Siegel on LATimes article
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
He just makes way too much sense for the FDA and the Anti-Smoking groups. I would guess that he will be taken out back and shot (figuritively speaking) along with the rest of us poor addicted souls.
Very good find TB! (as usual)
Thank you to Bill Godshall for being a voice for us all!
Thank you to Bill Godshall for being a voice for us all!
That's a nice little write-up! I enjoy seeing positive things about ecigs!
Have you guys read some of those comments though? OMG, some of them are hilarious.
EDIT:
This is the a really scary attitude some smokers have. I don't know why someone would want to see e-cigs banned. I would think that a smoker would sympathize, at least a little and want to see something that someone could use to get away from analogs because of how hard it is to break the addiction. This person seemed to be jeering at the thought of an FDA ban
Have you guys read some of those comments though? OMG, some of them are hilarious.
EDIT:
I like CANCER STICKS said:
This is the a really scary attitude some smokers have. I don't know why someone would want to see e-cigs banned. I would think that a smoker would sympathize, at least a little and want to see something that someone could use to get away from analogs because of how hard it is to break the addiction. This person seemed to be jeering at the thought of an FDA ban
Last edited:
So they are saving a potential 1,000 lives, at the cost of 400,000 lives.
Or are they saving a possible 1,000 future addictions, by ensuring that 438,000 absolutely die now, followed by the next 438,000 and the next 438,000 and the next 438,000. Great way to show your true American spirit!
1,000 potential addictions out of the 303,824,640 US population is not worth the inconvience and cost of lives of the 438,000 deaths out of 63,803,174 smokers.
Or are they saving a possible 1,000 future addictions, by ensuring that 438,000 absolutely die now, followed by the next 438,000 and the next 438,000 and the next 438,000. Great way to show your true American spirit!
1,000 potential addictions out of the 303,824,640 US population is not worth the inconvience and cost of lives of the 438,000 deaths out of 63,803,174 smokers.
This is the a really scary attitude some smokers have. I don't know why someone would want to see e-cigs banned. I would think that a smoker would sympathize, at least a little and want to see something that someone could use to get away from analogs because of how hard it is to break the addiction. This person seemed to be jeering at the thought of an FDA ban
I responded to this guy - well, kinda.... I'm guessing he won't be liking what I have to say...
What I thought was really crazy was him accusing US of having the wool pulled over our eyes...and being brainwashed.
Huh??!?!? Just checked, my ears ain't dripping
I post on Dr. Siegel's blog often. One sure way of making vapors look like a bunch of lunatic anti-smokers is to flood the blog with flaming pieces against smokers. That's what I saw today, and whoever posted sounded like an evangelist at a tent revival. There are three kinds of people who usually post there: Dr. Siegel who is a very nice man who happens to be anti-smoking but not anti-smoker, a group of anti-ban people, and people like Bill Godshall. In the posts I read and responded to from vapors, I felt my blood pressure rise with their nasty comments against smokers. It was enough to make me stop vaping. It was enough also to turn those smokers who had recently considered trying out e cigarettes to toss the idea aside. I guess there are some people who don't understand that spamming a reputable blog like Dr. Siegel's is contradictory to the vaping community's impression on the general public.
I guess you did. The result was a very bad impression of the vaping community. I mean really, people, do you not remember that you were a smoker only a very short time ago? If you cannot look at the big picture and see that there is little that separates the mindset of a smoker from that of a vaper, then you are not seeing clearly. Tobacco is the only missing ingredient in an e cigarette. If this is what vaping does to people, then I don't want to be one.
@sherid, I too have been posting on Dr Siegel's blog for a long time. He is anti-smoking and continues to make that known. The people who post there are a mixed bunch and some have been posting for many years.
To have made the progress that you did with your excellent comments on e-cigs really looked promising. Most who reply to Dr Siegel's blogs are open minded, with a wicked sense of humour.
I support choice and most there do to. And just to add, they are extremely knowledgable about the health and political issues involved.
To have made the progress that you did with your excellent comments on e-cigs really looked promising. Most who reply to Dr Siegel's blogs are open minded, with a wicked sense of humour.
I support choice and most there do to. And just to add, they are extremely knowledgable about the health and political issues involved.
This is the a really scary attitude some smokers have. I don't know why someone would want to see e-cigs banned. I would think that a smoker would sympathize, at least a little and want to see something that someone could use to get away from analogs because of how hard it is to break the addiction. This person seemed to be jeering at the thought of an FDA ban
That person was a fairly obvious troll and really not worth responding to IMO. His idiocy speaks for itself quite eloquently as is.
I've never forgotten that I am a smoker. That's why I feel so strongly that I am in a literal fight for my life. Thanks to e-cigs I do not miss the "missing ingredient" and I'm much happier and healthier without it in my life.
By your opinion, I am to just sit back and let uninformed people tell me what's best for me, when the decision is not theirs to make. I respectfully disagree Sherid.
I think, if anything, they have forgotten that we were once smokers.
Of all the things I hate most, it is the denormalization campaign against smokers. It has the potential to spread to those who drink even moderately, those who are even slightly overweight, and to virtually anyone who does not get with the program. Last week, there was a story about fat people being the "real" cause of global warming. Another story bragged that the smoking ban in the UK had caused drinking to go down. Clearly, that is not true since liquor sales in supermarkets went up because more people were drinking at home. Yet, they said it. Smokers are being denied employment and housing. Smokers are denied the opportunity to foster children. Soon all of these things will be true for drinkers and the overweight as well. I find no purpose in any more division amongst us than we already have. That would be playing into the hands of those who designed this campaign. Of course you can disagree with me, and I with you. I believe there is still the right to dissent. It is only when we separate ourselves as smokers/vapors, etc. that I cringe. We are, after all, just people who may see things differently but have more in common than what separates us.
The person who responded to nitewriter on Dr. Siegel's blog was new. Some of the seasoned posters called him a troll and a probable anti-smoker placed there to stir it up. It is like the anti-smokers who post on Topix claiming to be 12 year olds who steal 2-3 packs of cigs per day from their mother's purse.
Same here. When I was a smoker, I really couldn't say anything. But since I'm out of the woods now - I can clearly see how demoralizing those attacks are, almost to the point of discrimination. Also hate the fact they use "children" to prove their point. They are almost always pretend they have moral upperhand, and looking-down attitude. Alot of anti-smokers, almost always say they are the victim. They don't even try to understand the nature of quitting smoking, and how hard it is. It just seems like they want "payback" for all they have put up with the smokers around.
I hated the fact they were telling smoking parents are irresponsible. How dare do they say such things, and everytime I see one of those ads, I give a big middle finger to the ads, sometimes with both hands.
...And if you notice, I did not respond to him/her. I wasn't out to start something, but merely to state my right to choose and in turn save my own life.
It really upsets me that they are trying to take away the only thing that has EVER kept me off analogs. I was a 3 ppd smoker for almost 40 years. I have tried all forms of quitting and NRT's from Chantix to hypnosis, and nothing has worked until e-cigs. Now they want to take it away. What gives them the right to make that choice for me?
I understand what you are saying Sherid. I didn't intend to represent smokers/ vapers in a bad light. I'm sorry if you feel I did. In my own defense, I feel as if the smokers there were sided with the anti's against us vapers. That's why I truly feel that they have forgotten that we were once smokers.
If you look at the responses by what would be called Hard Core Smokers before the disagreement came, you will see that at least three of them had decided to try an e cig. After the "attack" they decided not to do so. Smokers have not lined up against e cigarettes. ANTI smokers have done that. You are fighting the wrong people. Smokers and vapers share one important thing: the anti smoking freaks are out to ban anything that is enjoyable and is not produced by drug companies. It is not about health. It is simply about money and the very straight line connection from Big Pharma to anti-smoking groups.
- Status
Similar threads
