LA Times "E-cig" story

[Sweetab]

Check out this story in the LA Times. I find it doesn't have enough info. For instance, there are nicotine free options.

touch. latimes .com/#story/la-sci-e-cigarettes-science-20140117/

 

[Kent C]

...and they repeat every argument against ecigs known to man. It doesn't 'read' like a hit piece because they add some of the "positive" - 'possible but not known' lie as well, to set up the line of the propagandists. Suggest breaking the link.

 

[Vocalek]

"There are a few studies out there right now, but scientists like to have a gazillion," said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine and director of the Center for tobacco Control at UC San Francisco.

*Shudder* What would Glantz do with a gazillion studies. He doesn't understand what's out there now. He misrepresents what a study shows and keeps repeating it, no matter how many times he is corrected--even by the authors of the study!

 

[Vocalek]

By the way, 12% was the goal for smoking for Healthy People 2010. Actually, originally the goal was set at 10% but when by 2008, the rate was at 24%, they decided to reduce it to 12%. Obviously they didn't hit that, so they just kept the 12% goal and moved the due date out to 2020.

And I agree. Unless they do something different from what they did between 1964 and 1999, they don't have a prayer of hitting the target. Smoking rates didn't really start to drop until around 2009-2010. And guess what was happening then.....

 

[Kent C]

*Shudder* What would Glantz do with a gazillion studies. He doesn't understand what's out there now.

 

[rothenbj]

By the way, 12% was the goal for smoking for Healthy People 2010. Actually, originally the goal was set at 10% but when by 2008, the rate was at 24%, they decided to reduce it to 12%. Obviously they didn't hit that, so they just kept the 12% goal and moved the due date out to 2020.

And I agree. Unless they do something different from what they did between 1964 and 1999, they don't have a prayer of hitting the target. Smoking rates didn't really start to drop until around 2009-2010. And guess what was happening then.....

They will never admit that e cigs and other smokeless products are the leading weapon against smoking. That would only fuel the exit of funding for TC and into potentially more lucrative areas like the obesity pandemic. That would be the death knell for many that have devoted their life and creased their pockets in the cigarette/tobacco/nicotine war.

 

[Kent C]

By the way, 12% was the goal for smoking for Healthy People 2010. Actually, originally the goal was set at 10% but when by 2008, the rate was at 24%, they decided to reduce it to 12%. Obviously they didn't hit that, so they just kept the 12% goal and moved the due date out to 2020.

And I agree. Unless they do something different from what they did between 1964 and 1999, they don't have a prayer of hitting the target. Smoking rates didn't really start to drop until around 2009-2010. And guess what was happening then.....

... and "18% now" is a bit of a stretch from the data I've seen. Some of the polls are skewed by "Are you a leper? ...er smoker?" type questions.

 

[Kent C]

They will never admit that e cigs and other smokeless products are the leading weapon against smoking. That would only fuel the exit of funding for TC and into potentially more lucrative areas like the obesity pandemic. That would be the death knell for many that have devoted their life and creased their pockets in the cigarette/tobacco/nicotine war.

I think the 'obesity problem' with children started when schools were forced to give them breakfast, lunch, dinner and I heard they even deliver late night snacks. (jk). This, to low income people (and now to even the middle class, to expand the voter base) who already get food stamps...

 

[Vocalek]

I think the 'obesity problem' with children started when schools were forced to give them breakfast, lunch, dinner and I heard they even deliver late night snacks. (jk). This, to low income people (and now to even the middle class, to expand the voter base) who already get food stamps...

And this morning I learned that the WIC program prohibits using the benefit to purchase white potatoes.

Congress wants more potatoes in gov't program - SFGate

The reasoning (poor people buy French fries when they eat in restaurants and French fries are fattening) does't seem to support the benefits of prohibiting the purchase of raw potatoes. It's about as logical as the reasoning behind including e-cigarettes in smoking bans (It looks like smoke.)

 

[Kent C]

And this morning I learned that the WIC program prohibits using the benefit to purchase white potatoes.

Congress wants more potatoes in gov't program - SFGate

The reasoning (poor people buy French fries when they eat in restaurants and French fries are fattening) does't seem to support the benefits of prohibiting the purchase of raw potatoes. It's about as logical as the reasoning behind including e-cigarettes in smoking bans (It looks like smoke.)

Wow... the extent of regulation boggles the mind. Thanks for posting.

 

[Stubby]

They will never admit that e cigs and other smokeless products are the leading weapon against smoking. That would only fuel the exit of funding for TC and into potentially more lucrative areas like the obesity pandemic. That would be the death knell for many that have devoted their life and creased their pockets in the cigarette/tobacco/nicotine war.

The problem with obesity is there is just no a lot of money to be had. No master settlement, no taxes, no cash flowing in from BP. Of course I guess someone could start suing McDonalds and the like, and taxing low nutrition food......... oh crap....... time to start stocking up on M&M's....... wonder what the shelve life is if I stock the freezer.......