Positive News; Ignorant People

[rsdntbplr]

Over the past couple of weeks, the UK media seems to have begun to publish articles about electronic cigarettes which are positively more open-minded and, for once, not based on incorrectly interpreted scientific information. We have seen a number of articles, such as one mentioned in a separate thread and other news which clearly states information such as "E-cigarettes could save over 50,000 lives in the UK, experts say".

Although I am delighted by the positive portrayal of vaping on behalf of one of the biggest news outlets in the world (BBC News) and other news outlets (The Guardian, Telegraph etc), I am not so happy about the comments on these news articles.

"Nice. Just don't do it in my airspace".

"This is about making money - e cigarettes are lethal and the vapour from secondhand 'smoke' is extremely dangerous - next I see a ..... puffing on a plastic ... like some overweight chump at a school nativity play I'm gonna introduce them to the ice bucket challenge as a way of outing their pathetic and hilarious 'habit'"

I just cannot believe the naivety or, in fact, plain ignorance of some people. Even when presented with the positive facts, they assume that e-cigarettes are lethal and state it as a matter of fact.

Even worse, I constantly hear of smokers proclaiming that they are better off smoking and that vaping is harmful. Smokers. Telling people that they shouldn't vape. I'm not saying I'm above smokers but to say it's a touch hypocritical wouldn't quite be a good enough description.

Positive news here:
E-cigarettes could save over 50,000 lives in the UK, experts say | Society | The Guardian
E-cigarettes could 'save the lives of tens of thousands of smokers,' claim scientists | Mail Online
BBC News - E-cigarette criticisms 'alarmist' say researchers

 

[DrMA]

What you're seeing is far more than ignorance. It's pure, unadulterated hatred. The general public have been re-educated by 50 years of unfettered ANTZ propaganda and demonization to instinctively hate smokers, as well as tobacco in general, nicotine, even the appearance of smoke, etc. How many times have you experienced the infamous fake cough from random people in the street at the sight of vapor? The "quit or die" concept is so ingrained into Western culture, that the general public no longer considers any alternative, and are equally happy with of those two either outcomes for smokers.

 

[DC2]

And once again, an opportunity to link to the decades-long plan to demonize smokers...
The Godber Blueprint: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

The contemporary antismoking crusade has manipulated/altered psychology and social/economic/cultural/political structures the world over. One of the manipulations instrumental in its ‘success’ is avoiding scrutiny by smearing anyone that dares question antismoking policies and methods. By its beliefs and tactics, antismoking conducts itself like a cult. The antismoking industry is now so large and mainstream that questionable, inflammatory claims are produced with high regularity. There are so many such claims working to an agenda that it is impossible to keep up with scrutiny.

The current antismoking crusade has a clear beginning and framework. Rather than try to keep abreast of a myriad of questionable claims, it is wiser to consider what the antismoking framework has been from the outset, and to consider it by antismokers’ own words. Provided below are excerpts from antismoking conferences and manuals. By this information, the public can then properly judge the basis and nature of the contemporary antismoking ‘movement’.

 

[Kent C]

And once again, an opportunity to link to the decades-long plan to demonize smokers...
The Godber Blueprint: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Good piece. I'm not sure why they pull 'materialism' into the argument. It's rather irrelevant for their point, imo, (but not in theirs evidently This is one area where I agree with jman to an extent - ie. smoking related deaths are greatly exaggerated and the way they are counted/defined is part of the propaganda/demonizing campaign - we, imo, should no longer use the 480,00 number. But it isn't zero It is likely the case that there is an 8-10% shorter lifespan, but if someone would have died at 100, dies at 92 ... meh....

But if your genetics are such that you would live to be say 70 - those 6-7 years may be worth a consideration. As it is, in real life terms the 'cost' doesn't live up to the propaganda and demonization, imo. I can think of a few more other diseases that are 'in the control of behavior or diet, etc.' and where the percentages are much higher than the effects of cigarettes, that may justify the histrionics, but that doesn't seem to be the case with them. And if some drunk driver dies in an accident it is much more accurate to say that he died from drinking, than having an 80 yr. old, who once experimented with cigarettes when he was 15 and quit within a year, dies, and then characterize (and add to the stats) his death, as 'smoking related'.

 

[Nate760]

This is one area where I agree with jman to an extent - ie. smoking related deaths are greatly exaggerated and the way they are counted/defined is part of the propaganda/demonizing campaign - we, imo, should no longer use the 480,000 number.

It makes me physically cringe when I see vapers and vaping advocates regurgitating ANTZ propaganda (the "480,000 tobacco deaths every year" thing being a prime example). Our cause is not served by spewing out manifestly false statistics that were invented by the very people who oppose us. Just because we no longer smoke doesn't mean we should run around repeating every anti-smoking lie we happen to hear. This is both self-serving and intellectually dishonest, and does nothing but diminish our credibility.

 

[Kent C]

It makes me physically cringe when I see vapers and vaping advocates regurgitating ANTZ propaganda (the "480,000 tobacco deaths every year" thing being a prime example). Our cause is not served by spewing out manifestly false statistics that were invented by the very people who oppose us. Just because we no longer smoke doesn't mean we should run around repeating every anti-smoking lie we happen to hear. This is both self-serving and intellectually dishonest, and does nothing but diminish our credibility.

We agree. And, unfortunately, but fortunately for us now (in other areas), some of our advocates were part of pushing that number and sadly, some still do. It's our biggest collective lie, imo. But it's something the ANTZ don't disagree with. .. nor the gov't controllers.

 

[DrMA]

We gotta pick our battles, folks. We can't advocate for ecigs, while at the same time challenging the established dogma of tobacco evils. I'm willing to accept (not endorse) their numbers on tobacco, and use them against arguments in opposition to vaping. With the caveat that these are not mine, but ANTZ numbers, which I'm just referencing as is.

 

[Nate760]

We can't advocate for ecigs, while at the same time challenging the established dogma of tobacco evils.

I'm not suggesting that we undertake the dual mission of advocating our own cause and dismantling the web of lies that the ANTZ have spent 30 years weaving. I'm simply saying we shouldn't try to strengthen our own argument by throwing around numbers we know to be false. Our argument stands on its own merit. It doesn't need to be supported in such a manner.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

We need to use their own numbers against them, they created them lets make them live with it for now. you can always say according to the ANTZ e-cigarettes could save 480,000 lives a year.

Their figures, let them choke on them.

 

[rothenbj]

We need to use their own numbers against them, they created them lets make them live with it for now. you can always say according to the ANTZ e-cigarettes could save 480,000 lives a year.

Their figures, let them choke on them.

I totally understand that argument and really expect that number to be expanded this year with the SG report stating that cigarette smoking effects basically every organ in the body. That, to me, was setting them up to associate a whole new group of diseases with smoking, thus expanding the smoking related deaths. Their ultimate goal is to insure that if you ever smoked, you'll become a smoking related casualty in their statistics. I wouldn't be surprised that aging will soon be related to smoking so I you die at 104 you would have lived longer had you just not smoked. Is that cynical enough.

I for one have no problem using their statistics against them, but I shall never use those same statistics against smokers. I'll also never become one of those ex-smokers that somehow now can't tolerate smoking and I won't blame the tobacco industry. There was enough information out there when I started to know I shouldn't have so it's all on me. I know where I came from.

 

[Linden]

Working in a hospital and regularly reviewing the charts of my patients, I have noted that 'ever cigarette use' stays on the electronic charts into perpetuity. (The health system I work for was among the first to go electronic). So lets say I have a patient who is 88 and quit smoking 30 years ago. That information sticks to the patient history like super glue. The same patient may also have heart disease and later dies from related factors. Does the CDC count this person as a smoking related death?
Anyways, I'm not saying you should withhold information from your physician but everything is going electronic now and the goal is for your medical history to be easily accessible across healthcare systems in the US. Something to consider. I'm 38 and in good health and see no possible benefit to sharing that aspect of my history with the medical professionals I will encounter in the future.

 

[Nate760]

I'll also never become one of those ex-smokers that somehow now can't tolerate smoking and I won't blame the tobacco industry.

There is, for my money, no more insufferable group of people on this planet than self-righteous former smokers. Especially the ones who quit cold turkey and then spend the rest of their lives claiming moral superiority over anyone who quit a different way. Some of those people deserve to be punched in the throat.

 

[rsdntbplr]

There is, for my money, no more insufferable group of people on this planet than self-righteous former smokers. Especially the ones who quit cold turkey and then spend the rest of their lives claiming moral superiority over anyone who quit a different way. Some of those people deserve to be punched in the throat.

I've encountered a LOT of ex-smokers of whom feel they have the glory of the sun shining out of their rear ends because they've quit. Sure, it's difficult and a great achievement but that doesn't mean anyone is superior to the smoker because of it.

There is also a group of ex-smokers that quit cold turkey and see themselves as superior to people that quit using eCigs, patches, gum, spray or whatever.

I guess whatever makes people feel better about themselves is an excuse to be a jerk.

 

[Nate760]

The same patient may also have heart disease and later dies from related factors. Does the CDC count this person as a smoking related death?

You bet they do. If you smoke and get run over by a train, they'll count that as a smoking-related death too. There's no length of dishonesty to which they won't stoop in supporting the fictional notion that smoking kills 400-something thousand Americans every year.

The amazing thing is that anyone actually believes the numbers CDC throws around, when they don't stand up to even the most basic level of scrutiny. Another of their claims is that 2,100 people become regular smokers every day in the US; if this were true, and the 480,000 deaths number was also accurate, then the number of smokers should be increasing by almost 300,000 per year, not holding steady at around 40 million like it has for the last half century.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

You bet they do. If you smoke and get run over by a train, they'll count that as a smoking-related death too. There's no length of dishonesty to which they won't stoop in supporting the fictional notion that smoking kills 400-something thousand Americans every year.

The amazing thing is that anyone actually believes the numbers CDC throws around, when they don't stand up to even the most basic level of scrutiny. Another of their claims is that 2,100 people become regular smokers every day in the US; if this were true, and the 480,000 deaths number was also accurate, then the number of smokers should be increasing by almost 300,000 per year, not holding steady at around 40 million like it has for the last half century.

Now I understand why they are teaching this creative math.