Yes, it is about the children (E Cigs)

[nadinbrzezinski]

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 02:51 AM - Edit history (3)

So when I grew up, and I am sure if you are above a certain age, when you did grow up, this was common.



Hell, there are still stories running these days, and we should know better, about how it can keep you skinny. I guess a heart attack is great as long as your are thing.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/the-smoking-diet/

Yes, the promises of tobacco conglomerate and the allure are still out there.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/the-smoking-diet/

And indeed it is about the children. I know, some of you will say but, but. Some data,

Overview

An estimated 42.1 million people, or 18.1% of all adults (aged 18 years or older), in the United States smoke cigarettes.1 Cigarette smoking is more common among men (20.5%) than women (15.8%).1
Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths, or one of every five deaths, each year.2
More than 16 million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking.2
Overall smoking prevalence declined from 2005 (20.9%) to 2012 (18.1%).1

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

Here is more about market share and all that.

Cigarette Companies
More than 293 billion cigarettes were purchased in the United States in 2011, with three companies selling nearly 85% of them.7
Company Name Brand Examples Market % Cigarettes Sold
Philip Morris USA Marlboro, Basic, Virginia Slims 46.1% 135.1 billion
Reynolds American Inc. Camel, Doral, Winston, Kool 24.9% 72.9 billion
Lorillard Newport, Maverick, Kent 13.7% 40 billion

All other companies USA Gold, Sonoma, Montclair 15.3% 45 billion

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm#sales

E-Cigs as an emerging market is not even in any form of debate. In fact, e-cigs are seen as a savior to an industry that is truly suffering from social stigma, regulations and let's be honest, it sucks when your market dies or quits. So they are pretty much into getting into the market and getting as much of it as possible. Yes all three are in there. DO we still have a few mom and pop, let's see how long they last. But here is the data on that.

Highly Profitable

Although the profit margin for e-cigs is lower than for conventional cigarettes, this is still a highly profitable product: gross profit was US$15 million, or 23.8% of net sales, and US$54 million, or 30.5% of sales, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively. The reason for the difference in profit margin over the two time periods was that the third quarter of 2013 was negatively impacted by the introduction of a new, lower priced rechargeable kit that began shipping to wholesale late in the second quarter.

With its home market threatened by legislation, Lorillard is looking to the global market in e-cigs and announced on October 1st, 2013 that it had acquired SKYCIG, a British-based e-cigarette business for some £30 million (US $49 million) in cash paid (and an additional £30 million to be paid in 2016 based on the achievement of ‘certain financial performance benchmarks’).

- See more at: http://blog.euromonitor.com/2013/11/lorillard-leads-e-cigarettes-in-the-us-but-potential-collapse-looms.html#sthash.UQqnF03n.dpuf

And yes, it is about the children, because if they cannot capture children, they will not continue to grow, As I said, their older customers are dying or quitting.

So when Attorneys General (multiple) claim that they are targeting children, here is the letter... I think they know what they speak off.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/press/2013/e-cigarette-letter.pdf

And here are the items in question with graphics that are attractive to kids. So this will be settled once and for all.

http://www.whitecloudelectroniccigarettes.com/vapor-jacket-collection-13/

So what I wrote yesterday that more and more regulation is coming, it is. Some cities. I will leave my non existent local news out of it. But here are some examples from other places around the country

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/10/6221686/e-cigarettes-face-restrictions.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-usa-ecigarettes-california-idUSBREA2324920140305

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-15/news/chi-chicago-bans-indoor-electronic-cigarette-smoking-20140115_1_e-cigarettes-e-cigarette-regulations-cigarette-sales

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2013/12/20/e-cigarette-bans-considered-across-the-country/4143993/

Are they as bad? The science is coming in, and while not as bad, they are not safe.

And if the industry agrees with a ban, pay attention, that should be a huge red flag.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/opinion/industry-support-of-e-cig-bans-deserves-skepticism/article_f8c5054b-c667-5380-ac15-a75939f90cff.html

As I said yesterday, this is not popular. But it is coming. We just locally are joining the leading edge. I could add local jurisdictions that have already joined this, but since I live here, it is not news unless it is on CNN. Suffice it to say, the places doing this are not precisely your progressive cities locally, though they are in the process. This was led by inland more rural communities. That alone should tell you something. They simply do not want this product to get around the bans that were put in place and have made smoking all but glamorous.

I will add to this list school districts, and universities and colleges, as well as work places.

It is coming, it is a wave, and yes, it is to protect the rest of us. There is some science behind it by the way. If you use them to stop smoking and it works for you, I am happy for you. But like my asthma attack or that relayed by the Government Official, both are anecdotal. We need more than anecdotal in a society relying on science. And while some critics say that this is just fear, the science supporting the bans are now trickling in. How dangerous this product is, we will see over the next two decades, since longitudinal studies take that long.

Oh and the adds should be forbidden as well. The adds for things like NJoy are full of the same promises as cigarettes a generation ago.

I expect this thread to be derailed as well. Ce la vie. If I post it...

Edit One

My bad for not adding the actual science that is starting to emerge. Never mind that this is all but comprehensive.


http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/are-e-cigarettes-safe-to-use-new-research-shows-metals-found-in-vapor-of-electronic-cigarettes

Notice the article is on HEAVY METALS ON E- CIGS

More, and these studies are all on the subject at hand.


http://www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-e-cigarettes-and-heart-attack-risk-121513

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php

https://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive

http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20140130/19-harmful-chemicals-in-e-cigarettes.aspx

Edit Two.

Yes, they are available to minors as can be seen in this media report:

http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/State-Senator-right-bill-to-close-loophole-that-allows-retailers-to-sell-e-cigarettes-to-minors-247905531.html

Another discussion on a recent bill

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Gov-proposes-e-cig-ban-for-minors-5311779.php

A ban has passed in OH

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/ohio-may-be-e-cigarette-sales-to-minors/ndL6s/

Florida to possibly become the 28th state to ban them for minors.



http://weartv.com/template/cgi-bin/archived.pl?type=basic&file=/news/features/top-stories/stories/archive/2014/01/4gk833Rx.xml

If they have nicotine I know they are are banned in my non state. So this is what is happening. And I know that some folks are not happy that regulations are coming in, but they are. That is the current reality/ You want to stop this, lobby your legislatures and city councils. Realize you are not the only one doing that.

I might keep updating this as I find other relevant information on this.

Edit three:

If you do not agree with all that is emerging, don't tell me. Find some fellow travelers and two things you need to do.

1.- Fund the studies that prove they are absolutely, 100% safe. Good luck with that one.

2.- Start some serious lobbying campaigns at local, state and Federal Levels. To be brutally honest you might have to get in bed with the same industry that you ignore is involved in this. Don't complaint to me as to the nature of reporting. From media reports from across the nation, forget my non existent county, it is consistent with national reporting. E-cigs and vaping are under regulatory attack, and no they are not considered safe.

So don't complaint to me. What was published in the non existent paper, in the non existent county, tracks closely with posted here news reports on this OP. I guess all those other places, who led the way, are just part of the conspiracy.

I must say, Americans distrust authority, book learning and yes, any form of regulation. A lot of it is me, me, me as well. Those are cultural traits. Suffice it to say, I don't expect these devices to be popular among the general population either. Oh and you want to enjoy a cig, or an e-cig at home, by all means. In public, the regulatory trend is not good for the latter.

Have a good night. I expected this to be attacked. Not disappointed.

Oh and do tell professor Gantz why he is misguided.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/11/110416/electronic-cigarettes-new-route-smoking-addiction-adolescents

[cthulu2016]

2. Disgusting. Truly loathsome... you ought to delete it

[Tikki]

9. Strong messages are what helped me quit smoking..isolation from others…the cost of cigarettes...

the fears of health issues…the desperate want for my grandchildren to never know me as a smoker.
All these helped me overcome the addiction...

Which of my statements should be deleted.


Tikki

[cthulu2016]

12. Hmmm... was I talking to you?

From studying the order of the posts, and the names attached to them, it appears I was not.

Have a lovely day.

[Tikki]

15. Thank you, I will...

This is a message board…it is DU and if someone is not welcome..please say so in your post.


Tikki

[cthulu2016]

16. We are all welcome to respond, but I didn't say you should delete anything

I am not a fan of smoking and even when I was a smoker I supported smoking bans and restrictions.

I was responding to someone being an incredible asshole. Your post was perfectly reasonable, in my eyes.

[COLGATE4]

10. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[joeglow3]

4. Native Americans could just give up alcohol but that takes something they don't have

Normally, I would think something this obvious would not need a tag. However, after reading this post, I am not so sure.

[Zorra]

215. Please delete your insulting racist stereotype post or I will alert on it.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh40/152-160.htm

[joeglow3]

218. Alert. I will trust that people can exercise more common sense than you

If they delete it, I can live with it. I stated that it was sarcasm intending to point out the absurdity of the post I responded to. But, thanks for warning daddy.

[Gravitycollapse]

230. I don't actually understand how that would be proper sarcasm...

Because your post is multidimensional. It is on the surface an obvious bit of sarcasm. But, when you remove that sarcasm, you have a decidedly racist statement that has no logical reason to exist. Because that racism exists independent of the sarcastic intention, you cannot simply argue that it was a joke.

[joeglow3]

239. It was clear sarcasm

I stated that it was so absurd that it shouldn't need a sarcasm, but that I would include because obviously there was someone who thought a sentiment like the one I was responding was a reasonable claim.

[Gravitycollapse]

240. It is obviously meant to be sarcastic. But the underpinnings of the joke are racist, regardless.

Are racist statements incapable of being sarcastic simultaneously?

[Zorra]

225. I alerted, but the alert got sent before I finished writing it.

Alcohol and Native Americans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native Americans in the United States have historically had extreme difficulty with the use of alcohol.[1] Problems continue among contemporary Indians with 12% of the deaths among American Indians and Alaska Natives being alcohol-related. Use of alcohol varies by age, gender and tribe with women, and older women in particular, being least likely to be regular drinkers. Indians, particularly women, are more likely to abstain entirely from alcohol than the general US population. Frequency of use among American Indians is generally less than the general population, but the quantity consumed when it is consumed is generally greater.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_Native_Americans

White people have been mocking Native Americans, stereotyping them as drunks ever since they stole the land, partially by using alcohol to steal it.

[joeglow3]

241. I am from the Midwest and have seen how devastating alcohol is

To native Americans. A good friend of mine did a rotation at a hospital near a reservation. The stories he had were sad. Obviously it is insensitive to make the claim that they lack the desire to quit. Frankly, I was hoping something as obvious as that would make the original poster realize how shitty their claim was.

[Zorra]

247. I am from the rural inland Northwest, and have seen how devastating it is to everyone,

even *those* white people. I worked in many establishments that serve alcohol for much of my life. The stories I have are very sad. Obviously, it would be insensitive to make the claim that *they* lack the desire to quit.

So...do you really think it should be clearly obvious to everyone who has been around Native Americans that Native Americans are, on the whole as a group, characteristically alcoholic?

and btw

One of the hardest things for people to get used to when learning Spanish is the idea that nouns (people, places, animals, things, ideas, and feelings) have a gender (male, female).

Feminine Nouns

Most feminine nouns end in -a. Ending in an -a indicates that a person or animal is feminine or that an object, idea, etc. is grammatically feminine.

Common Feminine Nouns that End in -A

la enfermera (nurse)
la profesora (teacher)
la hija (daughter)
la rosa (rose)
la guitarra (guitar)
la piscina (pool)

la zorra (vixen).

Masculine Nouns

Most masculine nouns end in -o. Ending in an -o can indicate that a person or animal is male, or just an object, idea, etc. that is grammatically masculine.

Common Masculine Noun that End in -O

el cartero (mailman/postman)
el niño (child/son)
el tío (uncle)
el teatro (theater)
el dormitorio (bedroom)

el zorro (fox)

[joeglow3]

248. Clearly it is bad for whites as well

However, I have never heard of or seen a hospital that deals with such a high number of alcohol related cases like this one serving the reservation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. It is an addiction

so I will not be that judgmental.

My dad could really not quit, and he would have liked to. He died attached to an oxygen tank, and a cig on the other. It is as bad, or worst, depending who you ask, than heroin.

Part of the problem is how cigs are processed. Has it ever occurred to you why Cigar smokers have an easier time quitting? There are two reasons. They do not have nicotine added, or processed into crack nicotine. If those cigs were au naturale, people would have a much easier time quitting. Which should be in the regulations, no more processing, no more menthol (that is coming) and no more adding of nicotine.

But the personal attacks were just amazing yesterday. And I ask you not to do that with the real victims here.

[Feral Child]

24. Judgmental tripe.

What an ugly and completely inaccurate post.

[one_voice]

34. Post and run addicts...

could stay around and defend their often nasty, snarky and unhelpful comments, but that takes something they don't have.

I am 46 I started smoking at 14 I quit 3 years ago--cold turkey. I did it for my own reasons. It's one of the hardest things I've ever done. Even now occasionally I get the urge.

It's a drug and like other addictive drugs extremely hard to just give up.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. why are you still allowed to be on DU? but that takes something that the admins dont have.

[Gravitycollapse]

75. I have alerted the post and provided a link to another hidden post...

Which is right here...http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4605407

[Gravitycollapse]

78. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
Mail Message
On Wed Mar 12, 2014, 06:05 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

nicotine addicts could just give up nicotine but that takes something they don't have nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4651366

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

This poster has a history of posts being hidden regarding rude and insensitive remarks against those dealing with nicotine addiction and those who use e-cigarettes.

This is the previous post which was hidden: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4605407

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Mar 12, 2014, 06:14 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sound like good advice. Addictive people should take responsibility for their own actions. May it be nicotine, food, booze, or other addictive habits. Nothing wrong in being frank here. If people are offended, there is something called the 'ignore' function. Unless you are addicted to reading post and being easily offended, use it.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. You take this stance but CA will continue to vend cigarettes, cigars, and

the rest of the actually dangerous products. You, your state, allows the vending of alcohol as well. I have been to the urine soaked skid rows of Los Angeles and San Diego. They will keep selling it, keep selling it at bars with valet parking....

[MO_Moderate]

6. This is great

I too, hate freedom of choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I too hate science

why do you think the original bans came in?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Your own post= 'the science is coming...but they are bad!'

No need for the science. No need to respect facts. Just judge and attack. I bet you drink upon occasion.....

[sad-cafe]

62. I'm still waiting to see the ads for 4th graders

with sponge bob or some crap




E-Cigs are helping people quit I have seen it up close and personal.

[Liberal Veteran]

73. Hah! Shows what you know.

/channel Pat Robertson



See? The Powerpuff Girls!

Look at them! They appear to innocent cartoons, but they are trying to ensnare children into electronic cigarettes!

Even the name says it: Power (like electricity!) is code for the "e". Puff (like the vapor of from these tools of satanic addiction!).

And look at the pretty colors! Just what you would expect to entice children.

See how their eyes are big and dilated? Dilation is caused by stimulants! You know what nicotine is? A stimulant!

And they obviously are so strong and can fly because they partake of these so-called "e-cig".

/unchannel Pat Robertson

[sad-cafe]

77. HAHA that was good

you do "pat Robertson" well!!!

[Mariana]

80. You're killing me, LV.

[dionysus]

109. !

[pnwmom]

102. Until science comes in proving the safety of these nicotine-delivery devices

they should be banned from public areas and kept away from minors, since we know enough about nicotine already to know that children -- and their developing brains -- shouldn't be exposed.

But the manufacturers have chosen not to conduct these studies. I wonder why.

[Glitterati]

243. LOL, more paranoia!!!!!!!!!

Really, you need to speak with the FDA.

Because you know what? They approved nicotine delivery systems for over the counter sales in 1996!!!!

Anybody can walk into a store and take nicotine patches, gum and lozenges off the store shelf and buy them. In the exact same dosages as e-cigarettes!!!!!! OMG!

Kids can go to Walmart and buy THESE nicotine delivery systems and it sure as hell doesn't seem to bother you. But let Walmart lock up the things that look like cigarettes in the same dosage of nicotine and you get all bent out of shape!

Just think...these kids can get their sugar, nicotine and bad habits in one stick of gum!

Time to get out the pitchforks and tar and go after the FDA!!!!!!

[cthulu2016]

11. The original bans of vaping? On nicotine? There were none.

That fact that you continue to conflate cigarettes and nicotine without tobacco tars, which are obviously extremely different things in their effects, strongly suggests suggests that you may actually do hate science.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. No, no coflation at all

http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/are-e-cigarettes-safe-to-use-new-research-shows-metals-found-in-vapor-of-electronic-cigarettes

Notice the article is on HEAVY METALS ON E- CIGS

More, and these studies are all on the subject at hand.


http://www.healthline.com/health-news/heart-e-cigarettes-and-heart-attack-risk-121513

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php

https://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/10-chemicals-identified-so-far-e-cig-vapor-are-california-prop-65-list-carcinogens-and-reproductive

http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20140130/19-harmful-chemicals-in-e-cigarettes.aspx

[Bluenorthwest]

17. From one of your links:

Results: We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants.

[MO_Moderate]

21. For the same reason as prohibition

People thinking they know what's best for everybody else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. So early deaths due to tobacco are a conspiracy?

Really?

And there is emerging science to say that while these devices are not as bad as tobacco products, they are not safe either.

As I said, I too hate science.

[MO_Moderate]

31. There is no conspiracy

The 'I will dictate how you live' anti-smoking crusade is well established.

And this is how freedom of choice and science work together:
Science says tobacco, alcohol and e-cigs are bad for your health, now you choose if you will use them or not.

This world would be a heck of a lot better off if people would just mind their own business.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Your business becomes mine

When it directly affects me.

You can smoke, none has stopped you. Just not around me.

[MO_Moderate]

40. If only that were the case

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Well that is the case

all the bans have come from the rights of non smokers to clean air. And bans will come for these things for the same exact reason.

You can smoke, none is stopping you. Go ahead, enjoy it.

[MO_Moderate]

124. That's some logic you got going there

Ban the rights of one to give "rights" to another.

And please stop with the "no one is stopping you" rhetoric. The purpose of a ban is to prohibit, to stop.

Look, I'm not saying e-cigs are safe, or that people should be permitted to walk into your house and use them. Heck, I don't know a single smoker who thinks that. But people have the same right to smoke as you have to not smoke. They have the same right to go out in public that is smoke friendly, as you have to go out in public that is non-smoking.
They don't have the right to walk up or sit next to you and smoke, you don't have the right to walk up or sit next to them and tell them not to smoke.

And using "emerging science" to justify the control you endorse is wrong. Totalitarian even.

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Yup, you got me there, public health is totalitarian

[MO_Moderate]

249. No, controlling individual behavior

under the guise of 'public health,' is totalitarian.

[nadinbrzezinski]

250. My lord, since we are stoping you from smoking

Last edited Fri Mar 14, 2014, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

And tobacco use has been forbidden...oh wait, in my reality it has not happened. Perhaps in your parallel universe it has. If this is the case, my apologies, and please contact a few physicists here, on this reality.

[sad-cafe]

251. oh brother

ridiculous

[sad-cafe]

190. I wish I could rep this 10000 times

so spot on!

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. By the way, I forgot, when did the FBI and DEA

start burning Cig stags?

This is what prohibition looked like

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/5_Prohibition_Disposal(9).jpg

Show me the equivalent. I will wait a LONG TIME though.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. San Diego County was the center of the 'Cannabis Panic' as well

Border towns are usually hooked on the money that flows from the Drug War. Reactionary SD....
Nov. 5, 1996
Prop 215 was passed in California making it legal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes.

May 19, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court denied San Diego County’s last attempt at challenging Prop 215. The high court refused to hear the suit brought by San Diego and San Bernardino Counties
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/marijuana-pot-legal-timeline-san-diego-california-medical-prop-215-206301351.html

13 years they battled the will of the people and tried to keep their gravy train running.....

[Politicalboi]

18. Sorry, but F the children

It's BAD parenting, NOTHING else. So now we punish those who couldn't care less about children. It's bad enough with edited TV due to fucking children, when they learn those words at HOME. Please raise your brats in a bubble so the rest of us can live our adult life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I do not have kids, unless the conures are considered such (just ask them, I think they will agree)

regardless, public health is not about those kids, it is about those kids growing up to develop very preventable medical conditions. I will add this, that you might not like, "it takes a village to raise a child."

And yes, there are some tv programs before a certain time of the night that can have that bleeping. These days with technology you can get around it.

[Politicalboi]

23. These days with technology you can get around it.

Why should I have too? Why not make PARENTS responsible for their children's TV viewing. Bleeping on Comedy Central, or editing movies just so junior who probably knows more bad words than me, learned on the schoolyard or at home. We coddle way too much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. We do coddle too much

but it has nothing to do with the language. And we coddle adults to be exact. But that is neither here or there.

As to this, well, you have yet to address the it takes a village to raise a child, or the fact that there is science and matters of public health here that affect all of us.

No society in recorded history has had no social norms. Smoking, in ours, and increasingly around the world, is socially unacceptable. It is legal mind you, but socially unacceptable. I do not want to to go back to the good ol' times when you walked through a haze.

[VScott]

92. Do me a favor...

You stay out of my village, and I'll stay out of yours.

Because quite frankly, yours frightens me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Well, you might want to start lobbying

Pols. And yes, the industry is targeting youth like they have done in the past.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Oh and I will add, from emerging science

I do not need those vapors in the office either.

[Politicalboi]

25. Nobody's saying to smoke at work

Does "emerging science" say how far that nasty vapor cloud travels? Probably not. But be afraid. All this talk about e-cigs, but guns are allowed to be in the homes of "children". I would NEVER own a gun, and especially if a child was living in the home. A child is 99.99 safer with e-cigs in the home rather than a gun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I posted some of those studies

and there is enough to support indoor bans, yes

[PasadenaTrudy]

30. Thank you!

Kidz and baybeez are the center of the universe, doncha know

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. In this case public health

and companies targeting minors. It's not like they have not done that before.

[NutmegYankee]

101. THANK YOU!

For the Children™ has been a code word of the religious right in this country for shoving their agenda down our throats. You know the typical bullshit its used for, "ban Gay marriage - For the Children™ ".

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Given I am all but religious, let alone Christian,

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I should take umbrage, instead I will point out the industry has a track record of targeting kids.



Or perhaps that was an excellent photoshop job and damn it they are not just above reproach but pure.

Oh and you might want to email this guy and point out to him that he is indeed misguided in the results of his research.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/11/110416/electronic-cigarettes-new-route-smoking-addiction-adolescents

[SirRevolutionary]

29. Here we go....

You wrote a lot more this time. It's about the kids huh? How about the PARENTS of these poor kids get involved PARENTING their own kids to stop them from doing things they don't approve of? Don't like ecig commercials? Parental control on TV. Do you also dislike the sex and violence on TV? Again, parental controls + actual PARENTING will/should take care of that.

People at 711 sold me analog cigarettes many times when I was a young teen. It's completely illegal. They did it anyway. The night club I worked at while in college was closed down when they got caught giving alcohol to minors (under 21), that also is completely illegal.

Bottom line is, kids are going to do stuff parents don't like. Do you want teens having sex, performing acts of violence, doing drugs, smoking, vaping, drinking, cursing, etc? Probably not. Who's job is it to stop them? Why yes, indeed it's their parents. And yes, it takes a village to raise a kid, which is why we as a society should do our best to make sure kids don't get their hands on things that are for adults only. NOT by banning them!

Do you also want to ban porn, violence, cursing, drinking in games, movies, TV shows, apps, commercials? I certainly hope so, or your logic is faulty.

The very links you provided also mention studies that found things like "smokers put on nicotine replacement therapy after suffering an acute coronary event like a heart attack or stroke had no greater risk of a second incident within one year than those who were not" in regards to nicotine. That's nicotine we're talking about by the way, not even non-nicotine vapes....

University of California Irvine allows you to vape http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/01/01/uc-irvine-to-allow-e-cigarettes-chewing-tobacco-despite-uc-ban/

The News Medical link you provided also has an article about hospitals in Tampa FL allowing vapes http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100302/Tampa-hospital-allows-use-of-electronic-cigarettes.aspx Did not even realize that myself, thanks for the links!

Metals found in studies from cheap ecigs made in Chinese factories? How about the poisoned dog food made in Chinese factories? Shall we ban dog food because some tainted/poisoned dog food came from a factory in China? We'd sure have to ban a lot of stuff out there!

It seems there are enough (hopefully the majority) cooler scientifically-geared minds prevailing in the anti-smoking/vaping war and it's just driving the Puritans insane with anger. Anger raises your chances of heart attack and stroke, by the way, were you aware of how unhealthy it is to be angry?

[virgogal]

126. +1

[SirRevolutionary]

33. Oh, and by the way. If you don't like Big Tobacco companies buying up ecig tech...

And you use that as an argument against ecig technology in general, no doubt you'll be very upset to find out how much of our food Big Tobacco owns...and you'll likewise want bans on commercials for the products created by these food companies, as well as legislation to keep them out of the hands of children.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/big/owns.html

I hope none of the products created by Big Tobacco companies are on your shopping list.

I agree entirely, I don't want greedy corporate conglomerates buying up smaller companies, manipulating our food and other products with cheap, poisonous, unhealthy ingredients merely to help their bottom line. I'm totally against greedy vampire capitalism.

Again, does that mean Ritz crackers are terrible, simply because these greedy corps buy up companies and manipulate the ingredients with poisonous crap? No, at one time Ritz crackers were likely made from real-world ingredients, you know, food. Now they're high-fructose corn syrup and who knows what other chemicals for flavoring they use to create their frankenfood?

[bunnies]

36. Dont fucking like em? Dont fucking use them.

Gawds. Im so fucking sick of this shit. Adults don't like angry birds? Adults don't like colors and patterns?

You want to complain about something harmful that markets OVERTLY to children? Swing a hammer at McDonalds for a change.

Fuck.

We cant fucking ban every goddamn thing that's "harmful". People can make their own goddamn decisions.

[NCTraveler]

38. You really think that marketing a nicotine delivery system to children should not be regulated....

out of existence? Or can the marketing for that product only be accomplished when McDonald's advertising is regulated. I cannot believe this is where the members of the Democratic Party have gone. Every single democrat should support regulation of the marketing of a nicotine delivery system to children.

[bunnies]

47. Because they come in colors?

Seriously?

[Liberal Veteran]

81. Colors are bad, mmmkay? -nt

[bunnies]

87. only black & white. mmmmkay.

[NCTraveler]

117. Please show me where I said they need to be regulated because of colors.

Or are you just here to jump on the libertarian band wagon.

[NCTraveler]

116. Where did I state that colors are the reason for them to be regulated.

It takes no sense at all to understand they are being market to children. This anti-regulation stance by democrats is a joke. It is the infiltration of libertarians into the party. There is no question that they are being marketed toward children. Either that, or adults that have been stunted with respect to maturity. I am sure the cute little hearts, bears, lizards, ect. are directly related to adult marketing. No one is stupid enough to believe that. Hey, a grown up can get a nicotine delivery devise with a cute little bear and balloon on it. AWWWWW, how mature and cute. But hey, I'm sure you wear a Joe Camel shirt also. Cool is cool. Anit-regulation fucks need to leave the party. Everyone with half a brain knows these items are currently being marketed to children.

[bunnies]

119. Right.

Because of the colors. Just like condoms. Because hey... adults dont like colors.

[NCTraveler]

120. What colors did I mention? Reading before replying is important(to some anyway). nt.

[NCTraveler]

122. Well the cute little bears are brown.

Cute little lizards are green.
The hears are all different colors.
Peace sign, whatever color you want.
Balloons in many different colors.

I just wanted to say something about colors since you seem to read that word in every post whether it is there or not. Just looking out for you.

But I am sure the "juice" is similar to apple juice. I mean they use some of the same images to market both products. lol

I have yet to see an adult say "awww, look at the cute little bear(heart, lizard, peace sign, balloon) on my nicotine delivery device". Too funny watching libertarians or addicts trying to justify the marketing of nicotine delivery devices to children. One thing is for sure, nothing about these individuals is progressive. Anti-regulation wingers is what they are.

[bunnies]

127. Other than the patterns, how exactly are they marketed to children?

Because Ive seen them in stores, and I apparently don't see what you see.

And yeah... MANY 18 year old adults like that kind of stuff. So do those in their early 20's. Hell, my MOM likes that crap and she's in her 60's.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, vaping devices ARE regulated. Just like cigarettes and alcohol are. And your thinly veiled insults are pretty damn pathetic. You want to call me an "anti-regulation winger" have the frigging spine to do it.

[NCTraveler]

128. "Other than".......

At least we got that part out of the way.

"Also, in case you haven't noticed, vaping devices ARE regulated. Just like cigarettes and alcohol are.:

Just like your attempted first amendment argument, this one is completely false. Completely.

[bunnies]

131. Theyre regulated in my state.

And in host of others as well.

http://www.licensetovape.com/e-cigarette-state-laws-guide/

And no, just because something has a bear on it... doesn't mean its marketed toward children. I guess my mother and others like her that are into cutesy things are just "adults whose maturity ceased to grow out of their teenage years". Right?

I don't give a shit what they put on those things. Minors cant buy them in many states. If they *can* in your state, maybe you should be scolding your congress instead of me.

[Glitterati]

238. You really need to have a convo with the FDA then

Because they approved nicotine patches, gum and lozenges over the counter. And, what do you KNOW, these things are in the EXACT SAME DOSAGE of e-cigarettes! OMFG!

What do you know......a nicotine delivery system sitting right there on the SHELF, out in the OPEN, for anyone to buy. Including CHILDREN!

You really need to expend some of this moral outrage at the FDA.

Quick. Get a petition started!

Maybe you can get a million signatures!

[zappaman]

39. yeah but...

[bunnies]

48. lmao.

Wonder if the Vapes come in carrot. BTW... looks more like a doobie to me. Good bunny.

[NCTraveler]

37. Great post nadine.

Some seem to be in fear of reality. At a minimum, advertising needs to be heavily regulated. I promise you will be swarmed by the anti-regulation crew. I was told here, just a couple of days ago, that these products are not being marketed towards children. It is blatantly false for anyone to make that claim. It makes me think that the marketing worked on them as an adult and they don't want to admit that their e cig with a cute little lizard and a pink heart are designed for the interests of children. All around great post.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I was yesterday, after I said where I finally made

my decision that these things are indeed targeted to children, and should be regulated just like tobacco products.

The original OP is at the bottom. I was swarmed.

Why I gave them the image of angry birds sleeves from the git go now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4646081

The article of that imaginary meeting of my imaginary board of supers ran today, and I do not intend to post it here. Suffice it to say, we had the state of research presented by County Health, in depths that are actually rare for government meetings outside of regulatory hearings.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is one of most illogical arguments I have seen.

People can buy vinyl e-cig accessories with everything from peace signs, to abstract, to metallic, to *sigh* angry birds.

Know what these are? Angry Bird vibrators.



Zealotry and fallacy has never been as ridiculous as when someone makes bizarre leaps of logic.

[sad-cafe]

82. haha too funny

Angry birds. It's not just for kids

[Mariana]

83. Holy shit! Vibrators are being marketed to kids?

I had no idea.

[SirRevolutionary]

94. Let's not forget the Teletubbies, the moral menace turning our American youth gay

according to the late Jerry Falwell. He'd be spinning in his grave if he knew we had Angry Bird vibrators and e-cig cases turning our kids into oversexed zombies!

The kids, the kids!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. While funny

You are accusing a few people in law enforcement if lying. Sorry if I take their warnings more seriously than this.

It's in the OP. You might want to educate them

[jberryhill]

103. Beau Biden? You bet

I watched Beau grow up from a sprout, and he is no paragon of competence.

The human trafficking whorehouses all came back to Delaware, and he refuses to allow our state to proceed to implement the medical marihuana legislation that our General Assembly passed.

He does not do his job well, and is entirely driven by political calculation.

I'll vote for the guy over any of our crop of nutjob Republicans, but he is wrong and misinformed on a wealth of topics.

Your reduction of informed disagreement to being the same as accusing him or anyone else of "lying" is absurd.

[Liberal Veteran]

105. Law enforcement folks can be misguided as easily as the lay person.

Keep in mind these are the same folks that will go to a school and tell kids that one puff off a joint inevitably leads to selling your body for heroin.


They tend to have a somewhat jaded view of anything considered a vice and will often exaggerate to try to get ahead of something.

In short, without showing any real examples of marketing these to kids, you are making an appeal to authority. "A police person believes that banana split e-liquid is evidence of marketing to kids, therefore it must be true."

It has been implied you are some kind of reporter. If true, you can certainly do better to provide evidence than "whimsical accessories" or "pretty colors."

[Brother Buzz]

106. She is a reporter at present, with media card and everything.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2738204

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Whimsical accessories were also presented by staff

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 02:47 AM - Edit history (1)

And the CDC has the increase in use among youth as well. Again you might want to educate CDC. Apparently you know better than they do. They are nobodies in charge of public health for the nation, but apparently you know better. Forgive me for the cynicism here.

Oh and this professor, definitely needs to be clued in as to how wrong he is.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/11/110416/electronic-cigarettes-new-route-smoking-addiction-adolescents

[beevul]

114. Glantz?

You didn't research your background info very well.

Glantz is one of the biggest antis there is. He was also against NRTs.


Don't be pretending hes unbiased. He has an agenda.

[NCTraveler]

118. Somehow these anti-regulation individuals have dishonestly convinced themselves...

that the use of cute lizards, bears, balloons, hearts, ect. are not aimed at children. I guess they think they are being marketed to adults whose maturity ceased to grow out of their teenage years. The only other reason I have is that they are simply anti-regulation libertarians. There is no was they are foolish enough to believe the cute little lizard in the advertising of a nicotine delivery device is aimed at adults. I refuse to believe they are simply that "stupid". They have an ideology that is in direct opposition to anything progressive. Being addicts doesn't help much either. Addiction will get people to do pretty foolish things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Libertarianism (not the philosophy)

Distrust of authorities and distrust of book learning are traits of the American character going to before independence

And in this case a good dose of me, and I. Some of it driven by addiction. Regardless this is not going to stop. And they can complain all they want.

[PeaceNikki]

44. I sure hope you're going after air fresheners in such an aggressive manner as well.

And fog machines, deodorants, body spray, perfumes, colognes, and other cosmetics that emit 'toxins' into your personal space.

[frustrated_lefty]

45. You may want to read

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926346/ "Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes"

Several of the links you've provided are not without bias. That's not to say they don't have something useful to say, just that a healthy dose of skepticism might be warranted.

A noteworthy quote from the citation I've provided:

"In the most comprehensive systematic review of chemical studies to date, Burstyn concluded that there is no evidence that ‘vaping’, that is neologism, coined to indicate the act of vaporizing the liquid contained in e-cigarettes, produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of aerosol that would warrant health concerns [Burstyn, 2013]."

And: "The rapidly evolving phenomenon of the e-cigarette is raising concerns for those in the health community, for those in the pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments [The C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, 2013; Sullum, 2013; Knight, 2013; Tierney, 2011]. Among their concerns, there is the fact that e-cigarette use may encourage higher consumption of nicotine, may perpetuate smokers’ addiction to nicotine making them less susceptible to quitting altogether, may expose users to the risk of accidental ingestion of e-liquid or as yet unknown health risks from long-term e-cigarette use, may make smoking socially acceptable again thus undermining current no-smoking policies, and may act as a gateway to tobacco, especially for youngsters. Although these concerns are mostly theoretical and not based on scientific evidence, international agencies and regulatory authorities in many countries are investigating or planning to introduce restrictions on the quality, marketing, sale and use of e-cigarettes.

Addressing these diverse concerns may be difficult. The challenge faced by regulators is determining which interventions will have the greatest beneficial impact on public health [Freiberg, 2012]. "

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I am betting that the research is being done right now

which is the point I also made.



As to the response by regulators, it is accelerating.

[frustrated_lefty]

69. Here's the problem.

The response by the regulators is indeed accelerating, but in a knee-jerk fashion which isn't based on evidence.

The reason there was a delay in regulation is simple: Big Tobacco needed time to figure out how to make a profit and state governments needed time to figure out how to not lose tax income from tobacco sales. The regulations which threaten to emerge are based less on protecting the children or the public health and more on preserving a status quo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. You might want to clue professor Glantz on it

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/11/110416/electronic-cigarettes-new-route-smoking-addiction-adolescents

[beevul]

115. Glantz is a well known anti with a well known agenda. N/T

[Sheepshank]

49. I *think* I tend to disagree with you a lot...except not on this matter

I work in a local government office. Businesses coming in in droves into this small town to try and open e-cig shops. 2-3 daily, every day. It's not by accident.

I have said so before on another thread here on DU (got slammed pretty good for it too)...e-cigs are marketed to kids, teens and young adults. The establishment decor, ads and atmosphere are all about kids. It's about getting another generation of kids addicted for a revenue stream.

Kids today are less likley to smoke and suffer all of the deadly effects of tobacco than 15 years ago...but this was never about the health, it's about a revenue stream, and e-cigs are all about guaranteed revenue and NOTHING else. The pretense that it's to help people quit smoking, is a miniscule drop in the customer base they are trying to appeal to. It's about the money and creating an addiciton so the money keeps coming in.

And before anyone starts up, I fully inderstand there are many addictions to be had in the stores, some easier to give up than others....I resent this one being peddled as something noble and good and the issue of the addiction being sidelined as if it were of no importance. Why are we adding one more addiction to the litany of those that are being given to the consumer who is uninformed, and where the e-cig industry is unlikley to inform in it's entirety.

[PeaceNikki]

50. So stop the marketing to children (despite the fact I don't see that a bit).

And forbid the sale to minors (EVERY ecig retailer I frequent already does).

But do NOT do anything to limit the availability to adults or increase the cost to consumers. This is a REAL option for those of us who have had NO reasonably priced option that WORKS for many of us.

It's bullshit. I won't pay $60 for a box of nicotine patches when I can buy a pack of smokes for under $10. But spending $100 initial investment and ~ $20/month on consumables with an ecig is a real option. And it's worked for me and many people I know.

In addition, those 2-3 shops you're seeing pop up- they are little local mom and pop shops that mix their own - the ones I frequent, with integrity and love. I would much rather support them than tobacco companies or big pharma. Don't drive them out. We like them.

[Sheepshank]

53. yeah, but me me me

and because "me" it must be.

Whatev.

[PeaceNikki]

54. wooooosh, right over your head

Or you were just trying to be deliberately nasty for no fucking reason.

Whatev, indeed. Whatev.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. How is it being marketed exactly?

[KittyWampus]

51. Why the hell are you posting a pix of smoking a cigarette in a thread about vaping?

So dishonest.

[Exultant Democracy]

52. Started smoking at 14 smoked a pack a day to 24. Wish I had been using e-cigs.

The funny thing is it was really easy for me to quit. I went cold turkey and when I tried to backslide the cigs tasted so gross I puked and it was easy not to smoke after that.

Nicotine is a pretty impressive drug unfortunately the addicts don't even get to enjoy it because of their tolerance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I remember getting sick when I tried

I think I did not even get to one pack.

So...

And yes, Nicotine is an incredible drug. It is also incredibly addicting.

[Exultant Democracy]

57. My family has a history of Alzheimer's, I wish I could have one cig a day, but there are so nasty.

I image one cig a day would be hard to maintain because of the addiction factor. All things being equal to someone without any tolerances I would image that one serving of nicotine would be right up there with one serving of any other drug from booze to pot to coke. It is potent as all get out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I think you are right, it is a tolerance issue

and my dad was a life long smoker. I did almost end in the ER (went to the doctor but reacted well to inhaler) from a nasty asthma attack

[Hippo_Tron]

72. I think genetics play a big role in that...

According to the official story at least, the President was a one a day smoker until Michelle made him quit.

[Major Nikon]

59. What about the children?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. You make light, m'kay

the rest of us are not.



This is happening again

[zappaman]

61. No it's not.

It's really not.

[sad-cafe]

63. no it is not! I agree with you Zappaman

my son in law smoked 3 packs a day. 10 months ago he started "vaping" and has not had a regular cig since. He has lost weight, breathes better and is spending way less money.

[zappaman]

65. I'm around people who vape and barely notice it.

Second hand vape is bullshit.

[sad-cafe]

84. totally agree

and no way did the OP suffer an asthma attack because someone was vaping near them.

[Major Nikon]

88. Or what I posted is happening again

You have yet to post anything that links cause(e-cigs) to actual effect (harm). So what evidence do we have that e-cigs are actually more harmful than coffee? Answer: none. Pretending e-cigs are exactly like cigarettes is a false equivelency. Both the method of delivery and the substances involved are quite different so the assumption that both are the same is a pretty poor one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. I posted links to actual emerging science

Perhaps you are willing to wait a generation for the longitudinal studies. Health officials are a tad more careful. They should. It is public health. And the industry is targeting youth

[Major Nikon]

104. You also ignored emerging science that contradicted what you posted

"We don't know" is not a valid reason for regulating something. A better case can be made for regulating caffeine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. At the moment, on balance, there is more on these things are

Actually less dangerous, but not safe. CDC, WHO and FDA agree on this very point.

I guess they are ignorant.

[Major Nikon]

113. Which one of those has SPECIFICALLY said e-cigs are "not safe"?

Please quote directly.

I have yet to find any such claim.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. You can argue with WHO, CDC and FDA at this point.

Want me to give you the address to my local health department? They need education apparently. I mean it.

(When a study speaks of heavy metals and e-cigs does not make the E-cigs safe, they are in the list)

[Major Nikon]

144. I'm just asking for evidence of your claim

I'm not arguing that e-cigs are or aren't safe, but I have yet to see any evidence that they aren't or anyone from the organizations you listed make the claim you say they have made. That you can't or won't quote them is notable.

Nicotine, while toxic in sufficient quantities, is the stimulant and addictive part of tobacco. Burning all the other chemicals contained in tobacco is what creates the significant health hazard. This much is known. What is not known is what health hazard, if any exists from nicotine by itself and delivered in a method which does not involve the burning of those other tar creating chemicals. Now compare this with caffeine, which is also toxic in sufficient quantities and is the stimulant and addictive part of many things. Now consider how it's used as an enhancement to the delivery of processed sucrose, of which there is a known health hazard to overconsumption. So which is a greater health hazard, nicotine delivered in e-cigs or caffeine delivered in drinks with processed sucrose? Keep in mind that caffeine in this form most certainly is aggressively marketed to kids.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. I cited some studies

It is time you do that homework yourself.

For the record, there is a slew of things marketed to kids, or used by parents to pacify kids, (like this iPhone) or fast food, that also should come under some sort if regulation.

Don't get me started on High a fructose Corn Syrup. But I can chew and walk at the same time

[Major Nikon]

149. I don't feel any obligation to prove what you can't or won't

It was your assertion to begin with.

Actually less dangerous, but not safe. CDC, WHO and FDA agree on this very point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. I posted those links

Have an excellent day.

[Major Nikon]

154. ...which don't prove your claim

None of them were even authored or sponsored by the organizations you listed and all were addressed by myself and others.

I think at this point it's safe to say this never happened:

Actually less dangerous, but not safe. CDC, WHO and FDA agree on this very point.

That none of those organizations said this should be at least suggesting something to you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. When I get home

When I get home I will do that for you. I don't expect an apology either. Never expect those here.

Suffice to say yup, they have, they are available, a simple search gets them. But iPhones suck

[Major Nikon]

161. Apologize for what?

I never contradicted you, but clearly you are evading providing support for your assertion via obfuscation. If anything you should apologize for that which does nothing more than waste both of our time.

Remember to include direct quotes from one (or preferably all which you claimed) of those organizations. I have no interest in links to studies I've already reviewed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. There are more

but there you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024658422

As I said, I do not expect anybody to apologize.

[A HERETIC I AM]

64. For at least the 5th time (you were told several times yesterday)

The plural of "Attorney General" is


ATTORNEYS GENERAL

NOT "ATTORNEY GENERALS

I mean...you're a "reporter" for crying out loud. Get it right.

It damages your credibility if you refuse to take constructive criticism.


The rest of the post and your major point I won't comment on because it's silly.

[PeaceNikki]

67. I just read the article she wrote on yesterday's meeting.

The expert who testified about them being marketed to kids is a fourth grade teacher.

convincing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Spelling nannies....

[Brother Buzz]

100. It's spelled out quite clearly in your Stylebook

You still use one, don't you? Dust it off and take a peek.

[A HERETIC I AM]

112. No Nadine, it's called professionalism.

Professionalism and respect for the trade.

Have some.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. No, in this case it is called a direct attack on the messenger

As to professionalism, here is a perfectly sourced OP. With plenty of links.

By the way, not that it matters, I am highly respected by my peers where it matters. DU really does not.

Once again, spelling nanny.

[A HERETIC I AM]

140. Look...correcting a glaring mistake in spelling or grammar is NOT a "direct attack on the messenger"

As to professionalism, here is a perfectly sourced OP. With plenty of links.

I don't care about the links because my comment was not about them and as I said, I am not going to comment on the subject of your OP

By the way, not that it matters, I am highly respected by my peers where it matters..

Well, it does matter and if any of your peers have an ounce of respect for their craft, THEY WOULD TELL YOU THE SAME THING.

DU really does not

Did you ever stop to think that part of the reason for that is you regularly REFUSE to accept constructive criticism?

Once again, spelling nanny.

Once again, you are a professional, or so you would have us believe.

Get it right.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. Spelling and grammar nannies

Are a we trodden tool since at least Usenet

[A HERETIC I AM]

172. Oh, for fucks sake.

OK...fine. Spell it any way you like. For that matter, continue to muddle up colloquialisms, aphorisms, quaint sayings and proper spelling.


Have at it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. I am just telling you the experience of many who have been online for more than ten seconds

on boards, these are tools to divert from the subject at hand.

They are effective, why they keep showing up.

[A HERETIC I AM]

176. Nadine, you will notice that I rarely, IF EVER post on a thread you started.

Look...I know you feel that many on this board are ...how shall I say....less than genteel toward you, OK?

But there is a reason for that!

It is clear to even the casual observer that you often post without thinking things through and/or without thinking of the possible fallout. It's called being circumspect.

Hey...I do it too on occasion, but when I have made a glaring error and it is shown to me that I have, I correct it. If I post a thread that is inappropriate, I delete it. It isn't rocket science. It's common sense and good manners

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the subject matter of this thread. I use E-cigs and the simple fact is, there is no more residual downwind "second hand vapor" from those devices than there is from a home vaporizer. What is exhaled dissipates almost immediately, leaving little to no odor at all. BUT.... I said I wasn't going to post on it (so much for that) and I am NOT TRYING TO DIVERT ANYTHING!

I am merely pointing out to you the same thing another pointed out to you on a previous thread, to wit;

YOU ARE SPELLING THE TERM INCORRECTLY! Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Why is it that you repeatedly demonstrate an inability or a complete unwillingness to correct glaring mistakes that many, MANY other members have pointed out on various threads? Why is it you profess hands on experience in so many subjects that you clearly do not understand? Never mind. I don't really care.

I generally do not post in your large opinion threads because you tend to invite piling on, and the job is being done sufficiently without my help.

If you feel that you are having too rough of a time on DU, perhaps it is time for you to move on. But, as I said above, you do as you please and continue to mangle the English language to your hearts content.

I will not say another word.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Hence why I do not post that often any more

I felt strongly about this. But for the most part. I use my blog.

Yup, the crew has mostly silenced me. And when even sourced material, to the nth degree is attacked.

Look, the problem many have on this board is that I have an education, a varied life experience. I am a woman, an immigrant no less, and yes, I have strong opinions.

People have used the spell nanny tactic for decades now.


But people here have questioned my life experience. the fact of what I do these days, or the fact that yes, we have won awards for what we do.

As I said, a lot of it is envy. I cannot change people. But for the most part, except for this, I won't post much. And in fact, I have yet to post a link to any recent story we have covered. I shan't

[sad-cafe]

193. hum, what degree do you have?

I have a Master's plus, my better half does too. Son in laws and daughters all college graduates.

We are world wide travelers ...half are men and half are women ALL have strong opinions.

Care to deflect more?

there is no envy...none at all.

[Brother Buzz]

197. She has a masters in history (SDSU) along with a bunch of other stuff

Interesting, envy seems to be a reoccurring theme (read toward the bottom). Oh, but to be a fly on the wall when Jung and Freud compare notes....

<snip>
I was a first responder, trained in confined space, not in hazmat, became familiar with hazmat due to nature of the job, you are claiming more

I was an instructor, was behind the formation of a a school, you got a problem with that?

I ran my own gaming company for a while, you got trouble with that?

I am a,axed at how many things you have said I do

I am a reporter at present, with media card and everything.

My sister is a registered dietitian...amazing.

My husband is a postal worker, and I fully support the postal service

I am a published author, like it or not.

I also hold a masters in history.

Chiefly I see you are having the same issue a kid had in college...mostly envy. You too can learn shit. You might have heard if these things called books...read them from time to time before burning them. In the words of a famous American Historian, you must be an anti intellectual.
<more>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2738204

[sad-cafe]

198. wow

such importance

[sad-cafe]

195. if I thought the jury would do its job, I would alert

calling DUers stupid and saying we are all jealous because we disagree with your position is just wrong

[pintobean]

206. Number of posts, last 90 days: 2860

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=127191

Hence why I do not post that often any more

You keep saying that, and your post count keeps climbing.

As I said, a lot of it is envy

I don't think so.

[zappaman]

212. 128 OPs in the last 30 days

Sure glad she doesn't post here any more.

[Brother Buzz]

245. Does 'This message was self-deleted by its author' count as an OP?

[zappaman]

246. Yes.

Yes it does.

[sad-cafe]

244. wow, you are a well-rounded woman

Ambulance Power Washer and Disinfector
Arc Explainer
Author
Auto Mechanic
Barista
Black belt in Google-Fu
Blast Analysist Expert
Body Recovery Person
Bouncy-maker
Chicken Coop Attendant
Climatologist with specialization in very catastrophic catastrophes
Code Cracker
Coffee machine expert
Combat medic
Combat veteran
Community organizer, riot division
Cop
Crime Reporter
Decontamination Specialist
Diesel mechanic
Disaster preparedness consultant
Disaster recovery specialist
Dispatcher
Dressage
Drill Sergeant
Early childhood development
Earthquake Prep Specialist Before and After
Egyptian politics expert
Election fraud expert
Emergency medical technician
Emergency triage expert
Emergency Vehicle Operator
Epidemiologist
Expert Economist
Expert on Experts
Expert on Fiscal Policy
Expert on the nuances of Hacking
Expert on Japanese suicide customs
Expert on milk exposed to radiation from nuclear reactor meltdowns
Expert on Police Code
Expert script reader
Expert trend spotter
Expert on Victim Psychology
Film Critic
Fire Arms Expert
Firefighter
Foreign prison custody rights expert
Friend of former submarine captain
Full-time MSNBC viewer
Geologist
High Level Fencer
Historian – US and World
History of labor unions
Hollywood talent scout
Home appliance technician
Horse Trailer Expert
Humanitarian Worker
Hurricane preparedness expert
Infrastructure/Electrical expert
Inner city youth servicer
Inspectress
Intelligence analyst
International finance expert
International medical billing specialist
Jeep Test Driver
Lead programmer for MS Word with specialization in spelling and grammar algorithms
Macro-scale political and social trends analyst
Magazine Critic
Metereologist
Nooz Bunny
Nuclear physicist
Nuclear power plant engineer
Peace activist
Peaceful union marcher
Peak oil forecaster
Phallus inspector/tester
Philanthropist
Photographer
Physiologist
Political Reporter
Political strategist
Pyrotechnic Specialist
Queen of comical malaprops
Rapeller
Reporter for the OWS Movement
Rubicon Crosser
Rubicon Cruiser
Saved the world from radiation poison
Script Reader
Sharia Law Consultant
Simulation gaming expert
Sociologist
Survivalist
Theologist with specialty in dominionism and fundamental Christian values
Tipping point detector
Toy soldier player and collector
Trend Spotter
Volunteer Firefighter
Weapons expert
World class Googler
World traveler

[tammywammy]

194. And down the rabbit hole you go.

If Nadin posts "attorney generals" then the correct spelling from now on is "attorney generals" damnit. She knows everything and how dare you try and correct her.

For a supposedly college educated person and a "journalist" to boot you'd think she'd appreciate the heads up, so she wouldn't look stupid in the future. Alas, in Nadin's world you're just a bully and attacker and off with your head (i.e. off to the iggy list you go!).

[A HERETIC I AM]

196. LOL....yes, I suppose you're right.

How foolish of me.

I'm so ashamed.

[SirRevolutionary]

201. I earned a spot on that list the other day

by simply pointing out scientific studies Now I realize the error of my opposing ways. I will be assimilated...

[sad-cafe]

192. 10000%

this!

[Kali]

159. credibility?

this person asserted that damaged wind turbine parts could fly more than a mile and that "leaking" voltage from them caused coyotes to be electrocuted and climb trees to escape the shocks.

[pintobean]

166. Apparently, she works for the AP now.

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024646081#post55

[maddezmom]

167. Interesting link

Being around someone that is vaping gave the OP an asthma attack, yet has no problems covering fires. Odd that.

[Brother Buzz]

171. That's Unpossible!

[zappaman]

168. Good lord. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

68. I just read the article you wrote on yesterday's meeting.

The expert who testified about them being marketed to kids is a fourth grade teacher.

SUPER convincing.

[frustrated_lefty]

70. And it's amazing

how many of the experts quoted in articles like those cited are "smoking cessation experts" who have a direct conflict of interest when it comes to talking about devices which invalidate their means of livelihood.

[tammywammy]

71. shocking.

[zappaman]

76. Well, that is shocking.

I'd say more, but not for here.

[Brickbat]

91. As I said in the other thread...

...a lobbyist's dream.

[tammywammy]

74. Your use of a picture of a cigarette when discussing vaping is disingenuous.

I would expect a reporter to not be so misleading.

[sad-cafe]

85. still waiting to see the pictures marketing them to kids

haven't seen any yet

[Liberal Veteran]

86. Don't hold you breath (unless, of course someone is vaping 10 feet away from you).

[Major Nikon]

89. Processed sugar is marketed to kids in all sorts of ways

And unlike e-cigs there actually is a considerable amount of evidence that links cause and effect to actual health concerns.

So while people are going apey over e-cigs the elephant is shitting on the rug.

[sad-cafe]

90. I agree

expert journos should cover that

[pipoman]

93. I posted the other day about

Pot that looks like candy. ..exactly like common candy..I believe this increases the chances of a child taking it either through not knowing, a kids prank, or just because it is attractive to kids. Further you can't get much closer to marketing to kids than shaping it like gummy worms..

[frazzled]

95. If you really care about the kids, worry about ...

GUNS ... which are the 2nd leading cause of death (quickly becoming first) among young people aged 15-24. Guns are being marketed to kids in everything from magazines to the movies.

Or worry about the sale and advertising of ALCOHOL, which young people consume all the time, and which can also lead to sudden death, especially in automobile accidents. Alcohol is marketed to kids with flavored drinks.

E-cigarettes are about a zillionth on the list of things I'd worry about my kids getting hold of. Even if they did, it wouldn't alter their mental states or cause them to die in an accident or be shot to death or to make poor decisions.

Please, let's put our efforts in to getting some regulations on gun sales rather than worrying about bullshit, unimportant stuff like this.

[Eleanors38]

123. Be careful that you don't run into dubious science with other reg schemes.

[frazzled]

125. No bad science regarding gun deaths

It's a fact. Second highest cause of death among young people, and on the rise to become first. There's nothing to dispute those statistics, which were widely publicized.

[Eleanors38]

204. So, what do you do with them?

[SidDithers]

121. This thread is all kinds of awesome...

Sid

[JNelson6563]

129. Isn't it though?

[Romulox]

130. Drug Warriors just *will not* give up the fight for anything. So, we find a new bugaboo. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. You are right

Since second hand smoke is just a conspiracy, and second hand vaping is under research.

Yup. You are right, they are so safe smokers should be allowed near pregnant mothers and delivery rooms.



And given the vaping devices contain heavy metals. We also need them there. And no, we really do not need anybody with degrees in public health, biochemistry, chemistry telling us why things are dangerous!!! Bring me some snake oil.

Look. Smoke at your home, vape at home, the rest of us would like clean air.

[maddezmom]

143. So it isn't just about protecting the children

Hmmm, surprise, surprise!

[Romulox]

147. If your argument requires such bizarre straw men, then what have you accomplished here?

What a lame way of "argument". I've lost respect for you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. I took your statement to

It's logical conclusion

[Romulox]

160. "Logical conclusion" my eye. You made something up, then attributed it to me. Lame. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

170. Whatever dude

[Romulox]

148. BTW--I'm an ex-smoker, since 2002. Never touched an "e-cigarette". nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. I am glad for you

And wish you not ever smoking again.

It is not easy to quit.

:thumbup:

[Marr]

156. The effects of nicotine are well understood.

What you're talking about is literally akin to demanding delays in climate legislation because the 'science isn't in'.

[LordGlenconner]

136. After the vapor menace has been dealt with

I hope the problem of rogue wind turbine blades is dealt with swiftly and comprehensively.

[Brother Buzz]

138. And there is emerging science to say these devices cause cancer

[Liberal Veteran]

139. Until the science is complete, air turbines should be banned.

It's the only way to be sure.

[maddezmom]

142. Yes, the electric bolts of lightening or something

[zappaman]

141. I have seen coyotes screaming and trying to climb trees.

We need to ban these things and ban them now!!!

[Codeine]

158. I saw the best canids of my generation destroyed by turbines,

screaming climbing howling,
dragging themselves across the electrical ground at dawn looking for a sailing blade,
canine-headed screamsters burning for the ancient sparky connection to the electron-leaking dynamo in the machinery of wind

[zappaman]

162. !!!

[Sissyk]

146. The science is not in.

Until studies prove otherwise, they are 80% better than cigs in my book.

Regulate by age. That's enough.

[Marr]

155. This is just embarrassing.

Nicotine is addictive, but harmless. It's the hook that keeps people attached to tobacco, however-- and tobacco is incredibly harmful. If you can provide the addicted person nicotine on it's own, it can make giving up tobacco much easier.

Just because a few uninformed legislators are willing to crusade against e cigs doesn't mean their crusade is reasonable. There just isn't any science to support the alarms, and in fact, the science would be very much in favor of e cigs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. Nicotine is harmless... heard all now

http://www.browndailyherald.com/2012/03/09/nicotine-itself-may-threaten-cardiovascular-health/

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1121737

And a more popular source

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health/nicotine-e-cigarettes/

[Marr]

175. In comparison to tobacco, it's *nothing*.

You're talking about possible relatively minor side effects for a product that can help people segue off a truly deadly substance; tobacco.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. The jury is still out on that statement

and until we have actual clinical trials, under regulated conditions...

[Marr]

178. The jury is most certainly NOT out on whether nicotine is more dangerous than tobacco.

Tobacco is far more dangerous than nicotine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. Well, then... I guess we should just consider them safe as unicorns

Yup. I have heard everything.

While they are safer than tobacco, they are NOT safe by any stretch.

Or I missed all the clinical studies showing this. (Hint, they have yet to be done)

[Marr]

186. You want to do what with e cigs? Ban them? Keep them out of public spaces? What?

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. None is calling for a ban

but since the industry insists in them being treated as tobacco products, they should.

If they want to market them as smoking cessation devices, I want the clinical studies. So does the World Health Organization and our own regulatory agencies. When they win a lawsuit agains the FDA to be treated like tobacco products, which exempts them from all those wonderful safety and efficacy studies. well then. Let's treat them as such.

For the record have cigs been banned? I missed that.

[phleshdef]

228. Nothing is totally harmless. But its about on par with caffeine, in and of itself.

Caffeine by the way, based on research, has pretty much the same downsides as the articles you posted. Compared to all the things we can stick in our body drug wise, nicotine by itself, is pretty low on the list of things to worry about.

[Kali]

163. kids mimic what adults do

I'd rather they vape than smoke.

Hysterical posts conflating smoking with vaping shows a very poor understanding of either practice and further erodes the little credibility you have left regarding science. Or journalism.

[aikoaiko]

164. I miss smoking American Spirit

[IMG][/IMG]

[zappaman]

165. My friends who still smoke, all smoke this brand.

Why is that?
Is the flavor different?
Is it because of the less nasty shit in it?

[aikoaiko]

180. I think its the no additives thing mostly. They seemed smoother to me.

At least in comparison to Marlboro red.

[HockeyMom]

179. No, it not about CHILDREN

It is about CONTROLLING adults and using children as pawns to get at adults. If it was so, why not round up all the unvaccinated children and against their parents wishes, MAKE THEM be vaccinnated? Ban all fast food, junk food, and anything the health police considers harmful to to children?

They just are USING children as their excuse. Sob, sob, sob.

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. So you think CDC is wrong and they made that up? Or for that matter researchers at places like UCSF?

Never mind...

Though you got a minor point. It is about controlling a revenue stream to an industry that has a history of targeting minors and it is at it again.

[fascisthunter]

183. Hi Nadin... I think you Opened up a Good Discussion

For what it's worth... kick and rec.

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Thanks, I think we need to discuss this in depth.

[fascisthunter]

188. I'm addicted to Nicotine

and while it's my own choice, I think anything addicting should at least be discussed. It's not as if it is going to be banned... I just know it's a substance that has a real grip on me, and hope young people stay clear away from the stuff.

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. My dad could never quit

my brother (RIP) managed to, and he still had serious effects from his decades of smoking.

I wish you the best if you try to quit. I know it is not easy.

But from the tone of some posters, you'd think we want to ban it.

[fascisthunter]

191. Yeah, the Tone Does Makeme Think That

I know it's not what you are saying, and thanks for the sentiment.

[DirkGently]

199. Your links don't say what you suggest they do.

This is not a well-thought out argument, Nadine.

- Your link about "Angry Birds" cozies being a lure to children goes to a website covered in "We will not sell to minors" messages, and even a graphic showing Angry Birds is most appealing to people 35 and older.

- Your "Professor Gantz" study indicates users of e-cigarettes are largely smokers trying to quit, not kids taking up nicotine for the first time.

- Your link to an article suggesting the e-cig industry agreeing to a ban on sales to minors is a "red flag" is from people who want to impose tobacco taxes and other restrictions across the board, to treat e-cigs exactly like cigarettes. Tobacco taxes? Why?

The bigger problem with what you are saying is that you link everything to cigarette smoking, as if vaping / e-cigs is somehow the same thing. It's not. Nicotine and nicotine addiction are a separate issue, with a separate set of possible health concerns. There is no indication it is becoming a special problem with young children, or that manufacturers are trying to sell them to children, or that it will somehow turn out that people inhaling water vapor and nicotine is just the same as inhaling sticky particles of chemical-soaked plant material.

Vaping, or e-cigs, are not smoking. They are not another form of smoking. There is no flood of science pouring in suggesting that vaping could ever possibly turn out to be as harmful to health as smoking. That's not the same as "safe" or "harmless." But it is a different issue from people putting particles of burned tobacco onto their lung tissue, which is the actual problem with smoking.

TWO. DIFFERENT. THINGS.

Get past that, and there's probably plenty to talk about, but as is, this OP is not making its point well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. I am sure you will tell that to CDC that is also making those claims

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024658422

Look, it is this simple. The industry wants to claim it is a smoking cessation device, I want the clinical trials.

If they are not willing to do that since they say they are a tobacco product, then they have to be regulated as tobacco

[DirkGently]

202. I think everyone is in favor of safety testing. It's just not

the "same as smoking" conspiracy to hook children I think your OP implies. And there is no basis to treat a product that does not involve the ingestion of tobacco as a tobacco product. The entire value of this thing, on the market and otherwise, is that it is NOT SMOKING.

It's a different thing, and it is already a huge harm reducer for smokers. It should be tested for safety and kept from children. It doesn't need to be taxed to make it vastly more expensive, or preemptively banned under the same principles as banning smoking, because it isn't smoking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. Again, go argue with CDC

on that very point.

[DirkGently]

205. I don't think the CDC backs you up in the slightest.

The most you can get out of those links you're pointing out is a concern that "What if people keep smoking, and use e-cigs as well?"

So, that would be doing a more harmful thing and a less harmful thing. Okay?

That doesn't add up to more harm, nor does it back up your seeming claim that e-cigs are being marketed to kids.

[nadinbrzezinski]

207. Ok, you don't think so

that's ok.

We disagree.

I think the increased rate of youth using these things does, but that is just me, but that is ok.

What can you do? People can disagree when they are shown the exact same document. For the record, I posted the whole thing since otherwise people would make charges.

[Liberal Veteran]

208. Could the "increased rate" be as simple as "it didn't exist 10 years ago"?

Could it be that if they existed 20 years ago, we'd be seeing an increase today, a plateau, or a decrease? Anything fairly new on the market is likely to show an increase of the short-term across many demographics.

Things have to be looked at in context.

[nadinbrzezinski]

209. And Health Authorities are worried.

And science is what they are using. Look. if they want to be considered smoke cessation devices, I WANT THE BLOODY TESTING.

If they claim they are safe in enclosed spaces testing, I WANT THE BLOODY TESTING.

Sorry, I want that science.


And for the moment what regulators are doing is appropriate given the industry did not want to be treated like anything but tobacco, to avoid the testing and oversight

[Liberal Veteran]

210. When was the last time "Health Authorities" weren't worried about something?

Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

1. E-cigs are a growing market.
2. Science hasn't reached a consensus on the long-term safety of e-cigs, although most studies indicate they are likely much safer than cigarettes though now they are hashing out by what order of magnitude.
3. Health Authorities™ see an increase in minors who have used e-cigs once in the last 30 days (per the CDC).
4. Your job as a Health Authority™ is to look at emerging trends and report on them.

Logically, if you don't raise concerns and the worst happens (e-cigs cause spontaneous vagina dentata in men or something with long-term use), who are they going to point the finger at?

Succinctly, a lot of the worry is based on unknowns than knowns (as well as some well-deserved mistrust of Big Tobacco that is a late player to the game on this).

[zappaman]

211. "e-cigs cause spontaneous vagina dentata in men"?

Note to self: cancel order for an e-cig.

[Liberal Veteran]

214. I was rather proud of that phrase.

[nadinbrzezinski]

213. Look, I want that testing

you might want to make light of it, but I want it.

I guess you also do not want us to jump over the CO2 emissions and do something about that either.

If the industry wants to be treated as tobacco (like they sued the FDA to be treated as) then don't complaint when smoking bans are extended to them. You can't have it both ways. Which is exactly what they are trying to do.

[krawhitham]

216. -1

[Liberal Veteran]

217. I rather like the "gateway to smoking tobacco cigarettes" myth.

That one just flies in the face of any kind of logic I have ever heard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. So actual research flies in the face of actual logic

I knew it... science is bunk! We should also forget about climate change, medical research, vaccines, do not turn on your light switch.

[PeaceNikki]

221. Are you kidding me? Check your sources, reporter!

Do you even read the links you post? Or the comments on them?

One of the studies you cite had 32 participants. 32. THIRTY-TWO.

Many are authored by a well known junk scientist.

And yes, cops lie. A lot.

So so attorneys. And Attorneys General (please note the proper pluralization there)

And no, politicians are not scientists.

And no, the CDC does not support your stance.

And show us examples of US companies actively marketing to minors. Show us. The Angry Birds jacket cover doesn't count. Or count it if you must, but show me another. It shouldn't be that hard if it's as widespread as you claim. Or exists.

[Liberal Veteran]

222. I don't mind science. Bad science on the other hand is another story.

Bad science reporting is even worse (not naming any names).

“While the cross-sectional nature of our study does not allow us to identify whether most youths are initiating smoking with conventional cigarettes and then moving on to (usually dual use of) e-cigarettes or vice versa, our results suggest that e-cigarettes are not discouraging use of conventional cigarettes,” the authors said.

Or put another way: It could be that tobacco cigarettes are leading to e-cig usage or e-cig usage is leading tobacco cigarettes. We just don't know because our study doesn't address that.

Or put in the hands of bad science reporting: E-cigs are leading youth to smoke tobacco cigarettes!

Or to use your own CDC report from earlier: Conventional tobacco cigarette usage among high-school students fell 1.8% while e-cig usage in the same group grew 1.3%.

If e-cigs were the gateway to conventional tobacco, tobacco would be GROWING in relation to e-cig usage rather than falling.

Fucking math! How does it work?

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. But we have now research that proves you wrong

and I agree on the bad science. Some of what has been posted here is from pro industry sites.

Sorry, the industry wanted to be treated as tobacco, they cannot have it both ways.

And please try not to misrepresent the Centers for Disease Control here

The percentage of U.S. middle and high school students who use electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, more than doubled from 2011 to 2012, according to data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The findings from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, in today’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, show that the percentage of high school students who reported ever using an e-cigarette rose from 4.7 percent in 2011 to 10.0 percent in 2012. In the same time period, high school students using e-cigarettes within the past 30 days rose from 1.5 percent to 2.8 percent. Use also doubled among middle school students. Altogether, in 2012 more than 1.78 million middle and high school students nationwide had tried e-cigarettes.

or other health authorities. I am no expert, I am proof positive you are not either. So who do you trust does become a serious issue. I trust the CDC, the World Health Organization, the FDA, and researchers are mainstream sites like UCSF. And once more, if the industry wants to be treated like tobacco (to avoid FDA regulation) then do not be too shocked when they are treated as such.

[Liberal Veteran]

232. The FDA question is irrelevant to discussion of e-cigs being a gateway to tobacco cigs.

The chart shows current tobacco cigarette usage among high school students went from 15.8% in 2011 to 14% in 2012. That appears to be -1.8%.

The very same part of that chart, shows current e-cig usage among high school students went from 1.5% in 2011 to 2.8% in 2012. That appears to be +1.3%.

So, how does one extrapolate that e-cigs are causing an increase in tobacco cigarette usage when e-cigs are going UP and tobacco cigarettes are going DOWN?

Is this some kind of new math?

[nadinbrzezinski]

233. No that is the CDC saying that

together with research from scientists at places like UCSF.

You might want to disagree... and you do. And call it any cute names you want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

224. And let me add this for you, on the FDA vs the industry

Last year the FDA lost a court case after it tried to treat e-cigarettes as drug-delivery devices, which must satisfy stricter requirements than tobacco products, including clinical trials to prove they are safe and effective. FDA tests found that the liquid in some e-cigarettes contained toxins besides nicotine, as well as cancer-causing substances found in tobacco, the AP reported. Some public health experts say the level of the cancer-causing agents is similar to those found in nicotine replacement therapy, which contains nicotine extracted from tobacco.

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/government/fda-plans-to-regulate-e-cigarettes-as-tobacco-products-not-drug-delivery-devices

[Liberal Veteran]

226. So, the FDA approved cancer causing nicotine replacement therapy?

Or shall we say, e-cigs contain about as much cancer causing agents as Nicoderm or Nicorette (which could mean trace to copious amounts)?

The whole FDA regulating e-cigs the same as tobacco or as drug delivery devices is completely irrelevant to the sub-thread we are discussing about e-cigs being a gateway to traditional cigarette usage.

Try to stay focused, would you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

227. You do understand the difference in delivery methods

that I know, and in pharmacology it does make a difference.

You also know these devices have not been tested yet. That is where they balked... they would have had to do CLINICAL TRIALS

[Liberal Veteran]

234. So, 10-15 years of clinical trials. From 2009 that puts a release date of 2019-2024.

I wonder how many people would still be smoking tobacco that aren't now thanks to e-cigs in that time? How many in that time could get cancer, heart disease, copd?

Your concern over a possible and as yet unproven harm caused by e-cigs is more important to you than the KNOWN harm smoking tobacco causes?

Really?

[nadinbrzezinski]

235. I am sorry, if you do not understand why those trials are needed

if they want to call them CESSATION DEVICES... they need to go though the regulatory process.

If this is not done, all these success stories (while real to the person), are nothing more and nothing less than anecdotal data. and they will be treated as tobacco product, which if they were delivery devices, they would not face all the limits that come from being a tobacco product.

They cannot have it both ways.

And yes, I will tell my local officials, that they are doing the right thing. I want those smoke bans. I really do not want to go to a coffee shop and have to be bothered by somebody vaping, nor to a restaurant, etcetera.

[Liberal Veteran]

236. We already have a Nicotrol inhaler on the market. (Gasp FDA approved inhaled nicotine?)

Propylene Glycol is already approved by the FDA for inhalers (and bunch of other things).

That pretty much leaves 1 ingredient to e-juice. Food quality flavor. (Some of which are approved for inhalers like the menthol in Nicotrol).

Since it has been established that adding the three together doesn't magically transform it into Radon gas or cyanide (given that the exhaled breath of vapers contain pretty much the same thing exhaled breath of non-vapers with the exception of trace amounts of nicotine).

Someone is doing some fear-mongering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

237. You can have your views

mine are going to be directed by the people who have degrees in public health for example.

You have a good day.

At least you did not get insulting and for that I thank you.

[sad-cafe]

242. so tell me, are you trained in pharmacology as well?

wow, your resume list must be impressive

[phleshdef]

229. A quality e-cig tastes better than smoking a real cig.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. Out of these shocking myths, a few of them have not been properly tested

nor does the industry intends to let it happen. They want to be treated as tobacco, they will be regulated as tobacco. They will not have it both ways.

[sad-cafe]

231. so you continue to ignore all REALITY based facts

and personal sources.

Hokay then, please proceed