Nicorette ads: Don't vape - quit for good (Jul 2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Jman8.

Are you actually arguing that stating that there is irrefutable eveidence that cigarretes are a dangerous health concern is nonsense? If that's the case, why the hell even bother with vaping?

I am stating that the claim "cigarettes are highly dangerous and addictive" is nonsense that needs to be called out and scrutinized, especially as that is basis of FSPTCA and what vaping is actually up against in the US, which influences how rest of world will respond. I for sure stand by idea that counterpoints overcome any bold, and rather irrational, claims that suggest the evidence is irrefutable.

One can vape and smoke or vape and not smoke without having to demonize smoking for vaping to be palatable.

Am I missing something here?

What I think you are possibly missing is that the data which I feel you can easily cite to make your point are also same organizations setting out to demonize vaping, using similar type data. I think this matters greatly. I think it takes away from credibility of those organizations and that alone makes the smoking data open to reasonable refutation. Plus, just look into how is a smoking related death figured and you too would see that it is not hard science making that sort of determination but a very loose conclusion reached, which just so happens to support the spin that a particular side would love for everyone to believe.

So if they were to look at banning smoking based on HARM ALONE, you're saying that they would determine that smoking wasn't harmful enough to ban? But Vaping is. To borrow a phrase from you, that's total nonsense.

Not saying vaping is harmful to ban and not sure how you got there. I'm saying reason why smoking is allowed to stay, and not be banned, is because of politicians who have authority/power to decide on such a ban. If smoking were banned by current set of politicians, based on trumped up data, they would have little problem finding trumped up data about vaping, and plausibly would seek ban on that based on (false) notion that vaping harms people.

Larger point I am making is that smoking data is trumped up to tell a particular narrative that allows for regulation to be a cash cow for as long as smoking is a cash cow. Banning would mean government doesn't see that money, while smoking would still be a cash cow (for organized crime). Which it actually already is, as high excise taxes have allowed organized crime to make lots of money off a legally sold product.

Here on vaping forum, if someone posts latest article bashing vaping based on certain (false) data, we scrutinize the heck out of the data and the sources (their bias). I invite everyone reading this to do the same thing with data on smoking, and not fall for some naive notion that the evidence for great harm from smoking is irrefutable.
 

Anjaffm

Dragon Lady
ECF Veteran
Sep 12, 2013
2,468
8,639
Germany
Aside from the fact that we seem to disagree on the fact that tobacco smoke has been shown to be addictive and have negative health implications irrefutably(which is presumably why most if not all of us chose vaping as an alternative), it seems like we're arguing about semantics.

coming to Jman8's side:

no, we are not arguing about semantics.
Get yourself a pot of coffee (or whatever you like to drink, this is long) and take a good look at the origins of all the "second-hand smoke is harmful" rhetoric:

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

The document starts in 1975. Take a good look at it - and then compare the "wisdom" that you took for granted for all those years. See where it came from. See who started disseminating this "information". That most of us (me included) mistook for truth. Because "everybody said it".

Oh, and you do realize that the WHO intends to classify e-cigarettes as "tobacco" in their conference in October 2014, right? Yes, they wish to subject our e-liquids, consisting of 5 substances, producing none of that oh-so-harmful second-hand smoke, to the same rhetoric, the same bans, the same demonization.
see here WHO plans e-cigarette offensive « The counterfactual

I strongly advise you to take the time to take a good look at these two documents, in this order.
 
Last edited:
This ad really amuses me. Even though I initially started vaping simply as a cheaper alternative to cigarettes (which NRTs are definitely not), I am now completely off the analogs and have begun spreading the gospel to others. Vaping is revolutionary even if it doesn't work as a cessation method, when obviously the other things simply don't work for most people.

And the Chantix commercials have always amused me simply because most of the people I know who have used it either switched to chewing (which I don't see as better than cigarettes; just a different cancer to aim for) or, like my parents, to vaping after seeing my success.
Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Aside from the fact that we seem to disagree on the fact that tobacco smoke has been shown to be addictive and have negative health implications irrefutably(which is presumably why most if not all of us chose vaping as an alternative), it seems like we're arguing about semantics.

While semantics may play a role in the discussion, we have not been shown irrefutably that smoking is either harmful or addictive. Perhaps you don't understand what irrefutable means?
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
coming to Jman8's side:

no, we are not arguing about semantics.
Get yourself a pot of coffee (or whatever you like to drink, this is long) and take a good look at the origins of all the "second-hand smoke is harmful" rhetoric:

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

The document starts in 1975. Take a good look at it - and then compare the "wisdom" that you took for granted for all those years. See where it came from. See who started disseminating this "information". That most of us (me included) mistook for truth. Because "everybody said it".

Very much enjoy reading this piece as it brings rationality to what is a very visible propaganda battle (of disinformation and ill conceived practices) to light. The conclusion from 1975 information says it best:

THE ‘BLUEPRINT’ SUMMARY:

Demonize the tobacco industry. Eradicate all industry advertising. The tobacco industry will be portrayed as always evil, public health as always good. Public health is always right - anyone questioning public health will be smeared (argument ad hominem) as a tobacco industry shill or sympathizer/apologist, i.e., wrong by association.

Smoking will be punished through taxation and the removal of smoking-permitted areas. Any reference to smoking/smokers will always be negative and never positive. Smoking will always be referred to as abnormal behavior. Smoking will be depicted as a non-normal or abnormal behavior. Smokers would be depicted, in a wholly derogatory sense, as ‘nicotine addicts’: Smoking would be ‘reduced’ to no more than nicotine addiction. In short, nonsmokers are ‘superior’, smokers are ‘inferior’.

Those in education and public health will be the first to be brainwashed into antismoking, and should be ‘exemplars’ of ‘normal’, nonsmoking behavior. Those choosing to smoke should have their employment terminated in these ‘exemplar’ industries, to begin with.

Most interesting is that in the ensuing three-plus decades since the Godber Blueprint, the research themes, ‘findings’, ‘interpretations’, re-definitions, and policy demands ALL magically align, one by one, with the Blueprint.
 

niczgreat

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 5, 2009
2,500
2,141
Chino California
@Kent C.
Well, the UK has a place where you / anybody can complain about advertising.
It might be worth a try for those Nicorette ads. After all, hydrochloric acid does not belong in anybody's mouth. Not by a long shot.

This girl here tried to use it as directed:
Nicotine spray reaction - YouTube

And yes, I believe the reaction. I had the same reaction once when buying some nasal spray that I saw in a pharmacy and that promised to head off a cold if used when the first symptoms arose. Eeewwwwwww.... I had the same reaction as the girl in the video! It felt as if my entire nose was filled with acid. Burned like crazy. Like that girl, I ran to the bathroom and rinsed and rinsed and rinsed. Ewwwww....
You made my day that was a really funny video. I can't' stop laughing. She was so real, definitely not acting.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Can I ask you a question, Jman8?

Why did you choose to vape vs smoking?

I am a dual user.

I prefer vaping more often to smoking for a few reasons, but near the top is because I like the many flavors I can inhale with my nicotine.

Also near the top is that as an alternative, vaping has allowed me to cut way back on smoking and thus realize that moderate smoking is not as unhealthy as abusive smoking, or what I understood to be "normal" smoking up until circa 2011.

In case it matters, I have gone cold turkey from smoking for nearly 10 years of my adult life. I very much get what that experience is like and am happy for those who seek that experience. But not so happy when they need to put smoking/smokers down to make themselves feel righteous.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
That is the one thing I have always wished that EVERY vaper everywhere would read.
There is no way to understand what we face without reading that.

If you don't understand, then you're just pissing in the wind.
Throwing out wild speculations without the proper basis for true understanding.

And you'll also learn what Stanton Glantz truly is.
And why you should hate him, as I do.
 

Anjaffm

Dragon Lady
ECF Veteran
Sep 12, 2013
2,468
8,639
Germany
That is the one thing I have always wished that EVERY vaper everywhere would read.
There is no way to understand what we face without reading that.

If you don't understand, then you're just pissing in the wind.
Throwing out wild speculations without the proper basis for true understanding.

And you'll also learn what Stanton Glantz truly is.
And why you should hate him.

Amen! :thumb:

And here it is again, for those who may have missed it Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,271
7,686
Green Lane, Pa
This ad really amuses me. Even though I initially started vaping simply as a cheaper alternative to cigarettes (which NRTs are definitely not), I am now completely off the analogs and have begun spreading the gospel to others. Vaping is revolutionary even if it doesn't work as a cessation method, when obviously the other things simply don't work for most people.

And the Chantix commercials have always amused me simply because most of the people I know who have used it either switched to chewing (which I don't see as better than cigarettes; just a different cancer to aim for) or, like my parents, to vaping after seeing my success.
Sent from my RM-917_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

I liked your comment up to "either switched to chewing (which I don't see as better than cigarettes; just a different cancer to aim for)".

If you take a serious look at the data, smokeless tobacco in almost any form, is orders of magnitude safer than smoking. In particular snus appears to be the safest of all the long term smokeless products but still has managed to be banned in all of the EU other than Sweden, the country with, by far, the lowest rate of "smoking related diseases".

Gman excellent post a few back. That 50% of all smokers will die from smoking statistic that the ANTZ have batted around for years will soon be increased as the SG declared this year that smoking effects every organ in the body. Thus if you smoke or have ever smoked (greater than 99 cigarettes in your life) you are a smoking related death unless you just die of old age (rarely happens, some organ eventually fails).

I fully expect that vaping will be very easy to demonize over time, more so than they do now. Add a question to the medical questionnaire, establish a relationship between vaping and disease (remember most of us spent years smoking before vaping became available so we can be two sport heroes for the ANTZ) and start adding stats to the SG report and it's game on.

Enough cynicism for one post.
 

Zippoz

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 1, 2013
96
61
PNW
While semantics may play a role in the discussion, we have not been shown irrefutably that smoking is either harmful or addictive. Perhaps you don't understand what irrefutable means?


If you are going to argue this direction you might as well say every scientific study ever done is flawed and false. It's about margin of error what was being attempted by the study, and most of all peer review. In the scientific world 100% certainty simply does not exist. Ever. But when several experts are in agreement, for all points and purposes, it is irrefutable. What you are saying is similar to to, "we don't know the diameter of anything because our instruments only measure to one micron" when you are building a house. It just isn't a sound arguement.


That said, yes, many smoking studies have considerable bias. But when 90% are in agreement, perhaps you should reconsider your position.
 
Last edited:

Anjaffm

Dragon Lady
ECF Veteran
Sep 12, 2013
2,468
8,639
Germany
Gman excellent post a few back. That 50% of all smokers will die from smoking statistic that the ANTZ have batted around for years will soon be increased as the SG declared this year that smoking effects every organ in the body. Thus if you smoke or have ever smoked (greater than 99 cigarettes in your life) you are a smoking related death unless you just die of old age (rarely happens, some organ eventually fails).

Good posting, dear. :thumb:

And let me just pick out that bolded sentence.

Christopher Snowdon has this to say about "dying of old age":
Be under no illusion, nobody dies of old age in clinical terms. Even Auntie Nora who died in bed at 103 technically died from a respiratory or circulatory disease, ie. an NCD [Non-communicable disease]. Trying to prevent NCDs per se (as opposed to preventing them below a certain age) is simply absurd. As I wrote in Spiked last year, it gives the lifestyle regulators "what every trigger-happy army general wants: a war without end."

The whole blogpost is worth reading.
Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: The EU's 'lifestyle policy'

And it explains quite nicely the slippery slope. Which argument has been poo poo'ed by the Public Health Control freaks for years, of course.

Here is a quote from this "gem" by Public Health control freaks, attempting to extend their grasp beyond the already demonized tobacco:

...exposure to tobacco prevents the fulfilment of the right to health, as well as several health-related rights, including the right to life, the right to a clean environment and the right to information. Tobacco control measures are intended to implement the commitments of public authorities to respect, protect and fulfil these rights. This argument could be extended to cover other NCD risk factors such as alcoholic beverages and unhealthy food.

...the case law developed thus far may be extended by analogy beyond tobacco to justify EU actions in areas such as the fight against harmful use of alcohol and unhealthy diets.

Read it. Read it again.

And now wrap your mind around the 1st two sentences of the quote. Which were not bolded:

... exposure to tobacco prevents the fulfilment of the right to health, as well as several health-related rights, including the right to life, the right to a clean environment and the right to information. Tobacco control measures are intended to implement the commitments of public authorities to respect, protect and fulfil these rights.

This is what we are up against. These are the kind of people who want to control every facet of our lives.
They did it with smoking. They are starting on vaping.
And they are already setting their sights on sugar, alcohol, trans fats and anything else that they can possibly "control".
Yeah:
it gives the lifestyle regulators "what every trigger-happy army general wants: a war without end

And some members of this forum are trying to start big huge discussions on whether the assertion that second-hand smoke can give you pimples on your hiney is supported by 100 so-called scientists paid to say just that or by 101 so-called scientists paid to say just that. :facepalm:

And then some people wonder why several experienced vapers just do not bother with such nonsense any longer...
 
Last edited:

redddog

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 5, 2012
526
520
57
Rochester, NY
Well, do you agree with it?



For reasons of my own. What's it to you? And what does it have to do with this discussion?

No, Anja. I don't agree. You might be the only person I can think of that would need clarification on that.

And the reason I ask is that you and your argumentative buddy seem to take great offense to my assertion that smoking cigarettes is harmful. So the next logical question for me is "why the hell are you vaping if smoking is so benign?"

Are you not using vaping as a tool for harm reduction? I thought that was the point but apparently, you don't see it as that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread