hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/..._5882004.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
And the authors thinks that a good thing? Yea let them continue to smoke and kill themselves, as long as they don't try those evil e-cigs.
There's just too much money to be made in keeping people sick from smoking. It's unfortunate, but the Federal Death Administration is pushing in that direction.
Making money is a good thing, until someone gets hurt; Corporations have a responsibility to do what's best for their consumers, while BT gets away with poisoning them with additives rather than provide them a higher-quality product that has less risk compared to their current "line of death" products.
Doctors are violating their own code if they speak against e-cigarettes, especially as a whole. More on this, later. (I'll post the entire thing below)
I intentionally broke your link in the quote (replaced http with 'hxxp'. Apologies for doing so, but let's not
give any more revenue to these junk science pushers.
Honestly, the entire "a new government study" thing without a reference to the actual study?
Who did the study? Was it independent or government-funded? Which group? How were the participants chosen?
All those questions and more are raised in my mind when I see such stories pop up in the media.
Who does 'Huff think they're fooling?
What seriously surprised me was when Lorillard decided to buy Blu, and I thought to myself, "People are actually going to
buy these things"?
I literally stopped people from purchasing them when I was working retail, even going as far as to ask them whether they'd tried an "e-cigarette" (I personally despise this term, I think "personal vaporizer" is more all-encompassing of the devices we're using as a whole) and whether it looked like the Blu. A lot of times the answer was "yes", to which I'd respond by showing them my Vision Spinner (and later the VAMO v5) coupled with an EVOD or GS-H2.
I wouldn't even bother to carry these in retail outlets, because they're just "barely enough" if they work for the person at all, and the 'pack equivalency' thing on there (don't know if it's still there or not) is an outright lie. No way is someone getting three packs of analogs worth of vapor from a cigalike, unless they're the type of analog user who frequently snuffs an analog after a few puffs.
Cigalikes in general have a bad rap in the vaping community, but I know some people who use them just because they look similar to an analog. I've spoken to some people who were told by their doctors that it was "worse for you than smoking", and I knew I was pushing the line when I responded with, "well, your doctor is an idiot" and a smile.
I know how my chest x-rays look: They're free of the chronic bronchitis I was suffering from whilst smoking. October will be the month I'll have gone 3 full years without a single analog. Maybe it's the type of e-liquids I vape, what I vape them on; I don't know. What I do know is that vaping as a whole, has saved me a whole lot of health risk and money simultaneously. I only smoked for 11 years, so... just my
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also; the
Doctor's Hippocratic Oath;
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Emphasis on above bolded line mine.
Credit goes entirely to Medterms.com.
They really
do need to focus on prevention. BT can make money off of PVs / ECigs, but they'll need to impress the heck out of us with juice quality before bootleg juice vendors pop up as a result of BT lobbyists / 'anonymous' donations to legislature making it so the legal fine print ends up prohibitively expensive for startups.... which is
exactly what they are trying to do.
Prohibition or strong-arming of local businesses when there's already a practical monopoly over BT in general?
I think we might be able to shoot this down before it gains too much altitude.
I'm going to say it again; it's our
liberty that allows us to vape. We have a choice to do it rather than smoke, so we make that informed decision.
Unfortunately, common sense in the legislative branch ought to be called "
uncommon sense," because we're really not seeing that many
sensible decisions by the feds.
That's all of my rambling, for now. I think I should write a book, next time.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
