Two new surveys put the final nail in the coffin of "gateway" fantasy

[CarolT]

That's simply not true and can be seen in earlier Reason articles* and Cato Institute* Policiy Analyses and books, (too numerous to list) which were at the forefront on attacking the junk science of second hand smoke and the junk stats used for 'smoking related deaths' along with amicus briefs in the court cases where the courts through out the EPA 'findings'.

Those Reason articles and the CATO Institute are worse than absolutely useless and I don't touch them with a ten foot pole for this reason.

Ask any tobacco Control 'expert' where - like you evidently - they hate the 'rights-based' arguments from Cato and Reason, since that is still the actual oppression that is the basis of almost all regulation.

They don't attack the rights-based arguments because they hate them, it's because they're such weak, cream puff arguments. They don't dare attack strong arguments, so they ignore them.

You can argue science 'for and against' forever, but the real problem is nanny staters - just to make this clear - ie the people who think that they're own science or opinions should be forced on others to control the behavior of others - to attack individual rights when those actions harm no one but perhaps oneself. The tobacco Controllers couldn't make people stop smoking with 'science' so they had to make it 'harmful to others' - hence the fake second-hand smoke junk science.

There's nothing here but a hopeless wish that they stop being mean to us.

You can continue to push your 'infection causes cancer' routine, battling your science with their junk science but imo, it's irrelevant and misses the real point - that as long as no harm is done to others, then actions of individuals are no concern of the government - the exact position of both Reason and Cato Institute.

You are missing the point that it's BECAUSE they use the same pseudo-science against vapers that they use against smokers - falsely blaming tobacco, including nicotine, for diseases that are really caused by infection. They're dusting off their old "nicotine causes heart disease" junk for that purpose.

"Clowns" is just another ad hominem that is empty except perhaps for it's propaganda effect on mindless low information folk. But more people here and elsewhere are catching on to such tactics, whether such tactics come from ecig advocates or ecig enemies.

An ad hominem argument is one pretending that because someone is immoral or nasty or whatever, therefore their argument is false. My criticism does not rest on that basis, but on their failure to attack anti-smoker scientific fraud. It is therefore not ad hominem, and you clearly do not understand that it is not automatically an ad hominem merely to call someone a clown.

 

[Kent C]

You are missing the point that it's BECAUSE they use the same pseudo-science against vapers that they use against smokers - falsely blaming tobacco, including nicotine, for diseases that are really caused by infection. They're dusting off their old "nicotine causes heart disease" junk for that purpose.

You haven't a clue. Your "they" has no reference to libertarians, Cato or Reason because "they" aren't making those arguments but are arguing against those arguments. You're attempting - unsuccessfully to somehow tie those who are against ecig regulation with those who are for not only ecig regulation but also cigarette regulation. And anyone who has been paying attention prior to ecigs, knows that simply is not the case.

There are some pro-ecig groups who WERE anti-cigarette groups, but Cato, Reason, Jacob Sullum, and libertarians weren't part of those groups nor did they support them. They in fact, argued against them. If you don't know that - you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know how many times I've stated and posted links from Cato and Reason that argue against the pseudo-science of the anti-smoking/anti-vaping groups. While the libertarians have aligned themselves on the anti-ecig issue with certain former anti-smoking groups, doesn't mean they were anti-smoking - they were not. The libertarians were the loudest voice against second hand smoke and the 'so called 'smoking related deaths' issues as well as general smokers-rights issues. Were they successful - no. But not because their arguments were not sound, but because of the political environment at the time.

The libertarians were also supporters of gun rights when nearly all states had no concealed carry laws. They were unsuccessful in changing legislation for decades, again not because their 'arguments were wrong' but because of the political environment. That changed for the subject of guns and self-defense and libertarians were at the forefront of getting concealed carry laws in nearly all states in the present. Just because they were unsuccessful earlier - you can't then say that libertarians were 'anti-gun' - which is what your 'argument' about their case with ecigs amounts to.

 

[CarolT]

You haven't a clue. Your "they" has no reference to libertarians, Cato or Reason because "they" aren't making those arguments but are arguing against those arguments. You're attempting - unsuccessfully to somehow tie those who are against ecig regulation with those who are for not only ecig regulation but also cigarette regulation. And anyone who has been paying attention prior to ecigs, knows that simply is not the case.

There are some pro-ecig groups who WERE anti-cigarette groups, but Cato, Reason, Jacob Sullum, and libertarians weren't part of those groups nor did they support them. They in fact, argued against them. If you don't know that - you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know how many times I've stated and posted links from Cato and Reason that argue against the pseudo-science of the anti-smoking/anti-vaping groups. While the libertarians have aligned themselves on the anti-ecig issue with certain former anti-smoking groups, doesn't mean they were anti-smoking - they were not. The libertarians were the loudest voice against second hand smoke and the 'so called 'smoking related deaths' issues as well as general smokers-rights issues. Were they successful - no. But not because their arguments were not sound, but because of the political environment at the time.

The libertarians were also supporters of gun rights when nearly all states had no concealed carry laws. They were unsuccessful in changing legislation for decades, again not because their 'arguments were wrong' but because of the political environment. That changed for the subject of guns and self-defense and libertarians were at the forefront of getting concealed carry laws in nearly all states in the present. Just because they were unsuccessful earlier - you can't then say that libertarians were 'anti-gun' - which is what your 'argument' about their case with ecigs amounts to.

"The libertarians were the loudest voice against second hand smoke and the 'so called 'smoking related deaths' issues as well as general smokers-rights issues," you say. Yes, because they are the ones the anti-smokers WANT as opponents! Not because they had the most serious arguments, but because they DIDN'T. And besides, all the low-information people thought it looked just fine to them, and they helped drown out the important criticisms. This is how the racket really works - not your fantasy of the anti-smokers actually playing fair, and people making informed choices.

 

[Kent C]

Let's not turn this in to a left/right issue.

No one here is doing that. It isn't a 'left/right' issue. It's a 'rights/suppress rights' issue and a pro-regulation/anti-regulation issue.

 

[Kent C]

"The libertarians were the loudest voice against second hand smoke and the 'so called 'smoking related deaths' issues as well as general smokers-rights issues," you say. Yes, because they are the ones the anti-smokers WANT as opponents! Not because they had the most serious arguments, but because they DIDN'T. And besides, all the low-information people thought it looked just fine to them, and they helped drown out the important criticisms. This is how the racket really works - not your fantasy of the anti-smokers actually playing fair, and people making informed choices.

We're done here. Again, you don't have a clue. Hop back on your 'infection' hobbyhorse - at least that's fun to watch

 

[caramel]

I knew this would be interesting. But c'mon Kent, you can easily make your argument without belittling anyone. It's sufficient to say that Reason is not a vapers magazine, but a libertarian one. As such they look at everything from an ideological perspective and they debate accordingly. It's beyond their scope to go to the exact chemical composition of vapes, guns, or whatever they're debating there. Whether this is actually useful for vapers is a moot point, since we decided that we have the right to smoke/vape, and should probably observe their right to debate ideology too.

 

[Kent C]

I knew this would be interesting. But c'mon Kent, you can easily make your argument without belittling anyone.

She started with the 'clowns' comment. I responded appropriately. Where's your 'c'mon Carol???

When she (or you) say that the ideological argument is 'weak', where are her successes with the 'it's not cigarettes, it's infection' argument?? I think in terms of persuasion, the idealogical wins that one. And this isn't the only forum that she's 'infected': (stubby's post)

BG's relationship with BT | E-Cigarette Forum

One can prove 'scientifically' that crab fishing (Most Dangerous Catch) is one of the most dangerous jobs, so why don't those who eat crab dinners while discussing the danger of nicotine, put forth legislation to stop crab fishing? Because a person has a right work at a job he likes. (if someone will hire them). Science doesn't trump rights but those who are against rights attempt to make that argument all the time, and they draw people into the 'my science vs. your science' type arguments. With vaping and smoking - when no harm is done to others - it really is no business of gov't and science may find it "interesting" to study but should have no power to impose their results on vapers or smokers. That said, smokers and vapers may also find it interesting as to what science finds, but again, it's up to them to choose how to apply that information. It's time people wake up to that fact. Science can be steered toward junk as we've seen in many instances, so the same reason why 'rights' are important - to combat the 'might is right' crowd, does so when it is financial or physical 'might' as well.

From one point of view, she's has attacked some of people that would normally be on her side of the anti-cigarette argument - even though her infection argument seems some where out of some other universe - mainly me and jman8, but others as well, who don't act like reformed alcoholics who attack cigarettes after having smoked them for 20-40 years and now when 'reformed by vaping' are against 'BT', call cigarettes stinkies, coffin nails and cancer sticks and love the 480,000 death number so they can 'use' it against the FDA's regulations. Her real enemies around here are the THR who were and still are anti-cig with the same zeal as she is with her infection argument against them.

 

[jtpjc]

When we start fighting each other, we don't need enemies. I'm so out of here.

 

[caramel]

@Kent C : she initially attacked Reason and Cato, and I instantly knew you would jump in.

I took her side because she is pretty much alone in the very unconfortable position to defend a pov that looks like lunacy to most people. However, once you look at a whole class of cancers that has been succesfuly explained to be caused by a virus (HPV), it starts to make sense. Especially since the other camp (antz) does not have any serious alternative explanation. I'm sure that in a different context they would have explained the HPV cancers as being caused by "promiscous sex" with the recommended cure "don't have sex" and promoting some BP in vitro thing for the perpetuation of the human species.

Whether her argument is succesful or not for winning "the public" is a different discussion. What really matters is that both you and her are free to express your own opinions. And that I'm free to read them. And we don't take it personally.

 

[azb8496]

Here's a picture of a cute kitty!

 

[caramel]

You'll have EPA and PETA all over it

 

[Kent C]

@Kent C : she initially attacked Reason and Cato, and I instantly knew you would jump in. .

How bright does one have to be, to 'know' that

Whether her argument is succesful or not for winning "the public" is a different discussion.

Not according to her. When she says one argument is 'weak' - it should be noted how unsuccessful hers has been. Again - 'rights' arguments have worked in other areas - no reason why it couldn't here. When some senators and representatives don't want to 'kill innovation' they are supporting the rights (and wisdom) of free market actions by individuals. If the grandfather date is changed - that will be one of the reasons - the innovation that has occurred from 2007 to 2015 - not anything to do with infection.

And if you think I've been 'hard' on her - I don't think I have - take a look at her postings and you might look at the forum that stubby mentions - more of the same. It is rare for someone to be more abusive in their postings to others and others ideas.

 

[caramel]

Well the libertarian argument is backed up by nothing less than the constitution, and has quite a large group of followers (including me fwiw). Carol is pretty much alone and given the nature of her argument, an easy pray to various forms of ridiculing. This may explain why she became aggressive over time (see PM). I plead for being more understanding.

 

[Kent C]

Well the libertarian argument is backed up by nothing less than the constitution, and has quite a large group of followers (including me fwiw). Carol is pretty much alone and given the nature of her argument, an easy pray to various forms of ridiculing. This may explain why she became aggressive over time (see PM). I plead for being more understanding.

You handle it your way, the rest of us will handle as we see fit. "Truther" and "birth certificate'ers" arguments are also easy prey - doesn't mean there should be 'more understanding' (in the way you mean it) ...about their perpetrators.

You 'running commentary' on my comments, again has run this off-topic, so once more I'm outta here.

 

[CarolT]

Well the libertarian argument is backed up by nothing less than the constitution, and has quite a large group of followers (including me fwiw).

Sorry, but the "rights" argument gets shot down every time, because the courts always rule that the government has the right to take away freedom in the name of "public health."
http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-constitution-2008_0.pdf
This has happened again and again and again, and lawyers know it. And that's why none of them would touch a lawsuit over this issue with a ten-foot pole. But lay people persist in their delusion that the Constitution is on their side! So they never even bother to think through to the next step, which is to challenge the public health claims, without which the government's pretext is invalid. No, they'd rather make fun of me for having the knowledge and intelligence to do so.

Carol is pretty much alone and given the nature of her argument, an easy pray to various forms of ridiculing. This may explain why she became aggressive over time (see PM). I plead for being more understanding.

I think they should crawl naked over broken glass to apologize to me. So there.

 

[CarolT]

I knew this would be interesting. But c'mon Kent, you can easily make your argument without belittling anyone. It's sufficient to say that Reason is not a vapers magazine, but a libertarian one. As such they look at everything from an ideological perspective and they debate accordingly. It's beyond their scope to go to the exact chemical composition of vapes, guns, or whatever they're debating there. Whether this is actually useful for vapers is a moot point, since we decided that we have the right to smoke/vape, and should probably observe their right to debate ideology too.

The trouble is that for Reason et al., ideology is a crutch, which they use as a substitute for actual knowledge of the subject. This really does appeal to the low-information types.

 

[Kent C]

The trouble is that for Reason et al., ideology is a crutch, which they use as a substitute for actual knowledge of the subject. This really does appeal to the low-information types.

And your infection causes cancer theory sounds more like something from nutcase Alex Jones.

Oh wait!!

» Scientists: Lack of Good Gut Bacteria Could Be Giving You Cancer Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[CarolT]

Not according to her. When she says one argument is 'weak' - it should be noted how unsuccessful hers has been.

While whining about nannyism and slippery slopes has been blazingly successful, right? All it's done is fail resoundingly for the last 50 frickin' years. It's the first thing any ignoramus on the street thinks up, and it is evidently the ONLY thing they're capable of thinking up, for that matter. And that's why it's time for real leadership that's capable of doing more than just spinning their wheels in the same rut.

And of course the fact that the one individual who comes up with something original is perpetually drowned out by the masses of simpletons couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. That's the secret of how this fake "democracy" thing actually works - the masses forge their own chains and the oligarchy wins.

 

[CarolT]

And your infection causes cancer theory sounds more like something from nutcase Alex Jones.

Oh wait!!

» Scientists: Lack of Good Gut Bacteria Could Be Giving You Cancer Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Only to the low-information types who get their "knowledge" from the mass media's reworked press releases from the Cancer Society et al.

 

[DC2]

No one here is doing that. It isn't a 'left/right' issue. It's a 'rights/suppress rights' issue and a pro-regulation/anti-regulation issue.

And if, on occasion, that happens to play out as a left/right issue...
Well, it is what it is.