The University of California system passes new ruling on tobacco products (including e-cigs)

Status
Not open for further replies.

jajashi

Full Member
Verified Member
Feb 8, 2013
56
56
United States
April 22 is gonna be a sad day. Thank goodness I'm graduating this June.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/no-smoking-allowed-ucla-to-go-240183.aspx
:(
I feel that using clean air as an excuse to ban e-cigs is somewhat ignorant.
I guess they're just following in the FDA's footsteps.

56138410151539382667698.jpg
 

Nkayy

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 18, 2013
142
121
Los Angeles
April 22 is gonna be a sad day. Thank goodness I'm graduating this June.
No smoking allowed: UCLA to go tobacco-free in April / UCLA Newsroom
:(
I feel that using clean air as an excuse to ban e-cigs is somewhat ignorant.
I guess they're just following in the FDA's footsteps.

56138410151539382667698.jpg
I also go to UCLA and was surprised by the idiocy of banning e-cigarettes, but not banning, like CARS, which cause way more pollution around campus. I was still smoking analogs when this ban passed, tried to quit and ultimately switched to a vape. I will continue to vape on campus. As far as I know, only nicotine products are banned, so I should be fine with 0 nic juice, or vaping in the bathroom or something. But anyway, this is stupid and just reflects the lack of knowledge the School of Public Health at UCLA has about vaping. If they banned "cig-a-likes" I would understand more. Regardless, this last finals week, when I biked through campus, I saw 5 people smoking analogs. Finals week hits hard, eh. If I get a chance I will talk about this with anyone in charge, but most likely they don't understand that vaping does not damage air quality.
 

Lisa Belle

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 26, 2010
452
575
Sylvania, OH
www.lisabelle-artist.com
I highly recommend this BLOG by CAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: BELIEFS, MANIPULATION AND LIES IN THE TOBACCO ISSUE - Robert Molimard

It is written so well and it perfectly outlines how they can influence by lies and manipulations that result in institutions OF NO VALUABLE LEARNING can promulgate BS!

The Anti-Tobacco Crusaders

These activists have abandoned logical reasoning and replaced it with faith and passion. Anything goes when it comes to pursuing the triumph of their such “good cause’’, and “white lies’ are a perfectly acceptable tool. Any open debate and any valid scientific research is therefore precluded. We do find of course some pure idealists, survivors of former “virtuous movements’’ among them. Be that as it may, there are unfortunately a great number of self-interested do-gooder apostles fueling and exploiting to their advantage this blind militant force in an effort to assert their own power and fame, not to mention more tangible benefits.

For these knights of purity, tobacco is the absolute evil, the devil. It must be eliminated, eradicated. At the very least, it must be hidden or sold “under the counter’’, much like porn magazines (sic). The tobacco industry is diabolical. It must be destroyed, made to disappear, bankrupted through litigation.

The problem is that if the tobacco industry exists it is because it responds to a demand. If tobacco has spread around the world since Christopher Columbus, during an era when there was no other means of advertising than word of mouth and when tobacco was cultivated by primitive means, it is because there is something attractive about the product that causes people to crave for it. The industry responded to the demand, it did not create it. If the industry were to disappear, the demand would remain and would require to be fulfilled. And it would be fulfilled. Multinationals would be investing their money in tax havens, where they would fund an offshore production in some underdeveloped nation. Cigarettes would be distributed through organized criminal networks, fueling underground commerce and auxiliary crimes in the process. No quality control could ever be achieved. Control could only be dealt with through the police and corruption would inevitably creep in. For these reasons, the fundamentalist anti-tobacco crusaders are a true danger to social balance and public health.

As for the smoker, he is seen as someone possessed by the devil. He must be pursued, hunted down to his last hide-out, even in his own home. The smoker loses the ordinary rights of ownership and freedoms within his own home. Already in the U.S. smokers are increasingly denied rental housing. Moreover, in the spirit of good Judeo-Christian morality, he must be punished by where he has sinned. Let his vice cost him and ruin him. Let us therefore increase the price of cigarettes and rolling tobacco. For decades, we have been served a lie, with no tolerance for any criticism or challenge, namely: that the only effective method to reduce smoking prevalence is to increase the price of cigarettes. But since it does not work, they allege that it is because the increases are neither high enough nor frequent enough! But just as with their tactic of stigmatization of smokers, the high-price policy does not work.

That is where the real failure lies. One could always be tempted to defend such a policy if its success outweighed its serious adverse effects. Effects that destroy the individual, the HUMAN-slave to cigarettes. It sinks him into poverty and social exclusion, pushing him into more dangerous smoking behaviors. But it does not exorcise the demon of addiction.

They attempt to justify these dehumanizing policies by referring to large statistics with abstruse mathematical models [7]. However, if any of these policies were truly effective one would think that after 30 years of applying them worldwide we should be noticing their effects. Smoking prevalence should be lower in places where the prices are high. Comparing the 27 countries of the European Union for smoking prevalence according to price, and after adjusting for purchasing power, we should be able to calculate a significant regression line with a nice negative slope. I drafted this graph based on 2009 [8,9] data. The result is not debatable. We observe a cloud of dots, there is no significant correlation, and to add mockery to injury, the calculated regression line shows a positive slope! (Figure 3)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread