When ANTZ Logic Attacks

[Nate760]

As we know, the stock-in-trade narrative goes something like this:

1) E-cigarettes come in non-tobacco flavors.

2) Non-tobacco flavors are more appealing to children.

3) Therefore, e-cigarettes are an insidious plot designed to create a new generation of tobacco addicts.

The glaring problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that non-tobacco flavored cigarettes are illegal. Therefore, according to the convoluted thought process (term used loosely) that passes for ANTZ logic, e-cig makers are attempting to make young people into cigarette smokers by marketing products that bear no resemblance to, and taste absolutely nothing like, any commercially available cigarette.

It really is hilarious how little time these people (who, unfortunately, include a great many high-level government officials) spend contemplating just how nonsensical and counterintuitive their orthodoxies actually are.

 

[Robino1]

Bingo!

 

[Mutescream]

The same sort of "logic" that could be applied, is that any sweet/fruity wine, wine cooler, liquer, flavored beer, schnaps, etc could no less be cited as being there to entice children to drink alcohol. Don' even need to get into edible undies and flavored condoms...

The problem is, they eschew (I really like that word, for some odd reason) logic entirely. They rely on fear/uncertainty/doubt. It's about conforming to a utopian ideal, and punishing those that refuse to quietly "get with the program".

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

As we know, the stock-in-trade narrative goes something like this:

1) E-cigarettes come in non-tobacco flavors.

2) Non-tobacco flavors are more appealing to children.

3) Therefore, e-cigarettes are an insidious plot designed to create a new generation of tobacco addicts.

The glaring problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that non-tobacco flavored cigarettes are illegal. Therefore, according to the convoluted thought process (term used loosely) that passes for ANTZ logic, e-cig makers are attempting to make young people into cigarette smokers by marketing products that bear no resemblance to, and taste absolutely nothing like, any commercially available cigarette.

It really is hilarious how little time these people (who, unfortunately, include a great many high-level government officials) spend contemplating just how nonsensical and counterintuitive their orthodoxies actually are.

Not that I buy their argument, but the claim is that vape pens and the like get kids addicted to nicotine. So then kids supposedly move up to the hard stuff. Also the flavors thing is used to establish that the marketing to teens is by design, which is more of a way of bringing BT into picture and trying to make the public mad - "See what they're doing to our children?" ANTZ offer no evidence on that point other than conjecture (i.e. flavors prove an intent to market to kids - not results as such).

The hooked on nic. part is allegedy justified by the junk JAMA study which (correctly) reports that teens who are current tobacco smokers have tried e-cigarettes at a rate of 7x teens who are not current tobacco smokers. Hower that shows nothing about causality as even the ACS noted. It's just statistics: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/glantz-press-release-is-dishonest-with.html

And it might be funny if the media hadn't bought it, hook, lne and sinker. See my daily media digests on the media forum. Between the junk science and the press releases by Schumer and Blumenthal, plus the introduction of the advertising act to allegedly protect kids ... this message has hardened fairly well. The stage is set for national legislation or regulation - which is no laughing matter.

 

[Nate760]

Not that I buy their argument, but the claim is that vape pens and the like get kids addicted to nicotine. So then kids supposedly move up to the hard stuff.

Yes, and the absurdity of this line of thinking is readily apparent to anyone who has real-world experience with the products in question. To anyone who's habituated to using e-cigs, analogs are absolutely revolting. They're even revolting if you smoked them for 25 years like I did; when I was about two weeks into vaping, I bummed a smoke off my wife just because I was curious to see if I'd enjoy it, and I put the thing down after two drags. It couldn't have been more unappealing. As far as adolescents go, I can say with complete confidence that if e-cigs had existed when I was a teenager, I never would've picked up a regular cigarette in my life.

The "gateway to tobacco" theory is repeated ad nauseum as though it's an accepted and verified fact, but it doesn't even stand up to the most basic level of practical scrutiny, since none of the people who promulgate it seem interested in explaining why someone who starts out using e-cigs would be interested in trading that habit for one that is orders of magnitude more hazardous to their health, vastly more expensive, more socially unacceptable, more inconvenient, and less enjoyable.

But then, these people don't have the slightest interest in their arguments making sense. One must never let common sense stand in the way of a good moral panic.

 

[pyruleus44]

Though there is no regulated age requirement on vape equipment et al, every local store I have been to has carded people if they looked too young. I'm positive that a vendor would not sell eliquid to someone underage, especially someone in the 10-15 age bracket. Yes, there are a variety of flavors and it does feel like the 1950s all over again, however, I haven't seen any hint of recklessness in the promotion or sale of these products. I've never heard any vapers, inside or outside a B&M, discuss the conspiracy of hooking children onto e-cigarettes or attempt to. As I'm aware, they have said vaping is either a "step up" from traditional smoking (like an evolution) or a generally safer method of ingesting nicotine. None have said anything about luring children into the mix.

It is well documented that traditional cigarettes are able to get when one is underage. If there's anything at all that can be considered a "gateway," it would be tobacco, if you applied it to someone that converted to vaping. However, that's not really a proper use of the definition.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Yes, and the absurdity of this line of thinking is readily apparent to anyone who has real-world experience with the products in question. [...]
But then, these people don't have the slightest interest in their arguments making sense. One must never let common sense stand in the way of a good moral panic.

The media buys it, and so will most of the public. Like ghosts and space aliens, you know.

 

[CaliforniaAromaManiac]

I believe it was H.L. Mencken who defined a Puritan as someone who "lies awake at night, terrified at the thought that someone, out there, is enjoying themselves." The main reason they are against vaping is that their main thrust, using junk science on second hand smoke, was to "de-normalize smoking." They see people enjoying themselves doing something that kind of looks like smoking, and, bingo, their Puritanical insomnia kicks in.