"It is the "elected" officials that are the irritant!"
That is an awesome quote!
That is an awesome quote!
Vaping "more dangerous than traditional cigarettes"
- Thread starter kristin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
All Dems and many Repubs are nothing but pawns of various big industries. The same jackasses that are slowly chipping away at our right to defend ourselves are now going to attempt to force us back onto tobacco, because that is where the money is. We've got the best government money can buy!
Fed up, can't wait to vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday.
Fed up, can't wait to vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday.
Gordon, you ARE kidding making a statement like this, right?
Who ever elected this chump to serve any government capacity aught to have their voting rights stripped away.
They get bolder as the days go by, don't they? Eventually they will be exposed as the uneducated frauds that they really are.
What a dumbtard that guy is.
I just want to point out another item that has propylene glycol in it.......
Contact Saline Solution
So it's ok to put it directly in my eyes, but it's not ok for e-cigs?
Unbelievable.
I just want to point out another item that has propylene glycol in it.......
Contact Saline Solution
So it's ok to put it directly in my eyes, but it's not ok for e-cigs?
Unbelievable.
Wow. This Gordon guy makes me want to drive up to NJ just to put a flaming bag of dog poo on his front door step. James Williams sounds like he's got more between his ears than dead space, though his statement (or, at least, what they quoted of his statement) isn't necessarily pro-ecig.
That statement is from me.
I kept it neutral so it gets a higher chance of it being picked up on Google News. If it sounds like a "commentary", I-Newswire will reject the story, and that's when it gets picked up on Google News if I-Newswire accepts it.
Last edited:
That statement is from me.
That is the unfairness of it all BJW. Banzhaf is allowed to 'commentate' all the garbage he likes from the anti side and it gets picked up. Yet if you speak from the pro side it gets labeled as being somehow slanted.
What a crock! Do you ever feel like you are playing with marked cards Jim?
Ok, here's the deal. If I went off on some pro-ecig tangent in the release, I-Newswire would REJECT the story. They would say it is "commentary" and opinionated. They want news releases, not opinions from the author of the release. Many releases I sent through them get rejected because of this.
(In fact, the article Kristin wrote last year was rejected by I-Newswire for the same reason. Opinionated - Not News. A shame too because it was a great article to be sent to the news wires.)
The big difference between Banzhaf and myself is that not one of his "press releases" ever make it to Google News, or even picked up on any other press release site except the one he publishes his on. The ones that I managed to get released through I-Newswire (the ones NOT rejected) get picked up on Google News and they tend to end up on bigger sites (such as tobacco.org) putting more public exposure to it.
Banzhaf releases those "press releases" for his ASH website to make himself look bigger than he actually is. I intend for my releases to reach as many people as possible, and sometimes they actually do.
The basic story was a public official making a dangerous proclamation that e-cigs may be more harmful than real ones. My comment basically states that it's a bold statement to make and it has the detrimental effect of making the public perceive that cigarettes are less harmful because they're FDA "approved" and saying e-cigs are dangerous.
A news release should not be a time to preach the gospel of the e-cig. Serious news wire services only want cold hard fact that pertains to the story at hand.
That's how news works. Unfortunately sometimes we must put aside personal feelings and state facts.
Last edited:
As a sidenote, I also released it on PRLog (same place Banzhaf usually releases his stuff on). They publish anything, but unfortunately it never gets picked up on any other news sites.
That statement is from me.
My bad BJW, I didn't put two and two together. Ok, I totally see where your coming from. Good on you to try to reach as many as possible. It just kinda ticks me off that they'll print Gordon's (or Banzaf's, or the FDA's) hogwash but not an even moderately pro-PV stance. I know, I know, he's an elected official and all... I just really want to yell at some of these people, "HEY, these things are quite possibly saving my life and there's no evidence to suggest they're harming* ANYONE'S health in the process, so back the &%^& OFF!!" but I know it would be counter-productive.
Ok, I'll shut up now.*yeah, I know not completly safe, I know that. Not any worse than what we're exposed to every day by just living in an even slightly developed area though.
Last edited:
I think what galls me more about these kind of 'bandwagon' sound bites from politicos is that it just confuses people. Are they actually telling people that tobacco is safe now? Because thats how it comes across. That they are saying something which has a PROVEN negative health effect is less dangerous to everyone than something which uses NO tobacco at all (and is basically a nicotine delivery system) and has no 'this is bad' backup studies to prove its dangerous. If they were serious about people's health they'd just ban tobacco - period. No just 'in public places' but everywhere. Forever. Really if its that bad ban it.
Oh and ban everything else that contains PG - after all its a 'known irritant' - despite the fact its in FOOD. And medicines. Better go ahead and ban those ingredients in NJ too eh Gordy? Come on now, you started the ball rolling lets not get shy now...wahts that? There a study dating back to the 1940s (and since repeated a few times) that says PG is ok? Well we'll just ignore that one - come on Gordon lets go ahead with the ban stick..I'm waiting.
Oh and ban everything else that contains PG - after all its a 'known irritant' - despite the fact its in FOOD. And medicines. Better go ahead and ban those ingredients in NJ too eh Gordy? Come on now, you started the ball rolling lets not get shy now...wahts that? There a study dating back to the 1940s (and since repeated a few times) that says PG is ok? Well we'll just ignore that one - come on Gordon lets go ahead with the ban stick..I'm waiting.
Last edited:
Instead of calling his office and screaming, why not try to educate him. Inform him of the many thousands who have become tobacco free from e-cigs. When a person is ignorant, you can try to educate them. The worst thing you want is to challenge them and get into a pissing contest.
I added my comments to the article. But I have a question about enforcement.
How the heck can anyone prove I "vaped"?
It's not like smoking. There's smoke. And everyone can tell the smell of smoke. It lingers for a long enough time that you can have security or whoever come sniff the scene of the crime.
Plus, there's usually a spent .... to be found.
With vaping, it's gone in an instant. And for the mod users, you could just carry a tiny can of deoderant or hairspray and say that's what they saw
If I were in NJ, I'd just hit the john more often on those days that it's too cold or wet to go outside. Or hell, use some very low vapor juices.
I just have a hard time seeing anyone get "caught" if they ban it.
How the heck can anyone prove I "vaped"?
It's not like smoking. There's smoke. And everyone can tell the smell of smoke. It lingers for a long enough time that you can have security or whoever come sniff the scene of the crime.
Plus, there's usually a spent .... to be found.
With vaping, it's gone in an instant. And for the mod users, you could just carry a tiny can of deoderant or hairspray and say that's what they saw
If I were in NJ, I'd just hit the john more often on those days that it's too cold or wet to go outside. Or hell, use some very low vapor juices.
I just have a hard time seeing anyone get "caught" if they ban it.
Yes like the "cold, hard facts" that the FDA released last year after their investigation of e cigs? Oh, that's right, it was our government, they won't lie to us! Right
I added my comments to the article. But I have a question about enforcement.
How the heck can anyone prove I "vaped"?
It's not like smoking. There's smoke. And everyone can tell the smell of smoke. It lingers for a long enough time that you can have security or whoever come sniff the scene of the crime.
Plus, there's usually a spent .... to be found.
With vaping, it's gone in an instant. And for the mod users, you could just carry a tiny can of deoderant or hairspray and say that's what they saw
I stayed at a no-smoking cabin when I was on holiday last year. I vaped my .... off with my SB@6v for two weeks solid and no-one was none the wiser. Big, thick alto-cumulus clouds of vape. No smoke alarms going off, no residue, no butts, no after smell. Nothing.
So yes, unless you smoking chocolate molasses then you will get away with it.
Yeah. We have a wonderfully truthful government, don't we?
Trust me, when I crafted this press release, I wanted to explode. But I worded it in a way that it'll have a higher probability of being picked up.
Googling the press release, it's already on Tweetme, and on 4 e-cig sites already. Bing News already picked up the story. If approved by I-Newswire, it'll be off to Google News and even bigger sites. I want it planted so that idiot "Senator" gets to read it.
oh man this ...... me off . . anyways here's my post to the original article . . i was a bit heated.
. . anyways here's my post to the original article . . i was a bit heated.
Article has been approved on both Online PR News, I-Newswire, and already picked up on Google News
NJ - Google News
Picked up here as well
Bob Gordon - Silobreaker
Some Senator will have some explaining to do.
NJ - Google News
Picked up here as well
Bob Gordon - Silobreaker
Some Senator will have some explaining to do.
- Status
Similar threads
