- Status
Why of course! 
From your post "If you are legitimately concerned about offending people by addressing SHS mortality, I'd certainly be open to other suggestions."
My response was rather tongue in cheek because I had expressed concern that I thought was legitimate....but evidently left a question in your mind. I am usually not in the habit of expressing illegitimate concern because by definition, that would be silly. One doesn't know if a stance is legitimate or not until one pleads their case. From your responses I can deduce my case is lost. No matter, I've been in this position before. BUT, the implication that my expressed "concern" left a question of whether it was legitimate at all is a message in and of itself.
Therefore, I humbly apologize for expressing "concern" about copying a successful ad campaign while quoting popular anti-smoking messages as a novel way to get the word out to your native state.
Thoughts for the day:
The worst type of limitations are the limits we place on ourselves and adopting the status quo. Never aspire to be ordinary.
From your post "If you are legitimately concerned about offending people by addressing SHS mortality, I'd certainly be open to other suggestions."My response was rather tongue in cheek because I had expressed concern that I thought was legitimate....but evidently left a question in your mind. I am usually not in the habit of expressing illegitimate concern because by definition, that would be silly. One doesn't know if a stance is legitimate or not until one pleads their case. From your responses I can deduce my case is lost. No matter, I've been in this position before. BUT, the implication that my expressed "concern" left a question of whether it was legitimate at all is a message in and of itself.
Therefore, I humbly apologize for expressing "concern" about copying a successful ad campaign while quoting popular anti-smoking messages as a novel way to get the word out to your native state.
Thoughts for the day:
The worst type of limitations are the limits we place on ourselves and adopting the status quo. Never aspire to be ordinary.
Frankly i think it's brilliant and for PR purposes
this argument could easily co-opt every argument put forth by our foes;
as noted they have the experience and the public sentiment on their side
so using their very own words to our gain would be like,
deliciously ironic.
- joe
Why of course!
Ah! By "legitimately concerned" reflects the difference in paradigm that leads you to the opinion that enough people would be offended by the mentioning of secondhand smoke to make an appreciable difference.
In my experience, smokers do not deny the deleterious health effects on bystanders. The Surgeon General report that I cited above and now have quoted in the OP states that 80% of respondents were in favor of indoor smoking bans in order to--as phrased in the Surgeon General's report--"fully protect the public" from secondhand smoke. This communicates to me that at LEAST 80% understand that SHS is enough of a concern as to override the civil liberty to choose to smoke inside. Of the remaining 20%, it would follow that a reasonable percentage acknowledge the FACT that secondhand smoke causes bystander deaths, but retain a civil libertarian stance.
So, by "legitimate concern" I mean that is in contrast to my opinion that the number of people who would be offended by the assertion that SHS is harmful to bystanders would present a significant obstacle presents non-substantive concern. While I acknowledge that there may be a miniscule number of people that would be so put off by the fact that the commercial mentions that the Surgeon General found that SHS causes the premature death of non-users, I do not think that represents a view shared by enough smokers to justify not reminding people that smoke-free alternatives do not produce smoke.
Indeed, but I meant absolutely no disrespect, ladyraj. From my perspective, the number of people who would be offended enough at the mentioning of the Surgeon General's findings to present any significant challenge is a trivial matter.
I apologize if my belief that the dangers of SHS are widely accepted by smokers and non-smokers alike caused you to feel that I was using words that trample on your opinion.
Therefore, I humbly apologize for expressing "concern" about copying a successful ad campaign while quoting popular anti-smoking messages as a novel way to get the word out to your native state.
No apology necessary. I was not trying to quote popular anti-smoking messages, I was merely attempting to cite widely accepted evidence of the dangers of smoke on bystanders to highlight one of the features of smoke-free alternatives. I was not aware that any reasonable person (smoker or otherwise) had that opinion.
And for the record, I prefer to think of it as a parody of two separate ad campaigns wherein the humor is derived from making the viewer think they are seeing one type of commercial, but "flipping the script" at the end....not a "copy" of anything.
I would argue that a failure to acknowledge the status quo results in a greater limitation.
Back, for a moment, on the subject of the intended audience: The REAL intention here is to communicate to non-smokers that their (legitimate) concerns about secondhand smoke are answered by switching to smoke-free alternatives and subtly implying the justifications for indoor smoking bans do not apply to smoke-free alternatives.
When presented with only the options of "quit or die", statistics show a majority of smokers effectively choose the latter. If their own health is not enough of a concern for a given smoker to quit smoking altogether, perhaps the health of the people around them is enough to consider smoke-free alterntatives. They may not have been able or willing to "quit" entirely, but at least with SA they will have effectively stopped smoking.
Ladyraj, your case is not at all lost. To any smoker who does not believe that SHS presents a significant risk to non-users, my answer is: If you truly do not believe you are putting your family in danger by smoking, then you should stop smoking for the sake of your own health rather than using a smokescreen against the preponderance of data showing that SHS causes premature death and illness in non-users.
Last edited:
Quote:
"Ladyraj, your case is not at all lost. To any smoker who does not believe that SHS presents a significant risk to non-users, my answer is: If you truly do not believe you are putting your family in danger by smoking, then you should stop smoking for the sake of your own health rather than using a smokescreen against the preponderance of data showing that SHS causes premature death and illness in non-users." end quote.
My remarks: Oh heck Thuliam, I'm a scientist and as such I am trained to question everything and be of the mind that nothing is ever really settled hence we call everything a theory. I'm not a PR or political expert and find it difficult at times to comprehend the ease in persuasion via the efforts of these groups. I am often troubled by the direction (or misdirection) that permeates many campaigns, the most current being 2nd hand vaping as a dangerous toxin that could cause a heart attack, or addict children, etc.
My cause is not lost because searching for truth is always reinforcing in and of itself. That you think you understand my cause is amusing. Making recommendations regarding my family and what I do is a tad...fatherly, possibly holier than thou, and down right indicative of a level of rudeness in which in the guise of offering friendly advice "for one's own good" entitles you to discount any idea contrary to your beliefs.
The true danger in all of this is a lack of respect demonstrated via intolerance to another's ideas. It is difficult enough to not agree with reputable agencies aligned against me...do I need another mouthpiece offering me advice?
BTW the smokescreen you mention demonstrates the difference I was trying to point out. You recommended I do it for my own health...the same point I was saying we should emphasize. Guilting does not work on inveterate smokers and that is who needs this lifesaving technology.
Good luck with the PSA/Ad and one could hope the effort will attain the same status that "...... madness" did in the old days.
"Ladyraj, your case is not at all lost. To any smoker who does not believe that SHS presents a significant risk to non-users, my answer is: If you truly do not believe you are putting your family in danger by smoking, then you should stop smoking for the sake of your own health rather than using a smokescreen against the preponderance of data showing that SHS causes premature death and illness in non-users." end quote.
My remarks: Oh heck Thuliam, I'm a scientist and as such I am trained to question everything and be of the mind that nothing is ever really settled hence we call everything a theory. I'm not a PR or political expert and find it difficult at times to comprehend the ease in persuasion via the efforts of these groups. I am often troubled by the direction (or misdirection) that permeates many campaigns, the most current being 2nd hand vaping as a dangerous toxin that could cause a heart attack, or addict children, etc.
My cause is not lost because searching for truth is always reinforcing in and of itself. That you think you understand my cause is amusing. Making recommendations regarding my family and what I do is a tad...fatherly, possibly holier than thou, and down right indicative of a level of rudeness in which in the guise of offering friendly advice "for one's own good" entitles you to discount any idea contrary to your beliefs.
The true danger in all of this is a lack of respect demonstrated via intolerance to another's ideas. It is difficult enough to not agree with reputable agencies aligned against me...do I need another mouthpiece offering me advice?
BTW the smokescreen you mention demonstrates the difference I was trying to point out. You recommended I do it for my own health...the same point I was saying we should emphasize. Guilting does not work on inveterate smokers and that is who needs this lifesaving technology.
Good luck with the PSA/Ad and one could hope the effort will attain the same status that "...... madness" did in the old days.
So the message that CASAA want to send is that it is just another anti-smoking group? The CASAA message rides on the back of anti-smoking messages and therefore aligns itself with that cause. This is apparently trivial?
Perhaps if the target audience is non-smokers then the mesaage is just that 'Vapour is safe' for bystanders as there is no evidence to the contrary despite AHS's dubious nicotine link.
(Aside Some vegetables contain nicotine e.g Tomatoes, so are they suggesting tomatoes are a problem? Because of this continine is not a unique marker for SHS)
Perhaps, if the the side audience is people who smoke then the message about e-cigs is that it is an alternative that is available where smoking is not and it is as enjoyable (for some more so) and puts them in control. This then may lead a person who smokes to a switch point. A free choice.
Either of these 'perhapses' allows people to make up their own mind, makes no comparisons as such, adresses the non-smoker sentiment without the contraversial SHS issue and targets both audiences.
Aligning e-cigs with either side of the debate on tobacco is going to alientate groups and may not be neccessary. Note some UK pro-choice groups do not support the e-cig because it is seen as coercive and in the US there is rampant misinformation about the e-cig.
The e-cig can stand on it's own merits. Emphasising those merits maybe better PR than using guilt trips.
----
I don't doubt that repeated exposure to second hand smoke in a confined area IS dangerous to non-smokers over the long term, and it's wholly unpleasant to boot. That is a no-brainer. The problem is that they've taken that "SHS is deadly" meme and run with it... all the way to Mars. Smoking five feet away from someone in an outdoor environment is not going to hurt them even if the wind blows it in their direction. The very idea is patently ridiculous. Too many people don't bother to use the brains they were born with... especially if those people WANT to believe what they are being told. The bald truth is that they don't LIKE or APPROVE of smoking, so they feel that the ends justify the means.
I will say that smokers dug their own grave on this one because they completely disregarded the rights of non-smokers for decades re: exposure for reasons not just health-related. Smoking smells awful. People who stink because they were near smokers are bound to be upset about it. It's gross.
I still see people at my work who smoke and throw the butts on the ground or into the bushes, and there's a very large ashtray within easy reach. I can understand why the company would want to ban smoking given that scenario. Someone has to be paid to clean it up.
vaping has none of the above-mentioned drawbacks. It is a win-win.
Please don't misunderstand me, ladyraj, that is exactly what I admire about you! I completely agree that everything (or nearly so) should be treated as an unproven theory, and I admire your dedication to discovery of the truth even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
That said, are you saying that you do not believe that second-hand smoke is dangerous to bystanders (in an indoor setting) or not?
I don't think we have any disagreement about secondhand vapor. In the vapersplace chat, I posted the question to Dr. Seigel about the possibility of danger from e-cig use to bystanders and the esteemed doctor said "there is no legitimate concern there."
My cause is not lost because searching for truth is always reinforcing in and of itself. That you think you understand my cause is amusing. Making recommendations regarding my family and what I do is a tad...fatherly, possibly holier than thou, and down right indicative of a level of rudeness in which in the guise of offering friendly advice "for one's own good" entitles you to discount any idea contrary to your beliefs.[/QUOTE[
That you refer to my alleged understanding of your cause as amusing is...ironic.
I didn't realize I was offering any advice to you. I was under the impression that you already use a personal vaporizer.
Ladyraj, I truly respect your opinion but honestly you are confusing me. I don't understand how you can take a harm reduction position if you don't believe that smoke is harmful in the first place.
Good luck with the PSA/Ad and one could hope the effort will attain the same status that "...... madness" did in the old days.
I thought your objection to this concept was that it repeats the anti-smoking talking points on SHS? ...... Madness acheived its status by portraying weed turning well adjusted teenagers turning into sex-crazed lunatics with zero evidence. I think that's a far cry different from a short commercial that cites the US Surgeon General's conclusion, based on multiple clinical studies, that secondhand smoke causes premature death and illness for people who do not smoke.
The reason I mentioned an outdoor setting is not to imply that SHS remains a hazard outdoors, but simply as a matter of logistics: to make it look like the Verizon ads, you need to be outdoors simply to have enough room for the camera to pull back and reveal "the network". Also bear in mind that I live in a state that has an indoor smoking ban so here it would not be legitimate here for someone to attempt to light up a cigarette. In Oregon, if I want to talk to a smoker, unless they are in their own home, they probably smoke outdoors. Here there's a growing number of apartment complexes that have gone completely smoke-free: My daughter and her mother live in such a complex and until I started vaping, I actually had to leave even the parking lot and stand out on the sidewalk or street in order to smoke.
I suppose I could change the ad to address the "stink" issue instead...It just doesn't fit the "That's the <blank> you could be saving by switching to <blank>." style as well.
Great points. I just haven't happened to think of a witty way to make that point in a 30 second spot. If you have an idea, please don't hesitate to share!
Not necessarily. At this point, this idea is not officially sponsored by CASAA, but the copy is a draft idea that is entirely open to revision or deletion.
What I said was trivial is the number of people I expect to be offended by citing the conclusion of the US Surgeon General. I certainly could be wrong about that because everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis has accepted the Surgeon General's conclusions as a matter of fact, but perhaps this is not the case in other states?
That IS the message of this ad. Regarding Mr. Banzhaf's claims, there is no more reason to think that e-cigarettes present a hazard to non-users than the exhaled breath of a ST user.
Does this idea really seem that heavy-handed to you? Are people getting up in arms that the Geico commercials imply that people customers of other insurance companies are wasting stacks of money (with eyeballs)? I didn't get that impression.
This maybe so wrt to ...... madness and the SG's statement. You're right it doesn't address the question though. Why the need to go with the SG conclusion when it can alienate some of the audience and give the perception that CASAA is part of the anti-smoking movement?
It should be noted that in the UK and Ireland some groups have increased smoking following bans. Also many non-smokers join people who smoke outside pubs, clearly the message about SHS does not bother them.
So who is the message aimed at?
----
Let's take this down to the street level...
Any message that fosters the perspective that smokers are:
Killing their fellow man,
Stinky, or stinkify others,
Litterbugs,
Poor,
Uneducated,
Nicotine addicted,
Should be socially ostracized from every entertainment venue known to man,
and should be financially penalized for non-compliance...etc.
...violates my standard of accepting others who make individual choices. I am not my brother's keeper nor do I feel a need to advise an adult about a legal behavior. I would never call anybody stinky and there are laws against littering. I tend to be thankful to smokers for the "charitable donations" mandated by our government that keeps my taxes low.
My working slogan borrowed from transactional analysis is: I'm Okay, You're Okay. I do not add well you're Okay if....fill in the blank. My father used to tell me that I was "free and over 21" hence I needed no more parenting. Thus, I use his words of wisdom when dealing with other people...they are free, they are of age to decide for themselves, and I stop short of what I perceive to be rudeness of violating boundaries.
Alleging any of the items listed above is just plain rude to me and I care not where the source comes from. If a recognized "authority" provides me with a reason to be rude...I question the authority as to tactics and intentions.
Any message that fosters the perspective that smokers are:
Killing their fellow man,
Stinky, or stinkify others,
Litterbugs,
Poor,
Uneducated,
Nicotine addicted,
Should be socially ostracized from every entertainment venue known to man,
and should be financially penalized for non-compliance...etc.
...violates my standard of accepting others who make individual choices. I am not my brother's keeper nor do I feel a need to advise an adult about a legal behavior. I would never call anybody stinky and there are laws against littering. I tend to be thankful to smokers for the "charitable donations" mandated by our government that keeps my taxes low.
My working slogan borrowed from transactional analysis is: I'm Okay, You're Okay. I do not add well you're Okay if....fill in the blank. My father used to tell me that I was "free and over 21" hence I needed no more parenting. Thus, I use his words of wisdom when dealing with other people...they are free, they are of age to decide for themselves, and I stop short of what I perceive to be rudeness of violating boundaries.
Alleging any of the items listed above is just plain rude to me and I care not where the source comes from. If a recognized "authority" provides me with a reason to be rude...I question the authority as to tactics and intentions.
I don't understand how citing the findings of the Surgeon General is rude, but if you want to question the Surgeon General's tactics and intentions perhaps you should take it up with him? I was running under the presumption that his intentions are to quantify and publish public health issues, and his tactics are to conduct multiple peer-reviewed clinical analyses.
If the surgeon general finds that eating foods high in cholesterol causes heart disease and that fact is mentioned in a commercial for a cholesterol-free product, would you also find that rude and question the Surgeon General as to tactics and intentions? Are commercials for hybrid electric vehicles "rude" because they imply or state outright that combustion engines cause harm to the environment?
How can you espouse a harm reduction stance if you don't state the harm in the first place?
Thuliam wrote:
"thought your objection to this concept was that it repeats the anti-smoking talking points on SHS? ...... Madness acheived its status by portraying weed turning well adjusted teenagers turning into sex-crazed lunatics with zero evidence. I think that's a far cry different from a short commercial that cites the US Surgeon General's conclusion, based on multiple clinical studies, that secondhand smoke causes premature death and illness for people who do not smoke."
HaHa! No Thuliam, let me explain...the point I was trying to make and failed was: The PSA "...... Madness" had the opposite effect on the target audience than what was desired via the message. People turned it into a cult classic by USING and laughing at the screen. The scare tactic did not work.
"thought your objection to this concept was that it repeats the anti-smoking talking points on SHS? ...... Madness acheived its status by portraying weed turning well adjusted teenagers turning into sex-crazed lunatics with zero evidence. I think that's a far cry different from a short commercial that cites the US Surgeon General's conclusion, based on multiple clinical studies, that secondhand smoke causes premature death and illness for people who do not smoke."
HaHa!
No Thuliam, let me explain...the point I was trying to make and failed was: The PSA "...... Madness" had the opposite effect on the target audience than what was desired via the message. People turned it into a cult classic by USING and laughing at the screen. The scare tactic did not work.
HaHa!
So you are referring to the unintentional humor of ...... Madness. Again, isn't that quite different from this that is completely intended to a lighthearted jab at Verizon & Geico commercials?
I'm not saying you aren't making some valid points--I just am having a very hard time understanding how citing a medically validated conclusion (that is largely accepted by smokers and non-smokers alike) constitutes a "scare tactic".
I'm not saying "Quit or Die", I'm saying "We know smoke is bad for you and the people around you. This is something that doesn't have smoke."
Last edited:
Thuliam wrote:
...
HaHa!
I don't want to dwell on this because its not really a big issue, but it keeps setting off my inner proofreader so I gotta say something: My handle is Thulium, not Thuliam. If you prefer, you can call me Thad (or even Thaddeus if you want to sound like my mother or ex-gf when she's mad at me--lol).
Sorry Thad, for getting your moniker wrong. I won't use Thaddeus though it is a great name.
It appears citing "medically valid" information from a perceived "authority" is paramount in your project. You cite the SG report...probably the 2006 version The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
There is much disagreement about this document..But you don't have to believe me...how about Doc Siegel's analysis:
Surgeon General clouds tobacco smoke issue|Homeland Stupidity
Oh, and Carmona and numerous whistleblowers admit pressure from various groups to "emphasize" detrimental effects.
BUT, let's put all these nasty little agendas aside and look at the can of worms you may be opening. Nicotine, as an addictive drug, has been demonstrated via the SG report to be a health hazard to vascular efficiency. A brief and "funny" little PSA citing medical info for tobacco but not the safety of vapor merely highlights the fact of what we don't know. Frankly the omission appears glaring. We PV users think it's safer but the contention hasn't been qualified YET. We have anecdotal evidence.
I find it interesting that after all of the lies/exaggerations that have been alleged against the PV, one could still believe these type of reports with out question.
It appears citing "medically valid" information from a perceived "authority" is paramount in your project. You cite the SG report...probably the 2006 version The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
There is much disagreement about this document..But you don't have to believe me...how about Doc Siegel's analysis:
Surgeon General clouds tobacco smoke issue|Homeland Stupidity
Oh, and Carmona and numerous whistleblowers admit pressure from various groups to "emphasize" detrimental effects.
BUT, let's put all these nasty little agendas aside and look at the can of worms you may be opening. Nicotine, as an addictive drug, has been demonstrated via the SG report to be a health hazard to vascular efficiency. A brief and "funny" little PSA citing medical info for tobacco but not the safety of vapor merely highlights the fact of what we don't know. Frankly the omission appears glaring. We PV users think it's safer but the contention hasn't been qualified YET. We have anecdotal evidence.
I find it interesting that after all of the lies/exaggerations that have been alleged against the PV, one could still believe these type of reports with out question.
No problem.
Dr. Siegel's complaint about the Surgeon General's conclusion was that the Surgeon General made a broader statement than what was supported by the research. He stated even "The report documents an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers who are chronically exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke."
If you like, I'll use that quote instead. I'm not married to any stat or quote in particular.
Do you really think that mentioning the surgeon general's report in passing in a 30 second humor-driven ad is opening a can of worms?
I find it interesting that after all of the lies/exaggerations that have been alleged against the PV, one could still believe these type of reports with out question.
I don't think that a single quote implies a complete acceptance of the entire report.
Even if SHS isn't as dangerous as the scare tactics of the pharmaceutical companies and their lackeys at the FDA would like us to believe, that doesn't change the fact that studies consistently show a danger to non-smokers. For the purposes of this ad, the specific amount of danger is irrelevant because any danger whatsoever from SHS is eliminated completely by switching to a smoke-free alternative.
It seems like you think I am trying to make people scared of second hand smoke, when actually my goal is to leverage what is already generally accepted and "flip the script" on the anti-smoking majority to encourage people to "think outside the pack" (so to speak).
Thad...really. Have you thought past the humerous PSA. What will be the backlash? We've already had groups monitor this very site to glean info that was cited in the court case with the FDA. Do you really think there will be no counter to your efforts indicating that you correctly quote the SHS danger, but seperate SHV from SHS, without proof?
Using another's info from research for comparison and contrasting is a fair and balanced way to present info...what you propose is no contrast just an illusion based on ...faith???...the PV and it's output (SHV) is not a hazard.
Get a chemist and prove it...there are a few on the board. Most studies on vapor refer to inhalation...not what we exhale. Once you see studies on exhalation you may become more aware of the difficulty in isolating confounding variables. The biggest one is obvious..air pollution, digesting (and off-gassing) a meal of cotinine rich foods such as eggplant with tomato sauce, individual genetic predisposition, age,...the list goes on and on.
I believe we have a failure to communicate because I understand these reports as a gathering of current research to inform the populace of trends. The sections begin, as all research papers do, with a historical review to date...than adds current work. Every research paper that gives any findings is based on an hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved or disproved via a "risk" analysis but almost always contains the terms...appear, may, seem to, and so on. The reason for the terminology is simple...the research needs to be replicated by other scientists before the value of the study is weighed.
Anything without a causal relation is considered not proved. The SG's use of terminology that a given variable is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship...means there is no relationship and further study is needed. The problem becomes "science by press release" with the main stream media proclaiming the study results with an author's quote and may never be replicated or worse...if disproved or a math error found, never told to public. This is how agendas replace science and a mis-informed society begins.
In science, nothing is ever settled, but the PR people and lobbyists spin these reports into campaigns. I'm a researcher not a PR person though I understand the need for hype. The SG's office is an appointed position that heads the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Anything attached to government is political by definition.
The SG also wanted to prevent skin cancer incidence by putting out info that all should wear sunscreen whenever in the sun. Now almost all products contain these life-saving ingredients and parents limit their children's exposure to the sun. End result...vitamin D deficiency. Now the SG has reversed it's recommendations and are attempting to enlighten a whole nation on the benefits of getting 20 minutes of sun a day before slathering on a myriad of products available to the consumer. Most people are unaware of the change in practice and are unknowingly damaging bone to fight off a very slight risk of skin cancer.
You see the SG as an authority, I see the SG as a place to begin the work.
Using another's info from research for comparison and contrasting is a fair and balanced way to present info...what you propose is no contrast just an illusion based on ...faith???...the PV and it's output (SHV) is not a hazard.
Get a chemist and prove it...there are a few on the board. Most studies on vapor refer to inhalation...not what we exhale. Once you see studies on exhalation you may become more aware of the difficulty in isolating confounding variables. The biggest one is obvious..air pollution, digesting (and off-gassing) a meal of cotinine rich foods such as eggplant with tomato sauce, individual genetic predisposition, age,...the list goes on and on.
I believe we have a failure to communicate because I understand these reports as a gathering of current research to inform the populace of trends. The sections begin, as all research papers do, with a historical review to date...than adds current work. Every research paper that gives any findings is based on an hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved or disproved via a "risk" analysis but almost always contains the terms...appear, may, seem to, and so on. The reason for the terminology is simple...the research needs to be replicated by other scientists before the value of the study is weighed.
Anything without a causal relation is considered not proved. The SG's use of terminology that a given variable is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship...means there is no relationship and further study is needed. The problem becomes "science by press release" with the main stream media proclaiming the study results with an author's quote and may never be replicated or worse...if disproved or a math error found, never told to public. This is how agendas replace science and a mis-informed society begins.
In science, nothing is ever settled, but the PR people and lobbyists spin these reports into campaigns. I'm a researcher not a PR person though I understand the need for hype. The SG's office is an appointed position that heads the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Anything attached to government is political by definition.
The SG also wanted to prevent skin cancer incidence by putting out info that all should wear sunscreen whenever in the sun. Now almost all products contain these life-saving ingredients and parents limit their children's exposure to the sun. End result...vitamin D deficiency. Now the SG has reversed it's recommendations and are attempting to enlighten a whole nation on the benefits of getting 20 minutes of sun a day before slathering on a myriad of products available to the consumer. Most people are unaware of the change in practice and are unknowingly damaging bone to fight off a very slight risk of skin cancer.
You see the SG as an authority, I see the SG as a place to begin the work.
I am talking about a 30 second video spot, not a political campaign ad or scientific study. I am competing for "mindshare" and it is counterproductive to begin with a point of view that bucks the prevailing trends.
The "backlash" I predict (and hope for) is that the viewer will think, "wait, that looks like smoke, but they just said it isn't smoke" and then begin to do the research, and hopefully visit www.casaa.org for more information.
You don't need faith to understand that smoke-free alternatives do not produce smoke--that's why they're called "smoke-free". The "proof" is found in the clinical and lab studies published or linked at casaa.org.
Get a chemist and prove it...there are a few on the board. Most studies on vapor refer to inhalation...not what we exhale. Once you see studies on exhalation you may become more aware of the difficulty in isolating confounding variables. The biggest one is obvious..air pollution, digesting (and off-gassing) a meal of cotinine rich foods such as eggplant with tomato sauce, individual genetic predisposition, age,...the list goes on and on.
I believe we have a failure to communicate because I understand these reports as a gathering of current research to inform the populace of trends. The sections begin, as all research papers do, with a historical review to date...than adds current work. Every research paper that gives any findings is based on an hypothesis. The hypothesis is proved or disproved via a "risk" analysis but almost always contains the terms...appear, may, seem to, and so on. The reason for the terminology is simple...the research needs to be replicated by other scientists before the value of the study is weighed.
Anything without a causal relation is considered not proved. The SG's use of terminology that a given variable is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship...means there is no relationship and further study is needed. The problem becomes "science by press release" with the main stream media proclaiming the study results with an author's quote and may never be replicated or worse...if disproved or a math error found, never told to public. This is how agendas replace science and a mis-informed society begins.
In science, nothing is ever settled, but the PR people and lobbyists spin these reports into campaigns. I'm a researcher not a PR person though I understand the need for hype. The SG's office is an appointed position that heads the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Anything attached to government is political by definition.
The SG also wanted to prevent skin cancer incidence by putting out info that all should wear sunscreen whenever in the sun. Now almost all products contain these life-saving ingredients and parents limit their children's exposure to the sun. End result...vitamin D deficiency. Now the SG has reversed it's recommendations and are attempting to enlighten a whole nation on the benefits of getting 20 minutes of sun a day before slathering on a myriad of products available to the consumer. Most people are unaware of the change in practice and are unknowingly damaging bone to fight off a very slight risk of skin cancer.
You see the SG as an authority, I see the SG as a place to begin the work.
You are absolutely correct that the harmlessness of vapor needs to be proven so I can't argue with you. But the fight for mindshare begins, IMO, by simply pointing out that e-cigarettes don't produce smoke.
Ladyraj, if you want to convince me to see things your way, provide some sort of statistic that shows a potential for a negative backlash. The SG report cites that 80% of Americans believe that SHS is hazardous to bystanders and support some sort of indoor smoking ban. If thats not a large enough percentage to constitute an "overwhelming majority", it stands to reason that a good portion of the remaining 20% still think that SHS is hazardous but not enough to support indoor smoking bans.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
