New study finds vaping bans are unethical

[DrMA]

«Respect for autonomy: prohibiting ENDS infringes on smokers’ autonomy to use a less harmful nicotine product while inconsistently allowing individuals to begin and continue smoking cigarettes. Non-maleficence: prohibition is supposed to prevent ENDS recruiting new smokers and discouraging smokers from quitting, but it has not prevented uptake of ENDS. It also perpetuates harm by preventing addicted smokers from using a less harmful nicotine product. Beneficence: ENDS could benefit addicted smokers by reducing their health risks if they use them to quit and do not engage in dual use. Distributive justice: lack of access to ENDS disadvantages smokers who want to reduce their health risks.»

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12898/abstract

All venomous parasites in the tobacco control industry masquerading as Public Health should be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity

 

[Spencer87]

It is unethical in my opinion! They can let me smoke they wont let me vape...come on

 

[CarolT]

It "infringes on smokers’ autonomy," they whine self-righteously. And what about the six decades of deliberate, systematic lies, defamations, and hate propaganda against smokers, all perpetrated to justify smoking bans, tax hikes, and every other infringement on smokers' autonomy that these tinsel-plated hypocrites can invent? As if there's no ethics problem as long as it doesn't interfere with e-cigarettes. THAT is a perfect example of the mentality of the tobacco Control mob, grinding their boot heels in our faces and then pretending to be our protectors and benefactors!

 

[pennysmalls]

Strange really, how this even needs to be pointed out, by "professionals", in a published study. "Ok folks we've finally had someone confirm through science that this practice is unethical."

 

[pennysmalls]

«Respect for autonomy: prohibiting ENDS infringes on smokers’ autonomy to use a less harmful nicotine product while inconsistently allowing individuals to begin and continue smoking cigarettes. Non-maleficence: prohibition is supposed to prevent ENDS recruiting new smokers and discouraging smokers from quitting, but it has not prevented uptake of ENDS. It also perpetuates harm by preventing addicted smokers from using a less harmful nicotine product. Beneficence: ENDS could benefit addicted smokers by reducing their health risks if they use them to quit and do not engage in dual use. Distributive justice: lack of access to ENDS disadvantages smokers who want to reduce their health risks.»

Ethical issues raised by a ban on the sale of electronic nicotine devices - Hall - 2015 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

All venomous parasites in the tobacco control industry masquerading as Public Health should be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity

Ya know DrMa, when I first began really reading this section of the forum I thought you were a bit hard core with comments like the one I bolded but the more I've read and learned I've come to feel the same way you do and just as strongly. I appreciate all the work you do in finding these articles and sharing them with us, you've been a big part of my eduation in this matter and I thank you.

 

[caramel]

Ya know DrMa, when I first began really reading this section of the forum I thought you were a bit hard core with comments like the one I bolded but the more I've read and learned I've come to feel the same way you do and just as strongly. I appreciate all the work you do in finding these articles and sharing them with us, you've been a big part of my eduation in this matter and I thank you.

I still think he's a little bit extreme, but then, when it comes to opposing ANTZ, nothing really is.....

 

[Jman8]

Strange really, how this even needs to be pointed out, by "professionals", in a published study. "Ok folks we've finally had someone confirm through science that this practice is unethical."

Agree that it is very strange that it would take this for any scientific type to consider the issue from another angle.

Especially as this:

Method

We examine the ban and alternative policies in terms of the degree to which they respect ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, as follows.

...is not science. Or if it is, then a whole lot of other things are science, and could be changing the scope of science in a very dramatic way. Which I observe as already occurring a century or two ago.

 

[DrMA]

Ya know DrMa, when I first began really reading this section of the forum I thought you were a bit hard core with comments like the one I bolded but the more I've read and learned I've come to feel the same way you do and just as strongly. I appreciate all the work you do in finding these articles and sharing them with us, you've been a big part of my eduation in this matter and I thank you.

I still think he's a little bit extreme, but then, when it comes to opposing ANTZ, nothing really is.....

Thanks, guys. I admit it sounds extreme, but I've learned these tactics from the official rhetoric on the "war on terror". The only way to fight terrorism is to "degrade and eventually destroy the fundamentalist enemy". And there is no more corrupt and fundamentalist enemy than the institutionalized antismoker hatred peddled by ANTZ.

Now is the time to fight fire with fire. We tried asking nicely, educating, sharing research, personal experiences. The result? Advocates get called vermin, ANTZ lies become more shrill, and vaping rights get more eroded.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I'd classify this as a philosophy of science discussion. That is from wiki:

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science.

Given the assessment of available science that e-cigs are a less harmful product and assist in quitting/reducing smoking, the implication of the science is that the bans on e-cigs is unethical.

 

[caramel]

I think the "pursuit of happiness" thing should had been enough... as to never need such discussions.

 

[Woofer]

Kind of a bad issue when one's pursuit of happiness is achieved by making others miserable.

 

[DC2]

I still think he's a little bit extreme, but then, when it comes to opposing ANTZ, nothing really is.....

Would I like to see Stanton Glantz tried for crimes against humanity...
You bet I would. Let a court decide his fate.

Even if he was not found guilty, the entire Tobacco Control industry would be exposed.
And there is no better or quicker way to stop the lies and abuses.

As for his sentencing, I don't think he should get the death penalty.
In fact, I wouldn't even be so cruel as to subject him to what he and his ilk have subjected us to.

I'd just like to see him terminated from his position, disgraced, and then ignored.