I wonder if that may be why I have no allergies nor any of my siblings. Mr. Robin has allergies galore and is from a family of never smokers. Food for thought...
The Meeting Between CASAA and the FDA is Today
- Thread starter Robino1
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And to expand on kristin's thoughts; the grandfather of all second hand smoke studies, the EPA study that most other studies are based off of and every antz likes to quote, was not carried out scientifically.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/d/o/w/dow79b00/Sdow79b00.pdf
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/d/o/w/dow79b00/Sdow79b00.pdf
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
The claim that the minor exposure to smoke found in public spaces is a significant health risk is an ANTZ lie, which is one of the reasons I won't use the "vapers shouldn't be exposed to second hand smoke" rational when opposing vaping bans. It's disingenuous and I won't lend credence to any ANTZ lie - even if it is in the act of trying to save e-cigarettes. You cannot support the truth that the ANTZ are liars about e-cigarettes by using ANTZ lies about SHS without being a hypocrite. I strongly believe it will only be turned against you later and it alienates the smokers we hope will make the switch.
One of these days I'm going to do a blog post about the top ANTZ lies that vapers still believe are true and keep repeating - unknowingly giving more power to the ANTZ every time they do.
One of these days I'm going to do a blog post about the top ANTZ lies that vapers still believe are true and keep repeating - unknowingly giving more power to the ANTZ every time they do.
The irony being that so many vapers will argue that there is "all of the evidence" proving second hand smoke is dangerous in public spaces; completely ignoring that it is no different than "all of the evidence" showing e-cigarettes are dangerous. The cherry-picking and biased studies tactics we see ANTZ using to damn e-cigarettes is exactly what they did for second hand smoke. Studies showing no SHS risk were suppressed and bad studies done by ANTZ were reported as "significant evidence." Even with the WHO study that showed no increased risk in public spaces (and the reduced risk for children) was "spun" by WHO in lying press releases that claimed the study actually DID find significant risk increases.
The fact is, you cannot trust ANYTHING the ANTZ have told us for the past 30 years. What they are doing to e-cigarettes should open people's eyes to the WHOLE truth.
Not on the side of Government regulation!
Okay, with that out of the way:
Not pushing Regulation will result in a loss of BILLIONS to government
A swing to Non-tobacco use opens a tone of debates.
1) Loss of related income to the medical profession
2) loss of Insurance increases (often never used by payee)
3) Increased life span (Over crowding)
4) Faster Failure to Social Security (more to pay out)
5) Food Shortage (due to over population)
6) increased Jobless rate - see above
Does anyone Not get that there is an agenda?
Defective toys are Recalled due to safety - Can't have the replacement workers injured or worse.
Yet tobacco - Sworn by government to be Deadly - is Taxed and remains.
Off the soap box.............before I get in trouble.
When I read this I couldn't help but think of that study in the Czech Republic conducted by Phillip Morris (early 2000's?) which concluded that smoking was actually a GOOD thing in regards to the financial balance of the state. While I don't normally believe in conspiracy theories (I think they serve the purpose of making us feel as though we're not in control), this "study" has some interesting implications.
Yes! You absolutely need to do this! ASAP! Please! This is something every vaper needs to be aware of. (Can I come do some household chores for you, or cook your meals, or act as your PA, drive you places, answer your phone and take messages, to free up some of your valuable time for this important job?
)ETA: On second thought, you may not want me cooking for you...
Last edited:
I use a form of that argument only to show how flawed their line of thinking is. As in, they state that they want to try and save us from ourselves, but when we manage to do exactly that THEN they want to throw us right back into the substance that they say is bad for us? Exactly how much sense does that make? It reminds me of the nursery rhyme that made me crazy as a child and still doesn't make a whit of sense now that I have grown children of my own:
Mother, may I go out to swim?
Yes, my darling daughter.
Fold your clothes up neat and trim
But don’t go near the water.
I mean, What?????
And a resounding YES to your future blog post kristin. I for one would appreciate it greatly and believe it's much needed.
Yes! You absolutely need to do this! ASAP! Please! This is something every vaper needs to be aware of. (Can I come do some household chores for you, or cook your meals, or act as your PA, drive you places, answer your phone and take messages, to free up some of your valuable time for this important job?
ETA: On second thought, you may not want me cooking for you...
I will cook, you do the cleaning.
I am anecdotal evidence to the contrary. As a kid, I was plagued by allergies. Pollen from trees, grasses and weeds; chocolate and even some substances in whole milk. Both parents smoked, inside, outside and in the car.
I still get hayfever twice annually--once in the spring (brutal) and once in the fall (just bad).
I eat Benadryl like tic tacs for about three months out of the year.
Like Robin also mentioned earlier, I believe a lot of what we do or do not develop; allergies, autoimmune conditions, cancer, high cholesterol, is all based on genetic disposition. My mother has serious allergies, as does my brother. She grew up in a house full of smokers whereas he did not. I only inherited minor allergies, but did receive her family's propensity for developing autoimmune disorders. (Thanks mom! lol)
Here's something that will really bake your noodle: most tobacco industry research is far more sound and unbiased than anti-tobacco research. No one will believe it, but it's true.
Think about the claim that the tobacco industry "lied" about nicotine being highly addictive. Thirty years later, what are we seeing in the news about nicotine? Dozens of recent reports of research showing that nicotine itself may not be so addictive after all.
And that's just one example. The ANTZ have lied to us more in the past 30 years than the tobacco industry ever did. This is not intended to support the tobacco industry, just to say that the ANTZ have done everything short of murder to demonize tobacco companies and smokers to force their prohibitionist ideals on us. I believed it all myself until I started advocating for e-cigarettes and really researched the war on tobacco. Think the smoker advocates are crazy, just justifying their addiction or paid shills? Well, isn't that what the ANTZ are saying about e-cig users now?
Another myth is "I'm extremely allergic to cigarette smoke." There is no such thing as "smoke allergies." Smoke - ANY kind of smoke - is an irritant, not an allergen. Smoke can contribute to the reaction to allergens already being inhaled because it can magnify the irritation, but it is not the real "cause" of allergic reactions. Smoke also doesn't "cause" asthma. Study after study has debunked that claim. In fact, as smoking around children has reached record lows, incidence of childhood and adult asthma has INCREASED.
Here's something that will really bake your noodle: most tobacco industry research is far more sound and unbiased than anti-tobacco research. No one will believe it, but it's true.
Think about the claim that the tobacco industry "lied" about nicotine being highly addictive. Thirty years later, what are we seeing in the news about nicotine? Dozens of recent reports of research showing that nicotine itself may not be so addictive after all.
And that's just one example. The ANTZ have lied to us more in the past 30 years than the tobacco industry ever did. This is not intended to support the tobacco industry, just to say that the ANTZ have done everything short of murder to demonize tobacco companies and smokers to force their prohibitionist ideals on us. I believed it all myself until I started advocating for e-cigarettes and really researched the war on tobacco. Think the smoker advocates are crazy, just justifying their addiction or paid shills? Well, isn't that what the ANTZ are saying about e-cig users now?
Wow, kristin, even I didn't catch that one until you said something. Granted, cigarette companies are guilty of their own nefarious acts and I still wouldn't trust them with my e-juice, but why waste their profits on researching ways to make nicotine MORE addictive if it's ALREADY as much or more addictive than the hardest drugs as the ANTZ claim?
"One of these days I'm going to do a blog post about the top ANTZ lies that vapers still believe are true and keep repeating - unknowingly giving more power to the ANTZ every time they do."
Put me on the notify list for this.
It's long overdue, IMHO.
Put me on the notify list for this.
It's long overdue, IMHO.
Last edited:
Name those "nefarious acts" and I bet I could show evidence that most are an ANTZ lie.
A reason I have seen used effectively is "our daughter's friends and teachers get upset if we stink, and doubly so if we pass the stink to our daughter." Harmful or not, it is odious to many people including some vapers (not me) so especially in cold or burning-hot states, we still should not have to go outside. (In CA it is a difficult argument to make if you are north of Santa Barbara and significantly below Lake Tahoe in elevation.)
I want to emphasize that I'm not championing the tobacco industry. My only point is to expose the far worse "nefarious acts" that have been committed by the ANTZ - people who were supposed to be telling the public the truth and cared about our health. The anti-tobacco (and now anti-nicotine/e-cig) crusade had nothing to do with truth or health (except for a few people who truly cared, but most of them are supporting e-cigs today, not trying to ban them.)
All these waters are murky, and so many interests are pulling from all sides, perverting any attempt at truth.
Singers employer :
From :
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Tobacco industry work
As part of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement Agreement, the Philip Morris corporation released millions of pages of documents concerning their operations. These detail how, after the Environmental Protection Agency moved in 1993 to have second-hand tobacco smoke declared a carcinogen, Philip Morris hired the AdTI to campaign against the move. This resulted in the 1994 paper Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.
In 1994, part of the Clinton administration's health plan proposed an increase in cigarette sales tax from 24¢ a packet to 99¢ a packet. Merrick Carey, then president of the AdTI, put a plan to Philip Morris whereby, for $30,000 a month, the Institution would conduct a campaign for them. The AdTI then presented itself as a "bipartisan" economic think tank presenting an analysis of the Clinton plan, nowhere mentioning they were directly hired by Philip Morris to oppose the tax increase.
Tobaccodocuments.org contains a number of searchable documents produced as court discovery linking AdTI to Lorillard and Phillip Morris corporations. AdTI is linked to Dr. Fred Singer in the tobacco documents,[7] the Cooler Heads Coalition,[8] Consumer Alert,[9] Heartland Institute,[10] and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[11][12][13]"
Singers employer :
From :
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Tobacco industry work
As part of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement Agreement, the Philip Morris corporation released millions of pages of documents concerning their operations. These detail how, after the Environmental Protection Agency moved in 1993 to have second-hand tobacco smoke declared a carcinogen, Philip Morris hired the AdTI to campaign against the move. This resulted in the 1994 paper Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination.
In 1994, part of the Clinton administration's health plan proposed an increase in cigarette sales tax from 24¢ a packet to 99¢ a packet. Merrick Carey, then president of the AdTI, put a plan to Philip Morris whereby, for $30,000 a month, the Institution would conduct a campaign for them. The AdTI then presented itself as a "bipartisan" economic think tank presenting an analysis of the Clinton plan, nowhere mentioning they were directly hired by Philip Morris to oppose the tax increase.
Tobaccodocuments.org contains a number of searchable documents produced as court discovery linking AdTI to Lorillard and Phillip Morris corporations. AdTI is linked to Dr. Fred Singer in the tobacco documents,[7] the Cooler Heads Coalition,[8] Consumer Alert,[9] Heartland Institute,[10] and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[11][12][13]"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
