Today's Must read: PH moralists promote harm & help big tobacco
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Are the comments being moderated? I don't see any comments.
Andria
ETA: I just left a comment too, and yeah they're being moderated. Perhaps the complete sentences, correct spelling and punctuation, and logical paragraph construction will enable mine to pass muster.
Andria
ETA: I just left a comment too, and yeah they're being moderated. Perhaps the complete sentences, correct spelling and punctuation, and logical paragraph construction will enable mine to pass muster.
Last edited:
Promoting e-cigarette use in people who will otherwise not stop smoking is analogous, argued Sweanor, to making cars safer. Total abstinence is an unachievable goal,
It's been my observation throughout the years on the forum that the majority here (not all) are, in fact, those 'hard core smokers' that Zeller addressed in the HELP hearings.
From posts regarding past history on cessation attempts, either cold turkey, patches, gums, Chantix, hypnosis, etc. etc. that have failed - either for the short term - didn't take at all, or the longer term - worked for about a month, few months, (usually never a year)..... this is the 'hard core smoker' that the cancer scare didn't scare, that the increasing taxes didn't stop, or the attempts to control behavior didn't faze. Or the rights based - it's none of your business!
The trip from 49% of adult smokers in the '40's and '50's to the 22-24% in the early 2000's got rid of most of those who were able to quit because of the methods above. Those 'left' - the 22-24% were us and others who have not discovered the right ecigarette or haven't tried them. We. mainly, represent the percentage from around 2010 to the present - the difference between the 24% to the 18-19% to the current 15.8% in that graph of adult smokers. IOW, the people who represent "total abstinence is an unachievable goal" above, where ecigarettes are the best 'solution' or the only solution.
To not acknowledge that, or worse, to ban ecigarettes, is going to have 'unintended consequences' - (unintended by TC/"public health" "experts", but very predictable) - black markets, drive-bys perhaps, less quality, availability in the worse conditions - just like Prohibition - and may even rebuild a 'vaping mafia' as Prohibition did. The "goodfellas" were relegated to running the numbers racket in ghettos before Prohibition and a few other activities, including beneficial activities - the 'good' part of goodfellas - neighborhood "welfare" and "loans". Prohibition is what financed them to be able to build Las Vegas and other enterprises. ....and control politicians and businesses in a way that was never seen before - not that it wasn't seen, just not in the volume.
It's been my observation throughout the years on the forum that the majority here (not all) are, in fact, those 'hard core smokers' that Zeller addressed in the HELP hearings.
From posts regarding past history on cessation attempts, either cold turkey, patches, gums, Chantix, hypnosis, etc. etc. that have failed - either for the short term - didn't take at all, or the longer term - worked for about a month, few months, (usually never a year)..... this is the 'hard core smoker' that the cancer scare didn't scare, that the increasing taxes didn't stop, or the attempts to control behavior didn't faze. Or the rights based - it's none of your business!
The trip from 49% of adult smokers in the '40's and '50's to the 22-24% in the early 2000's got rid of most of those who were able to quit because of the methods above. Those 'left' - the 22-24% were us and others who have not discovered the right ecigarette or haven't tried them. We. mainly, represent the percentage from around 2010 to the present - the difference between the 24% to the 18-19% to the current 15.8% in that graph of adult smokers. IOW, the people who represent "total abstinence is an unachievable goal" above, where ecigarettes are the best 'solution' or the only solution.
To not acknowledge that, or worse, to ban ecigarettes, is going to have 'unintended consequences' - (unintended by TC/"public health" "experts", but very predictable) - black markets, drive-bys perhaps, less quality, availability in the worse conditions - just like Prohibition - and may even rebuild a 'vaping mafia' as Prohibition did. The "goodfellas" were relegated to running the numbers racket in ghettos before Prohibition and a few other activities, including beneficial activities - the 'good' part of goodfellas - neighborhood "welfare" and "loans". Prohibition is what financed them to be able to build Las Vegas and other enterprises. ....and control politicians and businesses in a way that was never seen before - not that it wasn't seen, just not in the volume.
Considering the parallels that have been made between Gen-X and the generation that preceded the Baby Boomers (during which THE Prohibition took place in the US), I can easily see a vape prohibition happening.
While I wouldn't look forward to some of the things that went on back then, perhaps the outcome would be worth it?
While I wouldn't look forward to some of the things that went on back then, perhaps the outcome would be worth it?
Not to mention the 'unintended consequence' of shutting down a thriving industry that employs people, pays taxes, and keeps storefronts from being boarded up.
If this were first time that a ban / heavily regulation were being put in place, then I think it is right to assert it as "unintended consequences." But as it is not, then that is being way too generous in what is actually likely to occur. I don't believe PH intends for underground markets to emerge, but do think they are aware of the possibility and do believe they know it will happen as a result of their zealotry.
This is also one of the reasons (among several) why prohibition to kids is rather insane. If anyone thinks the prohibition will lead to abstinence among kids, they be delusional / ignorant. I'm sure most who are aware of the politics, know kids won't magically stop using and so instead, what is REALLY REALLY being asserted is that we are perfectly happy sending our offspring to an underground market to make their purchases of a product that we think would be harmful to them if bought on the legal open market. Add to this the idea (or likelihood) that to further try and prevent kids from using, lies will be told to them, about them using and then it just sets up situation where adults are not trustworthy. IMO, this is precisely how the gateway thing actually works. If adults are lying about this, then what else are they lying about? What else are they trying to use fear to try to scare me away from? The peer pressure aspect doesn't help, and is other huge contributing factor to gateway phenomenon, but such pressure wouldn't exist if adults were more honest, and were people that youth could turn to for guidance. Instead, a wall is erected and as many members on this forum love to claim, you'd have to be foolish to think you can openly discuss these items with minors. So, peer pressure is literally the best guidance they have available to them. Well, that or adults who are prone to deception and fear mongering in the name of prohibition.
______________
Also just want to say that it ought to be crystal clear to anyone that comparing vaping to smoking is ridiculous. I mean it works politically, but it is like comparing soda to beer. After some point, you just gotta walk away from the insane people that would say vaping is possibly as bad or worse for the human body/mind as smoking is.
But as this article is all about that and as THR and lots of what we discuss is all about this, then it would very much make sense to regulate (in very simple way) eCigs under a medical type scenario. But that ship has sailed, and so I don't think it makes much sense to keep harping on this as if this is the only way to frame eCig use. Just about everything that is recreational has some sort of therapeutic effect for its fans/users. But the #1 factor is people enjoy using / doing it. If they need to have a reason why they enjoy it, and it has to be seen as alternative to something that is plausibly more harmful to them, then it is really just setting them up like a bowling pin to have them taken down or knocked down by those who will forever hope for abstinence and can forever make the claim that even you as user acknowledge it is harmful / bad to be using. How can you actually enjoy it if it is so bad for you? And our (feeble) rebuttal, "well, at least it's not smoking!"
That is one of the 'intended (or known) consequences' in the deeming :
"If electronic cigarettes are deemed to be subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act, the cost of premarket applications would increase the cost of entering and remaining in the market......The total costs of complying with the proposed rule would create the potential for exit;"
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/UCM394933.pdf
I agree but it's a rather common 'economic' term such as 'externalities' that is used, usually with full or partial knowledge of all involved. And in the case of scientists - they're really could (or should) care less about unintended consequences and are 'protected' from their studies, as it is the politicians who apply those results through legislation. And some of them are too stupid to actually know that.
There are multiple examples of politicians who wrote legislation who have said of the enactment (usually by EPA) that 'we didn't intend for that to be used in that manner' or some such similar statement - usually in court
or at some hearing.
I'll amend the thought behind my post to: 'ill-informed consequence'.
Or that's actually their intent :- ) Remember - certain political views don't like any private business and would rather have government be in charge of all business - via socialization/nationalization. But when they view the cultural environment not entirely open to owning businesses, IF they can fake enough science to make it look like some things ought to be 'controlled' (ie regulated), then they'll do that. If they can shut an industry down, they'll do that. It's the difference between socialism (owning industry - the means of production and distribution) and fascism (controlling industry). The problem is ownership = control and so control = ownership, so the result is the same except the former is more honest about it.
Last edited:
You know my feelings about vaping being accessible to adolescents -- the same group most likely to "play" with smoking and end up hooked as so many of us did.
But really, there's an EXCELLENT way to get teenagers not to vape: tell them it's good for them, and they HAVE TO vape -- they won't go near it.
Andria
I picture Snidely Whiplash: "We can regulate them into submission. All of them! HeHeHe."
You know my feelings about vaping being accessible to adolescents -- the same group most likely to "play" with smoking and end up hooked as so many of us did.
But really, there's an EXCELLENT way to get teenagers not to vape: tell them it's good for them, and they HAVE TO vape -- they won't go near it.
Andria
"Eat all your broccoli and take three good vapes or you won't get any cake."
That never worked for me -- I've been a huge fan of broccoli my entire life, since I was old enough to pitch a fit in the frozen foods, demanding TREES! My mom wouldn't "cook" it, but she'd plop a Green Giant bag in hot water.
My biggest success in husband-training has been teaching him to appreciate broccoli -- it's all in how you cook it!
Andria
I was thinking more along the lines of shaking up the system. A wake up call to those who take the right to vape for granted. A reminder to the government that they can only push the people they're supposed to represent so far before we push back...
As much as we like to keep things neat and tidy, sometimes things need to get ugly before change can happen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
