More ridiculousness in the NZ Herald.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kiwiboo

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2014
101
83
Masterton, New Zealand
E-cigarettes could get kids hooked on smoking - www. nzherald .co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11262046
(E-cigarettes could get kids hooked on smoking - study - Life & Style - NZ Herald News)

the Herald is pulling anti-vape stuff from the Daily Mail, again. A few of the most ludicrous claims:

"E-cigarettes with sweet flavours are being targeted at school children and could get them hooked on nicotine, it has been claimed."

"....Instead an electronic inhaler vaporises liquid nicotine." Some do, some don't.

"An American study of nearly 40,000 youths found that teenagers who had tried an e-cigarette at least once were six times more likely to try tobacco." Double eyeroll


"Dr Ram Moorthy, a spokesman for the British Medical Association, said yesterday: "Ultimately these devices do contain nicotine and young people smoking them are developing a habit which they could potentially be stuck with for life." Actually not all do. Cannot buy nic here in NZ dumbarse, generalisation much?

"There have been very worrying reports that teenagers have been asking for e-cigarettes for Christmas presents and that they have become commonplace in the playground." The playground? How about that parenting then? Has everyone taken a ..... pill? I must have been outside having a vape when that scata was being handed out. Why are some people allowed to breed even? (Yes I know thats a whole different rant/argument/discussion).


le sigh
:vapor:
Nancy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LoveVanilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 23, 2013
1,926
3,736
Texas
Be sure to post a user comment disputing such absurd falsehood. If a lie is repeated often enough without challenge, some will accept it as truth.

And be sure to point out who stands to profits from the demise of ecigs. All of us has an obligation to dispute such obvious lies and propaganda -- and to challenge the intelligence of their authors.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Notice how this statement:

“We can’t say for sure that e-cigarette in adolescence leads them to smoking cigarettes, but it can lead to a nicotine addiction,” lead study author Lauren Dutra, a researcher at the Center for Tobacco Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Plain Dealer.

Magically morphed into

An American study of nearly 40,000 youths found that teenagers who had tried an e-cigarette at least once were six times more likely to try tobacco.

Whatever happened to "We can't say for sure"? And the NZ reporter failed to notice the chickens and eggs conundrum

What Dutra and Glantz found was that the use of electronic cigarettes by adolescents was associated with higher odds of them smoking cigarettes.

...which the antismoking psychopaths gleefully interpreted as "use of e-cigarettes causes smoking" rather than the actual situation that kids who smoke are much more likely to try an e-cigarette than never smokers and that their motive for doing so might be quite adult in nature. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported:

Cigarette smokers in 2011 who had ever used e-cigarettes were more likely to intend to quit smoking within the next year.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Notice how this statement:



Magically morphed into



Whatever happened to "We can't say for sure"? And the NZ reporter failed to notice the chickens and eggs conundrum



...which the antismoking psychopaths gleefully interpreted as "use of e-cigarettes causes smoking" rather than the actual situation that kids who smoke are much more likely to try an e-cigarette than never smokers and that their motive for doing so might be quite adult in nature. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported:

It's truly amazing the level of 'certainty' that can be made by manipulating statistics, when in fact, it's just probability. And the probability of something subsequently happening from a one time experiment, has many other more causative aspects to it, than the substance of the experiment.

One could do this on almost any substance or activity. Coffee with 6 year olds - most are put off by the taste. But at a point to where they 'want to be an adult' - say, 12 or 13 - that 'motive' is more effective :) And this could be the same for shooting a gun, having a relationship, trying alcohol, driving a car, etc. etc. and the 'likelihood' will be different at different ages. Most people know this instinctively, but when it is stated in no uncertain terms - of the 'number of times' it is likely, it takes it out of the realm of reality and becomes a 'shocking statistic' :facepalm:
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
You're right about coffee, Kent C. I began drinking it at age 8, but it required quite a bit of milk and sugar to make it palatable. To protect the chilllldren, we need to outlaw both milk and sugar, because those flavors only exist to hook the kiddies.

Early on I'd dunk my cookies in coffee. Didn't really start drinking it until @19 when I worked at the docks on boats in the winter and it helped 'warm me up'. You could pour the sugar out of my empty cup. Now - black and with an extra shot, if available :laugh: I still dunk my cookies in coffee :D
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
I think I might have been 9 or 10 when I stopped putting sugar in my coffee. My mother had gone on a diet and was cutting out excess calories wherever she could. So I stopped using sugar too, because it was the grown up thing to do. I have on occasion, drunk coffee black, but only when the only available substitute for milk or cream was that powdered junk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread