Virginia - PVs on NBC 12 news

[Guineahill]

This evening NBC 12 ran a story on PVs and a study being conducted by VCU. Here is a link to the story
E-cigarettes gaining steam, but are they safe?

 

[PlanetScribbles]

But there are serious questions about the long-term risks of these electronic devices.

So, there are no long term consequences of smoking tobacco then? These stories are all the same, written by blinkered people without the sense God gave them.
The above quote is a complete non-issue in the grand scheme of things. It's about the lesser of two evils, if they don't get that then they need an education.

 

[Vocalek]

I registered so I could comment, and when I returned to the page was presented with a poll. After casting my vote, I was shown the results:

Do you think that e-cigarettes are a safer solution to smoking?

Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:

Yes (smoker) 46%
No (smoker) 4%
Yes (non-smoker) 35%
No (non-smoker) 15%

Of course I voted "Yes" as a non-smoker.

My comment:

Why in the world would any alternative to smoking cigarettes need to be 100% safe? What if it is only 99% safer? Should we keep smoking tobacco? After smoking for 45 years and having patches, gum, lozenges, inhaler, bupropion, classes, 12-step groups, and even hypnosis fail, the e-cigarette was a God-send. I no longer wheeze. I can laugh out loud now without breaking into a coughing fit? Isn't that good enough? But wait, there's more! My BP is lower and so is my cholesterol. Is that enough? If thousands of people like me are seeing their health get better when they switch to inhaling vaporized nicotine, why all this opposition? Instead of misinterpreting the Virgina code to suit his own autocratic purposes, Mr. Hagy, as an employee of the Virginia Department of Health should be rejoicing that there is a something available now that works to help people quit smoking and improve their health.

 

[Storyspinr]

Every time I see Gary Hagy's claim they meet the definition of a "cigarette of any kind", I get angry all over again. The name "cigarette" with these is purely arbitrary. A real cigarette MUST contain tobacco; the VDH is just using this as an excuse.

The last line in the story, that it would take an act by the General Assembly to make e cigs legal under the ban, is not exactly correct. If the new AG rules they do not fall under the ban, they will be legal. Unfortunately, someone in the AG's office already deferred to the VDH, although that was before the new AG took office - we can always hope he has more reasonable people working for him.

 

[Guineahill]

I voted yes they are safer as a non-smoker also.

And then I left this comment

Take Time To Think!
Once again those determined to protect us from ourselves at the expense of our personal freedoms have overstepped their bounds.

In no way can the ‘e-cigarette’ qualify as a cigarette using any rational justification. It contains no tobacco. It isn’t burned. It doesn’t even necessarily have nicotine. It is no more a cigarette than a Halloween haunted house with a fog machine and scary lights is.

These devises have helped many people curtail their dangerous tobacco use. Even if they are not 100 percent harmless they are most definitely less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes. I see no reason at all to deprive people of their freedom to choose an obviously less harmful alternative.

Does the Virginia Department of Health honestly believe they have the right to reinterpret the law to suit their own agenda? They do not!

One can’t simply assign a name to something and say that it is now that item. I can call my dog an elephant for all to hear but the dog is still a dog. It would still be a dog even if everyone in the world called him an elephant. Sadly, Gary Hagy comes across as an idiot utilizing this kind of juvenile rationalization.

I believe that if this were to be heard in court it would be found that it would take an act of the General Assembly to make them illegal under Virginia's restaurant smoking ban! As it stands, they are not specifically included in the ban.

Come on folks… The ‘e-cigarette’ doesn’t contain any controlled substances. It isn’t glamorous or sexy. It is simply a less harmful alternative available to adults who would like to curtail their tobacco use. Why take away their safer options? Come on Virginia!

 

[Guineahill]

The current poll results are:

Do you think that e-cigarettes are a safer solution to smoking?

Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:

Yes (smoker) 41%

No (smoker) 3%

Yes (non-smoker) 36%

No (non-smoker) 20%

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I voted them safer as a non-smoker. I am only a non-smoker because of these electronic 'cigarette lookalike' devices. They are no more dangerous than a candy cigarette. Are they tobacco products too? Puhleezzzze ...

 

[dubnluvn]

EEK!

Yes (smoker) 24%
No (smoker) 7%
Yes (non-smoker) 31%
No (non-smoker) 38%

 

[Guineahill]

Geez! What happened to the numbers!?!?!?

 

[Janetda]

Yes (smoker)
20%
No (smoker)
8%
Yes (non-smoker)
32%
No (non-smoker)
40%

 

[MercyPoetic]

Yes (smoker)

20%No (smoker)

8%Yes (non-smoker)

32%No (non-smoker)

40%Why would someone vote no? Obviously not someone who's smoked and had nothing help them quit...

 

[MercyPoetic]

You know, reading all the comments left, I didn't see any that might have been left by a nonsmoker who would have voted "No"

 

[The Mosh]

They're poll software is weird. It's not doing the survey right.

If you break it down, you've got

Yes: 55%
No: 45%

Breaking it down that way seems to give non smokers that think it's dangerous more weight, but it doesn't.

 

[Guineahill]

They're poll software is weird. It's not doing the survey right.

If you break it down, you've got

Yes: 55%
No: 45%

Breaking it down that way seems to give non smokers that think it's dangerous more weight, but it doesn't.

Really good point! It would be nice to have the overall numbers and then the breakdown.

 

[The Mosh]

I don't think it was intentional. It's just that they needed to post two surveys on the page, and their web guy (or more likely the person directing him) didn't understand that you need to do the math twice in order for it to make any sense. So instead, they lumped it all into one survey, and came up with poll numbers that you have to squint at. Oh, the folly of freeware.

 

[bobtow]

I also voted on the poll as a nonew smoker. I voted yes the are safe.

 

[bobtow]

You know, reading all the comments left, I didn't see any that might have been left by a nonsmoker who would have voted "No"

The only vote post that could have been taken as a negative said, They would be safe if they did not use tobacco. Or some thing to that effect.

 

[jaded]

The only vote post that could have been taken as a negative said, They would be safe if they did not use tobacco. Or some thing to that effect.

SO when I go no nic and just super strong menthol they will be happy. Sounds good I will "tell" em I did that.

 

[tarheeldan]

This is ridiculous. Ratio of smoker votes safer/not: 2.5 For non-smokers: 0.8
I voted as a non-smoker (thanks to e-cigs)
Does anyone know how to program a bot to go in and swing things in our favor? Methinks the anti crazies might. (not really, but still wouldn't mind the bot...)

 

[jaded]

This is ridiculous. Ratio of smoker votes safer/not: 2.5 For non-smokers: 0.8
I voted as a non-smoker (thanks to e-cigs)
Does anyone know how to program a bot to go in and swing things in our favor? Methinks the anti crazies might. (not really, but still wouldn't mind the bot...)

Maybe Phillip Morris saw it and has employees going to vote lol.