https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
Personally I think it's just more anti-vaping propaganda from ANTZ.
Personally I think it's just more anti-vaping propaganda from ANTZ.
What do you make of this article on vaping dangers?
- Thread starter Vaslovik
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yes, looks like a hit piece, pure and simple. Aimed at scaring the public about vaping. Probably instigated by the idiot Glantz.
The anti-nicotine/tobacco bunch seem to be redoubling their efforts to junk up every outlet they can get hold of while the FDA proposed deeming regulations are sitting at OIRA.
They'll have a lot of harm to answer for someday.
The anti-nicotine/tobacco bunch seem to be redoubling their efforts to junk up every outlet they can get hold of while the FDA proposed deeming regulations are sitting at OIRA.
They'll have a lot of harm to answer for someday.
Yup, that's my take on it. Someone on Reddit who was ranting against vaping posted that when I mentioned that the UK had pronounced vaping as 95% safer than smoking. I guess there are all sorts of such hit pieces out there cooked up by the haters. What I can't get is why they have to hate vaping so much, when no one is asking them to do it. Is it just that they so desperately NEED something to hate?
I'm constantly amazed as to how these "studies", and "informed people" want to say that vaping a product that contains SIX or SEVEN ingredients is as dangerous as smoking something that contains around FOUR to FIVE HUNDRED. It seems to me that if these "educated people" REALLY want to do something positive, they'd put their energy in removing analogs from the market.
Oh, wait; can't do that. Too much tax money made off of those cancer sticks.
When these studies lay out the methodology used in these "studies" then I'll pay attention. For now, I'll treat every article like this as absolute trash...
Oh, wait; can't do that. Too much tax money made off of those cancer sticks.
When these studies lay out the methodology used in these "studies" then I'll pay attention. For now, I'll treat every article like this as absolute trash...
I think it's the rabid ex-smokers; "it doesn't count if you don't suffer!" And of course all those like Glantz et al with a stick up their .... about smoking or anything that LOOKS like smoking.
Andria
I see maybe 2% of the article as factual / favorable and 98% as "things an ANTZ might say."
This notion that eCigs are not benign and not (100%) safe is just ridiculous fodder. You can (accurately) say the same thing about water. It is not 100% safe. People have OD'd from drinking water and have drowned in it. Therefore not entirely safe. But if we were to compare drinking water, say at 5 cups daily compared to drinking same amount of whiskey, suddenly water looks like a far better choice. But that still doesn't make it 100% safe.
And since you can do this with water, then there is literally nothing around that is inherently benign and thus when they write these articles they are always (and I mean always) coming up with the idea that says: because it is not 100% safe, that's why we need onerous regulations on them to ensure that people are not in danger from just anyone distributing this to anyone.
When in actual reality, the regulations could plausibly do more damage, both to individuals and to society / public health. But because that last part is debatable (and counter intuitive), it is downplayed to oblivion, until regs get so far out of control that a black market exists, regardless of how legal the product is. Smoking would be prime example of what I am getting at.
This notion that eCigs are not benign and not (100%) safe is just ridiculous fodder. You can (accurately) say the same thing about water. It is not 100% safe. People have OD'd from drinking water and have drowned in it. Therefore not entirely safe. But if we were to compare drinking water, say at 5 cups daily compared to drinking same amount of whiskey, suddenly water looks like a far better choice. But that still doesn't make it 100% safe.
And since you can do this with water, then there is literally nothing around that is inherently benign and thus when they write these articles they are always (and I mean always) coming up with the idea that says: because it is not 100% safe, that's why we need onerous regulations on them to ensure that people are not in danger from just anyone distributing this to anyone.
When in actual reality, the regulations could plausibly do more damage, both to individuals and to society / public health. But because that last part is debatable (and counter intuitive), it is downplayed to oblivion, until regs get so far out of control that a black market exists, regardless of how legal the product is. Smoking would be prime example of what I am getting at.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
