And like for other vaccines, there's always some group that are against them. In this case, it's the NEA. And from all appearances, they're doing a pretty good job.
Many teens try e-cigs, but few become regular users
- Thread starter Cool_Breeze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And like for other vaccines, there's always some group that are against them. In this case, it's the NEA. And from all appearances, they're doing a pretty good job.
Of course. It doesn't just apply to what EBates said: "Once infected these infected persons will submit to any 'government' Prohibitions and Taxes and return to the security of BT and BP products that they trust." The first part applies to any subject, not just ecigs:
"Once infected these infected persons will submit to any 'government' Prohibitions and Taxes."
Gotcha.
Just a Hypothetical Question.
If e-liquids were bring in the Same amount of Tax revenue to both the Feds and the States, do You think the Stupid Virus would Infect so many People?
I don't see the relationship. More taxes (or taxes equal to cigs) doesn't represent more knowledge - which you said the latter is the vaccine against stupidity. So, no.
I don't see the relationship. More taxes (or taxes equal to cigs) doesn't represent more knowledge - which you said the latter is the vaccine against stupidity. So, no.
OK.
The reason I asked is when California Health Department lunched it PR Campaign against e-Cigarettes, I contacted someone I know in the CTA (California Teachers Association) to get her take on it. She is no Rube. She is an Established Bio Researcher.
She kinda ranted a little about the unknowns with e-liquids. And about this Study and that FDA Report. She also mentioned how e-Liquids were Not Taxed. So they are viewed as a "Threat" to funding.
I asked her what She would think about e-Liquids if they were brining in the Same Taxes as Cigarettes.
I'm not saying She did a Complete 180 on her Position. But She did start to talk more about Health Benefits to Adults. And that e-Cigarettes did hold Promise as HRT given some of the Information I had sent Her in the Past.
So sometimes I wonder if the Playing Field was leveled by Removing the issue of Lost Tax Revenue, if More people would View e-Cigarettes for what they are. Viable HRT.
Not Saying I am Advocating Taxing e-Liquids at the Same daily rate as a PAD Smoker. No Hate Mail Please. But It does bring up some Interesting concepts as to How Much e-Cigarette bashing there would be if they were?
If that flipped her, she's still a Rube, in my book. There's a lot of 'well educated' stupid people. (we could get more specific by using ignorant instead of stupid). And I'd point out that not all teachers go along (as far as they can not do so without endangering themselves) with the NEA's philosophy and politics. There are some good ones out there - I know a few. Unfortunately, very few.
I'd also say that the goal of education early on was to help produce "good citizens". And from that point of view, the goal of education hasn't changed. But... the definition of 'good citizen' has. What it used to be was someone who was informed on the nature of our limited government, and carried out the civic duties of maintaining that - being informed of the issues and voting, had the sense to question authority, etc.. Now a "good citizen" is someone who has bought into (or "educated by") the propaganda of a socialistic/fascistic system of gov't and is a sheep who will do what the authorities wish without question - or if they question - either buy into the gov't's answers, or go into apathy thinking there is little they can do to change it. Something that some have observed here....
I Didn't say it "Flip Her". In fact, I even said that in my Post.
But She did take a Different Tone when considering e-Cigarettes in a Taxed Market.
It would be Nice to Evaluate e-Cigarettes in a Pure, Good vs Bad, setting. Devoid of things like Taxes and Political Agendas. Just like it would be Nice to Evaluate the Educational System the Same way.
But Unfortunately, Money, plays a Huge Role in e-Cigarettes. Just like it does in Education.
Yeah, yeah.... no 180 but what you said she said was likely a 150. And good work on your part on that.
There's nothing 'pure' or necessarily 'nice' about reality. Neither is a goal of mine. There exists a current reality as far as politics, the role of money and taxes. That can be changed without some utopian view - in fact a utopian view is what brought most of this about - utopian safety and utopian equality. Both neither achievable nor imo, desirable.
their getting the from the same sources they get their alcohol from.
party hookah's or hookah pens,fruit flavored brightly colored and
decorated disposable e-cigs are an absolute must have at any
teen age drinking party.
regards
mike
What I find routinely absent in this discussion (though not amongst us adult users) is the idea that is now virtually impossible to get addicted to smoking for life. 30 years ago, if you smoked a cigarette and thought to yourself, "I'll be different. I will do this a few times, and I won't get addicted like that older relative or neighbor who smokes like a chimney," then I would've thought you were fooling yourself. I recall being that type of kid. Then getting addicted, then quitting cold turkey and because of going cold turkey, my banter of "I can quit at any time" didn't show up as much of a lie as it perhaps could've. But, I still realized it was very addictive, for me, and almost impossible to do in moderation.
With vaping in the picture, I now think the opposite. If you don't want to continue smoking heavily, and are willing to give vaping a try, then I think it is now virtually impossible to stay a long term smoker. I'm sure exceptions to this can be found, but I would be very surprised if overwhelming majority didn't experience this and if honest studies did not reflect this. The days of smoking a cigarette and being addicted to smoking for life are gone.
I find this data is either ignored or downplayed as if it ought to be ignored. And if I am giving benefit of doubt to research types, I would say they are engaged in studies that are occurring during a massive transition and are a good 30 years behind in what their data is actually showing them, though are likely operating from bias that one smoke could lead to endless desire for more and life of smoking. But because this bias does exist, even among diehard smokers, then I think moderate smoking might take another 50 years to be seen for what it actually is, rather than seen through prism of "just as harmful / deadly as heavy smoking." IOW, those holding this bias need to die off and let the actual data speak for itself. And I'll be the one holding bias that says addictive smoking for life is now a thing of the past, and stopped being an issue around the year 2010.
Then I'm sure you'll like what SFATA says they intend to do...
E-Cigarette Industry Plans to Make Critics Pay for Misleading Health Claims | E-Cigarette Reviews and Rankings
Here is an interesting angle of attack.
[URL='http://www.aol']www.aol.com/article/2015/04/30/popular-designer-drug-behind-bizarre-crimes-in-florida/21178343/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058']"often smoked using electronic cigarettes, which are popular with young people and give off no odor."[URL]
What were we saying about not dumb and stupid?
[URL='http://www.aol']www.aol.com/article/2015/04/30/popular-designer-drug-behind-bizarre-crimes-in-florida/21178343/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058']"often smoked using electronic cigarettes, which are popular with young people and give off no odor."[URL]
What were we saying about not dumb and stupid?
Last edited by a moderator:
Teens will always experiment - laws or no laws. Do you really think that I was 21 when I had my first beer?
This argument is applied only one way. They refute any study done in a different locale etc. but at the same time they shovel their own studies down the throat of everyone else. If the argument is valid then their "studies" should be clearly labeled "not valid outside US".
P.S. based on this logic, WHO doesn't have any valid "global" (not local) studies on which to base their tobacco control recommendations. So they should refrain from making such recommendations.
P.P.S. I personally believe that the real reason why the US Antz studies show significant differences from all others is because they are fraudulent. There's little you could blame on race / religion / education / income influences etc when compared to lets say Canada or UK.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
