Planet of the Vapes: why is there a war on e-cigarettes?

[BuGlen]

Just found this video on YouTube which was published a few days ago, which involves a panel discussion in the UK on the subject of vapor products and public health. It's a very good discussion, so please take the time to review it when you get a chance.

Published on Nov 5, 2015
E-cigarette use has exploded and has been celebrated as the greatest aid to smoking cessation ever invented. Yet, as of 2016 in the UK, e-cigarette manufacturers will have to choose between being regulated as a medicine by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency or adhere to strict new EU regulations similar to tobacco products. The Welsh Health Ministry even want to ban their use in public places. The movement to ban or hyper-regulate e-cigarettes seems less to do with people’s health than a concern to attack and control our lifestyle choices. In this fascinating debate filmed at the Battle of Ideas, speakers tell it like it is and Chris Snowden argues compellingly public health policy needs to be stubbed out.

 

[pennysmalls]

Just watched it, lots of rational thinking going on in that room.

 

[TyPie]

Why is there a war on e-cigs??

Great question!
Been asking myself that question for almost 3 years now.... (I quit smoking by switching to e-cigs almost three years ago...lol...)

 

[B2L]

Why is there a war on e-cigs??

Great question!
Been asking myself that question for almost 3 years now.... (I quit smoking by switching to e-cigs almost three years ago...lol...)

That's an easy one...

 

[CarolT]

Aaargh. The government is a CRIMINAL, not a nanny. Its agents deliberately commit scientific fraud to falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our rights, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony dangers of secondhand smoke is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

And they'll commit the same frauds against e-cigs. As for fighting them, as long as people swallow the health lies and think the government is merely a "nanny," their brains have been "pwned" by the enemy. You can't fight them by being them. So all they do is nitpick about small details, while the outrage of the big picture is never addressed. The anti-smoking persecution is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not just annoying "nannyism" by a loving government that cares about our health.

 

[edyle]

Why is there a war on e-cigs??

Great question!
Been asking myself that question for almost 3 years now.... (I quit smoking by switching to e-cigs almost three years ago...lol...)

Answer: tobacco revenues are falling.

 

[DC2]

Answer: tobacco revenues are falling.

That covers a big chunk of it...

But it should be noted that Big Pharma is losing (or anticipating losing) lots of money too...
--NRT sales are falling
--Expensive treatments for smokers will eventually dry up

And with Big Pharma loses comes the prospect of the ANTZ groups funding drying up...
FORCES International - News Portal

 

[philoshop]

Why?
Because it's a clear and present danger to the very concept of Big Government. Especially the Worldwide Big Government that so many yearn for.
People helping themselves in the guidance of their own personal lives is simply unacceptable behavior.

 

[WharfRat1976]

There is no war on ecigs. The government wants to gain the tax revenue so they can pay themselves and employ more people. The States need he money so they don't go bankrupt...all in the name of "public health." It's disgraceful.

 

[zahidraja]

I found myself nodding along to Christopher Snowden. ‘E-cigarettes are not risk free, but are significantly less harmful than cigarettes.” <- I imagine this becoming ‘the’ account on e-cigarettes doesn’t sit well with lots of people interested in maintaining the status quo.

 

[EBates]

Why the war on vaping?
Money - MSA, Taxes, Pharm profits, Tobacco Profits, Political Donations
Power - Gov't ability to Dictate/Regulate our Lives
Lies - Second Hand Smoke, Vaping is as bad/worse than smoking, Save The Children

 

[Kent C]

I found myself nodding along to Christopher Snowden. ‘E-cigarettes are not risk free, but are significantly less harmful than cigarettes.”

I find myself doing a facepalm. Nothing is risk-free but we don't feel the need to say it every time we mention it. This is a 'gift' to TC in a way - being "reasonable" without reason. A fault of many THR'ers that by now should know better. They aren't getting any 'gifts' from TC - only insults.

 

[Elizabeth Baldwin]

Our government isn't going to stop until they control every aspect of our lives. It is about money! But they want vaping eradicated! It makes me sick listening to the senators/representatives spew outright lies about vaping. We've given our leaders too much power and now it's almost impossible to take it back.

 

[AndriaD]

Our government isn't going to stop until they control every aspect of our lives. It is about money! But they want vaping eradicated! It makes me sick listening to the senators/representatives spew outright lies about vaping. We've given our leaders too much power and now it's almost impossible to take it back.

Pretty sure that's why our Founding Fathers gave us that 2nd amendment. They *KNEW* that all gov't eventually gets too big for its britches.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

We've given our leaders too much power

We didn't give it to them, they took it. Around the 1913-1919 and more later and they still haven't stopped.

now it's almost impossible to take it back.

They figured on that too - once someone gets 'used to' the lower and middle class subsidies - where the numbers are at, it's hard to get it back. And as long as you keep them propagandized with gov't schools who teach that this is the way it should be - ultimately, they'll never know how free they could be. Now they want freedom from diverse ideas as well - safe spaces. I think a padded cell might do the trick.

 

[edyle]

There is no war on ecigs. The government wants to gain the tax revenue so they can pay themselves and employ more people. The States need he money so they don't go bankrupt...all in the name of "public health." It's disgraceful.

can I just...
employ
enslave

 

[skoony]

I find myself doing a facepalm. Nothing is risk-free but we don't feel the need to say it every time we mention it. This is a 'gift' to TC in a way - being "reasonable" without reason. A fault of many THR'ers that by now should know better. They aren't getting any 'gifts' from TC - only insults.

Kent am I correct in assuming that just because nothing is risk free that this doesn't
necessarily translate to its causing actual harm at the individual level? I was taught
that there's real risk. It will harm you. Then there's potential risk. We feel it "might",
"possibly","maybe" be harmful if a thousand and one conditions are met but,we
really don't know.
There are things that even when you take the real risk involved that risk is so
low as not to merit any worry at all. Then there's potential risk which does not
mean there is actually any risk but, there is a remote unproven possibility so lets all just
freak out about it. One could say its potentially safe and be just as correct.
These are my thoughts concerning this.

Regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

Kent am I correct in assuming that just because nothing is risk free that this doesn't
necessarily translate to its causing actual harm at the individual level? I was taught
that there's real risk. It will harm you. Then there's potential risk. We feel it "might",
"possibly","maybe" be harmful if a thousand and one conditions are met but,we
really don't know.
There are things that even when you take the real risk involved that risk is so
low as not to merit any worry at all. Then there's potential risk which does not
mean there is actually any risk but, there is a remote unproven possibility so lets all just
freak out about it. One could say its potentially safe and be just as correct.
These are my thoughts concerning this.

Regards
mike

My point is that there are many things that have risks and potential risks. But when we mention, say 'jogging' or even driving a car - we don't feel 'obligated' to say that "x is not risk free", before stating the benefits. It's a weasel's way of saying 'don't hit me for telling the truth'. In this case he's attempting to get agreement/appeasement from the TC faction, and as I've said, they don't seem to be at all interested, and hardly ever give a similar 'gift' in return - a bit like someone who doesn't carry the full party line on global warming. They get trashed by the zealots. (sometimes losing tenure and getting death threats). So it does them no good to say, for example, 'I think there's warming, but I don't think it is man-made' or 'I think there's man-made global warming, but I don't think socialist policies are the solution.' - they still lose their jobs and get death threats. See Bjorn Lomborg's story. Or in ecigs - Bill Goodshall's.

 

[philoshop]

You'll never see a television ad for a pharmaceutical product that starts with, "It's not risk free, but..."
It's a poor way to begin a 'sales pitch'.

 

[EBates]

You'll never see a television ad for a pharmaceutical product that starts with, "It's not risk free, but..."
It's a poor way to begin a 'sales pitch'.

So the 'sales pitch' for vaping (if we could advertise, or were allowed to speak the truth) would be modeled after the BP claims.
Good idea. But wait our ads would far too short. The list of side effects associated with the BP trash take up half of the ad. What could we do with all that dead air.