What we are up against!

[tim727100]

ASH is the brainchild of a despicable character named John Banzhaf. He is a lawyer and I think a law professor at George Washington University. Making life miserable for tobacco users has been his life's mission since at least 1967, when ASH was founded. In recent years he has extended his moral crusade to include overeaters as well, refering to fat people as a "visual blight" and has suggested banning them from public parks. This strikes me as ironic, as he looks to me like he's a few bacon cheeseburgers away from a massive coronary. But I digress.

My point is that ASH is nothing more than a hate campaign directed against those who choose a lifestyle not to Mr Banzhaf's liking. The thought of them changing their position on e-cigs is laughable.

 

[Bryn]

ASH come across like a sweating, rigid fundamentalist hell fire and brimestone preacher screaming at sheeples in a huge tent during Southern Baptist Revival. I should know, I grew up in the South getting dragged there, kicking.

 

[tim727100]

This should come as no surprise, Bryn. As their claims become more and more ridiculous even on their face (thirdhand smoke? Are you serious?) it is becoming increasingly clear that modern healthism is more religion than science.

I really think these pukes believe that if they deny themselves and everyone else of all worldly pleasures with the dreaded "unhealthy lifestyle" label they will live forever. Sound familiar?

 

[sherid]

Banzhaf sued the Innauguration committee for not having enough Porta Potties at the swearing in ceremony. He claimed it was sexist because women spend more time in the facilities, leaving lines of people waiting to go potty. His nickname is John, sue the .......s, Banzhaf and he is a danger to civilization. He tries out new campaigns by posting stories in PR Inside. Some of his more recent "articles" include admitting that the final campaign was to ban smoking in the home. That was, of course, preceded by the release of the "3rd hand smoke" story.

 

[GreySaber]

Dug him up on Wiki.

John F. Banzhaf III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[harmony gardens]

This should come as no surprise, Bryn. As their claims become more and more ridiculous even on their face (thirdhand smoke? Are you serious?) it is becoming increasingly clear that modern healthism is more religion than science.

I really think these pukes believe that if they deny themselves and everyone else of all worldly pleasures with the dreaded "unhealthy lifestyle" label they will live forever. Sound familiar?

You said a mouthful, there!!

Stress kills,,,, I want a stress free life, too. I want everything that causes me stress eliminated. I think people who cause me stress should have to go outside,,, I am tired of the second hand stress other people's problems cause me!! Thier stress is ruining my whole life, and the lives of millions of children.

Stress costs billions of dollars each year,,, yet this killer is tolerated by people everywhere. Gosh, I started smoking as a stress shield,,, started vaping cause I can't let that go.

 

[BFHammer]

You notice that the smoking nazi's never said a single word about Obama smoking. But they are both on the same nut job left wing nanny state frenzy when it comes to dictating how people should live. They would rather shoot smokers than Osama bin laden. They will most likely impose a "small" tax on the nicotine(like 500%) to help pay down that 9.3 trillion spending package.

 

[Kitabz]

This is what ASH UK have to say about vaping: <snip>

Thanks for e-mailing ASH Kate.
That's a most impressive reply and I'm quite surprised how reasonable and well stated their points are.

 

[Tallgirl1974]

I just love, and by love I mean hate, how "Nonsmokers rights" trump "smokers rights."
Is there two separate bill of rights now?

 

[Kate]

So what's the best way to deal with extremists, people who deal in exaggeration, fear tactics and lies to get what they want?

Arguing point for point isn't necessarily going to be our best defence here because we have so little scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

Highlighting their lack of perspective and giving them a credibility problem might be an option?

 

[GreySaber]

So what's the best way to deal with extremists, people who deal in exaggeration, fear tactics and lies to get what they want?

Arguing point for point isn't necessarily going to be our best defence here because we have so little scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

Highlighting their lack of perspective and giving them a credibility problem might be an option?

I say we go back to analogs for a month, then BREATH on them, causing them to instantly perish dead away.

If that fails, let's do that you said.

 

[ladyraj]

So what's the best way to deal with extremists, people who deal in exaggeration, fear tactics and lies to get what they want?

Arguing point for point isn't necessarily going to be our best defence here because we have so little scientific evidence to prove them wrong.

Highlighting their lack of perspective and giving them a credibility problem might be an option?

Hi Kate, the interesting thing is that the source of the 3rd hand smoke controversy comes from a telephone survey about people's beliefs on smoking. A relatively easy and inexpensive thing to do. One simply asks the right questions, gather percentage of responses, and post it via PR sites, the media will pick it up.

Here is the study:
Beliefs About the Health Effects of "Thirdhand" Smoke and Home Smoking Bans -- Winickoff et al. 123 (1): e74 -- Pediatrics

Excerpt:
METHODS. Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey from September to November 2005. The sample was weighted by race and gender within Census region on the basis of US Census data. The study questions assessed the level of agreement with statements that breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of children.

My remarks: A sample question could be: Do you think the that harmless vapor from a e-cig is as dangerous as smoking tobacco? It's all in how you frame it!

 

[TropicalBob]

harmless vapor

Can't say or ask that. You would really tilt the results with a modifier like "harmless". Besides, that not a known fact.

We cannot fight crusaders like these. We can crusade for our own cause, not crusade against theirs. There is a difference. Work to get the Senate to accept a new FDA category for alternative devices. Work to get the effective date changed from February 2007 to date of Senate passage.

 

[Kate]

I think that Ladyraj might have been making the same point as you TBob - asking biased, leading questions gives skewed results.

You're probably right, we can't fight such dedicated, blind, crusaders, it's like dealing with internet trolls. Presenting truth and reason to the people who matter is the best we can hope for without compromising our own integrity.

I hope we can rein in our own crusaders and don't get asked to condone misinformation from pro vapers.

 

[Boston George]

Toxic cloud doesn't have the same ring to it has 'water vapor'. I really hope a study gets done showing that our vapor is truly harmless. However, I doubt these zealots will care, they have the 'moral' high-ground after all.

to set the mood for this great endeavor

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
-Shakespeare's Henry V

 

[Ivisi]

Yeah, I sent an email. The contents are as follows:

Why won’t you allow non-members to debate your baseless claims against the e-cigarette in your discussion forums? It’s not much of a discussion if the conversation is one-sided, don’t you think? Do I really have to give you money in order to ask you, and your members, how you can claim that the inhaled and exhaled vapor in e-cigarettes are as dangerous, if not more so, than a typical tobacco cigarette to both the smoker and non-smoker? Personally, I believe one-sided, close-minded thinking is more dangerous to anyone than drunk-driving, second-hand smoke, and drinking large quantities of lead paint combined, and I firmly believe that no one should engage in drunk-driving, exposing anyone to second-hand tobacco smoke, nor do I advocate drinking lead paint in even the tiniest of quantities, so you can imagine how I feel about one-sided, close-minded thinking.

If you would like to openly debate the merits of your publication about the E-Cigarette, feel free to contact myself or any others who you feel could contribute to such an exchange of opinions and ideas. I would really like to see that. However, as it stands, I cannot agree with any of the assumptions you make in your publication on the ‘Dangers of the E-Cigarette’.

Thanks for your time,

Matt Williams


I can't help myself sometimes, especially when people are just so full of hate over something that it blinds them to some obvious truths. Yes, there is much to be learned and studied about the e-cigarette, but to be so closed-minded as to completely ignore the e-cig's benefits just drives me bonkers. And it's not just this, it's closed-mindedness in general.


If there's one thing I'm closed-minded about, it's close-mindedness.


Ivisi

 

[GreySaber]

There isn't alot of point to going onto their forums, nor would they much advance their issue by coming here. That will lead to a good many arguements and name calling, when only the calls to the senetors really matter.

After all, no matter how hard we fight them direct, word for word, in the end it's not an actual duel or a shooting war, and they will not become less numerous.

 

[ladyraj]

Can't say or ask that. You would really tilt the results with a modifier like "harmless". Besides, that not a known fact.

We cannot fight crusaders like these. We can crusade for our own cause, not crusade against theirs. There is a difference. Work to get the Senate to accept a new FDA category for alternative devices. Work to get the effective date changed from February 2007 to date of Senate passage.

Yes, the use of the terms "harmless vapor" was in homage to the antics of legitimate researchers that actually built this whole concept of 3rd hand smoke from a survey. It was reputable, legitimate, and made it's way into a peer-reviewed pediatric journal. Once published, it has become infamous.

That it isn't really science, is also true, but what survey of opinion ever is? It's like saying 3 out of 4 doctors recommend tylenol. Now, tylenol is a household name. You have done well with making the world know a little more about e-cigs, now you need to make it a household name.

Some say the polled results prior to election actually had an effect on voting choice. Give the legislators one more reason to be pro-electronic, let them know the majority want them as well...

 

[Bill Godshall]

In response to unwarranted criticisms of John Banzhaf at ASH, I've collaborated with John many times during the past 25 years advocating policies, laws and litigation to protect nonsmokers from tobacco smoke pollution.

John and ASH spearheaded the international smokefree policy movement more than 40 years ago, and his work has saved millions of lives.

Per John's recent request last week (due to illness), I'll be replacing John as director of the Sixth World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights in Washington, DC, on June 6-7, 2009 at the George Washington University School of Law. I've also been an active participant at the past four of these conferences which John has organized.

 

[sherid]

The criticism of John Branzhaff is well warranted. Although you and he share the same goals, many others share neither ASH's methods or motivation. To say that ASH and Branzhaff have saved the lives of millions is laughable and further evidence of the extremism at these organizations. ASH HAS created a denormalization campaign that is responsible for the loss of business, denial of jobs, the loss of the basic human right to foster or adopt children, the intrusion of these laws into a person's home, and an organization so extreme it sends a chill up my spine. Although I appreciate your endorsement of electronic cigarettes, your association with Mr. Branzhaff and his organization is troubling.