What happened to the one in Oshkosh??We do have another Wisconsin Vapers meeting scheduled out for Feb 13th at Tully's II in Madison.
Anyone interested in details, lemme know
Smoke free Wisconsin Opposes Smoke Free Electronic Cigarettes
- Thread starter kristin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If I would have known there was one in Oshvegas, I would have made my presence....
I figured, in plain and simple logic, 'If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em'. In a very simple-ton way, I am (and will be) creating an anti smoking buzz ~~"Hey, I'm on YOUR side>"~~ and at the same time, a positive / informative e-cig buzz ~~"Us anti-smokers should be glad for e-cigs."
Maybey a few others from here may do the same after time....;-)
I tend to be a bit more aggressive towards Smoke Free Wisconsin. I've been watching them for some time and I know how corrupt they really are.
But that's all good, you be the good cop and I'll be the bad cop. We'll keep-em in line.
The meet in Oshkosh kinda fizzled - real life happened, and we ended up not being able to meet up there.
If anyone wants to host a meet up thataways, sounds like there's interest.....and I've got no problems driving up there for a day.
If anyone wants to host a meet up thataways, sounds like there's interest.....and I've got no problems driving up there for a day.
Another blog by our friends at Smoke Free Wisconsin. This one on snus.
SmokeFree Wisconsin: Marlboro taking Snus Nationwide
They're getting vicious at SFW, and the lies get bigger, if that's possible. They did win the 2009 lie of the year award. I guess there going for 2010.
SmokeFree Wisconsin: Marlboro taking Snus Nationwide
They're getting vicious at SFW, and the lies get bigger, if that's possible. They did win the 2009 lie of the year award. I guess there going for 2010.
Irritation on the rise....again...
"Save the kids, protect the kids."
I swear to all that is, or isn't holy that they ONLY ever give a damn about kids is when they are using them for a g'damn media meat shield.
Stupid ...(blankity blanks)
"Save the kids, protect the kids."
I swear to all that is, or isn't holy that they ONLY ever give a damn about kids is when they are using them for a g'damn media meat shield.
Stupid ...(blankity blanks)
SFW really does need to do some research before they go spewing this poison around the interwebz.
Snus has one of the lowest rates of cancer - it's been in Sweeden for decades. It is NOT spit tobacco, which is what they're lumping it in with.
The quit or die, SAVE THE CHILDREN rhetoric they wear like armor is getting tiring. I wonder who's writing their official blog, and what kind of research this nutjob does before he gets behind his keyboard?
Nevermind, I already know the answer to that - he does ZERO research.
Snus has one of the lowest rates of cancer - it's been in Sweeden for decades. It is NOT spit tobacco, which is what they're lumping it in with.
The quit or die, SAVE THE CHILDREN rhetoric they wear like armor is getting tiring. I wonder who's writing their official blog, and what kind of research this nutjob does before he gets behind his keyboard?
Nevermind, I already know the answer to that - he does ZERO research.
It proves that they aren't "SMOKE-free Wisconsin" they are "tobacco and NICOTINE-free Wisconsin"
The whole point of all of these groups was to combat second hand smoke. How do smokefree tobacco products harm bystanders?
And there is absolutely NO proof that using smokefree alternatives leads to using cigarettes. They must just make that up, because I have never seen ANY studies linking the two. Same thing for flavors attracting kids. No studies. Where's the proof that they aren't just making it up??
The whole point of all of these groups was to combat second hand smoke. How do smokefree tobacco products harm bystanders?
And there is absolutely NO proof that using smokefree alternatives leads to using cigarettes. They must just make that up, because I have never seen ANY studies linking the two. Same thing for flavors attracting kids. No studies. Where's the proof that they aren't just making it up??
OK, I did find a study on flavored tobacco and teens, but it's so obviously biased it's not even funny: Use of Flavored Cigarettes among Older Adolescent and Adult Smokers - RWJF
They determined that about 22% of smokers 17-19 used flavored tobacco and only about 7% of adults over 26 used them. From this, they determined kids are attracted to flavored tobacco and adults aren't, so flavors are dangerous.
But let's talk about this. First of all, adolescents only make up 20% of U.S. smokers, so that means only about 4.4% of smokers used flavored tobacco.
Secondly, it's a jump to assume that since less the adults use flavored tobacco, they are more attractive to kids. Did they take into account that those flavors weren't available to the adults when they began smoking, so the adults would already have their established brand?
In reality, because those flavored brands were available to NEW smokers, who most often are adolescents, is the reason more kids than adults smoked them. Had those flavors not been available, those teen were still a high risk to start smoking and would have chosen the teen flavors of choice - Marlborough, Camel or Newport.
Guess who said that? John Banzhaf: Teen Cigarette Brand Preferences [04/14/99]
Anyway, even though studies show more teen smokers than adult smokers use flavored tobacco (now in the form of hookas and mini cigars) there is no study which shows that flavored tobacco was the CAUSE for kids to smoke, only that 22% of kids prefer flavors over regular. No study shows that those kids wouldn;t have still tried a Newport or a Camel if flavors were unavailable.
Ironically, a recent decline in cigarette smoking among teens was revealed to be the result of the fact that more kids were choosing marijuana over tobacco!
They determined that about 22% of smokers 17-19 used flavored tobacco and only about 7% of adults over 26 used them. From this, they determined kids are attracted to flavored tobacco and adults aren't, so flavors are dangerous.
But let's talk about this. First of all, adolescents only make up 20% of U.S. smokers, so that means only about 4.4% of smokers used flavored tobacco.
Secondly, it's a jump to assume that since less the adults use flavored tobacco, they are more attractive to kids. Did they take into account that those flavors weren't available to the adults when they began smoking, so the adults would already have their established brand?
In reality, because those flavored brands were available to NEW smokers, who most often are adolescents, is the reason more kids than adults smoked them. Had those flavors not been available, those teen were still a high risk to start smoking and would have chosen the teen flavors of choice - Marlborough, Camel or Newport.
Guess who said that? John Banzhaf: Teen Cigarette Brand Preferences [04/14/99]
Anyway, even though studies show more teen smokers than adult smokers use flavored tobacco (now in the form of hookas and mini cigars) there is no study which shows that flavored tobacco was the CAUSE for kids to smoke, only that 22% of kids prefer flavors over regular. No study shows that those kids wouldn;t have still tried a Newport or a Camel if flavors were unavailable.
Ironically, a recent decline in cigarette smoking among teens was revealed to be the result of the fact that more kids were choosing marijuana over tobacco!
Ok, I'm wrong about the smokeless as a gateway study. I found one: Evidence that smokeless tobacco use is a gateway f... [Prev Med. 2001] - PubMed result
It shows that the young men who used smokeless tobacco (SLT) were 200% more likely to start smoking.
However, it still doesn't address the possibility that they would have started smoking regardless of their smokeless tobacco use. Again, take the smokeless tobacco out of the picture and how many would still be smoking today anyhow?
So, it's a chicken or the egg scenario. Did they start smoking because of the SLT or did they put off smoking because they were using the SLT instead?
It shows that the young men who used smokeless tobacco (SLT) were 200% more likely to start smoking.
However, it still doesn't address the possibility that they would have started smoking regardless of their smokeless tobacco use. Again, take the smokeless tobacco out of the picture and how many would still be smoking today anyhow?
So, it's a chicken or the egg scenario. Did they start smoking because of the SLT or did they put off smoking because they were using the SLT instead?
OK, the same site had this study from 2 years after the other one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873242?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
See - that's the problem with studies like this - you can't possibly prove that these adolesents, if denied their primary choice of tobacco product, wouldn't have gone to another product instead.
My guess, based on the facts that I was once an adolesent, have raised one, have another in the wings ready to become one, is that the kids are going to try it wether it's abundantly available or not.
Doing things to 'save the children' simply does not work. Period. The children being saved have no interest in BEING saved, and are usually rebellious to boot.
My guess, based on the facts that I was once an adolesent, have raised one, have another in the wings ready to become one, is that the kids are going to try it wether it's abundantly available or not.
Doing things to 'save the children' simply does not work. Period. The children being saved have no interest in BEING saved, and are usually rebellious to boot.
From everything I have read, in Sweden, where snus is king, it's been shown that smokeless tobacco is a gateway away from cigarettes as many smokers use it to quit. The smoking rate has been falling since the 60's when the health risk associated with smoking became widely known, while snus use has increased. There smoking rate is lower then any other industrialized country. Far more people use it to quit smoking then the small percentage that start with snus and take up smoking. Public health has greatly improved as Sweden has the lowest cancer rate associated with smoking of all industrialized countries in the world. Of course in Sweden there is a fair amount of accurate information on the risk factors between snus and smoking so tobacco users naturally choice the less risky snus.
If accurate information was available in North America as to the risk factors between smokeless tobacco and smoking many more people would choose smokeless. This misinformation campaign is killing people.
If accurate information was available in North America as to the risk factors between smokeless tobacco and smoking many more people would choose smokeless. This misinformation campaign is killing people.
Last edited:
Hey Stubby, could link the places you put your comments I think I would like to join you in posting on their sites. I just posted this on their site it probably will never be seen but it did make me feel good.
"Do you people do any research before you publish your propagenda?
First of all Snus has successfully reduced smoking in Sweeden.
Second of all Sweeden reports one of the lowest cancer rates in the world per capita.
Third how about some reports from reputable sources supporting your claims of how bad Snus is or do you always try to win the liar of the year award.
How about publishing where your funding comes from.Smoke Free Wisconsin was started by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is heavily funded by Johnson and Johnson, who makes nicotine patches, among other stop smoking pharmaceuticals so how about a little truth to what your true agenda is".
"Do you people do any research before you publish your propagenda?
First of all Snus has successfully reduced smoking in Sweeden.
Second of all Sweeden reports one of the lowest cancer rates in the world per capita.
Third how about some reports from reputable sources supporting your claims of how bad Snus is or do you always try to win the liar of the year award.
How about publishing where your funding comes from.Smoke Free Wisconsin was started by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is heavily funded by Johnson and Johnson, who makes nicotine patches, among other stop smoking pharmaceuticals so how about a little truth to what your true agenda is".
Exactly, Vicks.
Chicken or egg.
Did they start smoking because of the flavors or do they use flavors because they smoke?
Although, I did find a study that surveyed college students about flavored cigs (back when they were available). They found that, between flavored or unflavored, almost as many nonsmokers said they'd be tempted to try the flavored tobacco but not the unflavored.
BUT, were they tempted enough to actually do it?
Chicken or egg.
Did they start smoking because of the flavors or do they use flavors because they smoke?
Although, I did find a study that surveyed college students about flavored cigs (back when they were available). They found that, between flavored or unflavored, almost as many nonsmokers said they'd be tempted to try the flavored tobacco but not the unflavored.
BUT, were they tempted enough to actually do it?
They stopped posting any comments on their blog page since last April when they had a blog on PV's that go blasted by many people. They haven't posted any comments, ether negative or positive for many months.
The only way to leave a comment is on there Facebook page
SmokeFree Wisconsin | Facebook
You have to have a Facebook account (free) and become a friend of Smoke Free Wisconsin to leave a comment.
I've been following their blog for some time and a pattern begins to form after a while. They have a very high number of blogs attacking reduced harm nicotine/tobacco products, as in electronic cigarettes, snus, and dissolvables. They are also a big pusher of pharmaceutical products, as in nicotine gum, patches and top smoking drugs, and went big time on that when Wisconsin cut funding for the quit smoking hot line which was handing out free gum and patches. They went ballistic on that.
Nothing they do makes sense until you realize they are a front organization for big pharma. It appears SFW have suitcases of money coming in the back door ether directly or indirectly from big pharm, and out the front door comes this nonsense.
I haven't dug to deep into there funding as I wouldn't know how to, but that would be a good project for someone with the know-how.
I have to thank the swedes. I spent over seven months vaporing away which cut back my cigarette consumption by 80%. However, I was among the group that just had to have a few cigarettes when the cravings started. I also started to smoke a few more lately which I didn't like.
After following this board I decided to try some snus. I couldn't find anyone that had the Camel snus so I ended up ordering the good stuff. Wouldn't you know it, two days later I found the Camel locally. I'm now three plus days without one cigarette. I am so happy.
Vaping gets me through most off the time and when I get to where I JUST NEED a cigarette, I just pop in a snus. Best I've ever felt off cigarettes in 42 years and I've quit at least a dozen times, many of those on the no work BP methods.
I'm already planning reducing nic levels in my PV in anticipation of the FDA getting their way. I sure hope not because quiting is now a real possibility for the hard core such as myself.
Convenient that they chose not to publish my comment
I guess they only pass the comments that fit with their agenda, which is why the comments count stands at a big round zero. .......
- Status
Similar threads
