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?
Am I missing something here?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Oh, and you do realize that the WHO intends to classify e-cigarettes as "tobacco" in their conference in October 2014, right? .
You made my day that was a really funny video. I can't' stop laughing. She was so real, definitely not acting.@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....
Can I ask you a question, Jman8?
Why did you choose to vape vs smoking?
Yes, I did. Are you implying that I would agree with this?
Anja. Can I ask you a question?
Why did you stop smoking and switch to vaping?
That is the one thing I have always wished that EVERY vaper everywhere would read.
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!![]()
And here it is again, for those who may have missed it Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
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
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?
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).
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."
...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.
... 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.
it gives the lifestyle regulators "what every trigger-happy army general wants: a war without end
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?