Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Vapor Madness!
In the bad old days, Big Tobacco would have used all the means at its disposal to thwart a new technology that threatened to disrupt the market for inhalable nicotine. But instead of using its relationship with (and leverage over) regulators to throw obstacles into the path of its early-worm competitors, Big Tobacco has read the writing on the wall and begun to supply the demand for e-cigarettes and vaporizers.
One should expect a politically-connected colossus like R.J. Reynolds to arrive late to the e-cigarette game. But R.J. is downright nimble compared to a Ticonderoga-class bureaucracy like the California Department Of Public Health, which recently kicked-off a campaign to confuse low-information consumers (principally Millenials, liberals, and the poor). A website promoted by the state is called, tellingly, StillBlowingSmoke.org.
The first thing that strikes visitors to the site are the sepia-toned photographs of young people’s heads enveloped in clouds of vapor so beautiful as to tempt non-smokers to take up vaping as a hobby. With the light touch one associates with public health campaigns, the site explains the tradeoffs between smoking and vaping with the sober evenhandedness of the movie Reefer Madness. One link contains the headline “Particles And Your Body: A Hate Story” (for those not familiar with government lingo, hate is never justified). Beneath that, we read:
See why those fine and ultrafine particles in e-cig aerosol are just tiny balls of evil to your measly human form.
I guess you could say the e-cig industry comprises an evil empire.
One-third of the site, with a predictability that surpasses mere tedium, criticizes Big Tobacco for its desire to make inroads into the growing e-cigarette market rather than doing what the government expects: kowtow to regulators and fund its crummy schools. Much is made of Big Tobacco’s “unclear motives.” Speaking of unclear motives, is it possible that the California Department of Public Health has a some of its own? According to Americans for Tax Reform:
In targeting an effective smoking cessation device – vapor products – it is clear that the California Department of Public Health wants to maintain cigarette sales as an important funding source for their big spending priorities. By discouraging vaping, the state may recoup potential revenue losses that occur when a smoker transitions from unhealthy cigarette use to products proven to be 99% less harmful, but not taxed as much.
In short, Big Government’s interest in maintaining a robust supply of new cigarette smokers is every bit as mercenary as Big Tobacco’s.
Published in General
Figures.
I say we charge everyone even remotely involved with preposterous crimes, hold show trials, and hang ’em all.
Just like in Baltimore.
i love these ‘policy speeches’ of yours, DD! Ironic humor and substance…Wow! I can’t wait for the debates! Keep it coming…You’re vapin’ hot!
Thanks, Nanda. We need to talk!
Well said.
Whenever you can, my friend…I look forward to it!
I’ve been watching the slick adds in California attacking vaping, paid for by a designated portion of the state tax on cigarettes, and I’m starting to suspect big tobacco is using the anti-smoking nazis to stamp out competition.
Am I paranoid?
State of Alaska is also running anti-vaping ads on the tube.
Mildlyo – Call me when black helicopters are involved.
Mister Dop – No doubt gearing up for the upcoming decriminalization of marijuana! P.S: I’ll be in performing on cruises in Alaska much of this summer. If you’re near a cruise town, let me know and maybe we could meet. Take care – Dave
Anyone looked into the claims that these new vaping sticks 1) cause cancer 2) are unregulated imports from China?
Particles hate me? Well then I guess I hate particles, man.
Here is a good introduction to vaping.
As far as my experience?
Well, I was a smoker for over 30 years, and since I started in my early teens, that means I smoked for over two-thirds of my life. I’ve tried every method to quit- cold turkey, patches, gum, etc., but I always went back to cigarettes.
Once I started vaping, I lost any craving for cigarettes, almost immediately. My strong suspicion is that these health “concerns” have less to do with protecting the children and more about the loss of tax revenue on the 2-3 packs of smokes I used to burn through everyday.
But that is just me; I tend to be cynical sometimes.
My suspicion was merely that the anti-science left was against them for unproven health reasons, of which I am skeptical. You win one in the cynicism department…this time.
Thanks for the link. Will take a look.
A co-worker recommended v2cigs, and I got some for my sister to help her quit real cigarettes but she is a bit afraid to do the e-cigarettes
Sister sent me this on facebook:
http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/e-cigs-have-10x-more-cancer-causing-ingredients-than-regular-cigarettes/
To which I replied
Is it just me, or does that article of “10 Facts That Everyone Gets Wrong About Vaping” only contain 5 enumerated facts?
[edit] Ah, looks like gizmodo chopped the list of 10 down to 5 and changed the numbers, but forgot to updated the hadline. Gizmodo links to the source:
http://listverse.com/2014/11/12/10-facts-that-everyone-gets-wrong-about-vaping/
You’ve got Occam’s Razor on your side, Billy! Thanks for weighing in. Is this Billy or Captain Power? I’ll never learn to read these damn Ricochet threads. Any tips?
Bottomline, as usual, buried in the 8th paragraph: “This does not mean that regular cigarettes are safer, it just means that some types of e-cigarettes have even more cancer causing compounds.”
There are two different types. The type sold at the vaping stores don’t have any carcinogens other than the nicotine itself (which is far from the most dangerous chemical in cigarettes).
The further indented the quote is, the older it is.
The least indented quote is the person you are replying to.
The name is at the top and the text is at the bottom.
See above, I am quoting you quoting billy quoting me.
You are least indented, so I am replying to you (David).
Thanks, that’s very helpful, Captain Power? Captain Power, right?
You got it.
p.s. was the billion forged signatures in california on a 2010 initiative thing a joke? I couldn’t find it referenced anywhere.