Why can't they just leave us alone?

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,617
1
84,722
So-Cal
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.

This is something that I have subscribed to Most of my Adult Life.

I think it is Very Relevant with regards to e-Cigarettes and Government Agencies.

BTW - Whatever happened to that e-liquid Manufacturer Trade Association? AMESA?
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
We're probably almost all "anti-tobacco" in a way, aren't we, having been through the painful process of trying to reject smoking addiction?
The only thing I am anti is anti-ANTZ.
I wouldn't even consider myself to be anti-smoking.

There is nothing wrong with tobacco.

It is only the burning of tobacco that causes any reasonable degree of potential harm.
The same is true for the burning of pretty much anything.

It's not the tobacco that kills, it's the smoke.

...but there is a substantial body of research pointing to it being carcinogenic.
By a bunch of biased and/or corrupt researchers who are paid large sums of money to try to find anything that can be used as propaganda.

As far as I'm concerned epidemiology always trumps what happens in a couple of petri dishes.
And in this case the epidemiology from the study of snus in Sweden for over 30 years pretty much shows that nicotine usage does not lead to increased cancer rates.

As far as I'm concerned that means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not cause cancer.
 

EddardinWinter

The Philosopher Who Rides
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
8,866
28,169
Richmond, Va
Direct quotes only please, that's pretty much dishonest.

"Nicotine is not a suspected carcinogen" is a stronger statement than "Nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I'm not suggesting that you only need one nutter to think nicotine is carcinogenic before you can lump it in, but there is a substantial body of research pointing to it being carcinogenic. To lump it in with the "nots" you would need to be able to basically say "none of the research suggesting it is a carcinogen is credible". Feel free if you like, it'll just paint you as an idealogue though.

I think part of the confusion earlier in the thread was people failing to grasp the distinction between NRT / snus and nicotine. Again, "there is an association between NRT and cancer" is a stronger statement than "nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I never said the former, and you're on very shaky ground if you really want to contest the latter.

Here is your original quote word for word. How was I being dishonest?

Nicotine is a suspected carcinogen, and linked to pancreatic cancer at least, I think.

You just posted:

...again, "there is an association between NRT and cancer" is a stronger statement than "nicotine is a suspected carcinogen". I never said the former, and you're on very shaky ground if you really want to contest the latter.

You follow that with saying (in your eminent honesty)

To lump it in with the "nots" you would need to be able to basically say "none of the research suggesting it is a carcinogen is credible". Feel free if you like, it'll just paint you as an idealogue though.

What on earth are you talking about? I just said what I thought on the issue (in plain English!) I said,

I remain at the position of there is insufficient evidence to conclude that nicotine alone is even a 'suspected carcinogen'.

Who is playing word games now? You can call me all the names you want for not agreeing with you, I still won't agree. Those are my words. Call me an ideologue, a charlatan, an evildoer, or whatever else pleases you. I agree with the IARC on the issue. They do not list Nicotine as a Carcinogen, nor a Probable Carcinogen, nor a Possible Carcinogen. Are they ideologues, too?

Nice try. Better luck next time.
 

EddardinWinter

The Philosopher Who Rides
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
8,866
28,169
Richmond, Va
The only thing I am anti is anti-ANTZ.
I wouldn't even consider myself to be anti-smoking.

There is nothing wrong with tobacco.

It is only the burning of tobacco that causes any reasonable degree of potential harm.
The same is true for the burning of pretty much anything.

It's not the tobacco that kills, it's the smoke.


By a bunch of biased and/or corrupt researchers who are paid large sums of money to try to find anything that can be used as propaganda.

As far as I'm concerned epidemiology always trumps what happens in a couple of petri dishes.
And in this case the epidemiology from the study of snus in Sweden for over 30 years pretty much shows that nicotine usage does not lead to increased cancer rates.

As far as I'm concerned that means, for all intents and purposes, that it does not cause cancer.

Thank God you exist, DC!
 

EddardinWinter

The Philosopher Who Rides
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 13, 2012
8,866
28,169
Richmond, Va
What really gets to me (especially in many college programs) is the attitude "oh, that's nicotine? cigarette! Evil! we should make those illegal." but in the same conversation "pot should be legal, man, it's safe.".

I'm just sitting here like I'm not the one lighting anything on FIRE to get my fix. :facepalm:

They have been convinced their choices should be everyone's choices. Those poor hive minded souls. They believe that harmony can be found only in a homogenous society.

Try to teach them critical thinking and independent thinking. It is never too late for them to learn to appreciate our different choices we make as individuals.
 

Iffy

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 3, 2011
9,626
79,411
Florida Suncoast
I wouldn't dare. I heard it's a carcinogen.

Bonjour!!!


Bonjour_zpsb5bbde0c.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread