FDA Why Isn't Vaping the FDA Center for Tobacco Product's Biggest Ally?

[Roger_Lafayette]

<snip>
We can say both messages. Siegel does this in the item you linked. Most politically aware vapers say this same message. Yet, you spin it as if one is 'good for the cause' and the other is ultimately harming us. Why? Because ANTZ can use it as a tool against us.
<snip>

No. I have been saying for many posts now that we first prove that vapers quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape. After that, we can either argue that those who are dual users are either better positioned for cessation, or at the very least reducing their harm. (Because the overall mortality population effects of vaping - as compared to no vaping - will still be on the side of vaping. Dual users are obviously in no worse position than smokers who continue to smoke unabated.)

What I have been saying for many posts now is that the simplist, most powerful, and most effective message that we can send about adult vapers is that "Vapers are quitters." (I.e. we quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape.)

The West study doesn't perfectly establish that, but I am confident that if regular vapers (not just 'ever-vapers') were compared to non-vaping smokers, that vaping would do just fine, too.

Now we win the reduced-mortality argument on a population basis (at least for adults), because we can show that restrictions on vaping will increase mortality.

So if someone believes that "smoking kills" (do I need to add as usual: in the sense of increased premature preventable deaths?) then we can say that vaping saves some of those lives, by reducing such deaths arising from tobacco cigarette smoking, because of higher cessation rates among vapers, as compared to non-vaping smokers.

Those are the facts.

But if we're hamstrung by philosophical straitjackets to the point where we can't put our most effective argument first (increased cessation), for fear of "throwing dual users under the bus," or "sounding like" the ANTZ, then it will be very difficult if not downright impossible to argue that vaping reduces - instead of increases - overall avoidable premature deaths from smoking.

 

[Talyon]

As entertaining as this thread has become, NOT! It would appear there are those that dislike CASAA, and I'm NOT clear as to why, oh perhaps it's the my right to an opinion thing hmmm, ok. Then there are those that dislike Roger, again I'm not clear on why?

One thing for sure is I wish all this FDA garbage etc etc yada yada yada blah blah stuff would simply be at the last stage.
Then we will see who gets the last laugh, those claiming talk o hem nicely like the Taliban, yes that works,oh wait it only did on the tribes that we're payed millions upon millions, hmmm money talks, yep.

Then there are those that hope to sway public/popular opinion, GL.... There is good reason why so many choose NOT to participate in these threads, and that's because action outweighs words.

Then there are those trying to keep up the good fight and coodles to yah for that, you have backing, and way more them the nay Sayers or the idealists etc.

Follow the Money, it's a simple concept I'm sure most are aware of, and that is what the FDA will do, mark my words, I have.

When all is said and done, and it goes the way of The idealists, then I will formally apologize to those on my ignore list, now just so u know I won't care if u accept it, you mean almost nothing to me personally. As mom use to say I won't be breaking bread with yah....

I sincerly hope you are right, but can't and won't let myself be fooled/partisan to that thinking, yes thinking cause you can't possibly KNOW!

I for one DO NOT agree with regulation, no matter how small/trivial. That is my newest/latest stance, yes I reserve the right to change my opinion at the drop of a hat, however when it comes to Vapeing I shall NOT!

Ty to several posters who continue to make sense of these proposed regulations, but no Ty to those who are clearly blind. You all know who u are.

Currently Vapeing Gambit, and loving it.... Have a Great day to all.... And I do mean all.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Permanent dual-use?

I don't think vaping has been around that long just yet...


Roger, you might want to be careful with dual-use & cessation..

It's a very tricky area & difficult to measure.. Too many variables & moving parts, especially without detailed, extensive long-term studies...

But with the proliferation of intermediate & more advanced vape gear, I think it only puts us in even better light...

 

[sonicdsl]

 

[aubergine]

No. I have been saying for many posts now that we first prove that vapers quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape. After that, we can either argue that those who are dual users are either better positioned for cessation, or at the very least reducing their harm. (Because the overall mortality population effects of vaping - as compared to no vaping - will still be on the side of vaping. Dual users are obviously in no worse position than smokers who continue to smoke unabated.)

What I have been saying for many posts now is that the simplist, most powerful, and most effective message that we can send about adult vapers is that "Vapers are quitters." (I.e. we quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape.)

The West study doesn't perfectly establish that, but I am confident that if regular vapers (not just 'ever-vapers') were compared to non-vaping smokers, that vaping would do just fine, too.

Now we win the reduced-mortality argument on a population basis (at least for adults), because we can show that restrictions on vaping will increase mortality.

So if someone believes that "smoking kills" (do I need to add as usual: in the sense of increased premature preventable deaths?) then we can say that vaping saves some of those lives, by reducing such deaths arising from tobacco cigarette smoking, because of higher cessation rates among vapers, as compared to non-vaping smokers.

Those are the facts.

But if we're hamstrung by philosophical straitjackets to the point where we can't put our most effective argument first (increased cessation), for fear of "throwing dual users under the bus," or "sounding like" the ANTZ, then it will be very difficult if not downright impossible to argue that vaping reduces - instead of increases - overall avoidable premature deaths from smoking.

This seems so obviously, transparently, lucidly correct that for me the argument has come full circle and rests. If it's not about cessation, and degrees of cessation, then none of it makes sense to me. I've been reading this forum for years, and the comments of the vast majority of new vapers are either "Cigarette free for --- days!", followed by dancing bananas, or, "I'm still smoking, but much less craving!", followed by kindly encouragement and commiseration, or "This isn't working for me, I'm dying for a cigarette!", followed by many suggestions on how to make it more effective. . I'm fighting these regs because I firmly believe that smoking kills, and the whole point of ecigs is to prevent illness and death. Otherwise they're just a frivolous recreation, fine but so what?, and this is some battle about principles but with very little real weight.

I know there are dual smokers in here, and that's fine. There are also people who want to minimize the dangers (and offensiveness to others) of smoking, or protest tobacco regulation, and that's fine, too, but disagreeing with those persons makes no one an ANTZ; it's wicked sophistry to say that it does.

If one's truth, one's own experience, has to be twisted out of shape to the point that it's no longer recognizable in order to develop an effective strategy, then something in the whole process has gone wildly amiss.

 

[Jman8]

No. I have been saying for many posts now that we first prove that vapers quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape.

I'd like to see quotes on this please. For I look back 2 pages ago at post #144, and it says:

The only way to win that one is to say that vaping leads to more cessation - otherwise we're trying to balance one type of reduced morbidity (lung cancer) and quailty of life versus many other kinds of moribidity such as heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Nothing in this post about "first." It has, in my reading of this thread been, "the only way" that is being presented.

After that, we can either argue that those who are dual users are either better positioned for cessation, or at the very least reducing their harm. (Because the overall mortality population effects of vaping - as compared to no vaping - will still be on the side of vaping. Dual users are obviously in no worse position than smokers who continue to smoke unabated.)

And I would say this is first time I've read you add the words "or at the very least reducing their harm." I would say up to this post, you misconstrued point of Siegel link which was partially the 'argument from authority' that you were using to support the thrust of your 'only way' to go about things.

Your position is that public health, in terms of smoking/tobacco regulations, relates directly to mortality from use and how cessation plays into that. And for eCigs to be 'approved product' they will need to demonstrate that they meet these specific standards of 'public health.' This position isn't just found on this thread. And with me pointing this out, I'm already anticipating your response to be, "tis not me that is saying this, but FDA."

Regardless of how that is spun, it isn't the only way to win on that one, and it seems like you are ignoring the other ways of understanding the issue, and even ignoring the Siegel argument.

What I have been saying for many posts now is that the simplist, most powerful, and most effective message that we can send about adult vapers is that "Vapers are quitters." (I.e. we quit at a higher rate than smokers who do not vape.)

I hear this, but again, that isn't most powerful in my opinion. You say it with authority, but I'm thinking if I float another sound bite out there, you'd scrutinize it, downplay it, and keep coming back to what's behind this position which deals with my paragraph above that starts with "your position."

Vapers are quitters, is great on brevity, but kinda disappointing on message and laced with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Are vapers quitters (of nicotine) when it comes to vaping? Vapers are quitters sounds to me like "vapers are losers." To me, it would be equal to the message of, "Vapers have broken the addiction." Which, we'd readily explain that we are no longer addicted to smoking (I as dual user can attest to this) and yet constantly deal with incessant questions of "oh really, have you quit your addiction to vaping yet?" I mean you say you're a quitter, but you still use nicotine every single hour of every single day. Please help me understand how you are using the word "quitter" so that I can understand this wonderful message you've got going.

The West study doesn't perfectly establish that, but I am confident that if regular vapers (not just 'ever-vapers') were compared to non-vaping smokers, that vaping would do just fine, too.

Holy moly, we agree on something. Regular vapers includes dual users, yes?

Now we win the reduced-mortality argument on a population basis (at least for adults), because we can show that restrictions on vaping will increase mortality.

So if someone believes that "smoking kills" (do I need to add as usual: in the sense of increased premature preventable deaths?) then we can say that vaping saves some of those lives, by reducing such deaths arising from tobacco cigarette smoking, because of higher cessation rates among vapers, as compared to non-vaping smokers.

Those are the facts.

And I would say that's spin. My spin would be "because of harm reduction that comes from substituting combustible tobacco with a product that delivers what smokers want, and that is relatively harmless." The more substitution, the more likely mortality is reduced.

And to me, that, like your statement, isn't fact. All people are going to die, and this causal link toward death thing is NOT something to hang one's hat on when discussing politics of vaping/smoking. If you truly think it is, then I'm sure you'll think there is nothing that can stop you from going forward. But I believe you have gotten into bed with people who do not actually understand facts, but instead enjoy proffering up statements like "and these are facts" in order to think they just done won an argument.

But if we're hamstrung by philosophical straitjackets to the point where we can't put our most effective argument first (increased cessation), for fear of "throwing dual users under the bus," or "sounding like" the ANTZ, then it will be very difficult if not downright impossible to argue that vaping reduces - instead of increases - overall avoidable premature deaths from smoking.

"our most effective argument?" - as in Roger speaks for all. How bout let's see if CASAA advocates precisely for what you are saying, or leaves wiggle room on 'what's most effective?' Cause so far, Siegel isn't saying this, nor are most others. Find Godshall saying precisely what you are saying. Should be no problem if it is 'fact' and is 'our' most effective argument.

That you are literally stuck on the 'premature death from smoking' tangent is your weakness. IMO, it is folly. It can and will be applied to vaping sooner than later. If a vaper dies at age 36 from literally anything, ANTZ will be right there presenting the FACT that this person was a vaper and that they did in FACT die prematurely. Our little voices from the vaping community will be right there exposing these so called facts as pure deception, just like some of us do, routinely with the 400K number on smoking. While others seem to think that number is etched in infallible stone, and serves as a great inroad for why vaping is better than smoking. Some even thinking, this is our 'most effective' point that we can make, and seemingly not realizing, you just made your own (death) bed. I hope you are okay lying in it.

 

[Rossum]

unless user is saying, "if I don't vape, I absolutely will smoke," which then becomes a psychiatric issue.

Uh.. I'm not afraid to admit that if you magically made all vape stuff disappear, I'd be off to the nearest convenience store for some smokes pretty quickly, even if I had to "walk a mile" (it's actually more like 2-1/2 miles from here).

But I kinda take offense at the notion that this is a psychiatric issue.

 

[aubergine]

Jman8: "All people are going to die, and this causal link toward death thing is NOT something to hang one's hat on when discussing politics of vaping/smoking."

Really? Tell that to my mother, who died in my arms with half a lung carved out, still wanting another cigarette. Tell that to the hundreds of hospice patients I served. Tell that to me, for that matter - I was wheezing and couldn't climb a flight of steps without getting exhausted. Does saying that mean I'm "in bed with Antz"?

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

I'd like to see quotes on this please. For I look back 2 pages ago at post #144, and it says:

This whole thing started in #44, so you're 100 posts off.

In #44 I said we need to hang our hat on the cessation peg, and a few posts later (or perhaps before), I said that reduction might be useful so long as it leads to cessation.

I also pointed out several times that dual use may be a transitional phenomenon - i.e. dual users often cut down and gradually convert to 100% vaping.

And yes, mortality is the elephant in the room, not quality of life. What could be more important than dying? It's the centerpiece of the narrative that we have to deal with.

This was never an argument about individuals, it was about population effects and a broader debate that we are going to end up having nationally, in the pubic policy arena. So reduction may be a great thing for some individual vaper. But vast numbers of people who have reduced their smoking are basically a wash in terms of mortality.

It is very difficult for us to prove that a 1/3 redution in lung cancer rates and a few other things is terribly helpful there - particularly if we don't also show the primary benefit of increased cessation rates. As a matter of fact, if we show significantly increased cessation rates, then both the mortality effects and quality of life effects for dual users pale by comparison. They might be imprtant for an individual. But they do not help us much (by comparison with the quitters) when it comes to the broader argument that vaping saves lives.

Let me repeat: that has nothing to do with with any individual person ... someone may experience a new lease on life by going from 3 PAD to 3 cigarettes a week. This is not my point. It also doesn't mean that dual users are bad people, either.

Anyway if we're arguing about how this whole thing has developed, rather than what the end point is, then we are ...

P.S.: You are free to believe that there are significant mortality benefits from mere reduction. I don't believe the data is there. But then you may also believe that the case hasn't been made against smoking, period? If so, then what's the point? All you have to do is say that smoking hasn't proven to be all that dangerous - so it doesn't matter whether anyone quits or even cuts down. You are entittled to your opinion about that. I think that's a loser of an argument in the public policy arena.

 

[aikanae1]

Theres been a lot of criticism of vaping because vapers are replacting nicotine with nicotine and in their opinion, that's not really "quitting". If you took away their new form of nicotine, many would go back to smoking combustionable cigs. It might be more effective to point that out and ask the FDA if they are ready to see a spike in smoking from banning ecigs?

 

[DeeLeeKay]

Nicotine is not the only thing is cigarettes. It is what most smokers want. Also, everyone tests positive for dietary nicotine. Does everyone test positive for the other WTA's found in tobacco?

Smoking does not equal vaping. We need to make the general public understand this.

 

[Bobbilly]

Theres been a lot of criticism of vaping because vapers are replacting nicotine with nicotine and in their opinion, that's not really "quitting". If you took away their new form of nicotine, many would go back to smoking combustionable cigs. It might be more effective to point that out and ask the FDA if they are ready to see a spike in smoking from banning ecigs?

They wouldn't care if we go back to smoking as we are already a statistic. They would easily sacrifice all of us.

Likely we will know the long term effects in 40 years and they will finally know what effect vapourizers had

 

[wv2win]

I do not understand why one would give up. Especially under the new environment that the Deeming proposal is out and the FDA is asking for comments. Asking. It would seem that you are suggesting, tried and failed, never try again. Is a paradigm of success.

Its not. Consult Winston Churchill's graduation speech. Its rather famous.

Right, that is why I am using my own money and time to go around to B & M's and get them to encourage their customers to join CASAA. Way to completely ignore the bigger point that your suggestion that all we have to do is "talk" with the FDA and show them the many positive studies on vaping and they will relent and see the logic of our position.

The only thing the FDA will understand is sustained public pressure. This is a battle that has been going on since 2009. They are not stupid. They know their position is not scientifically supported and that our position is scientifically supported. They don't care, because that is not what drives them. Money, power and control drives them and only political, legal and public pressure will make them reconsider their position.

 

[Katya]

If one's truth, one's own experience, has to be twisted out of shape to the point that it's no longer recognizable in order to develop an effective strategy, then something in the whole process has gone wildly amiss.

I'll take this on a T-shirt, please.

Size Medium.

 

[LDS714]

Anyone see the quote from Zeller on Vaper Joe's?

"if we could get especially those smokers who are just going to continue to smoke unable or are unwilling to quit, if we could get all those smokers to completely switch to e-cigarettes, that would be good for public health."

 

[Katya]

Yup, he said that during the Senate hearings. Very skilfully prompted by Sen. Burr, I may add.

He also said that nicotine doesn't kill.

Exact quotes below:

"If we could get all of those people [who can't or wont quit smoking conventional cigarettes] to completely switch all of their cigarettes to the non-combustible products that would be good for public health."

"It is not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term cigarette smokers. The nicotine creates and sustains the addictions, but it's not the nicotine that kills people."

 

[Jman8]

Jman8: "All people are going to die, and this causal link toward death thing is NOT something to hang one's hat on when discussing politics of vaping/smoking."

Really? Tell that to my mother, who died in my arms with half a lung carved out, still wanting another cigarette. Tell that to the hundreds of hospice patients I served. Tell that to me, for that matter - I was wheezing and couldn't climb a flight of steps without getting exhausted. Does saying that mean I'm "in bed with Antz"?

I am glad to say this truth to whomever you can think of. I too have wheezed while being a cigarette smoker, and manifested what I would call significant health issues. Yet, all of these experiences I've had, have been from abusive smoking. And since being moderate smoker, none of it. All 'wonderful health and energy benefits' that vapers talk about, yeah, I got that while being a smoker. If I clarify that as 'moderate smoker,' I feel we are in enough of an era that the 'moderate' part is ignored and downplayed, because as this thread and around 8000 other threads clearly demonstrate, it has to be about cessation from smoking before you can even dream about actual benefits. As one who has gone cold turkey, I can attest to idea that 'great, perfect health' is not in the cards. Vapers may feel better than when they were heavy smokers, but aren't infallible, and are going to die. In eyes of ANTZ, you die tomorrow, and that death is caused by smoking/you once being a smoker. I don't think it is too far fetched in this era, or in this paradigm to say if you were run over by a bus tomorrow, ANTZ would still characterize that as 'smoking related death.' And even while that may be far fetched, if it were something physiological that lead to you dying in say next 2 weeks, then not at all far fetched (from ANTZ perspective) to say there is causal link between you once smoking, and you now dying.

So, you and perhaps a million other smokers want to take issue with this notion I'm putting forth, but I say be abundantly prepared for vaping to face the same / identical situation. Easy to doubt that now, but I say in no more than 10 years, it'll be impossible to deny it as visible perception among people you know. Entirely plausible for you to deny it, just as I am one who finds it entirely plausible to deny or question that smoking has causal link to death (in all 400K cases). I am always up for that discussion, always up for considering the data, and hoping open minded people are in the room. But you want to appeal to emotion and feel that right there ought to silence my position. Sorry, it doesn't.

And I'm wondering if it will silence your take on things when same thing is done with vaping? It is, to some degree, already occurring with vaping, and us vapers are constantly scrutinizing such data. Routinely concluding that in no way was vaping the causal link they are saying it is. Perfect example would be the thread on CDC study where they simply seek persons who vaped for at least a year, thought cutting back would be good, but are still (later) diagnosed with serious health condition. There easily could be multitude of contributing factors to the reasons for the serious health condition. But purpose (real reason) for that study is to make it abundantly clear to non-users/potential users, that if you smoke or vape, you run the risk of getting serious health condition. If we tell you this, and you do not believe us, that's understandable. If we show you this, show you the mom with lung carved out, still wanting to vape/smoke, then maybe you'll stop playing the denial game, and realize the causal link exists and ain't no device your vaping industry will create that will prevent this.

Causal link will be established.
Called scientific, believed as fact.

And the grand deception continues.

 

[Jman8]

This whole thing started in #44, so you're 100 posts off.

And you're still not providing quotes that establish you as saying two points: first cessation, then we can discuss reduction.

Again, I am asserting that you are saying it is all about cessation, and we need to hang our collective vaping hat on that peg.

In #44 I said we need to hang our hat on the cessation peg, and a few posts later (or perhaps before), I said that reduction might be useful so long as it leads to cessation.

I also pointed out several times that dual use may be a transitional phenomenon - i.e. dual users often cut down and gradually convert to 100% vaping.

All that you are conveying is funneled through 'cessation must happen.' This is precisely ANTZ rationale. Don't mean to imply that you as a person are ANTZ, but do mean to be clear with this position is ANTZ logic, and is a) impractical (in scheme of public health) and b) is actually part of the inherent problem - leading people to realize, via self discovery and usage, that they have been lied to. That smoking doesn't really kill.

Abusive smoking can/does harm people, but doesn't necessarily or automatically harm all users. For sure doesn't significantly impact vast majority of users during early usage (first few years) and more often than not, is not even contributing factor to premature death. Now, if by 'premature death,' we mean person probably would've lived to 102, but because they smoked, that is why they died at 82, then we can claim righteousness on the point, even while stretching rationale meaning of 'premature death.' But how many are on this site, right now, who smoked 2 PAD, for 40+ years, and are still alive to tell about it? Are now not smoking, and feel 'very good about their health?' Are smoking 1 or 2 a day and feel 'very good about their health?' How could that be plausible if smoking kills, as blanket term for everyone to pay attention to, if these persons are now alive and (very) well?

And yes, mortality is the elephant in the room, not quality of life. What could be more important than dying? It's the centerpiece of the narrative that we have to deal with.

Everyone has to deal with. ANTZ die. Health nuts, living supremely perfectly health lives die. Same elephant resides in their rooms.

Quality of life does matter from a) each and every individual I've encountered, and b) to the stories we tell ourselves about life or living life. We aren't giving higher honor to say 115 year old who does still smoke 1 or 2 a day (feel free to double check this type of fact), than we are to 25 year old in Afghanistan that died from friendly fire (and who may or may not be a smoker, but doesn't need to be included in the story we tell ourselves about their honorable death).

If length of life was somehow universally deemed more important than quality, and cessation was the peg we all agreed to hang our collective hats on, then I see no plausible way that reasonable people would conclude that a life of vaping (nicotine) is good public policy. And instead would see every reason to believe that all would agree that cessation must, absolutely, include ceasing vaping, sooner than later.

Thus, my thoughts on your position, is this direction must include ceasing vaping (nicotine) for it to reach the people you think need this data for vaping to be regulated in a way that is 'fair' and 'reasonable.' Simply saying it will work out for everyone because they have ceased smoking, sounds great, I'm sure, to many vapers. But, to ANTZ, FDA, CDC, ALA, ACS, BP and perhaps others, it will not.

To me, the real elephant in the room is denial by vapers. A denial that claims vaping for life/extended period is a healthy thing. Don't need to add nicotine in that statement, because it ain't really about the nicotine. At the superficial level that ANTZ resides, it is all about the nicotine and tobacco.

If vapers, as some homogenous whole want to win on the cessation claim, then cessation from vaping needs to be part of the message foremost, or you are playing a game that delivers only part of what they are truly asking for. And the other part they are clearly asking for, is the one that most vapers don't want to think about, don't feel it needs to be considered.

This was never an argument about individuals, it was about population effects and a broader debate that we are going to end up having nationally, in the pubic policy arena. So reduction may be a great thing for some individual vaper. But vast numbers of people who have reduced their smoking are basically a wash in terms of mortality.

Or so you say. I could easily claim that vapers are basically a wash in terms of mortality. You'd probably want to dispute that, but I'll be glad to role play to show you what you are up against and will be even more so, if this is direction vaping has to go. You will be squarely asked to address why not cessation from vaping sooner than later, and I'll be curious how you address that.

Let me repeat: that has nothing to do with with any individual person ... someone may experience a new lease on life by going from 3 PAD to 3 cigarettes a week. This is not my point. It also doesn't mean that dual users are bad people, either.

Anyway if we're arguing about how this whole thing has developed, rather than what the end point is, then we are ...

And again, let me repeat, if this is about the conglomerate of tobacco/nicotine users, then from public health argument Zeller is putting forth, vaping needs to be part of the cessation peg, and not only from smoking. Feel free to make it only about cessation from smoking, and then watch vaping get taken away from everyone when mortality of vapers becomes reality, based on trumped up data that establishes a causal link, similar to the one used from smoking to 'certain death.'

Zeller's FDA isn't about to wait for long term data, when objective he is charged with is 'prevention.'
Cessation is a wonderful message if one is perfectly willing to include vaping in what also must be ceased.

For vaping to be biggest ally to FDA, given view that cessation is 'most effective argument,' then a collective plan must be reached to get the whole public to cease from vaping, and all other tobacco products.

If vapers are only willing to deliver half of what is being asked for and are in denial on the rest, then do not worry... FDA will be there to ensure full cessation is realized, as that is what vapers said was 'best argument of them all.'

 

[Katya]

I If I clarify that as 'moderate smoker,' I feel we are in enough of an era that the 'moderate' part is ignored and downplayed, because as this thread and around 8000 other threads clearly demonstrate, it has to be about cessation from smoking before you can even dream about actual benefits. As one who has gone cold turkey, I can attest to idea that 'great, perfect health' is not in the cards. Vapers may feel better than when they were heavy smokers, but aren't infallible, and are going to die. In eyes of ANTZ, you die tomorrow, and that death is caused by smoking/you once being a smoker. I don't think it is too far fetched in this era, or in this paradigm to say if you were run over by a bus tomorrow, ANTZ would still characterize that as 'smoking related death.' And even while that may be far fetched, if it were something physiological that lead to you dying in say next 2 weeks, then not at all far fetched (from ANTZ perspective) to say there is causal link between you once smoking, and you now dying.

So, you and perhaps a million other smokers want to take issue with this notion I'm putting forth, but I say be abundantly prepared for vaping to face the same / identical situation. Easy to doubt that now, but I say in no more than 10 years, it'll be impossible to deny it as visible perception among people you know. Entirely plausible for you to deny it, just as I am one who finds it entirely plausible to deny or question that smoking has causal link to death (in all 400K cases). I am always up for that discussion, always up for considering the data, and hoping open minded people are in the room. But you want to appeal to emotion and feel that right there ought to silence my position. Sorry, it doesn't.

And I'm wondering if it will silence your take on things when same thing is done with vaping? It is, to some degree, already occurring with vaping, and us vapers are constantly scrutinizing such data. Routinely concluding that in no way was vaping the causal link they are saying it is. Perfect example would be the thread on CDC study where they simply seek persons who vaped for at least a year, thought cutting back would be good, but are still (later) diagnosed with serious health condition. There easily could be multitude of contributing factors to the reasons for the serious health condition. But purpose (real reason) for that study is to make it abundantly clear to non-users/potential users, that if you smoke or vape, you run the risk of getting serious health condition. If we tell you this, and you do not believe us, that's understandable. If we show you this, show you the mom with lung carved out, still wanting to vape/smoke, then maybe you'll stop playing the denial game, and realize the causal link exists and ain't no device your vaping industry will create that will prevent this.

Causal link will be established.
Called scientific, believed as fact.

And the grand deception continues.

Jman, I agree with you.

In a part Puritan and part totalitarian mindset of any zealot, moderation is never an option. It's always, somehow, about total abstinence. Quit or die.

But it's not true that all ECF members are like this. I'm not. And I always warn vaping neophytes about the dangers of becoming militant, intolerant, obnoxious ex-smokers. When new members complain about having a hard time quitting, the ECF mantra is, "don't count the cigarettes you smoked, count those you avoided." We always tell them to have a smoke if they absolutely have to because it's all about harm reduction. Anyway, that's what I've been preaching here for 4.5 years. And nobody will convince me that smokers who went from smoking three packs a day to a pack a week are not better off--because they are.

The Soterra ruling classified e-cigarettes as a recreational tobacco product--and we cheered that decision. I have absolutely no problem with that. And I have no problem with people vaping and smoking, snusing, using WTAs, NTRs, whatever. It's all legal and we are all adults. If they happen to quit paper cigs--they are cheered! If they don't--they are cheered also and encouraged not to give up because they had a stupid smoke. Not the end of the world.

And you are spot on wrt the CDC study--as you know, I sent them an email and they responded. They are beginning to understand that they are wrong--but they have their bloody directives and there's nothing they can do--yet. We just have to bugger on and provide evidence that vaping is way less is harmful than smoking and (accidentally) it also happens to be much more effective than all of their FDA-approved NRTs. Come to think of it, I don't see why BP shouldn't explore e-cigarettes as an inspiration for a new NRT. Heck, if they make a good one, I'll be willing to try it. Let them make a safe and effective e-cigarette! Competition is good! Win-win! The more the merrier!

Live and let live.

Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.

 

[Jman8]

When new members complain about having a hard time quitting, the ECF mantra is, "don't count the cigarettes you smoked, count those you avoided."

I always like this message when it is expressed.

Also glad to hear the update to CDC tangent. Glad you were able to connect with them and have a dialogue. Good job!