Your thoughts on this headline

[s528]

I came across this article recently released by Foxnews. It states the WHO is stepping up its war against "Big tobacco" but I view this differently. And feel they would be only helping Big tobacco with more regs, although the article makes it seem as they are against Big tobacco. Is this a new slick way to helping Big Tobacco, portraying them as the victims? Thought I throw it out there.

WHO urges stiff regulatory curbs on e-cigarettes | Fox News

 

[Kloudz]

Cigarettes were once unregulated and there was no evidence of harm...
Gas was once great to breath, but further studies showed it caused brain damage
Spanking your kids was once ok, but not any longer.
Corporations will always strike fear in people who don't know any better
Coffee was once said to be bad, but now its good again.
Do want you want an be happy
Vapor from ecigs probably do contain small amounts of nicotine, but not as much as a standard cancer stick, hence the 2nd hand smoke issue.

 

[HecticEnergy]

More bs, and I'm sad to see this from Fox News who has seemed to be leaning more toward "our side."
These calls are more of the same "protect against potential harms." I find this akin to "don't step outside because the sky could fall" claims. There is no way to be 100% safe from danger. Ecigarettes or ENDS are a more effective alternative than the "approved" methods, with much less side effects as far as research currently done has indicated, and obvious testimonies on this site. There is no way an industry is making 3billion a year for producing an ineffective alternative to smoking.
All these points are moot though when considering the real motivation behind such banning and regulation. They don't want to solve the tobacco epidemic any more than they want to cure cancer. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but there is too much money in the treatment.

"I'm concerned that this could be worse than smoking!" Ok, well do some research and shut up until the evidence is out. Ok, put warning on products such as "use at your own risk" if that makes you feel better...

Ugh. I'm not reading these threads any more, gets my blood boiling! Lol (jk, I probably won't stop reading them haha)

 

[s528]

Some articles claim there hasnt been enough research on Ecig, with sales in the billions of dollars and climbing, for a steady 5 year streak, to me this is the largest research anyone can dream for. But my main beef with this article is how they are now using a new tactic, as if the WHO is now taking a strong stance against Big Tobacco, when in reality they are helping Big Tobacco with such regs. With such a twist, I am more concerned with the WHO then Foxnews, or whomever wrote this article as such. This is an elaborate way in an attempt to not make it look as if they are helping Big Tobacco. Making them appear as the victim.

The World Health Organization (WHO) stepped up its war on "Big Tobacco" while this is more like the WHO is stepping up its war against the Chinese manufacturers and users of Ecig products.

 

[HecticEnergy]

The gateway effect: "mmm, this vapor is delicious, maybe I'll smoke a nasty cigarette/cigar/tobacco product!" Yeah, I see that happening.....

 

[HecticEnergy]

It's like they took excerpts from a 13 page press release.... They definitely framed it like it's hurting big tobacco. For example: It looks like big tobacco makes 3 bil a year on ecigs to the untrained eye... More shotty journalism if you ask me...

 

[Auntie Mame]

I am reading the WHO paper now. It's a lot of the same, lots of it-may-be-good, it-may-be-a-gateway, not enough studies yada yada. However, they do recognize Big Tobacco is a problem with this. Here's an example:

27. The role of the tobacco industry: The future role of ENDS is strongly determined by the
commercial interests of the industry that manufactures and sells ENDS. While there are “independent”
ENDS companies that have reported no interest in perpetuating tobacco use, the tobacco industry
involved in the production and sale of ENDS certainly is.

(a) The ENDS market, initially dominated by companies with no links to the tobacco
industry, is increasingly owned by the tobacco industry. All main transnational tobacco
companies sell ENDS and one of them is launching legal proceedings over patents against its
rivals as they become increasingly aggressive in the battle for the fast-growing e-cigarette
market. The increasing concentration of the ENDS market in the hands of the transnational
tobacco companies is of grave concern in light of the history of the corporations that dominate
that industry.

(b) It is unclear yet what this means for the ENDS market. However, if prior interest of the
tobacco industry in reduced-risk products serves as a precedent, their interest lies in
maintaining the status quo in favour of cigarettes for as long as possible, while simultaneously
providing a longer-term source of profit should the cigarette model prove unsustainable. In
addition, selling these products is intended to bring reputational benefits to these companies, as
they can pretend to be part of the solution to the smoking epidemic.

2 ENDS may follow the
trend of smokeless tobacco wherein the industry’s historic interest in smokeless tobacco
products outside some Nordic countries was both because they could be used in smoke-free
environments and because they could be promoted to young, non-tobacco users to create a new form of tobacco use.

BTW, ENDS = Electronic nicotine delivery systems

 

[DonnaLee]

I see the story is from Reuters that is posted but I am not familiar with what kind of clout WHO has. Are their recommendations given to the UN or our own FDA?

 

[s528]

It's like they took excerpts from a 13 page press release.... They definitely framed it like it's hurting big tobacco. For example: It looks like big tobacco makes 3 bil a year on ecigs to the untrained eye... More shotty journalism if you ask me...

Exactly Hectic, but why are they attempting to make Tobacco companies appear as the victim is the question. Big Tobacco would love tougher regs and been lobbying for such. Its a new type of campaign/twist, they figure if they word it this way, they can actually help Big Tobacco and at the same time make them appear as the victim. Its a brilliant scheme, but not when you have open forums. Foxnews and the WHO should get sent this thread, and tell them nice try.

 

[MORTIS e]

More bs, and I'm sad to see this from Fox News who has seemed to be leaning more toward "our side."
These calls are more of the same "protect against potential harms." I find this akin to "don't step outside because the sky could fall" claims. There is no way to be 100% safe from danger. Ecigarettes or ENDS are a more effective alternative than the "approved" methods, with much less side effects as far as research currently done has indicated, and obvious testimonies on this site. There is no way an industry is making 3billion a year for producing an ineffective alternative to smoking.
All these points are moot though when considering the real motivation behind such banning and regulation. They don't want to solve the tobacco epidemic any more than they want to cure cancer. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but there is too much money in the treatment.

"I'm concerned that this could be worse than smoking!" Ok, well do some research and shut up until the evidence is out. Ok, put warning on products such as "use at your own risk" if that makes you feel better...

Ugh. I'm not reading these threads any more, gets my blood boiling! Lol (jk, I probably won't stop reading them haha)

A big '+1' on that! As if ya took the word out of my mouth...

 

[dice57]

And what about Oat Bran!!! huh, what about that. The right thing to do, or just makes one constipated?? I am soooo Right now though am thinking of running to the store and get some Nyquil and make some Nyquil Juice and vape that, got slapped down by a nasty virus and may need to take a few Jimmy Durante hits with Nyquil vape juice

 

[s528]

And what about Oat Bran!!! huh, what about that. The right thing to do, or just makes one constipated?? I am soooo Right now though am thinking of running to the store and get some Nyquil and make some Nyquil Juice and vape that, got slapped down by a nasty virus and may need to take a few Jimmy Durante hits with Nyquil vape juice

That wont work either lol, according to this study on Acetamophen, Reuters did not use the term Tylenol here but its the same thing.

Paracetamol no better than placebo for low back pain, study finds | Reuters

 

[K31Scout]

My thoughts as I wait for the caffeine and nicotine wake me up... WHO's headquarters are in Switzerland where they decriminalized {OTHER STUFF}, the classic gateway drug. As many countries are liberalizing drug laws I think it stinks that they want to focus on ecigs.

 

[dice57]

hey, may not work, but Damn that's one fine vape!!!, might of found a new House Select Recipe.

 

[HecticEnergy]

Exactly Hectic, but why are they attempting to make Tobacco companies appear as the victim is the question. Big Tobacco would love tougher regs and been lobbying for such. Its a new type of campaign/twist, they figure if they word it this way, they can actually help Big Tobacco and at the same time make them appear as the victim. Its a brilliant scheme, but not when you have open forums. Foxnews and the WHO should get sent this thread, and tell them nice try.

I'm not sure why they are making big tobacco the victim. Maybe it is to associate all ENDS technology with BT to help demonize it for all of those who are currently unaware of the devices available.

I don't think it is likely to see the first generation devices (cigalikes) get pushed from the market by regulation as it has BT behind them. The majority of people who try to use these to quit find them to be ineffective as they are not satisfying.
I have not seen BT come out with 2nd or 3rd generation devices (egos/APVs) and honestly it's a stretch for me to think that they will any time soon. They are too effective for quitting smoking! Again, no scientific research has been done to justify my claim, but (as I said in a previous reply) check out the testimonies here on ECF and those submitted to the FDA!

I plan to write a healthy "letter to the editor" later today, expressing my discontent with this article. I encourage others to do the same as ranting on here is more like .........ion than it is effecting real change or educating those twisting the facts. Even if the article was intended to twist the facts, hopefully they will get the message that this is not ok if we come out in numbers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[HecticEnergy]

My thoughts as I wait for the caffeine and nicotine wake me up... WHO's headquarters are in Switzerland where they decriminalized {OTHER STUFF}, the classic gateway drug. As many countries are liberalizing drug laws I think it stinks that they want to focus on ecigs.

This isn't the place for drug talk. I'm share views with libertarians on this matter, and that's all I'll say


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[HecticEnergy]

One more quick thought I kinda touched on previously but I wanted to put clearly:

WHO: World Health Organization
Health.. I'm taking that to mean they are looking to serve in the health interests of the worlds individuals. I think most agree that the use of ENDS in the short term is MUCH safer than smoking. Why can't we be more cautiously optimistic about this potential life saver before out right demonizing it? Oh yeah, profits and cushy jobs.

ANYTHING that is restricted to adults will be attractive to children. Be it sex, alcohol, or smoking/vaping. Personally I think we should have 18 and up regulation (not necessarily government regulation...) , but it seems like all the shops around me are already being responsible about it. At the end of the day the responsibility is on the parents.
I wish I had ENDS when I started drinking. (I could make a good argument for alcohol being a gateway drug...) I started smoking because it made drinking even more enjoyable. Then I partied too much and got addicted to cigarettes. I don't think I would have had that dependence if I was puffing on a vaporizer for my nicotine rather than the cigarette. There is another thing about age restrictions... If you want it, you can get it. No matter what age you are.

Most agree long term research needs to be done. So those like WHO with the money and influence should stop squawking about it and just do it already! By do it I of course mean fund independent and impartial research and allow the research group to post their findings no matter the outcome... The longer we wait, the longer it will be until we see results from long term research. If anyone knows of a crowed funded campaign to this end, post it! I will contribute!

How long is long term? What are the pharma companies required to do for new drugs on the market? Obviously they do not require 20 year+ studies to release a new drug, so why would we require that of ENDS?

Personally I like the term ENDS.. It ends your dependence on tobacco


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[GinnyTx]

well aren't we lucky that WHO had absolutely NO legislative power and little to no power/influence as evidenced by Tobacco use world wide.

and in all fairness, a world HEALTH organization should take a zero tolerance on any addictive or harmful drug.

I realize we vape and we don't like that kind of article and yes WE know and should make that known (letter to the editor is a good start).

 

[HecticEnergy]

well aren't we lucky that WHO had absolutely NO legislative power and little to no power/influence as evidenced by Tobacco use world wide.

and in all fairness, a world HEALTH organization should take a zero tolerance on any addictive or harmful drug.

I realize we vape and we don't like that kind of article and yes WE know and should make that known (letter to the editor is a good start).

I see your point, but I think we should be allowed to make decisions for our selves. WHO should have zero tolerance as their policy, but I don't want to see the US legislate any of that zero tolerance. I'm not saying that's where you were headed, just stating my opinion.
At the same time though, WHO should encourage harm reduction where outright abstinence is not possible... But that starts to sound like highschool health class: "don't have sex! ... ... But be safe if you do. Here is a condom"

 

[s528]

I think we are off point, had the who had only said they are taking a stronger stance on Ecig in the name of public safety it would have been benign or the same old nonsense of biased baseless scrutiny. To me the bigger issue is victimizing "Big Tobacco" This made me loose all credibility in what the rest of the article had to say and question The WHO's true position.