Why the need to cut back? And you better be careful calling smoking "unhealthy." You're liable to really start something with Anja. And yourself.
Nicorette ads: Don't vape - quit for good (Jul 2014)
- Thread starter Anjaffm
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Why the need to cut back? And you better be careful calling smoking "unhealthy." You're liable to really start something with Anja. And yourself.
Holy crap that's a long and big read.
Oh well i'm going to take my time with it later!
Thanks for the link!
Yeah... we have a place like that in America, as well.
It's called our living room.
Heck, I'd settle for some truth in our politics! Truth in advertising.... I believe there's a law against that in the U.S.!
So between gravely dangerous / highly addictive and benign there is empty space and no room for anything else? Like vaping, smoking isn't exactly harmless. And also like vaping, there is a well organized group of people, let's call them ANTZ, who have data readily available to show massive dangers. Albeit highly inflated, mostly deceptive data, but it's available. Just don't second guess it or use reason to address that data, or ya know, you're a shill.
Abusive smoking, or what I'd call 'normal use' can lead to unhealthy conditions. And by unhealthy, I mean: wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, and in some cases, but surely not all, worse conditions. Again, this is abusive smoking or people who do not really ever learn to smoke in moderation.
I've learned to smoke in moderation, so no wheezing, very infrequent coughing, no shortness of breath. If I vape heavily, I don't get the wheezing, I may get a little coughing going on, and at times a tad light headed or slight feeling of nausea. Comparing both of those to cold turkey, I would say they are not optimal health conditions. And yet, for a few months while being cold turkey, I remember migraines almost every day. Took up smoking again, and migraines went down to about 2 a month.
There are dozens of people who are over 100 years old that smoke 2 a day. Now, how'd they go on to be a hundred years of age if smoking is so darn deadly and certain cause of premature death?
@redddog:
Let us clarify something here.
When you are speaking of smoking being harmful, you you mean
1. harmful to the smokers themselves?
or
2. harmful to bystanders through so-called second-hand smoke?
and / or
3. harmful to those who happen to enter a room where a smoker - who leaves the room once in a while to smoke outside - happens to sit on the sofa? (what "public health" like to call "third hand smoke")
Please clarify.
And please note that in my postings above, I was always speaking of second hand smoke. Because that is the reason given to enact smoking bans etc.
So:
1. please clarify what you mean
2. please read my postings correctly
3. please read the links provided
alternatively (if you do not wish to do 1 - 3):
4. please do not attempt to participate in the discussion.
Let us clarify something here.
When you are speaking of smoking being harmful, you you mean
1. harmful to the smokers themselves?
or
2. harmful to bystanders through so-called second-hand smoke?
and / or
3. harmful to those who happen to enter a room where a smoker - who leaves the room once in a while to smoke outside - happens to sit on the sofa? (what "public health" like to call "third hand smoke")
Please clarify.
And please note that in my postings above, I was always speaking of second hand smoke. Because that is the reason given to enact smoking bans etc.
So:
1. please clarify what you mean
2. please read my postings correctly
3. please read the links provided
alternatively (if you do not wish to do 1 - 3):
4. please do not attempt to participate in the discussion.
You two are funny.
OK. you convinced me. Smoking cigarrettes is not harmful.
Hey everybody! All this time we thought that cigarettes had a negative impact on your health, turns out they don't!
Now what am I gonna do with all this useless vaping stuff.
OK. you convinced me. Smoking cigarrettes is not harmful.
Hey everybody! All this time we thought that cigarettes had a negative impact on your health, turns out they don't!
Now what am I gonna do with all this useless vaping stuff.
Last edited:
Honestly, though.
This is the most unexpected and puzzling debate I've ever been a part of.
Never expected a pro-cigarette debate on a Vape board.
This is the most unexpected and puzzling debate I've ever been a part of.
Never expected a pro-cigarette debate on a Vape board.
But statistically relevant when the word "causation" is being misused. Just because smoking and premature death can be correlated in some cases, doesn't mean that smoking, on principle causes that. And both smoking in moderation and people living to be over 100 who are smokers helps counter the statistically significant accepted data that is clearly trumped up to create a false impression.
To me, this reads like a concession on what you said in post #32 where you wrote:
Going from "highly dangerous" to implication that there is some degree of harm in using cigarettes, to hopefully swing things back to your side of the equation. Someone jumping in on post #69 will wonder who is saying cigarettes don't have any negative health impact?
Whereas my post #65 conveys specific negative impacts. As it does with vaping.
Here's a little experiment to try out. Go to "General E-Smoking Discussions" portion of ECF, and post a thread along lines of, "Isn't vaping harmless?" Make a case that says vaping is harmless, and see what happens. I predict, most everyone will shoot that notion of harmlessness down. Here on a vaping forum. If things go too far in direction of "vaping can cause negative health impacts to users" then there will be plenty that say, "but compared to smoking..." to help bring about a "fair" perspective.
Point being, no one including myself or Anjaffm has said smoking or even SHS is harmless. But as you kinda sorta realize you can't actually win on the "highly dangerous" part, then you must resort to changing what we are saying to hopefully save face in what you said earlier (and which I've now quoted twice).
For me it is a pro-proper perspective debate. ANTZ has clearly created a narrative for tobacco products that is meant to disparage all forms of that product (as they perceive it) and this includes vaping. Very visibly doing negatively charged campaign on vaping in last 2 to 5 years, and using some of the same strategies from the anti-smoking playbook. Which incidentally includes disinformation and has several vapers citing that disinformation as if it were fact.
All I've said since post #33 is to scrutinize the heck out of the ANTZ data on smoking as a vaping enthusiast may do with the anti type data on eCigs/vaping. Plus realize that FSPTCA (tobacco control act), which in political reality is what vaping is up against right now, is based heavily, or entirely, on the ANTZ dogma around smoking.
IMO, this puts the claim from about 25 years ago into proper perspective where ANTZ claimed BT used ads specifically targeted at children. Using same strategy to make it so vaping is not promoted in our society, ever, and to de-normalize its usage to point of zealotry.
Also IMO, if we aren't going to get a little dirty and fight the propaganda battle on terms that they are utilizing (since around 1975), then the reasonable approach to the vaping debate is to attack FSPTCA at its core. For, if we don't then disinformation will be allowed to forever win, based on the idea that only a fool would try to argue that smoking is harmless. Just like another fool might try to argue that vaping is harmless.
Interesting that this thread is no longer about Nicorette QuickMist / nic sprays, and their ads attacking vaping..
Hmm...
Hmm...
Totally. Not sure why it was derailed. But it is interesting.
I don't agree.
[this has been edited to prevent an escalation - please do not go there, thank you]
Last edited by a moderator:
If you don't want this thread closed, we suggest that the trend towards personal insults is checked.
Please.
Please.
I can see how the dots connect. BP, main arm of ANTZ, is attacking vaping based on idea that cessation (through their products) is only reasonable way to go. BP is hence threatened by vaping. Another person says 'threatening BP or BT isn't a good thing' and cites widely known (dis)information about grave harms from smoking. Another person, me, calls that disinformation out because it is relevant to the ANTZ larger narrative, which at far lower level on totem pole, has basis for saying nic sprays are the superior product, and arguably, always will be.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
