NH newspaper article

[Killjoy1]

Hey guys, just sharing this link in case anyone else would like to comment to the Union Leader on it. Greg Conley contacted me this morning about it so that I could send them a response as a NH resident. They of course will accept responses from non-NH residents, but won't guarantee they'll be printed. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have enough of a response to perhaps prompt an editorial comment or perhaps further, more favorable, coverage on the subject in the future

Are e-cigarettes blowing smoke? | New Hampshire NEWHAMPSHIRE02


SUBMITTING A LETTER OT THE EDITOR -- GUIDELINES:
For verification, letters must include the writer's name, full address and daytime phone. Names and home towns will always be printed. Published letters from Manchester and Nashua will include street addresses.
You may e-mail a letter to letters@unionleader.com. Please do not send separate attachments, but include your message in the body of the e-mail window. We do not guarantee that out-of-state e-mail letters will be published.

There is also a 200 character limit, if I'm not mistaken

 

[mightymen]

You have to take this artile as a grain of salt. Thank God there not regulated look what there doing passing 1000s regulated every month do we really need them. Most are being pass for one reason MONEY big business getting richer keeping/pushing the small guy out.

The article says "propylene glycol - also is also cause for concern, according to Tanski. Propylene glycol is found in products such as deodorant and hand sanitizer but goes no further to say in food coloring and almost all are food. Notice that it said found in sanitzer/deodorant."

Propylene glycol can be found in sunscreen lotions, body was, eye liner, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

This article like most of them is always out to scare people with only the negative side from groups that say anything to try and prove there point of view.

 

[Brewlady]

You have to take this artile as a grain of salt.

People who have already found vaping may be able to do this, but if a smoker reads this type of article they might be discouraged enough to not bother trying ANY safer alternative. Since our government won't tell smokers the truth, when an article is published that contains the ANTZ phrasing like "have no way of knowing", potentially", "might", "could", etc, backed up by the recommendations to use "proven methods" (that have such a horrible success rate they shouldn't even remain on the market), it's important to comment with counterpoints.

WE are proof that e-cigs do get people to stop smoking. The FDA prohibits the industry from telling the truth, vapers voices must be heard. I don't want to go back to smoking, and I don't want the government to screw this up for me.

This quote taken from EKKA UK's blog (in response to the EU wanting to ban e-liquid) posted by Rolygate pretty much sums up my feelings:

A historic moment

This will probably mark the first time in history that the public has had to go to the black market to buy healthier products as a result of government forcing them to choose the most dangerous products.

Note that NRTs are not a viable choice, they have a 95% to 98% failure rate, and are essentially useless. At least 95% of smokers who quit using NRTs are smoking again after 20 months, and after 3 years the failure rate approaches 99%.