This hits the nail on the head on the way that the legislators are thinking.
http://www.startribune.com/local/248036301.html
http://www.startribune.com/local/248036301.html
Last edited:
Prediction: If e-cigs are found to be relatively harmless, their use in public will still be regulated.
- Thread starter Painter_
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thanks for sharing that article!!! I think he gets how stupid our Legislators are being!!!! Yes....I said it......STUPID!!!! 
OK so I have been thinking about this and once again have come to the conclusion that the ANTZ are responsible for the phenom that is vaping - and why so many are doing it despite the fact that it hasn't been proven "safe."
Not only did they make pariahs out of smokers and challenge the creation of an alternative that answers all of their complaints about smoking... but with the dawn of the militant antz tactics that created pariahs out of us, they also drilled it into everyone's heads that smoking was the worst thing you could ever do. It's more addicting than the h-drug or the c-drug! Nothing could be worse than smoking ever, so kids never ever do it!!
The message that sent is that every subsequent alternative is by default less harmful. And in doing so, left themselves no real arguments against vaping. We all laugh at the notion that vaping could possibly be more harmful than smoking because we've been told for 50 years that smoking is already the most harmful thing ever.
"OK"
Not only did they make pariahs out of smokers and challenge the creation of an alternative that answers all of their complaints about smoking... but with the dawn of the militant antz tactics that created pariahs out of us, they also drilled it into everyone's heads that smoking was the worst thing you could ever do. It's more addicting than the h-drug or the c-drug! Nothing could be worse than smoking ever, so kids never ever do it!!
The message that sent is that every subsequent alternative is by default less harmful. And in doing so, left themselves no real arguments against vaping. We all laugh at the notion that vaping could possibly be more harmful than smoking because we've been told for 50 years that smoking is already the most harmful thing ever.
"OK"
Love it! Thanks!
Turns out that "Article Zero" (h/t to AgentAnia) on "renormalizing" may have been a July 15th '13 editorial in Jama: http://
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1713512
Authors are Glantz's colleague Neal Benowitz, and Maciej Goniewicz (of RCPI, also an author on a number of recent junk studies including the "third hand vapor" one released in late Jan.).
From that point, you'll see a small number of Google links. But what really seems to have imparted momentum is this Oct 27 '13 NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/
2013/10/27/business/the-e-cigarette-industry-waiting-to-exhale.html
In that article, NJOY marketing director Geoff Vuleta uses the term to mean that he wants to "bring smokers back in from the cold" and (according to the writer) make "smoking" socially acceptable again.
Aside from the obvious problematic conflation of "smoking" with vaping (which is never helpful to our cause), the use of the term "renormalizing" by an industry spokesperson - a marketing director, no less - spawned a plethora of references within ANTZ rhetoric and literature (and even within the vaping community).
So much so, that by Dec '13, Siegal was referring to it in his blog: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-mantra-in-tobacco-control-research.html
This is now an accepted part of the rapidly-developing linguistic landscape surrounding vaping, and a very effective tool in the hands of ANTZ. It has become so widespread that it's hard to believe that using "renormalizing" in the "smoking" context to refer to vaping is just a mere ten months old.
What was Vuleta thinking?
Even more recently, I saw an advertisement for a high-tech PV, which has the word "smoke" in its trade name. The GM brags that it's so attractive that people will want to transition to "smoking" - by which he means vaping, of course. (I'm not going to quote this in more specific detail, for reasons that must be obvious.)
It's hard to believe that some of these industry people are active supporters of ANTZ.
So I see no way to avoid the conclusion that they're both extremely naive, and incalculably idiotic.
As Einstein famously observed: the difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits.
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1713512
Authors are Glantz's colleague Neal Benowitz, and Maciej Goniewicz (of RCPI, also an author on a number of recent junk studies including the "third hand vapor" one released in late Jan.).
From that point, you'll see a small number of Google links. But what really seems to have imparted momentum is this Oct 27 '13 NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/
2013/10/27/business/the-e-cigarette-industry-waiting-to-exhale.html
In that article, NJOY marketing director Geoff Vuleta uses the term to mean that he wants to "bring smokers back in from the cold" and (according to the writer) make "smoking" socially acceptable again.
Aside from the obvious problematic conflation of "smoking" with vaping (which is never helpful to our cause), the use of the term "renormalizing" by an industry spokesperson - a marketing director, no less - spawned a plethora of references within ANTZ rhetoric and literature (and even within the vaping community).
So much so, that by Dec '13, Siegal was referring to it in his blog: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-mantra-in-tobacco-control-research.html
This is now an accepted part of the rapidly-developing linguistic landscape surrounding vaping, and a very effective tool in the hands of ANTZ. It has become so widespread that it's hard to believe that using "renormalizing" in the "smoking" context to refer to vaping is just a mere ten months old.
What was Vuleta thinking?
Even more recently, I saw an advertisement for a high-tech PV, which has the word "smoke" in its trade name. The GM brags that it's so attractive that people will want to transition to "smoking" - by which he means vaping, of course. (I'm not going to quote this in more specific detail, for reasons that must be obvious.)
It's hard to believe that some of these industry people are active supporters of ANTZ.
So I see no way to avoid the conclusion that they're both extremely naive, and incalculably idiotic.
As Einstein famously observed: the difference between genius and stupidity is that stupidity has no limits.
Last edited:
Roger, thank you for the interesting etymology lesson on "denormalization"! (I first typed "entomology," and while we *are* talking about ANTZ, I realized my error in time to correct... 
) I find these social-engineering terms ominous.
Regarding the careless use of smoking to mean vaping, it frustrates me that so many people don't appreciate the power of words (and how quickly and gleefully the ANTZ will jump on an unintended word choice to bolster their case). Ever since I started vaping, I've had an ungoing kerfuffle (gentle, but firm) with a neighbor who keeps referring to my vaping as smoking. Granted, she knows I no longer smoke cigarettes and she's a vocal supporter of vaping and my successful switch, but she can't seem to understand how important it is NOT to call it smoking! The kerfuffle continues...
ff to my Sunday morning session w/ coffee and the Denormalizer:
) I find these social-engineering terms ominous. Regarding the careless use of smoking to mean vaping, it frustrates me that so many people don't appreciate the power of words (and how quickly and gleefully the ANTZ will jump on an unintended word choice to bolster their case). Ever since I started vaping, I've had an ungoing kerfuffle (gentle, but firm) with a neighbor who keeps referring to my vaping as smoking. Granted, she knows I no longer smoke cigarettes and she's a vocal supporter of vaping and my successful switch, but she can't seem to understand how important it is NOT to call it smoking! The kerfuffle continues...
ff to my Sunday morning session w/ coffee and the Denormalizer:
Siegal's link isn't broken. (It's split across lines, but you can still click it.)
The JAMA editorial ... well, you can see why I did that one. I'm not sure if the NYT piece contains junk, actually. I haven't gone through it w/ a fine-tooth comb. Generally I break unless the source is trusted.
Actually dear it was your post that made me finally decide to look into it.
Don't get me wrong - it had bugged me for a while.
"Re-normalizing" is definitely not one of those rarely-used terms that happens to be perfectly respectable in its own right. You know, like "perspicacious," or "serendipity" or perhaps "tautological." All decent upstanding citizens of the dictionary, mind you.
That doesn't mean that they're necessarily appropriate for every situation. But if I knew for certain that I'd be understood, and I felt like using them, I'd hestitate for nary a nanosecond.
Not all uncommon words are like that. Remember when car dealers started talking about "pre-owned" vehicles? What a concept. If I wanted to buy a used car, at least I wouldn't have to go through the trouble of getting someone to own it first. Talk about a convenience for the customer.
"Renormalizing" is one of those words. Except that it's worse than "pre-owned." About the most charitable thing that I can say about it is ... well, it looks as if it was put together in an offhand moment from leftover spare syllables by some bored linguist. (Did you ever have a "Mr. Potato Head" when you were a kid? You get the idea.)
I mean, seriously. Re-WHAT? Huh??
So yesterday I was reading Aaron Frazier's transcript of what Rep. Ray said in his pathetic prattle to the UT house. There's that word again. And I began to ask myself a few questions. Okay, so I know it's a professional ANTZ term of art. I know the media is starting to pick it up. And now we have politicians using it.
Your post was what pushed me over the edge. I just had to find out. I knew it must have been constructed for some kind of marketing or public relations purpose, at least in this context. And once I'd found "Article Zero," all I had to do was to search forwards and backwards in time, and then count the #references.
It's amazing what can be done with Google in just a few short minutes
Last edited:
hahahahahahahah!!!! I love that article!!!!
And yes, I always correct those who speak of my vaping as "smoking". Each and every time. "Vaping. I am not smoking."
Yup. The crap they come up with. Newspeak like in George Orwell's "1984".
I still remember the time when some Administration in the 1980s tried to pass of taxes as "revenue enhancers". Bleah....
Edit:
as much as I know, the term "denormalize" was coined in connection with the WHO's Conferences on Smoking and Health Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
.. where some "anointed" "we's" spoke of "denormalizing" things for society as a whole. For all people. As if they were something like Gods. Sent from heaven to rule over all mankind.
- That link is well worth reading, for those who have not done so yet.
And yes, I always correct those who speak of my vaping as "smoking". Each and every time. "Vaping. I am not smoking."
Yup. The crap they come up with. Newspeak like in George Orwell's "1984".
I still remember the time when some Administration in the 1980s tried to pass of taxes as "revenue enhancers". Bleah....
Edit:
as much as I know, the term "denormalize" was coined in connection with the WHO's Conferences on Smoking and Health Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
.. where some "anointed" "we's" spoke of "denormalizing" things for society as a whole. For all people. As if they were something like Gods. Sent from heaven to rule over all mankind.
- That link is well worth reading, for those who have not done so yet.
Last edited:
Sorry, was talking about the OP link.
We should be giving that thing all the Google-juice we can!
Sorry, was talking about the OP link.
We should be giving that thing all the Google-juice we can!
Fixed the link
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
