This article was in the Sacramento Bee on September 7, 2010. Thought I would post it here.
Newspaper article in the Sacramento Bee
- Thread starter kawirich
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Here is the link to the online story: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/01/2998181/e-cigs-gaining-steam-amid-calls.html
See also: E Cigarette Popularity Increases Despite 'Quit Or Die' Policy of Health Organizations - PR Newswire - sacbee.com
See also: E Cigarette Popularity Increases Despite 'Quit Or Die' Policy of Health Organizations - PR Newswire - sacbee.com
Remember the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"? The emporer had been taken in by an unscrupulous tailor and ended up parading down the street wearing nothing at all. Everyone greatly admired the Emperor's new outfit. "What lovely fabric. What exquisite stitching. How well it fits." Finally one little boy piped up, "The Emperor is naked!"
At first the adults tried to get the little boy to shut up. But he stuck to his guns, and eventually the rest of the population woke up from the spell they had been under and took up the cry.
The moral of my story is that as long as we refuse to sit down and shut up, sooner or later the truth will come out. And it will eventually come out on the front page.
At first the adults tried to get the little boy to shut up. But he stuck to his guns, and eventually the rest of the population woke up from the spell they had been under and took up the cry.
The moral of my story is that as long as we refuse to sit down and shut up, sooner or later the truth will come out. And it will eventually come out on the front page.
i'm personally still stuck on the quit or die policy that these groups have. what happened to live and let live? what happened to basic human rights for that matter, (namely that 1's person is their own to do w/ as they see fit?) I can understand w/ 2nd hand smoke in cigarettes that could be infringing on the rights of others, but smokeless tobacco and tobaccoless alternatives that don't produce 2nd hand smoke? it seems to me that these people are infringing on the basic human rights of anyone not of the same mind as them.
i would honestly hurt myself laughing if some militarized organization announced that they had a quit or die policy on those that would infringe on other's basic human rights.
and after i hurt myself laughing i'd trip over myself to join up.
i would honestly hurt myself laughing if some militarized organization announced that they had a quit or die policy on those that would infringe on other's basic human rights.
and after i hurt myself laughing i'd trip over myself to join up.
Their stance is that there is no safe tobacco product and the availability of these products are "gateways" for teens to smoking. So, even if smokeless isn't "bothering" anyone or infringing upon their rights, they've come up with convoluted justifications to take them away anyhow - claiming that the health costs of tobacco use infringes upon others who have to foot the bill or being a risk to children.
But it all conveniently ignores the fact that telling the truth about smokeless would actually REDUCE these risks and costs. They claim that telling the truth would cause people who otherwise wouldn't use tobacco to try it, under the belief that it was "safe" and that would actually RAISE health costs/risks, because now more people are using tobacco. What they again ignore is the research and scientific analysis that shows that for every ONE person who actually switched from smoking to smokeless, something like 50-100 non-smokers would have to start using smokeless tobacco for the health risks to even compare. It also ignores the real-world example in Sweden, where they have some of the highest tobacco consumption in the EU, but the lowest incedence of smoking, so the claim that using smokeless is a gateway is also baseless.
Don't try to find logic in their arguments - there isn't any. It's pure, blind zealotry against any tobacco use or anything that LOOKS like tobacco use.
But it all conveniently ignores the fact that telling the truth about smokeless would actually REDUCE these risks and costs. They claim that telling the truth would cause people who otherwise wouldn't use tobacco to try it, under the belief that it was "safe" and that would actually RAISE health costs/risks, because now more people are using tobacco. What they again ignore is the research and scientific analysis that shows that for every ONE person who actually switched from smoking to smokeless, something like 50-100 non-smokers would have to start using smokeless tobacco for the health risks to even compare. It also ignores the real-world example in Sweden, where they have some of the highest tobacco consumption in the EU, but the lowest incedence of smoking, so the claim that using smokeless is a gateway is also baseless.
Don't try to find logic in their arguments - there isn't any. It's pure, blind zealotry against any tobacco use or anything that LOOKS like tobacco use.
Vocalek,
thank you for finding the online article, i couldnt find it and wouldnt have been able to figure out how to post the link.
Their reticence to favor the e-cigarette is probably due to the obscene amounts of money that Big Tobacco sends their way.
- Status
Similar threads
