Yes, I want it.
But somehow I also want not to see vaping not prohibited or overtaxed, but not on behalf of children.
Major anti-vaping propaganda fightback - please share!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yes, I want it.
But somehow I also want not to see vaping not prohibited or overtaxed, but not on behalf of children.
Playing devil's advocate here, but why is the whole tax and money thing being used as an argument? If they want to tax e-cigs, they can simply work toward doing that. If tax money is a huge issue for tobacco products, then why has CA been fighting smoking for decades, and not only that, but making huge strides of progress in discouraging and decreasing smoking rates in California? If they are that addicted to tobacco tax money, wouldn't they have eased up on the anti smoking rhetoric that has certainly destroyed a significant portion of that tax money already?
I understand the tax argument and I know people use it as a conspiracy argument, but for the reasons stated above, it doesn't completely make sense to me. CA has been decreasing smoking for decades, and as a result, have decreased taxes collected already. There must be another reason they are attacking e-cigs. Maybe they actually think they are dangerous? Just a thought. You don't want our entire argument to hinge on something with a massive logic hole in it.
Now, what makes more sense to me is that CA has built an anti-smoking ideology over the decades and they have a lot of pride in that. That is something that they are probably defending with maniacal fervor.
I understand the tax argument and I know people use it as a conspiracy argument, but for the reasons stated above, it doesn't completely make sense to me. CA has been decreasing smoking for decades, and as a result, have decreased taxes collected already. There must be another reason they are attacking e-cigs. Maybe they actually think they are dangerous? Just a thought. You don't want our entire argument to hinge on something with a massive logic hole in it.
Now, what makes more sense to me is that CA has built an anti-smoking ideology over the decades and they have a lot of pride in that. That is something that they are probably defending with maniacal fervor.
Last edited:
The fact stated are because they can be proven, nothing more nothing less. Glad their so called concern is believed by so many.
I don`t think the argument is as invalid as you may want to believe. Fact is they are working off the percentage that would never quite without a reasonable alternative, I think its something like 10-15% of the public. They know this number will never change if simply left in place with absolutely no other alternatives, but they are smart enough to know vaping could and would change this if it was promoted with the truth. There is still a immense amount of money in this seemingly small percentage of the populace and they have in fact mortgaged the proverbial house on it.
Now, as to your last point, this is the rest of the problem, know it all self appointed saviors that want to engineer society to there own Utopian ideals. You are 100% correct in this. Remember, these are the same self absorbed people who are so self diluted they would forgo immunizing their own children because some quack sounded good to their ears.
You're reply shows you completely missed what I said, and you can't have it both ways, if the option is gone it is gone, My words where not on behalf of the children in the way you put it,
Some of the best harm reduction advocates in the world say that number is about 20% based on studies.
Rolygate could expound on this all day long, if he finds this thread.
Sounds legit actually. OK then, back to bashing them for being cash greedy at the expense of public health =)
Some of the best harm reduction advocates in the world say that number is about 20% based on studies.
Rolygate could expound on this all day long, if he finds this thread.
Exactly. The fanatical misocapnists know that no matter how extreme their antismoker hatespeech gets, smoking prevalence will not drop thru the 20% resistance threshold. That's why they keep pushing "more of the same" ineffective antismoker demonization tactics pretending to be leading the fight, but laughing all the way to the bank knowing smoking will continued unabated.
Enter vaping and all of a sudden more smokers quit in the past 4 years than in 50 years of TC demonization before. Of course the parasitic criminals are scared, at this rate there'd be few or no smokers left by the end of the decade.
Some of the best harm reduction advocates in the world say that number is about 20% based on studies.
Rolygate could expound on this all day long, if he finds this thread.
I'm hoping he will; he always has the most blistering truth to serve up to our self-appointed nannies (may they rot in hell, or in jail, I don't really care which).
Andria
They make it up on antidepressants sales.
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19032en/s19032en.pdf
Not to mention that the tobacco taxes are ever increasing, also making for a decreasing taxation base. They found that an increase of 10% in price will be followed by just 4% decrease in consumption. So overall they still get 6% more money.
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s19032en/s19032en.pdf
Not to mention that the tobacco taxes are ever increasing, also making for a decreasing taxation base. They found that an increase of 10% in price will be followed by just 4% decrease in consumption. So overall they still get 6% more money.
Last edited:
What else would you like to see forcefully done to children but not to you?
If this were really about fighting lies, we'd be attacking them on their smoking lies. They came out with "from the same people that brought you lung cancer...." and we ought to be retorting with, "from the same people that made up lies about smoking....."
But instead, we parrot their "smoking kills" line and proceed to fight the lies on that basis. I think it can still work, but not a strategy I can get on board with and promote. Sorry. I like the passion and the willingness to fight ANTZ, but disagree with strategy. I'd much prefer they be on the defense on the smoking stuff, and have to answer to that (for many months) than only have to keep poking away at vaping. It's as if we are saying, "you were absolutely right about smoking, but you are absolutely wrong about vaping." When joe blow will see it as, "they were right about smoking, and that took time to convince people. Give them time to convince everyone about vaping. Time will tell."
The only reason the high taxes make sense is because they successfully demonized a previously well received product. Vaping is currently a well received product. The huge difference is the vaping enthusiast has more resources (namely social media) to fight back against the enormous campaign being lodged against the industry that anti-smokers literally get paid to take pot shots at.
It is about US, about what we WANT and what we are WILLING to fight for.
If willing to agree with them on "smoking kills," then sorry, I'm not willing to fully join you in your feeble fight. I'll be there in spirit, but not in parroting lies.
Hard to fight lies with the media so cozy in bed with the antz. Unless the pros come up with large dollars for media campaigns, grassroots will only take us so far.
your mistake was assuming when I said "your child" I meant a minor, sorry but a lot of us that have children that are grown, and most of the people here if they have kids in 10 years those kids will be adults
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
