Tobacco crackdowns target e-cigarettes, despite their lack of secondhand dangers, raising questions about the basis of current bans

[Bill Godshall]

Scorning smokers
tobacco crackdowns target e-cigarettes, despite their lack of secondhand dangers, raising questions about the basis of current bans
Scorning smokers


Another good article, with good comments by CASAA's Greg Conley.

 

[TyPie]

Great read.......good to know the info in this article for ammunition to ready yourself for the coming spate of regulation.

JUST GOTTA LOVE the comment about the City of San Francisco's assault on everything tobacco-related, yet the implicit acceptance of anything *p*o*t* (*w*a*c*k*y***w*e*e*d*)-related.

 

[Petrodus]

Great read.......good to know the info in this article for ammunition to ready yourself for the coming spate of regulation.

JUST GOTTA LOVE the comment about the City of San Francisco's assault on everything tobacco-related, yet the implicit acceptance of anything *p*o*t* (*w*a*c*k*y***w*e*e*d*)-related.

 

[2coils]

Great read.......good to know the info in this article for ammunition to ready yourself for the coming spate of regulation.

JUST GOTTA LOVE the comment about the City of San Francisco's assault on everything tobacco-related, yet the implicit acceptance of anything *p*o*t* (*w*a*c*k*y***w*e*e*d*)-related.

LOL...you cant make this stuff up! We are not allowed to even pretend smoke?? The point of the article is absolutely right....where does the line get drawn....a common question in todays society

 

[Demarko]

Scorning smokers
Tobacco crackdowns target e-cigarettes, despite their lack of secondhand dangers, raising questions about the basis of current bans
Scorning smokers


Another good article, with good comments by CASAA's Greg Conley.

Do you ever worry that if they make knee-jerk reactions like these, that it'll undermine your work against second-hand actual smoke?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Demarko inquired:

Do you ever worry that if they make knee-jerk reactions like these, that it'll undermine your work against second-hand actual smoke?

I've been voicing my concerns about this for more than a decade (when anti tobacco extremists funded by drug companies and at public health agencies demonized and lobbied to ban snus and new dissolvable tobacco products).

Most (but not all) e-cigarette opponents (and other anti tobacco extremists) live/work in cities where workplace smoking was banned than five years ago.

The extremism by these anti tobacco forces (including their campaigns to ban outdoor smoking, indoor/outdoor use of e-cigs and smokeless tobacco, to ban the sale of e-cigs, etc) have made it far more difficult for public health advocates to enact indoor smokefree workplace laws in hundreds of cities and in nearly twenty states.

The sole reason for enacting smokefree workplace laws has been to protect other people from secondhand smoke.

But since e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco pose no risks to nonusers, there is no justification for banning their use.

 

[Berylanna]

Demarko inquired:
The extremism by these anti tobacco forces (including their campaigns to ban outdoor smoking, indoor/outdoor use of e-cigs and smokeless tobacco, to ban the sale of e-cigs, etc) have made it far more difficult for public health advocates to enact indoor smokefree workplace laws in hundreds of cities and in nearly twenty states.

OK, WHERE does one fine Public Health Advocates that actually care about that? If CA puts vaping and smoking together into one law, I WILL be opposing anti-smoking laws. So, the ANTZ don't care. Is that OK because then they get to be paid to keep fighting? Who DOES care that they're having trouble getting these things passed?

 

[sebt]

"The suspicion is that allowing people to vape these things reinforces the culture of smoking," Pagoulatos said. "It continues in the tradition of making smoking look cool, even if it's not actual smoke."

I'm so sorry, but I'm not on this Earth (for a limited time) to act as an unpaid foot-soldier in some crazed "public-health" Kulturkampf against smoking or anything which might remind people of smoking, look vaguely like smoking, or (horror of horrors) give people the idea that inhaling things for fun has been part of human culture for thousands of years.

The lack of agency this kind of thinking ascribes to people is utterly astounding.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Berylanna inquired:

Who DOES care that they're having trouble getting these things passed?

I do, and so do nonsmokers and public health advocates in cities and states that haven't enacted smokefree indoor workplace laws, which are mostly in the South and Midwest.

But the anti tobacco/nicotine zealots in San Francisco, DC, NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Seattle, etc. (where smoking was banned in workplaces more than five years ago) don't give a damn that their zealotry against all things tobacco/nicotine has made it more difficult to get smokefree workplace laws enacted in the 20 states where they haven't been enacted yet.

I've been trying to convince public health folks in those 20 states to join with me in challenging the extremism of the Big City extremists, but its been tough (as the extremist national DC offices of ACS, AHA, ALA tell their staffers in those 20 states what to do and what to say).

Some of the public health agency staff in those 20 states are more understanding and reasonable, but even they have to follow CDC's so-called Best Practices for tobacco control, which advocates abstinence-only, opposes all OTP and THR, and supports FDA approved drugs as the best way to quit (as doing so is a condition of getting their annual grant funding from CDC).

 

[Berylanna]

I do, and so do nonsmokers and public health advocates in cities and states that haven't enacted smokefree indoor workplace laws, which are mostly in the South and Midwest.
<snip>

Some of the public health agency staff in those 20 states are more understanding and reasonable, but even they have to follow CDC's so-called Best Practices for tobacco control, which advocates abstinence-only, opposes all OTP and THR, and supports FDA approved drugs as the best way to quit (as doing so is a condition of getting their annual grant funding from CDC).

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- it seems to me that it could be hard to find allies, unless and until vaping "wins" -- this area is currently polarized between smokers who are tired of outdoor bans and being painted as inherently evil, vs. ANTZ. I'd like to fantasize that someone, somewhere, would like to do an expose on this, but unless someone is sleeping with a married fundamentalist Christian, gov't internals don't seem to be sensational enough.

Maybe pushing for separate indoor smoking areas (in states with nasty weather, and in tornado shelters) with industrial-strength air scrubbers would get grants from air-conditioning companies?

 

[scalewiz]

"Married fundamentalist Christians" are not activists for political causes or lifestyles; you makes your own choice!

Don't create your own enemies.

Signed: vaping member of a Southern Baptist Church, politically conservative, married, straight......................

 

[Berylanna]

"Married fundamentalist Christians" are not activists for political causes or lifestyles; you makes your own choice!

Don't create your own enemies.

Signed: vaping member of a Southern Baptist Church, politically conservative, married, straight......................

Didn't mean it like that. The liberal media like to go after that particular sin, it's the only scandal they're willing to disapprove of. Liberals sleeping with starlets is OK as long as their rank is lower than Senator. So far, the media have NOT been willing to go after Gov't functionaries for illegally using tax dollars to promote anti-scientific policies that are killing (evil) smokers.

I'm a divorced liberal mainstream Christian, but just as some of my friends are Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Pagans, etc, some of them are married fundamentalist Christians. And, they don't sleep around. Rarity can get coverage, especially if it is on the "opposite" side.

 

[Petrodus]

Didn't mean it like that. The liberal media like to go after that particular sin, it's the only scandal they're willing to disapprove of. Liberals sleeping with starlets is OK as long as their rank is lower than Senator. So far, the media have NOT been willing to go after Gov't functionaries for illegally using tax dollars to promote anti-scientific policies that are killing (evil) smokers.

I'm a divorced liberal mainstream Christian, but just as some of my friends are Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Pagans, etc, some of them are married fundamentalist Christians. And, they don't sleep around. Rarity can get coverage, especially if it is on the "opposite" side.