Nanny state's deadly bigotry over e-cigarettes

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrMA

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
2,989
9,887
Seattle area
«Despite the obesity crisis, call someone "fat" in your workplace and you risk a disciplinary hearing. But it's been open season on the lifestyle choice to smoke for years. Now, the hysteria extends to e-cigarettes, even though they help people quit and save lives»

Nanny state's deadly bigotry over e-cigarettes - The Commentator
 

DrMA

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
2,989
9,887
Seattle area
Telling someone who switched from smoking to vaping that they've just substituted one habit for another is like telling someone who decides to eat broccoli instead of fries "well, you're still eating."


Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free

Brilliant!

[tweet]568318833359851520[/tweet]
 

philoshop

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 21, 2014
1,702
4,306
geneva, ny, usa
Telling someone who switched from smoking to vaping that they've just substituted one habit for another is like telling someone who decides to eat broccoli instead of fries "well, you're still eating."


Sent from my zombie defense stronghold using Tapatalk - now Free

I really wish I could give this a couple more 'likes'.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
You were right in the first place. "Protecting children" is just their socially acceptable way of doing it.
I might have to disagree here, not so much with your point but with the entire idea...

In doing so, I would have to argue that "Protecting The Children" is a voting block.
And only by being socially acceptable can it become a voting block.

The question in my mind has always been how has it become such a socially acceptable strategy.
And I already know that answer, but I'm not about to state it here.

If only we could convince all of the people who "Want To Protect The Children" to see the error of their ways...
But I doubt that is possible.

Think helicopters.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I might have to disagree here, not so much with your point but with the entire idea...

In doing so, I would have to argue that "Protecting The Children" is a voting block.
And only by being socially acceptable can it become a voting block.

The question in my mind has always been how has it become such a socially acceptable strategy.
And I already know that answer, but I'm not about to state it here.

If only we could convince all of the people who "Want To Protect The Children" to see the error of their ways...
But I doubt that is possible.

Think helicopters.

Again, it isn't that we have to convince them that 'protecting children' is an error, since their main objective is not protecting children - it's control of adults. You said, in response to 'nannies hate individual freedom'... "To be fair, some of them don't hate individual freedom so much as they think protecting the children overrides individual freedom."

Your mistake was thinking that he was saying all who believe in protecting children, hate freedom. But 'nannies' has a particular connotation of 'nanny staters' - people who know what's best for everyone - adults and children, and want to enact laws to control them. And nannies hate individual freedom - it's WHY they are nannies, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting children, except that is their way of selling control on adults, as children (and children too).
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Nannies would not be able to pass laws under the guise of "protecting the children" if there was no one supporting them.
And as far as I can tell it's the overprotective parents that support the concept and allow it to flourish.

I'm not clear if we are in agreement or not.
:)

We're close. :) Although, while there are some people who may fall for the PR, because they care for their children, there are more parents who also buy into the idea that IF you say you're 'for the children', or 'for clean air' or 'for natural food', 'for the poor/middle class/little guy', etc. etc. that it somehow, despite your actions, makes you a better person.

So even with those people receiving the PR, the hidden intent is the same as those delivering the PR - control over others, and sometimes with the idea that they, themselves can skate any regulations that may apply to them. But sadly for them, unless they are very well connected, the only ones that can actually avoid them, are the people who enact them. It's why Charley Rangel can avoid paying taxes (Chairman of that committee at the time) and how Elizabeth Dole (DOT head at the time) didn't wear a seatbelt in her limousine after pushing for all others to wear them.

That all changes (sometimes) when it is those people whose 'ox is gored' as is the case here with many individuals who have supported regulations and the politicians who enact them, but become 'activists' for ecigarettes. They can't believe their news sources are against ecigs!! and can't believe the news sources they hate are pro-ecigs. :lol: Still, for most, that won't change them, they'll still use the 'for the children' line when needed - just not as it applies to ecigs. However, some eyes have been opened by this, and once one sees, it is really hard not to see after that. ;)
 

VapieDan

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 30, 2013
3,295
4,029
Flint, Michigan, United States
Nannies would not be able to pass laws under the guise of "protecting the children" if there was no one supporting them.
And as far as I can tell it's the overprotective parents that support the concept and allow it to flourish.

I'm not clear if we are in agreement or not.
:)

If I hear protecting the children one more time I am going to vomit. Besides who is protecting me? Oh I know! My "Big Brother".
 

VapieDan

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 30, 2013
3,295
4,029
Flint, Michigan, United States
I'll protect you!
For a fee...
and if you do not pay I'll, wait, every level of our government does this. Blast.


RCH

High taxes and regulation make me feel so safe? Wait a minute are not Cigarettes FDA approved? Gee come to think about it there sure are a lot of recalled FDA approved items. It's OK though if warnings are issued. Gee would you not think those warnings would be enough to pull the product? Oh that's right it was approved in the first place. Yup the FDA is so concerned about E-Cigs but approves this stuff. Has anyone experienced any of these side affects from vaping? By the way I would think the "successful suicidal actions" would count as a successful quit.


IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION AND INDICATION

Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions while using CHANTIX to help them quit smoking. Some people had these symptoms when they began taking CHANTIX, and others developed them after several weeks of treatment or after stopping CHANTIX. If you, your family or caregiver notice agitation, hostility, depression or changes in behavior, thinking, or mood that are not typical for you, or you develop suicidal thoughts or actions, anxiety, panic, aggression, anger, mania, abnormal sensations, hallucinations, paranoia or confusion, stop taking CHANTIX and call your doctor right away. Also tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems before taking CHANTIX, as these symptoms may worsen while taking CHANTIX.

Some people had seizures during treatment with CHANTIX. Most cases happened during the first month of treatment. Tell your doctor if you have a history of seizures. If you have a seizure during treatment with CHANTIX, stop taking CHANTIX and contact your healthcare provider right away.

Decrease the amount of alcohol you drink while taking CHANTIX until you know if CHANTIX affects your ability to tolerate alcohol. Some people experienced increased drunkenness, unusual or sometimes aggressive behavior, or memory loss of events while consuming alcohol during treatment with CHANTIX.

Do not take CHANTIX if you have had a serious allergic or skin reaction to CHANTIX. Some people can have serious skin reactions while taking CHANTIX, some of which can become life-threatening. These can include rash, swelling, redness, and peeling of the skin. Some people can have allergic reactions to CHANTIX, some of which can be life-threatening and include: swelling of the face, mouth, and throat that can cause trouble breathing. If you have these symptoms or have a rash with peeling skin or blisters in your mouth, stop taking CHANTIX and get medical attention right away.

Before starting CHANTIX, tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems. If you have new or worse heart or blood vessel symptoms during treatment, tell your doctor. Get emergency medical help right away if you have any symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.

The most common side effects of CHANTIX include nausea (30%), sleep problems, constipation, gas and/or vomiting. If you have side effects that bother you or don’t go away, tell your doctor. You may have trouble sleeping, vivid, unusual or strange dreams while taking CHANTIX. Use caution driving or operating machinery until you know how CHANTIX may affect you.

CHANTIX should not be taken with other quit-smoking products. You may need a lower dose of CHANTIX if you have kidney problems or get dialysis.

Before starting CHANTIX, tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, or if you take insulin, asthma medicines or blood thinners. Medicines like these may work differently when you quit smoking.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread