Third-Hand Smoke ?

[Stubby]

I can't even believe our beloved harm reduction activists. Dr. S's famous bartender study got us to where we are with smoking bans and I think the study is total bull. All the rest are big into the indoor bans too. I really think SHS dangers are just not proven, yet they drive public policy.

I also don't believe that smoking will cause all the stuff they say it does. You know as well as I do, that if you're a smoker, every little thing that is wrong with you is attributed to smoking. It's absurd. Do I think smoking is bad for you, sure I do. I'm all for harm reduction. But as long as we keep accepting the lies, then the public health folks will always be able to say that there is no such thing as harm reduction because NO level is safe enough.

I don't consider Dr. Michael Siegel a good source of information. He has irrational hangups about smokeless tobacco and is an SHS fanatic. Even Bill Godshall, for all the good he is trying to do for reduced harm, is still pushing a de facto prohibition on smoking via taxation. That only causes hugh amounts of resentment for those that are forced to pay for it with there hard earned dollars. I'm politically pragmatic and definitely not a tea bagger, but all this social engineering, even by the supposedly enlightened is disgusting. I agree the reduced harm movement is making a mistake by playing along with the lies thinking that we can get some advantage if the lie... doesn't really effect us. If you don't call them out on SHS, third hand smoke, smokeless tobacco, absence taxation, and all the other BS you're not going to be able to call them out on PV's.

Brad Rodu is much more to the point. He was among those that put together the data and figured out that smokeless tobacco was in fact orders of magnitude less harmful then smoking. He is also a strong supporter of PV's. I have yet to find him get caught up in any BS.

 

[Captu4ik]

all this social engineering, even by the supposedly enlightened is disgusting.

Social engineering ? Seems more like social re-enforcement of Government-led propaganda ...

 

[sherid]

I don't consider Dr. Michael Siegel a good source of information. He has irrational hangups about smokeless tobacco and is an SHS fanatic. Even Bill Godshall, for all the good he is trying to do for reduced harm, is still pushing a de facto prohibition on smoking via taxation. That only causes hugh amounts of resentment for those that are forced to pay for it with there hard earned dollars. I'm politically pragmatic and definitely not a tea bagger, but all this social engineering, even by the supposedly enlightened is disgusting. I agree the reduced harm movement is making a mistake by playing along with the lies thinking that we can get some advantage if the lie... doesn't really effect us. If you don't call them out on SHS, third hand smoke, smokeless tobacco, absence taxation, and all the other BS you're not going to be able to call them out on PV's.

Brad Rodu is much more to the point. He was among those that put together the data and figured out that smokeless tobacco was in fact orders of magnitude less harmful then smoking. He is also a strong supporter of PV's. I have yet to find him get caught up in any BS.

I agree with you 100%. Those who want to separate the two battles: smoking vs. vaping are IMO totally naive. The battle is the same: the right to make choices in life even if the choices are bad. The human race would never have progressed had these Nannies been in charge all along. I cannot stand the blame culture, the looking for someone to tell you what you can and cannot do. If we do not stand up to them NOW, we deserve what we get.

 

[Luisa]

I don't consider Dr. Michael Siegel a good source of information. He has irrational hangups about smokeless tobacco and is an SHS fanatic. Even Bill Godshall, for all the good he is trying to do for reduced harm, is still pushing a de facto prohibition on smoking via taxation. That only causes hugh amounts of resentment for those that are forced to pay for it with there hard earned dollars. I'm politically pragmatic and definitely not a tea bagger, but all this social engineering, even by the supposedly enlightened is disgusting. I agree the reduced harm movement is making a mistake by playing along with the lies thinking that we can get some advantage if the lie... doesn't really effect us. If you don't call them out on SHS, third hand smoke, smokeless tobacco, absence taxation, and all the other BS you're not going to be able to call them out on PV's.

Brad Rodu is much more to the point. He was among those that put together the data and figured out that smokeless tobacco was in fact orders of magnitude less harmful then smoking. He is also a strong supporter of PV's. I have yet to find him get caught up in any BS.

Good Grief!!! We are so very lucky to have Godshall and Siegel on our side--they offer credibility that we desperately need. I am certainly grateful to them and wish to thank them for their support.

 

[Captu4ik]

Good Grief!!! We are so very lucky to have Godshall and Siegel on our side--they offer credibility that we desperately need. I am certainly grateful to them and wish to thank them for their support.

I've got to agree, we need them . These people maybe hated by Tobacco smokers, and for good reason, but we are ex-Tobacco smokers,and if we want to continue to have the option of being ex-Tobacco smokers (PV users), then we should embrace and support them.

 

[Vocalek]

I've got to agree, we need them . These people maybe hated by Tobacco smokers, and for good reason, but we are ex-Tobacco smokers,and if we want to continue to have the option of being ex-Tobacco smokers (PV users), then we should embrace and support them.

Amen. You've got to pick your battles. But in defense of Siegel and Godshall, neither one of them favors extending smoking bans to the great outdoors.

Just remember that the enemy of your enemy could turn out to be a friend. And the friend of your enemy might be turned.

 

[Janetda]

I agree with VocalEK, we need them in our corner. That said, it doesn't mean that I believe everything they say or like all the things they have done.

 

[sherid]

Last night, we went to a new very expensive winery in our area. The entire property was smoke free, including the patio. I nearly turned around but had planned to meet some people. On the smoke free patio was a giant wood fire pit, but no smoking allowed. What a travesty. I noticed several cig buts in the pit then later saw some people smoking. I have no desire to participate in this travesty and do not intend to return. The anti smoker movement has moved beyond any logic or reason. It is my hope that they will soon burn in hell or at least in the fire pits they enjoy.

 

[Stubby]

I've got to agree, we need them . These people maybe hated by Tobacco smokers, and for good reason, but we are ex-Tobacco smokers,and if we want to continue to have the option of being ex-Tobacco smokers (PV users), then we should embrace and support them.

I'm not an anti-smoking fanatic. I'm not even an ex-smoker. After a year of being completely smoke free with the use of snus and nasal snuff (PV's didn't work for me) I now enjoy an occasional cigar, and more recently pipe. I'm not a purist. It always amazes me that just a few months ago most of us where smoking away on our cigarettes, pick up a PV, and over night become anti-smoking fanatics that rivals the worst of TC. I guess it's true, they's nothing worse then an ex-smoker.

Amen. You've got to pick your battles. But in defense of Siegel and Godshall, neither one of them favors extending smoking bans to the great outdoors.

Just remember that the enemy of your enemy could turn out to be a friend. And the friend of your enemy might be turned.

The problem with both Godshall and Siegel is they are both still pushing the whole de-normalization of smokers and back door prohibition via taxes instead of focusing on educating the public. That is what is needed. Not more taxes and smoking bans. It's a hugh mistake to alienate the people you claim to be trying to help. Both of them have been at the forefront of the anti-tobacco fanaticism we see today.