Replies needed for the many ignorant news articles

[DarthVapr]

I really hate all these sloppy journalists out there just doing the "copy and paste" news columns that just repeat the BG, BT, and BP propaganda.

Here's one I just replied to:

[FONT="][URL="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/"]DarthVapr[/URL] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Your comment is awaiting moderation.[/FONT][/I]
[FONT="]July 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 am
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Quote: “Drea added that the findings should be regarded as preliminary, since the electronic cigarettes are relatively new and no scientist could confirm the long-term adverse effects of constant inhaling of the mixture of toxic chemicals contained in those devices.”[/FONT]

My reply:

[FONT="]“[M]ixture of toxic chemicals contained in those devices”??? That is a complete and utter fabrication! Even the FDA report contained info on that diethylene glycol found in only ONE cartridge sample by ONE manufacturer, and that at levels below any hazard to humans.[/FONT]

[FONT="]If the various big and little media outlets (and the little dic(k)-tators in government) would practice some good old fashioned journalism, the public might have a clue of what’s really going on.[/FONT]

[FONT="]The FDA is protecting the federal (and state) tobacco tax revenue, the pharmaceutical companies are financing the stop-smoking and “public health” groups to sell their Nicotine patches and gum (with a whopping 1% to 7% success rate!!!), and the biggest tobacco company – Phillip Morris – helped pass the newest tobacco control regulations because it will stifle competition.[/FONT]

[FONT="]You all better get used to the idea of the personal nicotine vaporizer, because we will not allow you to decide that we don’t have a right to choose a safer alternative to deadly cigarette smoke – your profits and taxes be damned![/FONT]

[URL="http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2009/08/distributors-of-electronic-cigarettes-against-fda-in-court/comment-page-1%23comment-3474"]http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2009/08/distributors-of-electronic-cigarettes-against-fda-in-court/comment-page-1#comment-3474[/URL]

Over the top, or just enough?
----------------------------
vaping is not "circumventing" the smoking ban. vaping is not smoking!

 

[qwertylesh]

Not over the top or too little either.

but my recommendation is not to go on a huge tangent over it, its just the way things are. I will fight and petition any bans but don't give a crap about the spew journals pump out. Its the same all over the world, even here in Aus.

In fact, we have it even worse, with liquid nic (ejuice) sales prohibited in our country.

Say you counter one of these narrow minded jughead's arguments, proved they were talking out their ... as they are, there will just be another one of these ignorant twerps to take the first ones place, spouting and reporting on false and inaccurate information.

(my 2c)

tl;dr ver: You can't win in the scheme of things, ignorance is bliss.

 

[rothenbj]

Liked it Darth, your feelings are agreed to by most here. It's been over a year now and the same miserable BS gets repeated by every anti and poor journalist in every article. Almost like it's orchestrated. Oh, that's right, it is.

 

[Vocalek]

Your link didn't work. I conducted a search and found the article. Distributors of electronic cigarettes against FDA in Court | Tobacco Facts.

It's from last August. The article quotes Kathy Drea who is a registered lobbyist for the American Lung Association. I have found that "registered lobbyist" often equates to "truth-challenged." They are being paid to twist public opion around to their employer's way of thinking.

 

[Vocalek]

Couldn't help myself. I left a comment, too, also "awaiting moderation."

The American Lung Association as well as other health organizations are deeply preoccupied about the constant growth of sales of the devices, mainly because the organizations rely heavily on donations from the pharmaceutical companies that sell the FDA-approved smoking cessation products. The cessation rate using FDA-approved nicotine products is a dismal 10%. What other product gets away with that low rate of performance? In contrast, 79% of e-cigarette users report that they have completely replaced all the smoke they used to inhale with clean vaporized nicotine. No wonder Ms. Drea is running scared.

 

[Snik]

"The FDA has never released the quantitative results from their study. They simply say certain things were found in the liquids. Their refusal to release the data, or the specifics of the study are suspect at the least. Those of us who use these products have seen other studies that do list the components of the liquid, as well as any carcinogens. What has been found before is that any carcinogens found are in trace amounts hundreds if not thousands of times weaker than a traditional cigarette, if present at all. What is not present, even in trace amounts, are the hundreds of other harmful substances that result from the combustion of an organic substance such as tobacco, and the paper it is wrapped in. It is a travesty for these devices to be outlawed because they "might" be harmful. We KNOW cigarettes are harmful, yet they are legal. Do the science, and then make the decision. For those of us that have completely given up tobacco products of any kind in favor of using this device it is pure insanity to outlaw them.

As far as marketing to minors, I know of no place that sells or encourages minors to use electronic cigarettes. In fact, they discourage ANYONE who isn't presently using tobacco from using them."

 

[Vocalek]

"The FDA has never released the quantitative results from their study. They simply say certain things were found in the liquids. Their refusal to release the data, or the specifics of the study are suspect at the least. Those of us who use these products have seen other studies that do list the components of the liquid, as well as any carcinogens. What has been found before is that any carcinogens found are in trace amounts hundreds if not thousands of times weaker than a traditional cigarette, if present at all. What is not present, even in trace amounts, are the hundreds of other harmful substances that result from the combustion of an organic substance such as tobacco, and the paper it is wrapped in. It is a travesty for these devices to be outlawed because they "might" be harmful. We KNOW cigarettes are harmful, yet they are legal. Do the science, and then make the decision. For those of us that have completely given up tobacco products of any kind in favor of using this device it is pure insanity to outlaw them.

As far as marketing to minors, I know of no place that sells or encourages minors to use electronic cigarettes. In fact, they discourage ANYONE who isn't presently using tobacco from using them."

Excellent!

 

[Thulium]

For those of us that have completely given up tobacco products of any kind in favor of using this device it is pure insanity to outlaw them.

It's also insane to ban tobacco products* for those of us who have sharply reduced or stopped smoking completely.


*Nicotine is a tobacco product. IMO, you shouldn't give ground to the abolitionists' attempts to demonize tobacco. Tobacco doesn't poison you with carbon monoxide or tars, but smoke does.

 

[rhantson]

Well, we can always say to these so-called "Health Conscious" organizations who are trying to ban eCigs that we'll be happy to go back to our Pack or Two a day habits and hang around them delivering all that wonderful second hand smoke they seem to be missing... They seem to enjoy arguing that second hand smoke is even worse than the original drag off the cig that smokers take... we're making THEM healthier in the process...

 

[DarthVapr]

[NOTE: I apologize in advance for having to alter the text of the original article to conform to the Censorship Policies on this forum. It is ironic, and a little bit sad, that on the Herb forum the word "tobacco" is forbidden.]

Well, here is another really interesting article about banning the e-cig, an one that I suspect is also at the heart of the government opposition. In the several states that have legalized Herb for medical use, some e-cigs are being used for this purpose. Herb-related sites and forums are discussing the e-cig use with this medicinal herb, and telling people that they can be used for that purpose. They also have a lot of misinformation on the e-cig.

Everyone who is now, or plans to ever, debate the prohibitionists over the e-cig should be aware of this theme, and prepare a devastating comeback. I don't have one yet. Any one have a good reply to the following quote?

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering if they should bar the selling of the new form of electronic cigarette advertised as having the capability to administer pot to people on the job and even in planes and other public places. These marketing campaigns are usually very suggestive to the buyer insinuating the new kind of e cig may be used to get high in public without being noticed. With its focus on providing doses of psychoactive [Censored] this type of smokeless cigarette is plainly designed to get people high and should be considered against the law."

"This can be a real problem and may be used by the Food and drug administration to win their argument that e-cigarettes are drug delivery devices." [Emphasis mine]

Read the whole un-redacted article here: Source.

 

[rothenbj]

Hey Darth, haven't seen you in awhile. The link doesn't take me to the story and the search is wacko on my cell.

 

[ad356]

[NOTE: I apologize in advance for having to alter the text of the original article to conform to the Censorship Policies on this forum. It is ironic, and a little bit sad, that on the Herb forum the word "tobacco" is forbidden.]

Well, here is another really interesting article about banning the e-cig, an one that I suspect is also at the heart of the government opposition. In the several states that have legalized Herb for medical use, some e-cigs are being used for this purpose. Herb-related sites and forums are discussing the e-cig use with this medicinal herb, and telling people that they can be used for that purpose. They also have a lot of misinformation on the e-cig.

Everyone who is now, or plans to ever, debate the prohibitionists over the e-cig should be aware of this theme, and prepare a devastating comeback. I don't have one yet. Any one have a good reply to the following quote?

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering if they should bar the selling of the new form of electronic cigarette advertised as having the capability to administer pot to people on the job and even in planes and other public places. These marketing campaigns are usually very suggestive to the buyer insinuating the new kind of e cig may be used to get high in public without being noticed. With its focus on providing doses of psychoactive [Censored] this type of smokeless cigarette is plainly designed to get people high and should be considered against the law."

"This can be a real problem and may be used by the Food and drug administration to win their argument that e-cigarettes are drug delivery devices." [Emphasis mine]

Read the whole un-redacted article here: Source.

oh, yeah marijuna
something else the government has been lying to use about. something they wont legalize becuase they are trying to protect alcohol as the recreational "drug of choice". alcohol is an addictive substance, deadly when consumed in high amounts, causes violence, and many motor vehicle accidents. pot/........., a substance which is pyshically non-addictive, impossible to overdose, and causes no violence. yet our government does what it wants and despite the evidence keeps it illegal, wastes tax dollars enforcing a prohibition that many do not want enforced. alcohol is far more dangerous but the goverment nearly encourages its use. ......... NEEDS to be legalized.

beyond the legal status of ......... being wrong, saying that a e cig is a ......... delivery device might hold SOME truth. but really who gives a damn. i dont care if people are high in public, frankly they arent going to hurt anyone. each to their own, i personally do not get high and go out into public but if someone was i really would not care. if someone has an opaque bottle they could easily be drinking in public much the same and no one would know it. i would rather someone be high in public than drunk. im am strongly against alcohol consumtion beyond the occasional drink. most people i know that drink, are not doing it moderation. they are doing it to get trashed.

i have not used an e cig for ... delivery, but it someone does it is their buisness and i do NOT oppose it. it is healthier for them to vape ... just like it is healthier for us to vape nicotine.

 

[ad356]

how come any time a simple plant is mentioned all i get is ..............
even when discused in relation to the ecig and the fda's cruisade against it?
but the word alcohol is allowed?

 

[uba egar320]

how come any time a simple plant is mentioned all i get is ..............
even when discused in relation to the ecig and the fda's cruisade against it?
but the word alcohol is allowed?

This forum does not like the discussion of controlled substance. I really don't know where they drawl the line,but I have been warned a couple of times. So I just kinda of leave it alone. Maybe a mod will pop on here and spell it out a little more clearly for us. Those guys are always watching!!

 

[ad356]

i guess what i'm trying to say is that there are many similiarities between the legal status of certain substances AND the e cigarette. when the government has a hard time controling something they try to eliminate it.

 

[chrisl317]

but, have not been banned.

Soda cans
corn cobs
bamboo
cigarettes/splif
bedis
tin foil
spoons
cigars
glass eye droppers

and

a M-16

plus, a few more I can't think of right now.

 

[rothenbj]

but, have not been banned.

Soda cans
corn cobs
bamboo
cigarettes/splif
bedis
tin foil
spoons
cigars
glass eye droppers

and

a M-16

plus, a few more I can't think of right now.

Alligator clips
Paper clips
Hair clips (in a real emergency)
Rasor blades
Smoking pipes
Straws
Rubber strapes
Belts
Beer cans
And..... M16 clips

Or so I've heard

 

[CJsKee]

and the almighty dollar bill...

 

[DarthVapr]

but, have not been banned.
Soda cans
---snip---
glass eye droppers
and
a M-16

plus, a few more I can't think of right now.

I assume that the M-16 you refer to is the Lead Delivery Device . . . ;-)

 

[DarthVapr]

Hey Darth, haven't seen you in awhile. The link doesn't take me to the story and the search is wacko on my cell.

Oh for God's sake! I checked the link and the reason it doesn't work is because they even censored a word that was in the link. In the LINK!

I usually like to conserve disk space and bandwidth, but here is the full article, without all the scary words in it. You'll just have to guess at those words.

Should The ........ E Cig Be Banned

July 17, 2010
By Taylor Blaine
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering if they should bar the selling of the new form of electronic cigarette advertised as having the capability to administer pot to people on the job and even in planes and other public places. These marketing campaigns are usually very suggestive to the buyer insinuating the new kind of e cig may be used to get high in public without being noticed. With its focus on providing doses of psychoactive ..., this type of smokeless cigarette is plainly designed to get people high and should be considered against the law.


Marketing campaigns for the new smokeless cigarette product apparently invite consumers not only to break regulations against smoking cigarettes in public areas but in addition regulations against using ......... itself. The marketing campaigns suggest the completely new product permits you to now smoke weed in public areas without attracting any unwanted attention. They have already turned into the latest buzz in the pot community as the freshest method to smoke weed. Distributors state by using the newest ......... e cigarette, you’ll be able to smoke the unlawful compound anywhere you want to with out a lighter, odor or even smoke. Potential buyers are lured because of the advertisers promise that you will get a weed high from any of the three different types on sale. All 3 types are supposedly obtained from powerful sativa and indica strains of ..........


There can also be hidden dangers as users of the product breathe out the by products in public locations. So what will have to be considered is the problem of exposing bystanders to the residue given off by the device. People most at risk from this exposure include babies, seniors and those having health-related complications that will be exacerbated due to the residue given off. This can be a real problem and may be used by the Food and drug administration to win their argument that e-cigarettes are drug delivery devices.


Even the e-commerce sites and vendors which sell and tend to be supportive of e-cigarettes which administer nicotine say that the marketing and advertising of this product is sure to take the controversy over e cigarettes to a whole new level. The Food and drug administration has ruled that e-cigarettes designed to administer nicotine are drug-delivery devices and therefore are criminal as they never have been approved by the agency for distribution. Although it is clear that the FDA has jurisdiction over these kinds of products, there is discussion if the legal statute providing the Food and drug administration jurisdiction over tobacco relates to nicotine e-cigarettes.


E-cigarettes that provide pot, or ingredients besides nicotine, aren’t influenced by the federal statute dealing with tobacco cigarettes and nicotine administration devices. The FDA’s failure to immediately ban this brand-new item and start proper enforcement procedures is clearly a problem. Continuing inability to take any effective actions in opposition to this sort of e-cig will most definitely further weaken the organizations reputation and authority.