Tobacco ConTroller admits he wants to keep kids smoking

[DrMA]

The mask slips for a second and the demon behind comes to light. If anyone had any doubts that the only viable path forward requires us to abolish TC, this should put those thoughts to rest.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/01/limiting-e-cigarette-flavors-may-benefit-public-health

 

[Nermal]

I betcha he never considered what he was really saying.

 

[Jman8]

If anyone had any doubts that the only viable path forward requires us to abolish TC, this should put those thoughts to rest.

 

[Shirtbloke]

Well spotted.

 

[skoony]

Flavors have never been a factor in one's decision to smoke or drink.
One makes the decision to do the activity first and as it's a learned behavior
until the activity is taken up preferences as to brand and flavor
are decisions one makes as to differentiate ones choices from another's
choice or align ones choices with another or groups of others.
I know from personal experience that the flavored cigarettes and cigarellos
taste awful when compared to the flavor they're mimicking. It's like
getting flavored talcum powder on your tongue.
The problem arises when a non-smoker takes up vaping. As a ex-smoker
flavors in vaping are wonderful. However I suspect that a non-eversmoker
trying e-juice would think the flavors as off as I found the flavored tobacco to be.
My reference being the flavored tobacco (yuck), their reference being the real
thing.
Another thing that bothers me to no end is that peer pressure isn't even a
consideration when it comes to underage usage of e-cigs. It's the number
one cause of most all underage activity good or bad. With peer pressure being
the number one factor and parental usage being the number two factor all other
factors and considerations added together are hard pressed to account for 10%
of the motivations in the decision making process to smoke and or drink.
I do not think vaping would be much different statistically for never smokers
who decide to vape.

Regards
Mike

 

[edyle]

The mask slips for a second and the demon behind comes to light. If anyone had any doubts that the only viable path forward requires us to abolish TC, this should put those thoughts to rest.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/01/limiting-e-cigarette-flavors-may-benefit-public-health

'Limiting flavors.... may be an effective way to prevent young smokers from becoming "vaper" '

That statement is quite correct. Limiting flavors would reduce the chance of young smokers from stopping smoking. That wouldn't be good for health.


Notably the statement is not a quote.

 

[Tufur]

What a slanted article. Pesko said just the opposite. Here is the conclusion to his study:
Conclusions
Increased taxes, a proposed US Food and Drug Administration warning label for electronic nicotine delivery systems and a more severe warning label may discourage adult smokers from switching to electronic nicotine delivery systems. Reducing the availability of flavors may reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers.
'The effect of potential electronic nicotine delivery system regulations on nicotine product selection'
Addiction - Early View - Wiley Online Library

The mask slips for a second and the demon behind comes to light. If anyone had any doubts that the only viable path forward requires us to abolish TC, this should put those thoughts to rest.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/01/limiting-e-cigarette-flavors-may-benefit-public-health

 

[zoiDman]

What a slanted article. Pesko said just the opposite. ...

Seems like there is a Lot of Slant being done by those who Report the News.

 

[Mazinny]

Note that the article uses the terms " young adult " and " teenage " interchangeably. I found that strange until i read the actual summary of the study and saw that they never even tested the buying patterns of anyone underage ! They are trying to extrapolate the buying pattern of 18-24 year olds to teenagers ( yes i know there is technically a small overlap ).

The study itself is quite favorable to our side ( assuming we can get the other side to concede that having smokers switch to vaping is unequivocally a desired outcome ), and we can use to argue for no taxation and continued availability of flavors . Basic findings are that

1- Increased costs i.e. taxing ecigs will lead to fewer smokers switching to vaping
2- Too strict warning labels lead to fewer smokers switching
3- limiting flavors lead to fewer smokers switching ( although oddly enough the real percentage decreases are not cited, only that 18-24 year olds are even less likely to switch than smokers 25 and above. The difference is only 3.7 % btw !! )

Now in the real world, that would be cause for celebration for vapers, a study confirming what has being said all along ! But the author of the study somehow completely twists the findings of his own study, and decides that in the bizarro world where the public policy goal is to have smokers 25 and above, switch to vaping, but 18-24 year olds continue smoking !! , banning flavors will lead to teenagers not vaping !? Nevermind that noone under 18 was even a test participant, and that adults would also be less likely to switch !!!

 

[Rossum]

the bizarro world where the public policy goal is to have smokers 25 and above, switch to vaping, but 18-24 year olds continue smoking !!

They've probably figured out that it takes that long to get people well and truly hooked and thereby ensure a long-term revenue stream.

 

[Kent C]

What a slanted article. Pesko said just the opposite.

Looks to me that the article is saying almost the same thing as the conclusion.

Here is the conclusion to his study:
Conclusions
Increased taxes, a proposed US Food and Drug Administration warning label for electronic nicotine delivery systems and a more severe warning label may discourage adult smokers from switching to electronic nicotine delivery systems. Reducing the availability of flavors may reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers.

Article:

Limiting flavors, therefore, may be an effective way to prevent young smokers from becoming “vapers,”

Pesko's Conclusion:

Reducing the availability of flavors may reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers.

Now, I could see with more information - if it was said, for example, that banning flavors is a bad idea because "Reducing the availability of flavors may reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers."... but in another publication from Pesko - "A Practitioner's Guide to Electronic Cigarettes in the Adolescent Population"... I don't get that is what was intended. For example from that link:

" We present guidance on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) for health care professionals who care for adolescents. ENDS provide users with inhaled nicotine in an aerosolized mist. Popular forms of ENDS include e-cigarettes and vape-pens. ENDS range in disposability, customization, and price. Growth of ENDS usage has been particularly rapid in the adolescent population, surpassing that of conventional cigarettes in 2014. Despite surging use throughout the United States, little is known about the health risks posed by ENDS, especially in the vulnerable adolescent population. These products may potentiate nicotine addiction in adolescents and have been found to contain potentially harmful chemicals. The growth in these products may be driven by relaxed purchasing restrictions for minors, lack of advertising regulations, and youth friendly flavors. Taken together, ENDS represent a new and growing health risk to the adolescent population, one that health care professionals should address with their patients. We suggest a patient centered strategy to incorporate ENDS use into routine substance counseling."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X15003043

 

[Mazinny]

Looks to me that the article is saying almost the same thing as the conclusion.




Article:

Limiting flavors, therefore, may be an effective way to prevent young smokers from becoming “vapers,”

Pesko's Conclusion:

Reducing the availability of flavors may reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers.

I agree that there is little doubt what Pesko's position is.

The slight difference in the two conclusions is that the one cited in the study does not make a judgement on whether it is desirable to reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers, whereas implicit in the articles conclusion is that it is desirable to prevent young smokers from becoming vapers ! A mind boggling position to be sure.

Regardless of Pesko's position we can co-opt his study to our benefit. The findings in his study re-enforce what our side has been saying all along. There is nothing in the study that suggests younger non-smokers will gravitate towards vaping because of flavors. In fact non-smokers and those under 18 were not a part of the study.

 

[Kent C]

The slight difference in the two conclusions is that the one cited in the study does not make a judgement on whether it is desirable to reduce ENDS use by young adult smokers, whereas implicit in the articles conclusion is that it is desirable to prevent young smokers from becoming vapers !

I said 'almost the same' not identical. But with the 'little doubt about Pesko's position' as context, then the descriptive 'may reduce ENDS' can be translated into prescriptive/normative, even though he can "claim" objectivity .... although the commonly used 'may' calls even objectivity into question. :- ) "May" presupposes "may not" - I wish every reader would understand that.