Some Facts Campainers Should Know

[HK45]

gnsmith,

I couldn't agree with you more. If the big money lobbies were involved there wouldn't be any question of the outcome. It's always about who is going to make the money.
You are also right that parasites misuse these organizations for personal gain (money, power, etc.)

I'm also concerned who will regulate and profit from this new technology. I certainly don't want to lose e-cigs right after losing my P&J's. ;-)

 

[Jim Davis]

Jim,Most of us are just spewing out propaganda ourselves. You don't want e-cigs banned on false statements but what do you, me, or anyone of real consequence really know what the effects of vaping are? We know that it has helped us lose analogs but that is it. Where are our studies,facts, and proofs?

Your right, we *don't* know the effects of e-cigs. My only point is that I will never trust these organizations to accurately determine the effects of e-cigs. Can we trust them to give us the facts and proofs? As far as I'm concerned, they have no credibility with me.

 

[HK45]

katink,

You are right. Most people wouldn't know a socialist from a fascist if Karl Marx himself signed a copy of his "Manifesto of the Communist Party". ;-)

 

[Kate]

If you haven't already taken the Political Compass test then do yourselves a favour and try it. I learned loads about political definitions and that politics isn't two dimensional.

The Political Compass

 

[HK45]

Your right, we *don't* know the effects of e-cigs. My only point is that I will never trust these organizations to accurately determine the effects of e-cigs. Can we trust them to give us the facts and proofs? As far as I'm concerned, they have no credibility with me.

Jim,

I can understand that. "They" have given us plenty of reasons to feel that way. As I said before, I'm on your side. As Tbob told me once when we had a disagreement, that is what this forum is for. Lively debate is a good thing! No hard feelings, I hope.

Anyway, I've already hurt my credibility by not knowing how to spell credibility (i.e. credability). It was late and I was tired. I really do know how to spell it...REALLY!

Kate: I'm getting ready to take that "Political Compass Test". Thanks for the interesting link!

 

[HK45]

Your right, we *don't* know the effects of e-cigs. My only point is that I will never trust these organizations to accurately determine the effects of e-cigs. Can we trust them to give us the facts and proofs? As far as I'm concerned, they have no credibility with me.

Jim,

I just had an afterthought. Have you considered joining "Right to vape"? There is no charge and I think that your obvious compassion about this subject might be a great asset to them as a volunteer. Just a thought.

 

[Jim Davis]

Jim,

I just had an afterthought. Have you considered joining "Right to vape"? There is no charge and I think that your obvious compassion about this subject might be a great asset to them as a volunteer. Just a thought.

Thanks, I'll check them out. I don't mean to sound like a fanatic, but I've been smoking 2 packs a day for well over 40 years. I haven't touched an analog since my first vape. (well, I tried one after two weeks out of curiosity, and got grossed out on the first puff.) But all in all, I feel great, and I feel that someone is going to take it all away. And I truly believe, it's all about the money.

I'll chect them out though, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

@ Kate

I took you political test - interesting....very interesting...

I'm more like Ghandi than I thought...

 

[Kate]

@ Kate

I took you political test - interesting....very interesting...

I'm more like Ghandi than I thought...

Glad you had a look. I think that's a great site to clear up misunderstandings about political definitions.

 

[ladyraj]

You're 100% right about OSHA. But "safe second hand smoke" is not the issue. The issue is that these organizations are acting on *incomplete* information. I don't trust them to rule on any hazards with the e-cig.

Just a few things to clear up some misconceptions. The 1993 Epa study (really 1992) found that second hand smoke (SHS) had a RISK associated with exposure. They used correlational studies that give "relative risks" scores (given as lowercase r scores). What the EPA did to demonstrate their claim was valid, was to lower the scientific threshold of acceptable standard for significance to 90% rather than the normal 95%. This is why the judge threw out the study and scolded the EPA for their efforts. Further, correlational studies do not demonstrate cause and effect, so they used a weaker measure and lowered the standard to produce an effect. Since most people are unaware that the study has been discredited and the media still touts it as gospel, you are correct to worry that your information may become skewed by these groups.

 

[Kate]

You keep popping up with well informed, sensible, relevant posts Ladyraj, thanks.

I'm intrigued ... who is that masked poster?