I am not a smoker, except for the occasional cigar. I'm anti-smoking in that I hate the smell of smoke and think it's a disgusting habit.
But I'm inclined to believe anti-smoking crusaders have gone too far when they start suppressing opposing arguments -- exactly what tobacco companies did for much of the last century.
Especially when the people being suppressed aren't fringe scientists but highly respected anti-smoking activists like public-health doctor Michael Siegel.
Siegel's case is documented in an April edition of New Scientist.
After 21 years in the anti-smoking movement he was cursed at, accused
of taking money from the tobacco industry and finally banned from an
influential mailing list, all for questioning some claims on passive
smoking and heart attack rates. Carl Phillips, a
scientist who favors a "harm reduction" tobacco strategy to reduce
diseases, has had adversaries who "threatened to block [his] the
school's academic accreditation and cancel funding for other projects."
There
is no debate that smoking and long-term inhalation of second-hand smoke is
harmful. Where Siegel got in trouble was questioning data that said
short-term inhalation of second-hand smoke can raise the immediate risk
of heart attacks. Siegel now has a blog to explain his position, which is that short-term exposure is over-hyped and "no worse than eating a high-fat meal."
High-fat
meals can be pretty bad, especially for people with heart conditions, so
it's tough to back Siegel on his point. But two wrongs don't make a right. Siegel blames groupthink for the fact that he's been ostracized, and says "there's a sure way to shut me up. And that's to show that my argument is wrong."
Phillips, meanwhile, encountered problems after his research involving electronic cigarettes. E-cigarettes, as
they are called, deliver nicotine to the user through a vapor. E-smokers avoid having to use tobacco and all of its dangerous downsides. The harm-reduction theory simplified is
that anti-smoking advocates should push people towards e-cigarettes and other smokeless products
instead of complete withdrawal to limit the threat of diseases to
smokers and get rid of second-hand smoke. This has angered made many
anti-smoking advocates, who say it's their job to eliminate smoking, not rationalize it.
Smoking is a life and death matter for
many people. E-cigarettes might be an imperfect solution, but at least it's practical -- as in one that people will actually use.
Showing 1-7 of 7
WAR ON TOBACCO PROPAGANDA:RAINBOW STATISTICS OF AMERICAContrary to popular belief, inhaling low car exhaust does not decrease the risk for liver cancerAbout 5% of all new liver cancer cases are caused by secondhand car exhaustsAbout 7 out of every 8 people who get lung cancer from auto exhaust will die within five yearsPeople who quit inhaling car exhaust before the age of 35 can reduce their chances of getting liver cancer by 90%In a study conducted in the mid-nineties, male drinkers usually lost an average of 13.2 years off their life while women drinkers lost 14.5 years and 75% of people related to these drinkers invoked their rights to move out of town amendments.Following are some interesting international facts about alcohol and liver cancerDespite a lower DUI rate in Japan (26%), fewer Japanese people get liver cancer from drinkng alcohol than AmericansRates of liver cancer in Scotland are among the highest in the worldComparable to the United State, 90% of all liver cancer cases in the United Kingdom and in other European countries are caused by drinkingalcohol. Also, about 1 in 5 people drink gin in BritainThe low cases of liver cancer in Sweden are directly proportional to their low alcohol in take ratesDespite record lows for glue sniffers in Australia, lung cancer rates have increased over 20% for both men and women in the past few years
Gosh, I don't know what all the fuss is about. As an asthmatic ex-smoker, the e-cig has absolutely been a life saver. I never smoke actual ciggies. The only problem is when you run out of the liquid. I'm waiting for the postman now....and using nicotine gum until then.
Ps. Does anyone know a place that sells the e-liquid in KC?
Steve, BRAVO! hahahahahahaha you outlaw!
I bought an e-cig mostly just to try it. I have NO intention of stopping my smoking. Never had, never will. The Anti-smokers aren't wrong when they say all smokers WANT to quit, it's just nothing is stopping them, it's a bald-faced LIE and they know it. Why do you think news and videos are only populated by smokers they've "converted" to their twisted church of hate?
In 4 days, I've gone from 3 packs a day to 7 actual cigarettes smoked. The rest has been "vaping" and I don't do that as much as I smoke! I'm not even trying! I will vape for the rest of my life instead of smoke! Everything in an e-cig is FDA approved long ago. So who wants these off the market? ... Hmmm. Johnson & Johnson have been making billions of dollars a year for the past 7 years off "smoking cessation" products. Big Tobacco is making a ton of money, as usual. Governments on all level down to town level are suddenly out of a LOT of illegally taxed money! My, my, three culprits out of the gate.
I was vaping OUTSIDE, leaning against a car when a man walked over to me, started the Anti-Smoker's Fake Cough and said (and I quote), "I have asthma." He stared at me with the regulatory Anti-Smoker's pusillanimous "face". You know the one: I have more rights than YOU in this country! I said, "Yeah, so do I." He kept staring like I was the crazy one. "I'm deathly allergic to cigarette smoke", he whined. "Are ya?", I asked. He nodded vehemently. "Well, you should be dropping dead in 2 more seconds", I opined. (NO ONE on the face of the planet is "deathly allergic" to cigarette smoke. Another lie used to make people feel like garbage. Don't work on me.) He didn't drop dead, so I said, "You know, when people with mindless, vindictive, anti-Constitutional ideas use clear lies to get their way, I think they should be executed as traitors." And then I showed him what a lying sack he was by explaining my e-cig and "vaping". We drew a crowd. All of a sudden I was inundated with curious questions, shouts of "that is SO cool!" and requests for url's. My enemy slunk off looking petulant and pissed.
There is a HUGE difference between an Anti-Smoker and a non-smoker. Non-smokers don't care if you smoke, they object to the stench. When a product allows YOU your joy and them their wildest dream, you find they are tolerant, kind, humane and hate the Anti's just as much as you do. And for the same reasons! It's only now that people are beginning to realize what flat out liars and conniving hatred-mongers that Anti's really are.
Thanks to the garbage out of the mouth of a clearly agenda-ridden despot, e-cigs have new converts and I and every smoker who goes to the e-cig in my workplace are allowed to "vape your brains out at your desk if you like!"
The world suddenly seems less despicable and desperately hate-filled.
For those interested, here's a REAL helpful forum full of wonderfully Britsh gits who don't hate 'Mericans. Attached, of course to a great site to buy e-cigs and e-juice! Totally Wicked E-Liquid
Be Kind - Unwind!
I totally agree. I was a smoker for some 36 yrs.. Since getting my pv, (personal vaporizer), I have no further need for tobacco. Why can't the anti smokers see this for what it is. This is a win/win for everyone. I have used my pv in the company of my non smoking friends, yes smokers still have non smoking friends, they are all amazed and wish this product could have been invented sooner. One question I was asked is "Why do they call it a cigarette?" My reply was to get the smoking population interested. Unfortunately, it also became an interest to the non smokers. Most non smokers have "tunnel vision" and will not look past the end of their nose for the facts. I would encourage all people to get the facts before you pass judgement on pv's. The pv has the potential to save millions of dollars and millions of lives. All pv's contain 4 ingredients as opposed to the 4,000 found in tobacco. I don't need a phd to decide which is safer for me. Think about it.
If they outlaw e-cigarettes, only the outlaws will have them. I'll be one of them.
I'm a cop.
I would like to ask the anti-smoking advocates why it must be "quit or die?" Why can't people enjoy a smokeless product if they are over 18 and fully consenting? Last time I checked, I still had the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Inhaling a nicotine substance makes me happy.... I have that right. Others have a right to put a nicotine lozenge or packet of SNUS in their mouth.
I use an e-cigarette now, having dropped a 20 year pack a day habit from my life. Now you want to take that away from me and make me go back to your quit or die rock/hard place. If my new device is banned, I will be forced back to cigarettes - with all 4000+ chemical agents-40+ of which are known to cause cancer.
Nicotine has some health risks, yes, but the prevailent delivery device -the burning of tobacco- is the danger. I've found a new way - now leave me alone....
like
dislike
