Sign in to follow this  
Sol Rosenberg

Banning Vaping?

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

That study came about because of the Newtown massacre, there weren't any Republicans with balls big enough to protest and make an issue of it. Even you and Tom were silent, as far as I can recall.

I recall my actions a bit better than you, much like I quote what people actually said a bit better, and recall noting that research was not banned and was occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I recall my actions a bit better than you, much like I quote what people actually said a bit better, and recall noting that research was not banned and was occurring.

I doubt that. The CDC at the conclusion of that study said results were inconclusive because they had lost so many personnel who were valuable to fact interpretation. If you have actual quotes to counter this position, I would enjoy reading them, otherwise, it's the same as Fox News propaganda.

 

"A report released in January 2013 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (PDF, 2MB), founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget. The CDC’s online guide for grants funded by the agency’s Injury Control Research Centers currently includes a section titled Prohibition of Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities, which states that “In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.” 

Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.” In response to this report, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter (PDF, 647) in March 2011 to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a “preferred position,” and urging that the NRA not be given the opportunity to exercise special influence over CDC’s firearms-related research.

In December 2011, Congress added language equivalent to the Dickey amendment to fiscal year 2012 appropriations legislation that funded the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (PDF, 1.3MB), stating that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” The NRA’s advocacy efforts that lead to this amendment are thought to be a response to a 2009 American Journal of Public Health article by Branas et al., titled “Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault,” presenting the results of research that was funded by the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism."

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
42 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I recall my actions a bit better than you, much like I quote what people actually said a bit better, and recall noting that research was not banned and was occurring.

I doubt that. The CDC at the conclusion of that study said results were inconclusive because they had lost so many personnel who were valuable to fact interpretation. If you have actual quotes to counter this position, I would enjoy reading them, otherwise, it's the same as Fox News propaganda.

The original thread in which I posted the referenced comment appears to have fallen victim to one of the purges, but yes, my recollection and ability to source it remains better than yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 1:23 AM, Shortforbob said:

um..yeah. That's why all "illicit drugs" should be decriminalised...or..even legalised.

He called me pasty faced and told me to die slowly. I hate hate hate self righteous anti smoking "warriors" even more than people that rant about recycling slip printer paper...(don't ask :rolleyes:

 

On 9/12/2019 at 6:51 AM, Repastinate Tom said:

What do you think of methadone for heroin addicts?

I think that Fentanyl should be legalized and Narcan should be outlawed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Repastinate Tom said:

The original thread in which I posted the referenced comment appears to have fallen victim to one of the purges, but yes, my recollection and ability to source it remains better than yours.

 

LOL, Right. That will fly, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, badlatitude said:

That study came about because of the Newtown massacre, there weren't any Republicans with balls big enough to protest and make an issue of it. Even you and Tom were silent, as far as I can recall.

I wasn't silent, I praised the study IIRC.  I quoted it numerous times.  I still do.  I think we should have done more of them and still do.  But it had nothing to do with lack of ballz.  It had to do with something very specific the study did not do that is the key to staying within the law.  Can you guess what it was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I wasn't silent, I praised the study IIRC.  I quoted it numerous times.  I still do.  I think we should have done more of them and still do.  But it had nothing to do with lack of ballz.  It had to do with something very specific the study did not do that is the key to staying within the law.  Can you guess what it was?

I'm sure you will inform us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Jerry Brown Jr., Governor Gruesome Newsom:

Newsom vowed to work with California lawmakers to craft a “strong tobacco reform package” when legislators return in 2020.

The governor’s action came a few days after the Legislature adjourned for the year without acting on a bill by Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced) that would have increased fines for anyone selling tobacco products, including those for electronic cigarettes, to people under age 21. Gray decided to delay action on his measure until next year so he can explore adding a tax to the bill, a spokesman said.

 

They don't really want to FIX the problem, only find another way to TAX it!  This will just lead to more Black Market product!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2019 at 3:42 PM, silent bob said:

They don't really want to FIX the problem, only find another way to TAX it!  This will just lead to more Black Market product!

And the problem appears to be mostly, if not exclusively, with black market products. Surprise, they're worse.

But that's not headline material.
 

Quote

 

...the Times finally offers this clarification: "Though the specific substance or product causing the vaping illnesses remains unclear, the New York State Department of Health has linked many cases of the illness to cannabis products that contain high levels of vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent for vaping liquid. Vitamin E acetate is now a key focus of the department's inquiry." (Emphasis added.) What does banning flavored e-cigarettes have to do with symptoms that seem to be caused by additives in black-market cannabis products? Absolutely nothing, but that is not the impression readers will get from this story.

Cuomo says he will continue to allow the sale of tobacco- and menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, because (as the Times puts it) "some data suggests that those menthol products could assist in helping people to stop smoking traditional cigarettes." The data actually indicate that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as alternatives such as nicotine gum and patches. The data also show that the flavors Cuomo plans to ban, which he portrays as part of an insidious plot to hook "children and underage youth" on nicotine, are the ones favored by the vast majority of adults who used to smoke and are now vaping instead.

The FDA, the agency that is now planning to ban the vast majority of nicotine vaping products, has itself acknowledged the enormous harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes. Former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb, whose concerns about underage vaping led the agency down this road, described e-cigarettes as a "tremendous public health opportunity." In its haste to deter teenagers from using e-cigarettes, the government is on the verge of squandering that opportunity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in Unitary Executive news...

E-Cigarette Restrictions Raise a Question: Can Governors Unilaterally Ban Products They Don't Like?
 

Quote

 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) this week announced that he plans to impose an "emergency" ban on e-cigarettes in flavors other than tobacco and menthol. Like the recent decision by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to impose a similar ban in her state, Cuomo's move is based on an alarmingly broad understanding of a governor's authority to prohibit products in the name of "public health" without new legislation.

Cuomo's plan involves convening the New York State Public Health and Health Planning Council, which has the power to "amend and repeal sanitary regulations" with the approval of the health commissioner, who is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. Those sanitary regulations may "deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York."

That is a potentially sweeping mandate, encompassing not just traditional public health threats such as pollution and communicable diseases but anything people do that may affect their "life or health." In this case, Cuomo is asserting the authority to ban the vast majority of vaping products. But he could just as easily (and more plausibly) decide that conventional cigarettes, which are far more dangerous than e-cigarettes, should be banned. And under his reasoning, that move would not require legislative approval. Likewise with alcoholic beverages, highly caloric food, big sodas, fast cars, fireworks, guns, or any other product that may cause disease or injury.

 

Kite boards, for example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoking = 480,000 deaths per year.

Vaping = 6 deaths

And we're considering banning vaping?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Smoking = 480,000 deaths per year.

Vaping = 6 deaths

And we're considering banning vaping?

 

The argument is vaping today = smokers tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The argument is vaping today = smokers tomorrow.

 

Why not just ban smoking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Why not just ban smoking?

Banning vice is hard.  Making vice inconvenient and more expensive is easy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The danger with smoking is the smoke. The danger with vaping is the vapor.

With a vape, a food grade glycerine and/or glycol is boiled off the surface as mostly sub-micron particles that penetrate into the deepest parts of the alveolar region due to their small size. Unlike smoke, these have sufficiently low surface tension that they spread over the alveoli and then act as a barrier to water evaporation and oxygen absorption.

The result can be a condition that resembles pneumonia, but without the infection

I had a kid who vaped a relatively small amount, a few hits a day. She developed pneumonia-like symptoms that didn't respond to antibiotics or steroids. I urged her to stop. She resisted, because she smoked so little of the stuff compared to her friends. Her illness remained, she eventually quit, and her symptoms disappeared.

Some kids are more sensitive than others.

But the lungs emit a lot of water, it's how they keep an efficient oxygen transfer between the air and the blood barrier. When the oxygen is barricaded from getting in by a thin sheen of dried glycol and glycerine, the one quick fix is for the vape victim to double the amount of water that he or she drinks, to allow for increased water transpiration at the alveoli, which can help the oxygen transfer.

The second trick is to quit vaping, and switch to something less harmful.

The psychology of vape is dangerous. Kids who would never smoke perceive vape as less harmful, so they become addicted fast. Unlike tobacco, the nicotine isn't the main addictive agent, it's also the water in the vape juice. The kid feels the need to vape because the water temporarily relieves the oxygen deficiency. Nicotine-free vape juice is apparently addictive too because of the temporary fix that the water has over the glycol and/or glycerine. But the correct way is to ingest the water and hydrate from within.

The fundamental bait-and-switch with vape when they first hit the market is that the glycerine and glycol were sold as "food grade", which they were and are. But just because they are safe to ingest (which they are) doesn't mean that they are safe to inhale. The lungs are not a digestive organ.

I am quite sure that the vape industry knows the damage that their product does, and like the tobacco industry of yore, they are blinded by profits. One vape company is even pushing 21 year old minimum legislation, aware that it will likely make kids want it more, and also aware that their product is proven dangerous with younger users.

As a user, it's a weird feeling when your chest feels tight, you take a hit of vape and you suddenly feel better. Regardless the warnings, you get this undeniable feeling that the vape is healthy, because it relieves that tension. The tension is a byproduct of the delivery system, and yet, it FEELS right.

How can logic, science and legislation compete against a feeling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

And the problem appears to be mostly, if not exclusively, with black market products. Surprise, they're worse.

But that's not headline material.
 

 

Here, in the state of the Jerry Brown Bear (Kaliffuckistan), marijuana was legalized for recreational use.  Jerry, and his minions, placed high taxes on it.  The result is that legal weed is expensive, so few are buying it, so the tax revenue on it is a small fraction of what was expected.  Illegal weed is being grown and being smuggled into the state at record amounts.  Remember ‘Tax Stamps’ for weed?!  I think my father bought one, as a novelty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, lets ban vaping and smoking.  And there are a lot more corners in society that need to be padded as well to protect us from ourselves.  

We certainly don't have enough people on this planet, so we need to do everything we can to increase the population even more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibitionists want to censor truthful political speech. Again.

Quote

 

San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton, co-author of that city's pending ban on the sale of e-cigarettes, is complaining that the campaign for Proposition C, a Juul-backed 2019 ballot initiative that would overturn his ordinance, violates federal restrictions on commercial statements about vaping products. Walton's claim vividly shows how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suppresses truthful, nonmisleading statements about the nicotine products it regulates. He wants to take that censorship a step further, arguing that it should also apply to political speech that is unambiguously protected by the First Amendment.

...

The first thing to note about the statements to which Walton objects is that they happen to be true. In a recent interview with CBS News, David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at NYU, explained that studies of biomarkers in smokers who have switched to vaping find that they are exposed to far fewer hazardous substances, at far lower levels, than people who continue to smoke. "E-cigarettes are way less harmful than cigarettes," he said, "and they can and do help smokers switch if they can't quit."

Abrams also noted a randomized clinical study that found e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as other nicotine replacement products. Vaping "delivers nicotine in a very satisfying way without the major harms of burning tobacco," he said. "If we lose this opportunity, I think we will have blown the single biggest public health opportunity we've ever had in 120 years to get rid of cigarettes and replace them with a much safer form of nicotine."

The second thing to note about the statements Walton wants to suppress is that they are part of a political campaign, not commercial advertisements for Juul or any other specific product. While the FDA has scolded Juul for statements about the relative hazards of smoking and vaping in the context of presentations to high school students by company representatives, trying to restrict political speech is another matter.

 

Non-readers may have missed it, but as I said early in this thread, vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

The objectionable ads that must be censored are just people relating their life experiences that support that point of view.

A better answer than censorship would be discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

More unintended consequences from a hastily-declared "emergency"
 

Quote

 

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

If you ignore the enormous difference between the health risks posed by smoking and the health risks posed by vaping, it is easier to rationalize a policy that will deprive current and former smokers of an alternative that could save their lives. Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou Sudders implicitly acknowledges the impact the vaping ban will have on smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes or might be interested in doing so. "As a result of the public health emergency," she says, "the Commonwealth is implementing a statewide standing order for nicotine replacement products, like gum and patches, which will allow people to access these products as a covered benefit through their insurance without requiring an individual prescription."

 

As David Abrams noted in his CBS News interview, research indicates that e-cigarettes are nearly twice as effective in smoking cessation as those "nicotine replacement products." Many smokers who did not manage to quit with "gum and patches" were able to do so with e-cigarettes. By ignoring that reality, Massachusetts pretends that its vaping ban will improve public health when in fact it is apt to result in more smoking-related diseases and deaths as former smokers return to a much more hazardous habit and current smokers are deterred from quitting.

"Massachusetts has made significant progress over the past two decades in curbing youth and adult tobacco use," the governor's press release notes. "In 1996, the youth smoking rate was 36.7%. Today, the youth smoking rate is 6.4%. The adult smoking rate is also low, with just under 14% of adults using combustible tobacco products." These downward trends not only continued as vaping became more common; they accelerated, suggesting that e-cigarettes are replacing a far more dangerous source of nicotine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 4:21 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Prohibitionists want to censor truthful political speech. Again.

Non-readers may have missed it, but as I said early in this thread, vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

The objectionable ads that must be censored are just people relating their life experiences that support that point of view.

A better answer than censorship would be discussion.

And you know that how, Normy? The same type of 1950s profit-motivated junk science that said smoking was safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 2:21 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

vaping is safer than smoking and helps smokers to quit.

Based on what science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Is that how you view the American Cancer Society?

The American Cancer Society isn't a human doing research, it's a nonprofit corporation.

So, in your own, link-free words, how do you know that vape is safer than smoke?

We have some sixty years of research and thousands of clinical studies that link smoke and air pollution to cardiovascular disease, how many years and studies do you know that establish the relative safety of inhaling glycerine and propylene glycol?

And before this scientific issue becomes political, I am not in favor of banning vape, nor smoke, nor raising the age of consumption of these products. I am interested in the perception of vapor being a less harmful alternative to smoke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Based on what science?

The science the vaping industry paid for, duh.\

Vaping may, or may not, be better than cigarettes but you'd have to be a tomballs sized moron to thing the kiddies are all vaping to stop smoking or even to argue that. I don't think Phillip Morris bought 35% of JUUL because they want to help people quit smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure its so uncontrolled and with so much bootleg off brand stuff showing up nobody has any idea what there vaping ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The consumption of vape is different than smoke, kids charge up their Juul et al., with the USB port on their computer, hey, it's a USB device, how dangerous could that be? And then they vape indoors, in bed, in school, often without detection by teachers and parents, it's mostly odorless.

Unlike tobacco, they can hit their vape whenever they get that little tickle in their lungs, no need to head outside, or to a designated spot, or even open the window. Some experts can even just "tap" the Juul so that there is no visible vapor, and then do it in planes, classrooms and elevators where tobacco has been banned for over thirty years.

It's remarkable to see the ingenuity and resourcefulness of an addict.

And while all of this happens, the vape industry played us all like a skilled magician, by distracting us to look at what the vapor contains, the nicotine and the relative purity of the concentrate compared to tobacco. But we didn't think to look at the actual vape carrier itself, the food-grade glycerine and glycol that users inhale into their lungs.

But wait, the glycerine and glycol is food grade, FDA approved, what danger is that?

The glycerine and glycol is food grade when INGESTED, but I challenge anyone to cite a study that shows the relative safety of INHALING a vaporized Twinkie and a bag a Cheetos, let alone glycerine and glycol that are expertly vaporized into a cloud of monomodal accumulation mode particulates easily capable of penetrating the alveolar region and even the blood barrier itself.

But vape must be safer than smoke because someone on the internet told us that vape is safer than smoke. So yeah, how could we not trust that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tommays said:

Pretty sure its so uncontrolled and with so much bootleg off brand stuff showing up nobody has any idea what there vaping ?

If vape was literally just the carrier, only glycol, glycerine and water, with 99.999% purity, I think it would still be just as harmful. Smoke particles sit on lung tissue, because they have high surface tension. But the vape carrier is the opposite, at body temperatures it has a low enough surface tension that it can spread over the alveoli and prevent oxygen and water transfer.

One really neat magic trick of the industry was in equating vape with medical inhalation from metered dose inhalers and nebulizers. That bamboozled us long enough, before we woke up and said, "uh, MDIs use CFCs as a carrier for the micronized powder, and nebulizers use water as the carrier, but vapes use ... WHAT THE FUCK, propylene glycol and glycerine?!?"

I have no idea how the FDA ever approved vaporized food additives for inhalation. The vape industry slid in under the wire before we knew what they were actually selling. And now the cat is out of the bag and there are some 50,000,000 vape addicts, the chance of science influencing policy is now mostly gone.

 

If someone wants to vape, they should vape. It's a cost to public health, but so is refined sugar. But I'm not comfortable with the idea of them thinking that it's safer than smoke with barely any data to support that. The official view of vape needs to immediately change to "we don't know yet, we need more time to discern the relative safety for people who have lung sensitivity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:
15 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Is that how you view the American Cancer Society?

The American Cancer Society isn't a human doing research, it's a nonprofit corporation.

So, in your own, link-free words, how do you know that vape is safer than smoke?

So is it a non-profit corporation that is emitting profit-motivated junk science in your view?

I'm not a doctor nor a public health professional but can consider their opinions and...

Quote

The harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes has been recognized by a wide range of public health agencies and organizations, including the FDA, the Royal College of Physicians, Public Health England, the American Cancer Society, and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In 2015, Public Health England said "best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes." Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is telling people that e-cigarettes pose the "same danger" as combustible cigarettes, a false premise that seems to be part of the logic underlying its ban.

Why are all those people trying to fool us and where's your evidence that they're motivated by profit and talking junk science? Where's the good science that's not motivated by profit on this? I mean in your own link-filled words, preferably edited for brevity in the link-free parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 12:27 PM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Here Is Why the Massachusetts Ban on Vaping Products Is Bad for Public Health

More unintended consequences from a hastily-declared "emergency"
 

There's actually one overriding issue and a convenient excuse.

1)  https://www.wcvb.com/article/teen-vaping-epidemic-is-newest-battlefield-in-war-against-nicotine-addiction/26186728#  

"Nearly half of Massachusetts high school students are vaping, more than three times the number of adults using e-cigarettes."

For whatever reason, Mass kids seem to like the vape and don't seem to have any problems getting the product, despite laws against selling to them.  And it's profitable:

The vape product market is estimated to be worth $22.6 billion, up from $4 billion just five years ago, Euromonitor International says.

I'll try and see if I can dig out the reference but NPR reported on Friday that the one commonality was that all of the people suffering lung illness had used products that they either didn't know or wouldn't admit where they got it (i.e, got it from a friend).  To use a drinking analogy, the current belief is that there's a bad batch of hootch out there that was made using some sketchy chemistry that's making its way around the country.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should absolutely ban vaping and the sale and distribution of all vaping tools.  There's no good use for it and if it saves just one child, it's worth it.  Right?

And while we're at it, let's ban guns too.  Because prohibition policies have proven to be effective in our country's history to stop an undesirable behavior.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There's actually one overriding issue and a convenient excuse.

1)  https://www.wcvb.com/article/teen-vaping-epidemic-is-newest-battlefield-in-war-against-nicotine-addiction/26186728#  

"Nearly half of Massachusetts high school students are vaping, more than three times the number of adults using e-cigarettes."

Yes, people will react to protect the cheeruns.

On 9/20/2019 at 4:43 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Former FDA chief Scott Gottlieb, whose concerns about underage vaping led the agency down this road, described e-cigarettes as a "tremendous public health opportunity." In its haste to deter teenagers from using e-cigarettes, the government is on the verge of squandering that opportunity.

With little effect and many unintended consequences. It's a prohibition tradition.

8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

I'll try and see if I can dig out the reference but NPR reported on Friday that the one commonality was that all of the people suffering lung illness had used products that they either didn't know or wouldn't admit where they got it (i.e, got it from a friend).  To use a drinking analogy, the current belief is that there's a bad batch of hootch out there that was made using some sketchy chemistry that's making its way around the country.

You won't have to try too hard if you just dig around in my posts in this thread. The vast majority of those (and maybe all, but prohibition makes getting people to tell the truth hard) with lung problems had been vaping "THC" products. Who knows what was in them but THC isn't water soluble and they have lung problems indicative of using oils as the carrying agent.

More unintended consequences from our stupid war on drugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually, someone will get around to GMO-ing broccoli and kale into having THC or Nicotine.  All the cool kids will be eating celery sticks...

:D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Because prohibition policies have proven to be effective in our country's history to stop an undesirable behavior.  

Is this you being unpredictably independent again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

So is it a non-profit corporation that is emitting profit-motivated junk science in your view?

I'm not a doctor nor a public health professional but can consider their opinions and...

Why are all those people trying to fool us and where's your evidence that they're motivated by profit and talking junk science? Where's the good science that's not motivated by profit on this? I mean in your own link-filled words, preferably edited for brevity in the link-free parts.

Normy, the problem is in the name itself. The ACS evaluated vape for its cancer-causing effects, and they decided that as a smoking cessation tool, that e-cigarettes will save lives lost to cancer from smoke.

They then urged all the non-smokers to not start smoking vape. Back when they got this data, e-cigarettes looked like cigarettes, right down to the fake paper color, the little light up LED end "ember" and the filter paper.

And then suddenly, when nobody was paying attention, e-cigarettes became vape. In some cases, huge clouds of vapor from each hit.

They were no longer primarily marketed as a smoking cessation tool, but rather a stylish, flavored vapor emitter, charged up by the user's USB phone charger. Whoops, suddenly there are tens of millions of people who vape who didn't smoke in the first place. So much for the ACS's plea, huh?

And yes, vape DOESN'T appear to cause cancer, it seems to cause pneumonia-like illnesses, apparently because the user's lungs become glazed with food-grade glycerine and glycol, without any of the digestive properties of the digestive system to remove these food-grade chemicals ... because lungs aren't digestive organs, duh.

Golly, thanks American Cancer Society, you are now saving lives from cancer by trading them for cardiovascular disease. But as these new victims struggle for breath with something that resembles pneumonia but won't respond to antibiotics, at least they are dying of something other than cancer.

 

And now we see the truth, it's not a harm reduction product at all, it's a more profitable replacement to tobacco grown from the ground and packaged in paper rolls. The tobacco industry has grown this industry to tens of millions of users who never smoked in the first place.

Whoops, ACS fucked up, now they have to evaluate "e-cigarettes" as vape, which means not a replacement to tobacco, but a stand-alone product. And how long will it take to get that data? About the same amount of time that it took last time, about twenty years from the beginning of the product's market saturation, so about another twenty years. And really, as long as vape kills its users with something other than cancer, then the ACS's mission is a raging success.

 

So, Normy, I urge you to look at the actual studies that the ACS used to determine the safety of "e-cigarettes" so that you'll know what has actually changed. You would do it for guns, please do it for vape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Yes, people will react to protect the cheeruns.

With little effect and many unintended consequences. It's a prohibition tradition.

You won't have to try too hard if you just dig around in my posts in this thread. The vast majority of those (and maybe all, but prohibition makes getting people to tell the truth hard) with lung problems had been vaping "THC" products. Who knows what was in them but THC isn't water soluble and they have lung problems indicative of using oils as the carrying agent.

More unintended consequences from our stupid war on drugs

The "bad hooch" analogy is a market outlier.

The developing problem is with the tens of millions of teenagers who suck down the vapor of the mass market vapor from Juul, et al..

Maybe get your mind off of "prohibition" and start to look at the danger of "junk science" instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way Normy, oils are not the only carrying agent in the THC vapes just as oil isn't the only carrying agent with tobacco derived nicotine vapes. The carrying agent with both of them is glycerine and glycol. They have the right surface tension to vaporize and carry the nicotine/cannabis oils into the lungs.

The cannabis vapes are more viscous, but the heating element is similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mikewof said:

And now we see the truth, it's not a harm reduction product at all, it's a more profitable replacement to tobacco grown from the ground and packaged in paper rolls. The tobacco industry has grown this industry to tens of millions of users who never smoked in the first place.

Whoops, ACS fucked up, now they have to evaluate "e-cigarettes" as vape, which means not a replacement to tobacco, but a stand-alone product.

Changing habits and fads doesn't change whether vapor or smoke is more harmful to inhale.

People do use vapes to quit smoking and have a better success rate than things like nicotine gum.

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

The ACS evaluated vape for its cancer-causing effects, and they decided that as a smoking cessation tool, that e-cigarettes will save lives lost to cancer from smoke.

They're still right, still not profit-motivated, and that's still not junk science, so your original claim is 100% BS.

 

16 hours ago, mikewof said:

The "bad hooch" analogy is a market outlier.

The developing problem is with the tens of millions of teenagers who suck down the vapor of the mass market vapor from Juul, et al..

85% of the users with problems admitted to using black market THC vape products. I suspect most of the remaining 15% didn't admit it because of prohibition but also used it. So the developing problem seems to me to be people like yourself conflating black market products with legal ones.

17 hours ago, mikewof said:

So, Normy, I urge you to look at the actual studies that the ACS used to determine the safety of "e-cigarettes" so that you'll know what has actually changed.

So Cliffy, I ask you once again for links. And brevity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Changing habits and fads doesn't change whether vapor or smoke is more harmful to inhale.

People do use vapes to quit smoking and have a better success rate than things like nicotine gum.

They're still right, still not profit-motivated, and that's still not junk science, so your original claim is 100% BS.

 

85% of the users with problems admitted to using black market THC vape products. I suspect most of the remaining 15% didn't admit it because of prohibition but also used it. So the developing problem seems to me to be people like yourself conflating black market products with legal ones.

So Cliffy, I ask you once again for links. And brevity.

Brevity? From the guy who runs an encyclopedia of gun links? Whatever, I'll give you brevity, but this isn't a gun debate, the research is peer-reviewed. And when I start giving you research that screws with your view on this, you're going to have to actually look at the actual research that the ACS used to make their determination. You're not going to like it.

This isn't a gun debate Normy. So here goes ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6011163/

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/73/12/1161

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30166079

There are three. And there is an ocean more of this stuff in review and being published as this thread continues. So yeah Normy, you want to turn vape into a gun debate, have at it. You'll lose, because the research continues to point to both the addictive qualities of vape and the danger of the carrier.

Your bolded bit up there is demonstrably wrong. If you really want to paint yourself into the same corner that junk science did when they were trying to tout the health benefits of tobacco back in the 1950s, please be my guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Quote

We report a case of diffuse alveolar hemorrhage that we believe was caused by aggressive use of personalized vaporizer. This aims to site the serious complication of vaping despite being marketed as a safe substitute to conventional smoking.

I wonder if they've decided on a site yet?

Quote

While vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents, we are still uncertain on the health hazards of the reduced toxins.

So they're saying my statement that triggered you so much is likely correct? Also,

Quote

Prussian blue iron staining was also noted which reflects old hemorrhage

That sounds like it might be gun related and triggering you appears to be gun related judging by how many times you've mentioned guns so far. I know that my opposition to TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs is reprehensible but can you somehow relax, untrigger (gun word!) yourself and leave that for another thread? (Just trying to see if I can say "gun" as many times as you.)

13 hours ago, mikewof said:

Your bolded bit up there is demonstrably wrong. If you really want to paint yourself into the same corner that junk science did when they were trying to tout the health benefits of tobacco back in the 1950s, please be my guest.

Your effort to demonstrate how wrong the American Cancer Society and I are on this point instead yielded another bolded statement from your own source saying I'm likely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 7:34 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
On 9/28/2019 at 11:49 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Because prohibition policies have proven to be effective in our country's history to stop an undesirable behavior.  

Is this you being unpredictably independent again?

No, it was me being too lazy to use the purple font.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

 

I wonder if they've decided on a site yet?

So they're saying my statement that triggered you so much is likely correct? Also,

That sounds like it might be gun related and triggering you appears to be gun related judging by how many times you've mentioned guns so far. I know that my opposition to TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs is reprehensible but can you somehow relax, untrigger (gun word!) yourself and leave that for another thread? (Just trying to see if I can say "gun" as many times as you.)

Your effort to demonstrate how wrong the American Cancer Society and I are on this point instead yielded another bolded statement from your own source saying I'm likely right.

I spent all of ten minutes of looking through my notes to find three distinct research projects that found three distinct cardiovascular threats, that aren't cancer related.

And on the face of this, you're able to ignore actual data and zero in on one person's opinion that wasn't data-driven, because it agrees with you? Do you do that with your gun arguments too?

And this data and that opinion are on a vaping technology that is how old Normy?

About 12 years old. Yeah. And sufficient market saturation to get decent epidemiological samples? About five years.

If you are actually that confident to the relative safety of vape, with those numbers, then you're a fool. You also successfully ignored actual market data that shows the vape community growing faster than tobacco ever did, and not as a cessation tool like you and the ACS have hitched their wagon ... It's definitely NOT safer than smoke when the industry has created tens of millions of new users who never smoked in the first place. But again, you manage to ignore that.

Now, Step 2, Normy. Are you going to look at the study that the ACS used to make their determination? Or do you not like to risk your ideological position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cliffsignal.jpg

Also, guns.

But I still think your first source is right in saying that

5 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

cliffsignal.jpg

Also, guns.

But I still think your first source is right in saying that

 

Okay. Again, that's an opinion, it isn't data driven like the actual research. Are you ready to hang your hat on an opinion that isn't data-driven? And if so, are you willing to do that with guns along with biology?

Again, have you actually read the research from which the ACS based their finding.

 

As an aside, think about "combustion products." Animals (and humans even more so, due to our half-million-year old ability to build and contain fire) have lived and evolved around smoke (i.e. "combustion byproducts") for a long, long time. It's likely that our alveolar region has developed some level of evolutionary adaption to the bimodal particulates of smoke.

But vaporized glycerine and propylene glycol? How long have humans been inhaling that? Twelve years since the market introduction, and about five years since any level of market saturation. (And I think we are still a long way from market saturation in most vape markets, btw.)

So ... wouldn't it be kind of critical to actually read the research from which these opinions are based? You feel comfortable enough with the ACS's finding that vape is safer than smoke, but you haven't actually read the research, have you?

Honestly Normy, I don't expect you to put forth any real level of effort here, since it isn't dogballs. And inthefuture.com when vaporized propylene glycol and glycerine successfully kills tens of thousands, and we successfully identify the actual non-cancer danger of the stuff, you might remember this conversation. But this little discourse has demonstrated something interesting to me about your opinion on guns if they hold similarity to biology; you have your opinion, it's dogma, and facts are selectively pulled to bolster your existing opinion rather than guide your knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

You feel comfortable enough with the ACS's finding that vape is safer than smoke, but you haven't actually read the research, have you?

I read and quoted your linked research. It said this:

Quote

vaping is likely less toxic than cigarette smoking given the lack of most combustible tobacco constituents

So why are you posting opinions like that that aren't based on any research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

I read and quoted your linked research. It said this:

So why are you posting opinions like that that aren't based on any research?

Journal articles are written by humans who have opinions. The bolded bit you posted above was the opinion of a researcher, and that opinion -- unlike the actual research from that author -- was not data-driven, it was an opinion that happened to coincide with your own. The data-driven work pointed to one particular danger from vape in the lungs. I posted two other articles, each identified a distinct danger. You managed to ignore those because they didn't reinforce your existing opinion.

Now, are we done with that?

Have you read the research that the ACS used to base their finding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Now, are we done with that?

Not really. I still might want to poke a bit more fun at the fact that your cite spelled it "site." Engrish, muthafucka.

6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Have you read the research that the ACS used to base their finding?

Still waiting for someone who has read it to provide a link to it. You've read it, right?

6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Journal articles are written by humans who have opinions. The bolded bit you posted above was the opinion of a researcher, and that opinion -- unlike the actual research from that author -- was not data-driven,

Was his opinion formed from thin air? Or was it junk science? Profit motivated? Ignorant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez Normy, you'll come up with every excuse you can to avoid actually reading the study that ACS used for the finding. In this case, you seem to think that I won't notice that you keep returning to the recent deaths. Once again Normy, the recent vape deaths have little to nothing to do with why vape is gradually being discovered as worse than smoke. But to understand that means you probably need to let go of your shitfight here. Since that won't likely happen, you will continue to pick data to support your position.

Normy, now channeling Bull Gator and Random. Adorable. But ultimately it weakens your gun argument, if you even use half of these tactics with guns. I wasn't really paying attention in the gun debates, but I guess this is what Jocal meant; you do a good job of hiding your lack of effort inside of something that resembles intelligence, as long as nobody looks too carefully.

Please Normy, vape 'em.If you gots 'em. This isn't gun politics, you dipshit, it's science. This argument isn't won or lost with the sample being all of about five years old. This argument is examined, the answer will come in about ten years. Even if you vape, you will probably still be alive then, and as you puff on your steroid metered dose inhalers to manage your VI-COPD, maybe you can revisit this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 2:58 PM, mikewof said:

That one attempted to simulate acute exposure, which reminds me of the "studies" in which chimps were practically choked to death on cannabis smoke to show that it's harmful. Umm... especially if you practically choke yourself on an overdose that doesn't resemble what people actually do.

They kinda lost me by saying this twice:

Quote

we caution against the widely held opinion that e-cigarettes are safe.

Widely held? Is anyone actually saying that? I don't think methadone is safe, just that it's a useful tool for heroin addicts and heroin is less safe. That's why I asked Bus Driver about it, but if you ask a gossip about an issue you'll get gossip back. As Eva Dent.

59 minutes ago, mikewof said:

why vape is gradually being discovered as worse than smoke.

Is that opinion fact-driven or is it just junk like the opinion of your previous source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Please Normy, vape 'em.If you gots 'em.

Echos of drug warrior nonsense. I don't vape or use methadone. I just don't like misguided prohibition programs.

People will vape the black market products that the CDC says are causing the current spate of problems if banning vaping spreads and people who want to quit smoking will have one less avenue. Both shitty, if unintended, consequences of a nanny state ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Echos of drug warrior nonsense. I don't vape or use methadone. I just don't like misguided prohibition programs.

People will vape the black market products that the CDC says are causing the current spate of problems if banning vaping spreads and people who want to quit smoking will have one less avenue. Both shitty, if unintended, consequences of a nanny state ban.

Your straw man is still made of straw, I was clear that I don't want vape banned. Your politics have nothing to do with this.

And I can see that you have no intention of being scientific about this, but in fairness, you seem to not grasp the scientific process, you seem to think it's based on opinion rather than a buildup of tests over time. So two questions ...

1. Approximately what is the current public health cost in the USA for lung cancer other than radon?

2. Approximately what is the current public health cost in the USA for non-cancer lung and lung-related cardiovascular disease like asthma, pneumonia and COPD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scratch that Normy, it takes like, fifteen minutes to make that estimate. It's something like $4 billion/year for the former, and $40 billion/year for the latter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of Snus before but always glad to see censorship reduced
 

Quote

 

This week the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally granted a snus manufacturer permission to tell the truth about this Swedish version of oral snuff, which is far less hazardous than cigarettes and contains lower levels of carcinogens than other forms of smokeless tobacco. The Stockholm-based company Swedish Match will henceforth be allowed to display the following statement on packages of its General brand snus sold in the United States: "Using General Snus instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis."

In the decade since Congress gave the FDA authority over tobacco, this is the first time the agency has allowed such a "modified risk" claim for any product. The FDA says its approval of Swedish Match's claim "demonstrates the viability of the pathway for companies to market specific tobacco products as less harmful to consumers." But the arduous process leading to that decision also demonstrates the potentially deadly consequences of the FDA's censorship.

"Adult smokers deserve the full truth about these products and other reduced-risk tobacco and nicotine products," says Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association. "The FDA's claim that this pathway is viable should come with a giant asterisk explaining just how much time and how many millions of dollars Swedish Match had to spend to get permission to tell the truth to consumers."...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, never heard of snus? get teh fuck out of your reason bubble dipshit

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/30/20940162/juul-contaminated-pods-lawsuit-svp-siddharth-breja-flavor

1 million contaminated pods, and here's what the CEOn (allegedly) had to say

“Half our customers are drunk and vaping like mo-fos, who the fuck is going to notice the quality of our pods,” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

michigan pulled every vape cart from every dispensary, probably hundreds of thousands.  Can't be sold until retested.  Someone just gave the testing companies a few million dollar christmas bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only read page two of this bound to be tedious "Tom heavy" thread, so glad drawing anything into my lungs has always given me the creeps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He types while fondling the can of wintergreen "Cope" in his left pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some public health scientists weigh in

Quote

In the case of adult smokers, there is solid scientific evidence that vaping nicotine is much safer than smoking. In a 2018 report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), commissioned by the FDA, an expert panel systematically reviewed the scientific evidence. It determined, “There is conclusive evidence that completely substituting vaping nicotine for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes” (10), consistent with other major evidence and systematic reviews (4, 6, 12).

...

Although it may be decades before we fully understand the long-term consequences of vaping nicotine without smoke, many argue that we know enough and stress that too many smokers die every day we delay tak-ing reasonable and rational action based on the science to date. Evidence from multiple strong observational studies and random-ized trials suggests that vaping nicotine is more appealing and more effective than NRT at displacing smoking (4, 6, 8, 13).... Evidence suggests that the vast majority of smokers who suc-cessfully switch completely from smoking combustible products to vaping do so—after weeks, months, or years of dual use—by tran-sitioning from vaping tobacco, or menthol-flavored liquids, to other flavors and often to lower nicotine concentrations or even to no nicotine in order to reduce the triggers that remind them of their prior smoking product (4, 6, 13, 14)

(NRT refers to nicotine patches and nicotine gum).

They appear to have noticed that the recent PANIC over vaping is mostly, if not entirely, related to vitamin E acetate found in black market THC vapes.

Quote

The mounting numbers of acute lung injuries and deaths linked to vaping illicit THC cartridges have understandably fueled a policy impulse to do something. Although blanket bans on all devices, all types of liquids (with or without nicotine or THC), or flavors other than tobacco may provide immediate relief to our collective sense of urgency when it comes to protecting youth, the landscape has changed over the past decade. The calculus is no longer limited to nicotine vaping. Proposed solutions that conflate vaping THC oils with nicotine or with flavors, and that may lose sight of population-wide issues while focusing on subsets of the population (4, 6, 8, 9), may do more harm than goo

That's a nice way of saying that more prohibition is a ridiculous answer to problems brought on by prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/3/2019 at 3:07 AM, animeproblem said:

Only read page two of this bound to be tedious "Tom heavy" thread, so glad drawing anything into my lungs has always given me the creeps.

A few years back, there were stories of kids huffing from paper sacks filled with feces.  There is literally no limit to what some humans will do to try and get a buzz.

Most of the 'Tom heavy' threads are reference based updates - like the above - where he'll attach an article on an ongoing topic rather than create a new one.  I actually like them - sort of like a news feed from YouTube without Google trying to per-decide what I want to see.  But, since there ISN'T Google per-deciding what I want to see, that means there's also a lot of topics that get bumped up and wander down quickly.

Tom, having a libertarian bend (of which I approve!) is also thematically consistent in that most of these threads involve some sort of "call to government action" based on sensationalized or an exaggerated incident.  As Rahm Emanual so eloquently noted "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

So, lung damage caused by illicit THC products becomes a ban on flavored tobacco.  That is the creeping nature of authoritarian governance.  Utilitarians - for whom 'the greater good' is always the most important moral justification - thrive under such systems.  The bigger the crisis, the more powerful the 'justified' response.

The rate with which people 'take up vaping' is a testament to how powerful the nicotine fueled stimulus/response really is.  Decades of beating down smoking addiction are being unwound in a few years.

On a side note, I'm still waiting for some bright scientist to come up with nicotine laced broccoli or kale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

As Rahm Emanual so eloquently noted "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

So, lung damage caused by illicit THC products becomes a ban on flavored tobacco.  That is the creeping nature of authoritarian governance.  Utilitarians - for whom 'the greater good' is always the most important moral justification - thrive under such systems.  The bigger the crisis, the more powerful the 'justified' response.

Yes, the Power of PANIC is attractive because scaring people works.

This Was the Decade When Politicians Stopped Panicking About Marijuana and Started Panicking About Nicotine
 

Quote

 

...The shift from demonizing cannabis to demonizing nicotine is not a good sign for anyone who hoped that recognizing the folly of marijuana prohibition would lead to a broader understanding of the costs inflicted by attempts to forcibly prevent people from consuming psychoactive substances. By and large, neither legislators nor the voters they represent think about this subject in a principled way. If they did, the repeal of National Alcohol Prohibition in 1933 would not have been followed four years later by the Marihuana Tax Act, a federal ban disguised as a revenue measure. When it comes to ending the war on drugs, the same arguments have to be deployed anew for every intoxicant.

...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2019 at 6:55 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

cliffsignal.jpg

Also, guns

Also, from dogball's ghost database :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this