Siegel BLASTS e cig Opponents

[lec666]

this was in todays Boston Herald i made sure to post it on all the pin up boards at work.

Electronic cigarettes jolt cynical opposition - BostonHerald.com

 

[yvilla]

Yvilla, we must be talking apples and oranges. The statement you quote of his is one I would certainly agree with. We read evidence of that daily on this forum. The statement I quote is an outright falsehood. No two ways about it.

The health groups have never said they prefer people smoke real cigarettes over e-cigs. Yet that's clearly what he wrote. Read his words.

If health were the concern, then why would these groups prefer that people smoke conventional cigarettes -- which contain thousands of chemicals and more than 60 carcinogens -- rather than electronic cigarettes, which deliver the nicotine without any of these chemicals and carcinogens?

There is a big difference between an assumed consequence of banning e-cigs and promotion of cigarettes. That's all I'm getting at. The health groups "prefer" no such thing as he states.

TBob, your quote and my quote are both in the same article. One cannot read one without the other, and still expect to get the true meaning of what he is saying. Again I repeat, Dr. Siegel does not say the health groups in question "said they prefer people smoke real cigarettes over e-cigs" (your words). He is simply conveying the message that in wanting to ban ecigs, they expose their willingness to have people continuing to smoke as a consequence, and all that that entails.

In other words, they don't have to say it - those "health" groups, just as others in countless varying circumstances as I noted in my post above, should be "presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of their acts" (Black's Law Dictionary, A law dictionary containing ... - Google Book Search)

You're the writer, I'm not - but in light of that age old presumption, isn't his use of the term "prefer" just a "turn of phrase" or the use of "irony" or a matter of style? Do you really not see what I'm trying to convey here, about what he is trying to convey?

 

[TropicalBob]

Oh my, I can tell you were a lawyer and you can tell I was a reporter. Words were, and are, my life. "Say"? "Prefer?" If I write, "I prefer e-cigs over cigarettes" would you not conclude that TBob says he likes e-cigs better than cigarettes?

Siegel's statement on its own is incorrect. It is not a position of the health groups that they want smokers to use cigarettes. Yes, yes, I know your statement, with which I agree, is in the same article. That does not excuse incorrect statements made earlier.

This is not the first time I've read Siegel distort the truth. Let's just say I have concerns about how influential an ally he is ... Too reckless.

The other guy? Nietske or however you spell it? He's really, really good. Clear thinking, quality expression. He is careful and articulate. That's what we need, not blasts of carelessly worded condemnations.

 

[Wally]

TBob and Yvilla, I wouldn't think of getting in the middle of your--to coin a turn of phrase--semantico-legal discussion. I would say that public health in the U.S. has a history of ignoring the actual consequences of policy decisions in pursuit of abstinence policy. That is what they are doing here and that is what they've done with needle exchange in the fight against HIV. And, to add a personal note, I think that there actually are many in public health who feel that if people are not "willing" to abstain from injectable drugs they might is well have HIV or, even, deserve HIV. PH people often feeling thwarted by "non-compliant populations." You know how it is, you're trying to do something good for the guy and he just keeps smoking despite what you've told him. That kind of stuff is rampant.

Wally

Let me be more explicit. For public health, the best way to control the HIV epidemic (or tobacco smoking epidemic) would be to have all the HIV carriers (or smokers) die. PH people would not usually say this publicly, but it is true. PH people are after the elimination of smokers. Epidemiologically, it doesn't matter whether that comes about because people quit smoking or because they die. E-cigarettes look like something that keeps people alive and keeps them visibly "smoking," so that is disturbing for an abstinence-oriented discipline. At a rational level PH people deny such things, but it would be a mistake to believe that all policy making is a result of conscious, rational processes. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.