"The war over vaping's health risks is getting dirty"

[caramel]

This just in:

The War Over Vaping's Health Risks Is Getting Dirty | WIRED

P.S. Link is intentionally broken. Please remove the extra blank in order to rebuild it.

 

[Lessifer]

wow, what an incredibly biased article, I used to like wired magazine...

 

[10x sugar]

That was sickening to read!

But thank you sincerely for the post and the link, carmel.

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
-Sun-tzu



-Sugar

 

[Kent C]

break link.....

 

[TyPie]

It really seems like a ridiculous article in light of what we DO know about ecigs so far.
Then again, Glanz is heavily quoted.

 

[Zebra Puzzle]

Nice arguments in comment section.

 

[caramel]

TyPie - I love your spelling of dr's name

 

[Jman8]

Hmmm, I disagree with take by fellow vapers here. I see the article as decent journalism. It is saying there is a war between two camps and presenting both sides, with general Glantz's comments seemingly having more weight than our side. I imagine that is why our side disdains this article, but I'm not sure what one can expect when not everyone that observes the war is going to be pro vape.

I don't read this article as anti-vape. But I think I understand (without reading article comments) how fellow vapers could see it as anti-vape. Yet, it does bring up pro-vape's side to recent anti-vape's positioning, and why that side is (now) playing dirty. What I see it neglecting is acknowledgement that anti-vape came first, and played dirty first. And yet, that history stems back to battle between pro-smoke (or even BT) and anti-smoking.

I have to wonder how many on the pro-vape side would disagree with this assertion, "A cigarette is by far and away the most dangerous consumer product ever invented." I'm thinking those that would disagree wouldn't be so interested in establishing anything resembling 'relative safety of a smoke' but instead quibble over the 'by far and away' language. IOW, I'm insinuating that we have our own form of ANTZ-like rhetoric on our side. And to degree that some in this thread would question / debate that, I would think everyone on this thread would concede that most of the general public does think of smokes as 'cancer causing sticks.' That vapers on this thread would dispute that some/majority of vapers think this as well, is where I might have disagreement. I'd want to discuss this and would be extremely pleased if I was proven wrong.

To say this article has bias is a given. Find me an article that doesn't. I have yet to see one in my lifetime. I think this one does a decent job at providing balance, and is entrenched with ANTZ rhetoric that permeates world culture. I'd love to see things swing the other way, but for that to happen a majority (of society) would have to change their tune on smokes / nicotine. And as long as vaping is mostly to only being compared to smoking, and smoking is deemed 'very harmful,' then I would concur with Glantz when he says, "So to say it’s not as bad as a cigarette is not saying very much."

Thing is, I would dispute Glantz or fellow vapers on how exactly harmful smoking is.

 

[caramel]

I disagree that cigarette is the most dangerous consumer product ever invented.

For starters, it won't ruin your whole life since birth.

 

[ruet]

Hmmm, I disagree with take by fellow vapers here. I see the article as decent journalism. It is saying there is a war between two camps and presenting both sides, with general Glantz's comments seemingly having more weight than our side. I imagine that is why our side disdains this article, but I'm not sure what one can expect when not everyone that observes the war is going to be pro vape.

I don't read this article as anti-vape. But I think I understand (without reading article comments) how fellow vapers could see it as anti-vape. Yet, it does bring up pro-vape's side to recent anti-vape's positioning,...

You and I are usually on the same page Jman. Not this time though.

E-cigarette companies have been advertising their products to adults and children alike, claiming to help smokers quit while simultaneously promoting lollipop-flavored liquids.

Reminiscent of glamorous smoking ads of the last century, many of the ads feature celebrity endorsements; in a Blu ad, Jenny McCarthy flirts with the camera while rejoicing that she can now smoke without scaring guys away with her smell. And many of them seem shockingly child-centric.

There’s plenty of evidence behind the campaigns’ claims—studies that link e-cigs to asthma, lung inflammation, MRSA infection risk and exposure to harmful chemicals.

But there also isn’t definitive evidence that they’re safe. And there are many good reasons to assume they’ll be found in time to increase cancer and heart and lung disease.

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, then, public health agencies have to continue to play a little dirty themselves to get citizens to pay attention.

These are pronouncements by the stories author and offer no competing view other than "well, we don't know". In fact, as Stan says, "that's just not true" We know a lot and the author decided not to include that knowledge. Not decent journalism in the slightest.

 

[DrMA]

This article is atrocious because it portrays reality backwards. Vapers are the true public health advocates fighting using facts and science against the malicious lies spewing from the Tobacco Control Industry which employs astroturf lobby groups.

 

[caramel]

Well was it ever clean... I guess that ANTZ had figured it out since day one that there weren't any solid grounds on which to object to vaping. So they concentrated on pure manure. Millions of dollars of it. Makes quite a stink.

 

[Jman8]

These are pronouncements by the stories author and offer no competing view other than "well, we don't know". In fact, as Stan says, "that's just not true" We know a lot and the author decided not to include that knowledge. Not decent journalism in the slightest.

Sure, make me do a little work. The other side (in support of Team Vape):

Nationwide, more than 20 million people—about one in 10 adults—have tried e-cigarettes, and plenty of those people have become vaping devotees.

One CDC ad relies on anecdotal evidence to make its point. It features a story from an e-cigarette user, a 35-year-old wife and mother named Kristy from Tennessee who says she started smoking e-cigarettes hoping to quit combustible cigarettes. Instead, she began to smoke both, until her lung collapsed. The American Vaping Association reportedly called the ad “patently dishonest,” saying that it implies vaping led to lung disease, when in reality Kristy had gone back to smoking cigarettes alone in the months before her lung collapsed.

California’s anti-vaping campaign lists toxins that humans once thought were safe—arsenic-laced powdered wigs, radium therapy, and of course cigarettes—and compares them to e-cigs, using a deceptive associative tactic that we’ve called out before.

In the battle between public health and e-cigarettes, e-cigs have one major advantage: a massive population of users, many of whom credit the product with helping them to quit smoking, and who loudly defend their choice to vape. One thread on the American Vaping Association’s website collects anti-#CurbIt tweets. VaporVanity.com, a pro-vaping site, quickly posed the question: “Are The Members Of The San Francisco Health Department The Stupidest Human Beings On The Planet?” And pro-vapers launched a site nearly identical to California’s—called Not Blowing Smoke—that claimed that, well, basically everything the state said was a lie.

The problem is, as in the early days of campaigns against cigarettes, there isn’t definitive evidence that e-cigarettes cause long-term harm—a point that pro-vapers will be quick to remind you of.

What firm science there is to rest on is fairly obvious: E-cigarettes are almost certainly less toxic and carcinogenic than regular cigarettes.

In a couple of years, researchers will begin to do association studies to pull out long-term health effects. Until that science rolls in, the, prepare to sit back and enjoy the show. These two camps will be hashing it out for a while.

So, as quoted above, the story DOES offer competing views (plural) and the last quote is what I was going for in my previous post in that this article is highlighting that there is a propaganda war going on. Yes, it appears to heavily weight General ANTZ's rhetoric (or Glantz for short), but I see it as more about noting the battle that is going on. My previous post makes other claims which I think are paramount to this, but just wanted to make clear the presenting both sides that I alluded to before.

 

[Maiar]

All the brazen ads geared towards children with all the candy flavors.... Tell me more about how alcohol is advertised with all the great flavors and glamorous commercials. Like adults don't like great flavors.
What a ....ing joke of an article.

 

[Maiar]

"In the absence of incontrovertible evidence"
So they're just going to lie?

 

[Painter_]

Every time I see marketing to children I think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTlcFLphVP0

 

[traten]

The fear of something new is not itself new. At one time educated and knowledgeable people thought tomatoes were poisonous:

Why the Tomato Was Feared in Europe for More Than 200 Years | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian

Tobacco use, once established, became a desirable staple for those whose lives depended on physical effort. The French Canadian Voyageurs, canoe travelling fur-traders, for example, established smoke breaks, called "pipes" for every hour of travel. Distance is measured in pipes. Boss man, deny those pipes and face mutiny or worse. These were rough, tough, masculine men living hard lives: Voyageurs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In comparison we live comfortable lives and have the luxury of time to enjoy our anxieties about carcinogens in second and third-hand smoking and now, vaping.

We are facing a tempest in a cartomizer. Expect folly from all quarters.

 

[hurricanegirl100]

We are facing a tempest in a cartomizer. Expect folly from all quarters.

Here's the folly I fully expect before 2015 is over:
1) June - the FDA pulls electronic cigarettes, and anything related to them (juice, RDA's, cartomizers, yada!) under the legal umbrella of tobacco products. They make it illegal to sell them to anyone under the age of 21. They announce that all companies coming out with a new product must have the product evaluated by the FDA before it can go to market. I have no problem with the first one, but that second stipulation is going to cause headaches for manufacturers. Even Chinese ones.

2) Since electronic cigarettes are now legally recognized as "tobacco" products (a freaking joke, IMO), the states will pounce. THIS is where I think the greatest problem lies - individual states will now have legal grounds to tax electronic cigarettes and anything related to them at the same levels they tax analogs at. Vaping will become expensive. Very expensive.

I'm stocking up. Now.

 

[hurricanegirl100]

Y'know, if I was a lawyer, I'd be questioning why the FDA doesn't move stuff like Nicorette and nicotine patches to "tobacco-regulated" products, too. Same thing! Nicotine in a non-cigarette form!

Then, I'd start writing a brief and researching friendly, pro-business federal judges in the U.S. If somebody could get a favorable judgment, that judgment could set a new precedent and there'd be a chance we could fight back against the FDA.

We need a lawyer here. Scratch that...we need a team of them.

 

[traten]

"I'm stocking up. Now."

Hear you, HG100. It's the reason I'm leaning toward Mech Mods. Once you got 'em all you need are batteries (no way to tax these wildly without regulating flashlights and all manner of electronic gadgets) and juices --which, hopefully, we can cook up ourselves like a conference of Dr. Jekyll's.

As for lawyers, guns, and money: They'll be all over the place.