they're facing actual opposition, they're floundering, desperately and shrilly, because it's becoming clear they do NOT have the facts/science on their side. Sadly, the media is playing along. But I think we're gaining yardage on the field.)

 

[DrMA]

I do agree with you, AgentAnia, except a minor point. I do not believe we're gaining any yardage in the field. In fact, I see a well organized and highly effective PR campaign on the part of the ANTZ, and some minor, scattered resistance from vaping advocates which makes us look reactionary and has little or no impact on the general public. If we don't manage to get organized and speak proactively, with a unified voice in the mainstream media, we will loose this war.

 

[tommy2bad]

You know I have a feeling that if a pharma company had invented the ecig this would have played out differently.
First of all the inventors would have had a press release telling us that a major breakthrough in smoking cessation was now available, next they would have had samples in the right places, pharmacy counters as test marketing and then they would have touted the results of the studies, exactly the same studies but this time spun to suit a different agenda. They would even have adopted longterm use as this product was clearly safe to use in the presence of non smokers.
Unfortunately ecigs came on the market from armatures who didn't understand how marketing works, you don't sell to the end user first, you sell to the general public first, even if they never use your product, it's important they don't resist it.
By the time ecigs became mainstream or at least mainstream enough to catch the attention of the man in the street, that man (or woman) had no awareness of what they were seeing, all they had to go on was the word of the user. It's about context and ecigs got seen it the context of smoking with all the negativity that goes with that.
It's unfortunate that it was the tobacco companies that invested in the first buy outs, if it had been a health company then we would be seeing Glantz and Talbot produce equally junk science but showing how effective ecigs were.

 

[rothenbj]

I do agree with you, AgentAnia, except a minor point. I do not believe we're gaining any yardage in the field. In fact, I see a well organized and highly effective PR campaign on the part of the ANTZ, and some minor, scattered resistance from vaping advocates which makes us look reactionary and has little or no impact on the general public. If we don't manage to get organized and speak proactively, with a unified voice in the mainstream media, we will loose this war.

No, we'd see a white tampon looking thing like the nicotrol inhalator that produced vapor and was as effective as the early cigalike's. None of the innovation we've seen in the free market would exist and instead of a fast growing business where jobs are created on a local level, we'd see a boost to the machine that is public health and I use that term loosely.

 

[Anjaffm]

How about looking at "morality" from the OTHER SIDE?

See this article by several doctors in Canada, 7 Feb 2014:
(Canada) Opinion: It’s time to authorize the sale of electronic cigarettes

Harm reduction in smoking can be achieved by providing smokers with safer sources of nicotine that are acceptable, and effective cigarette substitutes.

There is a moral and ethical duty to provide these products to addicted smokers.

Electronic cigarettes are such a substitute.

...

The death rates from continued smoking are simply too high to accept a continued nicotine-abstinence policy orientation.

 

[Anjaffm]

Oh, if anybody would like to post this good opinion from Canada to Clive's blog, by all means, do so. I cannot at the moment... no opportunity.
I had commented on the doctors opinion here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...l-medical-professionals-montreal-gazette.html

This is a very sensible opinion (the entire article is).
AND it is perfect to counter the "moral" blathering of those Tobacco Control Industry members (ANTZ) whose "morals" include condemning millions of current smokers to exactly the premature death that they always mention in their "quit or die" propaganda.

 

[Katya]

Maybe a little melodramatic on the surface, but not really. This Stan thinks I am a disgusting pathetic person who deserves to die from smoke and tar until and unless I can quit nicotine completely. And perhaps even if I do eventually quit completely, because some harm has already been done. If I can't quit completely I don't deserve a safer alternative, even though one exists. Never mind that I am a good person and a good mother who loves her children and wants to see them grow up. I love my husband and have a relatively happy life. I am weak and have no self control, even though I have exhibited plenty of self control In other areas of my life. I couldn't quit smoking using any of the available methods, so instead of using something that every bit of logic tells us is safer than smoking, I should just keep smoking until I either manage to quit or it kills me, whichever comes first. Because if I can't do that, I don't deserve have as good a life as I can.

Dear Spazmelda, I'm too upset right now to even try to comment...

There's only one image that comes to my mind:

Have a good day y'all.

 

[rothenbj]

Katya, that's a familiar face from the past. You know you've been around here for awhile if it's immediately recognized.

 

[Anjaffm]

Good one, Katya.
And it suits the "public health" industry very well indeed!