So here's the problem with the media and America.

[Mutescream]

I understand what you're saying but have you ever read the ingredients on food products? They do not break down the elements of flavorings. They simply state "flavoring" and some spin it "natural and other flavorings." A separate labeling standard for ejuice, going beyond that required for foods, is discriminatory in my view. People have allergies and they are the exception, not the rule, and to expect eeeeverything and eeeevery eventuality to be incorporated into labeling is exactly what has gotten us into the arm-long labeling mess we already have. Labeling for the majority is sufficient in my view and I have food and other allergies. Managing them is a personal responsibility that requires me to contact the manufacturer if I'm in doubt or have questions and is why most labels contain urls or phone numbers which my ejuices include just like food products. This should be the response to ANTZ bringing up the subject of flavorings pointing out their obvious irrationality as well as negative propaganda agenda.

Everything? Not necessarily, but there should be some onus to make sure that there are not things that are patently harmful... And if such things are put in there, a caution to let people know that it is there. do we really want this to denigrate to eventually become like BT? Let people make as informed of choices as they can.

 

[AgentAnia]

Just to clarify: My neighbor is behind vaping (not just *my* vaping) 100%. Her purpose in coming to me (as she has in the past) was to get a Vaper's Version of the story. But remember, she's quite elderly, and (bless her) not the best listener or retainor of data. That's why your post came to mind and I decided to give her sound bites instead of my usual lengthy explanation.

As I've been thinking about it, however, I think the sound-bites approach works for just about anyone for rebutting "fear-inducing headlines."

(I've already started working on a SB for the "ecigs cause cancer" story that's making the rounds, but would welcome any suggestions! Right now, I'm at "They're using the wrong method. The method they're using can prove that ANYTHING causes cancer.")

 

[swampergene]

The study itself actually says this:

The electronic cigarette (ECIG) is a battery-powered electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) designed to deliver nicotine without combusting tobacco.

Followed by this:

The lower nicotine concentration was selected to mimic the average plasma nicotine levels in ENDS users and did not demonstrate toxic or anti-proliferative effects on the cells.

So, an easy SB for it would be this:

"Actually, if you read the abstract of the study and not the media-hyped stories, you will find that it demonstrates that the nicotine levels in the average ecig user did not affect the cells."

The more I look at the abstract of this one, the more I think this mess falls directly on the shoulders of the irresponsible hacks who broke this story.

 

[aikanae1]

I think there was a story out at one time that breast feeding caused cancer. Can you think of something that hasn't been blamed for cancer?

Actually I think my response would be, "... and cigarettes don't?" and "This is harm reduction". Of course quitting is best but that's not going to happen tomorrow. In the meantime, vaping reduces the harm, less mess, no smell, enviromentally friendly ....

and that's true. If I could quit, I would have long before now.

 

[swampergene]

I think there was a story out at one time that breast feeding caused cancer. Can you think of something that hasn't been blamed for cancer?

Actually I think my response would be, "... and cigarettes don't?" and "This is harm reduction". Of course quitting is best but that's not going to happen tomorrow. In the meantime, vaping reduces the harm, less mess, no smell, enviromentally friendly ....

and that's true. If I could quit, I would have long before now.

Geez...the best SB is disguised as a comment lol

 

[Kent C]

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/japanese-smoking-paradox.html

 

[aikanae1]

Wow. That is interesting. I'm not in total agreement with some of the writer's conclusions. I tend to think there's way too much other stuff added to cigarettes / tobacco that is causing harm. However I fully endorse this belief:

then the anti-smoker cartel has done a disservice to smokers around the world. And, they may be complicit in the deaths of millions of smokers who otherwise might have benefited from the introduction of safer tobacco products into the markets of North America and Europe.

Wouldn't it be an odd twist to drag "public health" agencies into court with a lawsuit of repressing HR evidence, fraud and other things that may have cost millions of people their lives?

Now that would be talking guns to guns.

As it is, the Tobacco Settlement was justified to cover the excess health care that smoking has cost - so why are smokers required to pay an additional fee? It's not our fault if the money (still being paid) wasn't spent on healthcare.

It'd be kinda fun to watch some states try and explain what they have been doing with the money. Maybe they wouldn't have so much free time to create reasons to tax vaping (Yeah, right). The headlines would be good.

I don't think the tobacco / cigarette industry has fulfilled their agreement to disclose everything in cigarettes - as part of their agreement. Why the concern over what we vape when there's no concern over ingredients in smoking?

I know a heck of a lot more about eliquids. It would be simple to require food worker's permits if manufacturer were in question. That's more than what cigarette makers offer too. They don't even have to mention nicotine or tar levels on the package.

Where are cigarettes made? (I really don't know) I know it's probably not in the US. I've heard rumors that seeing how and what cigarettes are made from, is another reason that smoker's would want to quit. So it must not be pretty. Why is it only eliquids coming under fire?

We want harm reduction, and to know what is in the products we use.

 

[AgentAnia]

Let's remember that no one has really proven, scientifically and incontrovertably, what causes cancer. Some mechanisms of *how* cancer progresses are known, and correlations between certain things and cancer are known, but that's it. If smoking *caused* lung cancer, 100% of smokers would develop lung cancer. So remember we're talking about statistical probabilities and after-the-fact correlations, not causation or medical fact.

 

[aikanae1]

That's one of the fallicies of "smoking related diseases". There really aren't any. Someone can die of the same disease who didn't smoke and wasn't around any, including lung cancer. There is some common sense that says smoking will increase your chances, but that's not saying if you have this disease you MUST be a smoker.

I got trapped into reading the blog that was linked to a few posts ago. That's a blog ahead of it's time. It's full of sb ready perspectives. It's great.

If smoking causes the damage the government and the anti-smoker zealots claim, then they are criminally negligent in the discharge of their duties and as much responsible for any morbidity and mortality attributed to smoking as the tobacco companies. If smokers are the victims of the tobacco companies, as the anti-smoker cartel maintain, then the government has a responsibility to end the victimization, not profit from it through the imposition of punitive sin taxes.

And, if the anti-smoker zealots want to punish the tobacco companies, why are they insisting that smokers and small business owners who cater to them pay the price.

“How far do we go to legislate lifestyle?”

So children are to be protected, not from any real hazards of secondhand smoke exposure in the great outdoors, but rather, from the very sight of a smoker. Like watching a character smoking a cigarette in a movie, a child seeing a smoker light up in a park might be lured into a lifetime of sin and depravity. Watching wanton acts of violence or sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, have no affect and are perfectly permissible.

According to Physicians for a Smokefree Canada (PSY), Newfoundland spent roughly $95 Million on direct health care costs in 2006. In the same time frame, 2005/2006, they confiscated $116 million in tobacco taxes from the province's smokers, not including sales taxes.

The fact is that Newfoundland's tobacco consumers have already reimbursed the province for direct health-care costs, allegedly incurred due to tobacco use, on an annual basis.

 

[AveryW]

Golden rule: You can't debate crazy by using logic. You just have to sound "less crazy". Humor helps. So do short, easy to understand statements in plain english.

What are they really saying? Your neighbor was worried about you and she wanted reassurance, something already "pre-digested". Not history or theory or science or any other mind expanding information. Vaping probably isn't on her top 100 things to worry about. You obviously are on her list (awwww).

I don't think reporters or politicans are that much different when it comes to wanting pre-digested versions. They don't want to figure it out either. They want to get on with their day and they need to know what to write / say to do that.

A short clever / funny line usually gets repeated. Oh yea, that's what we want them to do.

Like I said, IMO the list is far from perfect. It's a start. There's things that need smoothing out and probably a bunch more that could be added.

My thought was to have quick statements ready on every topic ANTZ throws out. Then add a few more of our own about the positives of vaping (no wild or house fires) they haven't thought of yet. I know I'd like to put them on the defense.

You really are on to something here. You should start a thread with this same idea where we can all chip in and brain storm more 'sound bites' like these.

Sent from my GS3

 

[aikanae1]

You really are on to something here. You should start a thread with this same idea where we can all chip in and brain storm more 'sound bites' like these.

Sent from my GS3

LOL! My background is in the airline and travel industry. Phrasing means everything.

Vapers don't have public relations agencies or marketing firms to figure out the best phrasing or points to make when communicating to the public. We have to do that job for ourselves.

That's where I see missed opportunites. Vapers could be using terms that the public, neighbors, press, politicans can relate to, understand easily, be rememberable, and (hopefully) result in quotes repeating our message. Just like the goals of an advertising campaign would do for us.

IMO, explainations to the public over 2 seconds long are doomed.

I don't know where to put something like this. I'm thinking it might be best in the "general" section since many of these points have been faced by most vapers - it's not really a "campaign" thing to think in terms of daily phrasing.

 

[AveryW]

I'm at work and I just had a random thought. If someone on here is good at making things visually appealing, we could also have a document of these bulletted lists that we could print out. We could hand these out to people, hang em up on bulletin boards, all sorts of different things we could do with this.

Sent from my GS3

 

[sonicdsl]

LOL! My background is in the airline and travel industry. Phrasing means everything.

Vapers don't have public relations agencies or marketing firms to figure out the best phrasing or points to make when communicating to the public. We have to do that job for ourselves.

That's where I see missed opportunites. Vapers could be using terms that the public, neighbors, press, politicans can relate to, understand easily, be rememberable, and (hopefully) result in quotes repeating our message. Just like the goals of an advertising campaign would do for us.

IMO, explainations to the public over 2 seconds long are doomed.

I don't know where to put something like this. I'm thinking it might be best in the "general" section since many of these points have been faced by most vapers - it's not really a "campaign" thing to think in terms of daily phrasing.

The Campaigning section would be the correct spot for this; think of it like a marketing campaign. All interested parties could add to it, and link to the thread in their signatures.

 

[AgentAnia]

The Campaigning section would be the correct spot for this; think of it like a marketing campaign. All interested parties could add to it, and link to the thread in their signatures.

No disrespect, but how many people frequent the Campaigning forum vs. how many regularly check the E-Smoking forum? IMO, this needs to achieve the widest audience possible. It risks getting lost even here in Media & General News... I wonder, if a thread were to be opened in General E-Smoking, would the moderators move it or let it stand?

 

[Kent C]

No disrespect, but how many people frequent the Campaigning forum vs. how many regularly check the E-Smoking forum? IMO, this needs to achieve the widest audience possible. It risks getting lost even here in Media & General News... I wonder, if a thread were to be opened in General E-Smoking, would the moderators move it or let it stand?

General Smoking has it's own 'category/desciption' and frankly, people who don't want this type of stuff shouldn't have to dig through it there. I know it's 'for their own good' ;-), but just the fact that threads are moved here does give them a heads up about this sub-forum, if they're interested.

 

[aikanae1]

Well I guess I wanted to get it out of a "campaign" since there really isn't one (fully funded).

 

[sonicdsl]

No disrespect, but how many people frequent the Campaigning forum vs. how many regularly check the E-Smoking forum? IMO, this needs to achieve the widest audience possible. It risks getting lost even here in Media & General News... I wonder, if a thread were to be opened in General E-Smoking, would the moderators move it or let it stand?

It would be moved. It's a very tough job, but we try to keep things organized. The more we get things moved, the more people get used to finding it elsewhere.

Consider too, that many people don't go to the General forum, they go to New Posts, or Today's Posts, and see what's been posted recently. So the more posting in the correct forums, will draw more attention.

Adding links in signatures draws attention as well.

Some of that must be working, because activity has spiked in recent months here, in Legislative News, Campaigning, and most recently in the CASAA forum.