Some Facts Campainers Should Know

[Jim Davis]

Since the e-cig is being attacked by different groups, you may want to know the background of some of these groups. This information may come in handy during an argument or discussion.

In 1993 the EPA released a study on Second Hand Smoke. The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, The Red Cross, and many others jumped on the band wagon.

In 1998 The tobacco Companies challenged the EPA study. The Study was overturned by the government. (see - Judge Osteen's Decision )

Afterwards these organizations continued to quote this now "non existent document" as fact.

If they were quoting false information for years, why should their comments on the electronic cigarette be trusted as fact?

 

[V-V]

I don't think anyone (here) is trusting anything they say.

I think I'm going to start calling this my nicotine device. No tobacco, no smoke, no fire. Just nicotine.

 

[Jim Davis]

I don't think anyone (here) is trusting anything they say.

I know most don't trust them, but this is *proof* why they can't be trusted.

 

[taz3cat]

Since the e-cig is being attacked by different groups, you may want to know the background of some of these groups. This information may come in handy during an argument or discussion.

In 1993 the EPA released a study on Second Hand Smoke. The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, The Red Cross, and many others jumped on the band wagon.

In 1998 The Tobacco Companies challenged the EPA study. The Study was overturned by the government. (see - Judge Osteen's Decision )

Afterwards these organizations continued to quote this now "non existent document" as fact.

If they were quoting false information for years, why should their comments on the electronic cigarette be trusted as fact?

No one will believe this is not true. They have lied untill everyone believes that second hand smoke can kill you. I read article that said, OSHA said you conld not get a room sealed tight enough and enough people in the room smoking one at time to hurt anyone. It was physcially impossible.

 

[HK45]

Let me try to get my head around this. Are you folks saying that smoking in a small room (living room, etc.) has no quantifiable adverse effects on infants, children, people with asthma and other resiratory ailment, etc.?

Huh?

Naturaly, the big money tobaccco companies had nothing to do with the study being overturned. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are using the same institutions to give some kind of credability to your "argument" that you are fighting for the right to vape! I think you might lose some credability if you try using that position!

 

[OutWest]

The one that gets me is the people that claim that even 30 seconds of exposure to second hand smoke will result in the person having the same risk of smoking related heart disease as a full time smoker. Talk about making stuff up... *rolls eyes*

 

[Jim Davis]

Let me try to get my head around this. Are you folks saying that smoking in a small room (living room, etc.) has no quantifiable adverse effects on infants, children, people with asthma and other resiratory ailment, etc.?

Huh?

NO - That's not what we're saying. See how easily things are misunderstood? We're only saying that these organizations are stating facts that have not been proven. The EPA study was not scientifically proven enough to satisfy the legal requirements.

Do you want the government to ban e-cig's based on statements that have not been proven? Same thing.
__________________________________________________

"If a falsehood is repeated enough times, it will become truth."
---Adolf Hitler---

 

[Jim Davis]

No one will believe this is not true. They have lied untill everyone believes that second hand smoke can kill you.

And that's the point. They are quoting a "non existent" document. I think we can all agree that second hand smoke is not good, but *true* facts must back up that statement. They ban second hand smoke, but they don't ban wood burning stoves, fireplaces, charcoal grills, leaf burning, etc. It's all the same in chemical composition.

Ban my electronic cigarette on facts, not lies, and guesses.

 

[dumwaldo]

OSHA refused to prohibit smoking in the workplace because second hand smoke does not violate federal standards for clean indoor air in the workplace.

Is second hand smoke 'safe'? Hell no. If you believe it is safe then you are fooling yourself.

Is second hand smoke more dangerous than other airborne hazards we routinely encounter on a daily basis. Hell no.

But here is the thing. OSHA standards are based on 'bare minimums'. OSHA standards will allow us to do things that are dangerous and will allow us to be exposed to things that are dangerous.

Let me explain in clearer way. I work in construction and as part of my position on the jobsite I need to be versed in OSHA CFR 1926 (and some OSHA CFR 1910) that covers standards for the construction industry.

OSHA says to work on a scaffold, above 6' high we need to use a fall arrest system (fall protection) because you can be seriously injured falling 6'. however at a height of 5'11" no fall arrest system is required. Will that one single inch make a difference in the risk factor? Not at all but the OSHA standard has to have a defining line somewhere and the intent of the rule is not to protect every single worker in every single situation. The intent of the rule is just to establish a bare minimum standard.

In construction I work with substances that are undoubtedly killing me slowly. Some of the products we use in NYC are banned from being used in other parts of the country. OSHA standards to not convey or imply safety, they are simply bare minimum that if exceeded are considered to be excessively abusive.

Just because it is OK with OSHA does not in any way make it 'safe'. People die every year despite 'living' within OSHA regulations. Try to keep in mind that OSHA is one of the most poorly funded and understaffed federal agencies in all of the United States. Up till 2008 there were only 22 OSHA inspectors in all 5 boroughs of New York City.

I agree the EPA study was exceptionally flawed and to date there has not been any studies conducted that could back up the claims in that EPA study. But please do not mistake that for an implication that second hand smoke is 'safe'. I truly believe that would be a big mistake.

DW

 

[Jim Davis]

I agree the EPA study was exceptionally flawed and to date there has not been any studies conducted that could back up the claims in that EPA study. But please do not mistake that for an implication that second hand smoke is 'safe'. I truly believe that would be a big mistake.
DW

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.

 

[Kate]

The US groups seem pretty extreme to me (from a UK perspective). Dirty tricks and all sorts of pressure tactics seem to be normal.

I hope we don't fall into the same habits in response, that would be a pity and would undermine our credibility too.

 

[dumwaldo]

I agree that most of the 'decision makers' will likely be ill informed but that is part of a much larger problem in this country and not an exclusive 'danger' of just potential e-cig litigation.

It is a very difficult line to tow.

You believe you have the right to use your e-cig while 'complete' information is compiled.

Do you believe an industrial factory should be allowed to do whatever they want if 'complete' information is not yet compiled?

There needs to be a common sense standard and I think breathing in ANY substance that is not naturally occurring in our air should be considered to carry at least some health risk until proven otherwise. This is a case where I think innocence is what has to be proven rather than guilt which can be assumed based on common sense.

DW

 

[Jim Davis]

The US groups seem pretty extreme to me (from a UK perspective). Dirty tricks and all sorts of pressure tactics seem to be normal.

I hope we don't fall into the same habits in response, that would be a pity and would undermine our credibility too.

Your observation is accurate Kate. I would never resort to false information to defend myself, but on the other hand, I don't trust the authorities.

I grew up in the 50's during the cold War, where the US used propaganda just as much as everyone else. I remember watching films in school with the "they are evil & we are good" concept. They painted a nasty picture of the rest of the world, and through the years, I heard a lot of things that were not quite believable in other subjects.

I'm not going to drift off the subject any more than that, but lets just say that I'm a very untrusting person when it comes to the authorities running my life.

 

[Kate]

Propaganda takes away peoples rights to make informed choices and destroys trust.

Lies, exaggeration, deceit ... even white lies deny individuals their rights. The long term battle for hearts and minds can only be won with honesty. Short term setbacks should be expected when the opposition cheats.

 

[gnsmith]

I too, do not trust the the government. The government has the tendency to take facts and twist it, make you believe what they want you to believe. I have met a lot of politicians in my life, to date, I cannot remember one that has not twisted something to the way they wanted it to be.


A honest politician has no chance in politics (IMHO)

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

A honest politician has no chance in politics (IMHO)

The US, IMO, has a terminal case of cancer - it's called GREED!

Unfortunately, this cancer has spread throughout the body. We need to remove it - this means removing all the cells - and that means breaking up the monopolies of the Democrats and the Republicans.....

I'll say that again: The Democrats and the Republicans are the 2 largest MONOPOLIES in the US.

No good can come of a 2 party political system - eventually it turns into socialism...

My .02, commrade.

 

[gnsmith]

The US, IMO, has a terminal case of cancer - it's called GREED!

Unfortunately, this cancer has spread throughout the body. We need to remove it - this means removing all the cells - and that means breaking up the monopolies of the Democrats and the Republicans.....

I'll say that again: The Democrats and the Republicans are the 2 largest MONOPOLIES in the US.

No good can come of a 2 party political system - eventually it turns into socialism...

My .02, commrade.

Now thats the truth.

 

[katink]

The US, IMO, has a terminal case of cancer - it's called GREED!

Unfortunately, this cancer has spread throughout the body. We need to remove it - this means removing all the cells - and that means breaking up the monopolies of the Democrats and the Republicans.....

I'll say that again: The Democrats and the Republicans are the 2 largest MONOPOLIES in the US.

No good can come of a 2 party political system - eventually it turns into socialism...

My .02, commrade.

Good observation for the most part imo, but a lot of people REALLY need to familiarize themselves with (the many forms of) socialism - comparing what is happening in the US to socialism is well... not exactly showing a lot of factual information, to put it quite friendly.

But otherwise: indeed I believe too that a two-party political system is only one step better then a one-party system... which is categorized as dictatorial. At the other side of the spectrum would be real democracy (or shall I say 'should be', seeing the facts all around us...)

 

[HK45]

Jim,

Of course I don't want e-cigs banned. That is why I'm a supporting member here and have spent so much money trying to lose analogs but a strategy of trying to discredit respected established organizations such as the Red Cross is not going to help our cause.

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?

Diversionary tactics aren't going to work! As Kate said, truth is the only thing that will win over allies. We can't resort to half-truths, conjecture, and the false claims you attribute to the other side.

I'm on your side, I just don't agree with your approach.

 

[gnsmith]

HK45 you are right, I think a lot of us just need to blow off some steam. I do not condemn organizations like the Red Cross, American Heart Association and even our government and many more I have not mentioned. These organizations were set up with good intentions. What I do condemn is some of the people that are in power, they are the ones corrupted. they misuse these organizations to benefit themselves.
I guarantee you, if the pharmaceutical or tobacco industry was behind e-cigarettes there would not be all the controversy there is right now.
And yes I understand we need regulations and we should be concentrating on regulations, not banning. we need to be working on making this product even safer.
The bottom line is, WHO will profit from this product?
Even after the FDA has the power to regulate this product, WILL THEY? they didn't do a good job with the peanut butter industry.