Katherine Heigl is still puffing
- Thread starter Traver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
But.. But... That title is so misleading! "Using" makes it sound like she's an addict!!
LOL
But.. But... That title is so misleading! "Using" makes it sound like she's an addict!!
LOL
Well, I like "using" better than "smoking" electronic cigarettes, which misleads the uninitiated into believing that electronic cigarettes produce smoke.
Still vaping away- now with bikini win! Enlarged Image - What Would Tyler Durden Do
Huh? The full title of the article is "Isn't it time you weaned yourself off them? Katherine Heigl is still puffing on her electronic cigarette nine months after switching from real ones" (My underlines)
It obviously means the author feels that she should have already weaned herself off of the e-cigarettes after nine whole months
not the tobacco cigarettes.Maybe this hasn't happened to you or maybe you are using e-cigarettes to wean off nicotine, but it gets really annoying when you've switched from smoking to vaping, reducing your health risks to nearly 0% and people say, "When are you going to quit those things??"
WHY? They aren't anymore dangerous than coffee. Why should I quit them?
It's like switching from ice cream to low-fat frozen yogurt to lose weight and people keep asking, "When are you going to stop eating that stuff? You know it still has fat in it!"
Last edited:
She needs to upgrade already.
SmokeStik is a good product. She may not feel the need to upgrade.
Huh? The full title of the article is "Isn't it time you weaned yourself off them? Katherine Heigl is still puffing on her electronic cigarette nine months after switching from real ones" (My underlines)
It obviously means the author feels that she should have already weaned herself off of the e-cigarettes after nine whole months
Maybe this hasn't happened to you or maybe you are using e-cigarettes to wean off nicotine, but it gets really annoying when you've switched from smoking to vaping, reducing your health risks to nearly 0% and people say, "When are you going to quit those things??"
WHY? They aren't anymore dangerous than coffee. Why should I quit them?
It's like switching from ice cream to low-fat frozen yogurt to lose weight and people keep asking, "When are you going to stop eating that stuff? You know it still has fat in it!"
I still don't see the big deal, but it's ok. Again, take from it what you will.
Also, "The only thing hotter than Katherine Heigl in a black bikini ... her electronic cigarette."
http://www.tmz.com/2011/03/21/katherine-heigl-smoking-hot-bod-electronic-cigarette-miami/
Last edited:
I've heard they airbrush the navels out. If they want to sell a boat-load of that brand to women, they should figure out way to imply that using that brand will help you fill out your bikini top as pictured.
It's the overall attitude of discrimination against and disdain for nicotine users. I guess when one is an active advocate for smokeless alternatives, one sees how the attitude that all nicotine use is bad, regardless of the health risks, leads to misinformation and the outright lies that support the laws and punitive actions (against e-cigarette and smokeless users) that we are fighting daily.
The belief that all nicotine use must be stopped leads to the indoor use and flavor bans for e-cigs, high taxes, denormalization of users, discrimination in the workplace, denial of employment and more that we are facing. The author's attitude that Heigel is still some kind of loser because she hasn't quit using the e-cigarette supports that belief.
If you aren't involved in the fight, I can see how you would think it isn't a "big deal."
The belief that all nicotine use must be stopped leads to the indoor use and flavor bans for e-cigs, high taxes, denormalization of users, discrimination in the workplace, denial of employment and more that we are facing. The author's attitude that Heigel is still some kind of loser because she hasn't quit using the e-cigarette supports that belief.
If you aren't involved in the fight, I can see how you would think it isn't a "big deal."
I still don't see the big deal, but it's ok. Again, take from it what you will.
Also, "The only thing hotter than Katherine Heigl in a black bikini ... her electronic cigarette."
Katherine Heigl -- Smokin' Hot in a Bikini | TMZ.com
Last edited:
I don't see how I'm not "involved in the fight" now? Just because I didn't take what you took from the article? Maybe the author really was trying to discriminate against nicotine users? Maybe they weren't? But I'm not going to discuss it anymore because I've already stated multiple times what I took from the article. And I'm already seeing other positive articles about Katherine that have surfaced out of this. So in the end I still think this article, overall, had a positive impact.
It's not the article itself but the title.
That's fine. You are entitled to your viewpoint. But honestly, your posts have not been just your opinion of the article, but also have been dismissive and slightly mocking of the viewpoints of those of us who feel the title of the article is representative of the overall disdain for nicotine users, by continually insisting that you "don't see what the big deal" is. We were simply trying to explain to you why we see it as a bigger deal than you do, but your posts strongly imply that we are being "silly" and overreacting.
By not being "involved in the fight," I meant being on the front lines, dealing with the antis, being intimately aware of their attitudes and tactics used. There is a much larger picture that your comments indicate you just can't see and you are not alone. That is worrisome for some of us.
While the article is positive by bringing e-cigarettes to the mainstream media, it is unfortunately tempered by the criticism that Heigel is "still an addict" and reinforces the attitude/belief that people haven't really "quit smoking" until they quit nicotine. It's like a backhanded compliment, "It's great you lost 50 pounds! So, when are you going to get off your .... and lose the rest of the weight?"
The requirement for absolute nicotine abstinence is what is contributing to the opposition of e-cigarettes (which continue nicotine use for most users) and smokeless products, forcing smokers on the quit-relapse cycle of Big Pharma nicotine cessation products. It's subtle article titles like this that reinforce the negative attitudes, misinformed beliefs and discrimination against nicotine users.
I'm not even really talking to you directly anymore, but posting for people who may read this thread and also not "get it." CASAA's mission is to educate people about and support smokeless alternatives and people need to know the insidious tactics and poisonous beliefs of our opposition to understand the true magnitude of what we are fighting. All of these "little things" do add up and we can't let it go as a "no harm no foul." I'm very sorry that we aren't able to convince you of that, but hopefully other people will see it and understand.
That's fine. You are entitled to your viewpoint. But honestly, your posts have not been just your opinion of the article, but also have been dismissive and slightly mocking of the viewpoints of those of us who feel the title of the article is representative of the overall disdain for nicotine users, by continually insisting that you "don't see what the big deal" is. We were simply trying to explain to you why we see it as a bigger deal than you do, but your posts strongly imply that we are being "silly" and overreacting.
By not being "involved in the fight," I meant being on the front lines, dealing with the antis, being intimately aware of their attitudes and tactics used. There is a much larger picture that your comments indicate you just can't see and you are not alone. That is worrisome for some of us.
While the article is positive by bringing e-cigarettes to the mainstream media, it is unfortunately tempered by the criticism that Heigel is "still an addict" and reinforces the attitude/belief that people haven't really "quit smoking" until they quit nicotine. It's like a backhanded compliment, "It's great you lost 50 pounds! So, when are you going to get off your .... and lose the rest of the weight?"
The requirement for absolute nicotine abstinence is what is contributing to the opposition of e-cigarettes (which continue nicotine use for most users) and smokeless products, forcing smokers on the quit-relapse cycle of Big Pharma nicotine cessation products. It's subtle article titles like this that reinforce the negative attitudes, misinformed beliefs and discrimination against nicotine users.
I'm not even really talking to you directly anymore, but posting for people who may read this thread and also not "get it." CASAA's mission is to educate people about and support smokeless alternatives and people need to know the insidious tactics and poisonous beliefs of our opposition to understand the true magnitude of what we are fighting. All of these "little things" do add up and we can't let it go as a "no harm no foul." I'm very sorry that we aren't able to convince you of that, but hopefully other people will see it and understand.
I agree.
While it really doesn't matter, I think the author wrote a positive or at least neutral article as far as e-cigs are concerned and then an Editor stepped in and gave it a provocative title to gain attention or to coincide with his/her belief system.
I do think we all need to be watchful of the subtle and not-so-subtle undermining of e-cigs that is becoming more prevalent.
True, GMoney. So we can't settle for "taking what we can get" from media coverage. We need to insist on getting truth and fairness in our representation, without misinformed bias.
If you want to experience what it feels like to have the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, read this: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
It appears that attendees of this 1979 conference have lost sight of the fact that "Our enemy is not the smoker." If they recognize that "most smokers want to give up smoking and get on to health" why are they doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen?
It appears that attendees of this 1979 conference have lost sight of the fact that "Our enemy is not the smoker." If they recognize that "most smokers want to give up smoking and get on to health" why are they doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen?
And beyond the underhanded and unforgivable vilifying of smokers, the words "smoking" and "smokers," in the above "secret" manifesto, have been replaced by today's antis with "nicotine use" and "nicotine users," which includes most e-cigarette users. So, it doesn't even matter to them that you aren't smoking or a smoker anymore, even though you are no longer contributing to the supposed smoking health costs nor second-hand smoke. Replace those words in Elaine's post with 'nicotine use" and "nicotine user" and you realize that you, the e-cigarette or smokeless tobacco user, are still a target.
Nice. I haven't seen that before. However, I have long known that this is what has occurred. It is really just updated fascist tactics, similar to those used by Hitler and many others, it is very Machiavellian in it's approach.
The tactics work. Many have gained power and money through there use. The people benefiting are addicted to the power and money and will always find "the next big thing" to demonize and start the ball rolling again.
They are powerful adversaries and to some extent their tactics must be adopted to beat them.
One wonders what they'd do if they ever actually achieve their stated goal.
"
Insert "Fast Food"
Insert "Caffeine"
Insert "?"
There is an unlimited number of things you can demonize, they have a powerful "model". If you told anyone 40 years ago that people would get fired from their job or not hired because they smoked at home when they weren't working you would have been laughed at.
Last edited:
They could end up toppling their own house of cards if they reach too far - people will start to question. If it's not about second hand smoke - maybe 2nd hand smoke was a lie? Not many, at first, to be sure but people already are starting to wonder. I see a lot of positive comments from non-smokers on various articles about vaping - and people starting to ask questions.
- Status
Similar threads
