Very Offended

[Lessifer]

I'm offended by this photo they used:

1.) Could they have picked a more anemic, "Honest! She's not a junky!", sales lady - bad lighting, creepy spindly hands and all that? Hey Rodney! Find me an anemic vampire - we need to fake up one of those e-cig photos again!"

2.) Nooo - that random vapor - sorta coming out of his nose but not really - couldn't have been photoshopped in.

3.) Why does it look like dude in photo is sucking on a binky rather than... anything else. Really How much of that PV does he have stuffed down his throat already? It looks like an upside down carto tank or something. Wonder what he was really holding in that little pinchy grip before "that" was inserted.

I'm pretty sure it's a protank2/3 on an ego, but he IS going to town on that drip tip.

 

[Lurch]

The cloud is coming from off screen right! Look at the top right section and how the light is reflecting...
But of course, this opinion is coming from a male, above middle age with a college degree, who vapes, so what do I know....

 

[Little White Cloud]

What a cheap shot from the ANTZ. And the old "anything that looks like smoke is bad". That article totally contradicts itself by saying the people studied are using ecigs but not quitting cigarettes. Hello. If you are vaping you are not smoking a cigarette.

 

[edyle]

....

To me, the only thing that's remarkable about the conclusion in the above-linked piece is that women would adopt e-cigs in appreciably greater numbers than men -- and that's only remarkable (to the extent that anything in the LA Times can ever be described as remarkable) because I swear I just read a survey that concluded exactly the opposite. But meh, who really cares, ultimately? When I think of all the money that's been flushed down the proverbial toilet on useless crap like this, I can only shake my educated, middling-aged, male head and have a vape.

It does not say "more women"....."than men".
It could mean (and is my interpretation) more women use ecigs compared to cigarettes. Which makes sense. Smoking is socially more unacceptable for women than men, so ecigs gives women an alternative less socially unacceptable.

 

[Rickajho]

I must be one of the extremely stupids, because I fail to find the relevance of "researchers said" (thrice), "researchers noted", "researchers cited", "researchers surveyed", and "researchers wrote" without a single bibliographical reference for said sayings, notations, citations, surveys or writings. I'm amazed at how stupid I am.

"Researchers" must be the new buzz word for truth that requires no supporting evidence. Let's hope researchers don't find their way into the legal system or we're all screwed. Oh wait - I'm too stupid to think that.

 

[Fulgurant]

It does not say "more women"....."than men".
It could (and is my interpretation) more women use ecigs compared to cigarettes. Which makes sense.

I don't believe your second statement's plausible. Much as it might pain me to say it, no one has seriously even tried to make the case that any significant segment of the population -- much less an entire gender -- vapes in greater numbers than it smokes. Yet. Best estimates, to my knowledge, place vapers at somewhere around 10% of the smoking population, perhaps as high as 20%, which means that we're hoving somewhere between 2% and ~5% of the overall population.

No, the most logical interpretation of the OP's quote is that women are more prone to take up vaping than men are. That is, even if more men vape in total, the population of female vapers is growing faster. I believe that one day, assuming government(s) don't muck everything up, we will eventually have more vapers than smokers, male and female. But we're not anywhere near that goal yet. That's why the ongoing political struggle's so important.

Smoking is socially more unacceptable for women than men, so ecigs gives women an alternative less socially unacceptable.

Now that part definitely does make sense. There've always been more male smokers than female smokers.

 

[edyle]

I don't believe your second statement's plausible. Much as it might pain me to say it, no one has seriously even tried to make the case that any significant segment of the population -- much less an entire gender -- vapes in greater numbers than it smokes. Yet. Best estimates, to my knowledge, place vapers at somewhere around 10% of the smoking population, perhaps as high as 20%, which means that we're hoving somewhere between 2% and ~5% of the overall population.

No, the most logical interpretation of the OP's quote is that women are more prone to take up vaping than men are. That is, even if more men vape in total, the population of female vapers is growing faster. I believe that one day, assuming government(s) don't muck everything up, we will eventually have more vapers than smokers, male and female. But we're not anywhere near that goal yet. That's why the ongoing political struggle's so important.



Now that part definitely does make sense. There've always been more male smokers than female smokers.

This was the original quote:

The researchers said that more women, younger adults and people with less education use e-cigarettes.

My interpretation is that it is sufficiently vague that it could refer to a statistic like:

==========
10% of cigarette smokers are women
12% of ecig user are women
Therefore more women use ecigs.
==========

 

[Fulgurant]

This was the original quote:

My interpretation is that it is sufficiently vague that it could refer to a statistic like:

==========
10% of cigarette smokers are women
12% of ecig user are women
Therefore more women use ecigs.
==========

Hey, it could mean something like that. Of course, if that bit of trivia is the take-away from the survey, then the exercise was even dumber than I thought: "a marginally larger minority proportion of a group ten times smaller than smokers is comprised of women." Yeah, actually, you may be onto something; I can see the ersatz-scientific-hackery angle in framing an otherwise uninteresting observation like the one above in monolithic war-of-the-sexes terms.

Gotta justify those grants, after all.

 

[edyle]

Hey, it could mean something like that. Of course, if that bit of trivia is the take-away from the survey, then the exercise was even dumber than I thought: "a marginally larger minority proportion of a group ten times smaller than smokers is comprised of women." Yeah, actually, you may be onto something; I can see the ersatz-scientific-hackery angle in framing an otherwise uninteresting observation like the one above in monolithic war-of-the-sexes terms.

Gotta justify those grants, after all.

exxxaaaaaaaaaaaccccccccccccttyy.

Lots of statements about statistics are like that; at first they may look like one thing but when you check the details, it's just nothing really.

 

[Little White Cloud]

I must be one of the extremely stupids, because I fail to find the relevance of "researchers said" (thrice), "researchers noted", "researchers cited", "researchers surveyed", and "researchers wrote" without a single bibliographical reference for said sayings, notations, citations, surveys or writings. I'm amazed at how stupid I am.

"Researchers" must be the new buzz word for truth that requires no supporting evidence. Let's hope researchers don't find their way into the legal system or we're all screwed. Oh wait - I'm too stupid to think that.

It is also ridiculous that they say, researchers say there needs to be more research. LOL Lets hope it's not the same kind of research.

 

[EleanorR]

As my Daddy liked to say, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics."


(Daddy was NOT against research; he was against manipulation and propaganda.)

 

[Lessifer]

Statistics alone are meaningless, it's all about context. Like the 300% jump in poison control center calls for nicotine, which translates to a jump from ~300 to ~1000 nationwide, and that's about .001% of their annual call volume.

 

[Kent C]

Statistics alone are meaningless, it's all about context. Like the 300% jump in poison control center calls for nicotine, which translates to a jump from ~300 to ~1000 nationwide, and that's about .001% of their annual call volume.

... or a jump from 1 to 3 Another thing is that there are 'calls' that may be 'what happens when....?' with no incident involved.

 

[drksideken]

Half of them probably couldn't figure out how to rebuild a coil, check ohms, know the difference between a regulated and unregulated mod, understand how to fill and or maintain a tank much less spouting out such claims. I'm sure half of them probably have other people screw in their own light bulbs for them....and the people who do that probably vape I hate pretentious people who assume they know more than others based on hearsay. Those sheep make me want to vomit.

 

[LDS714]

Crap! Now I have to get a sex change, a lobotomy, give away everything I own and vape my way to the fountain of youth...

 

[Rickajho]

The cloud is coming from off screen right! Look at the top right section and how the light is reflecting...
But of course, this opinion is coming from a male, above middle age with a college degree, who vapes, so what do I know....

Yeah, I just saw that. Notice how the dark(ened) shadow follows the diagonal edge of the vapor from top left to bottom right? But it's somehow a good 15% brighter on the left side of that magic cloud? WTH?

Whoever installed that lighting in that Vaping Shop of Horrors... someone should sue and get their money back.

Or people hired to Photoshop badly should seek alternative employment. We really need a hall of fame for these Photoshop fiascos. The more you look at that thing the more errors you see.

Figured out the problem with that "tank" - whatever it is. They just conveniently hacked off the drip tip, a good portion of the top cap, and some of the guys lips to get it all to fit.

The saddest thing - really - is this is deemed acceptable in journalism. And it is. This kind of crap goes all the way back to retouched photos during the Viet Nam era. Though it's hard to dignify calling this hot mess an actual photograph.

Oh, I forgot - I use e-cigs and I'm too stupid to notice that. Removing brain, putting back in the jar. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

 

[dave51]

Its ok folks

They can say anything they want


While Im sitting here uneducated,poor,and male
Smiling ,vapeing and sitting next to my box of vape juice lol

 

[Kent C]

Oh, I forgot - I use e-cigs and I'm too stupid to notice that. Removing brain, putting back in the jar. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I dont no folks. as a educuted mail myself i think that artical is on to soemthing. also it got put on the innernets.

 

[Rickajho]

Yuppers. That's me on the right there - Abby Normal. (Greatest shtick movie ever!)