Use of tobacco products is the #1 cause of death in the USA. E-cigs & flavored products included Don’t do it! pic.twitter.com/hACxkb5b6x
— Pasadena District 2 (@PasadenaCaD2) November 16, 2016
Why on earth would anyone point the finger and name call, insult, a group of people who have moved away from ‘tobacco products’ and who have taken up an activity that has nothing to do with tobacco, something that is confidently acknowledged by world experts as being AT LEAST 95% safer than smoking?
Well, a quick ‘Google’ and the answer becomes apparent.
Pasadena District 2
The City of Pasadena’s own webpage tells us that, “The Pasadena Public Health Department was recently awarded a $1.5 million grant by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a three-year outreach campaign to reduce ethnic and racial tobacco health-related disparities in Northwest Pasadena…
…The funds will be used for the City’s outreach campaign to counter tobacco-related marketing efforts targeting low-income minority communities where African-American and Latino adults have a disproportionately high rate of tobacco use and exposure to second hand smoke.”
Of course, vaping is the same as smoking! E-cigarettes (as you call them) “are a tobacco product.” Now I get it! Someone only needs to say that something is the same as something else, something totally different, and hey presto, a wave of the wand, and they are instantly one and the same.
How stupid can people be? Mind you, looking at Pasadena’s poster… the answer becomes unavoidable – ‘extremely stupid’: And it is a direct result of following the flock; it is a product of prejudice and ignorance; it is a classic example of downright discrimination… and very, very sheep-like. But of course, there is always the money. [Tell me, is the above-mentioned grant part off, or in addition to, Master Settlement funding?]
Sheep-like is metaphor for people who just follow blindly. and just following blindly is exactly what Pasadena District 2 have done: They have blindly accepted that vaping is the same as tobacco smoking; they have blindly accepted that vaping causes harm; they have blindly adopted the same tactics as everyone else in Tobacco Control without the faintest idea of the harm they are causing; oh, dear oh dear oh dear, they have just blindly followed the flock.
What then is the difference between vaping and smoking?
Well – it seems ridiculous to have to point this out but – smoking is inhaling smoke and vaping is the inhalation of vapour. It is smoke which kills. There is no evidence, yet, of any harm from vapour. (And by God, if there was any real harm, it would have been found by now considering the resources which have been poured into finding this mythical harm. If there is harm, what is it? I do not know – and neither do you.
And the harm you are causing by your denial of the benefits that vaping can bring is immense – you are contributing to the continuation of cigarette smoking by rejecting and refusing to advocate for a far, far less harmful alternative. You are, through your deceptions, responsible for thousands, perhaps millions of unnecessary premature deaths – and you claim to care?
What vapers have witnessed, aside from the abuse you have levelled at them, are ‘bent’ or incompetent researchers presenting badly flawed study after badly flawed study – the evidence that you seem to rely on. These include the downright silly; “e-cigarettes cause tuberculosis,” and, “e-cigarettes are a million times” more harmful than outdoor air.”
Doctor Konstantinos Farsalinos looked at the report regarding the Hong Kong outdoor air (No study had been published) and commented, “There are only two possibilities: either the scientists have no idea about what they are talking about, or they are deliberately misinforming the public and the regulators. Even worse, they are creating panic to vapers (the vast majority of whom are former smokers), with the risk of making them relapse to smoking. This is a typical case of gross misinformation and extremely poor science. Literally, a public health disgrace… The reporters of this “study” (not authors, because there is no published study) need to immediately apologize to the public for creating this story out of nothing.”
This is what Tobacco Control seem to be good at when debating vaping… creating something out of nothing. Not surprising when you do not know enough.
Deception seems to be the name of the game. One flawed study pops up only to be put down, then another pops up. It is like playing Whack-a-Mole.
However, it is Tobacco control who give the game away. Ironic as it maybe is, the WHO FCTC who put their size 12 boot in it. They produced a ‘comprehensive’ overview of ENDS / ENNDS [vaping] which was responded to by the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. And, oh boy… well, UKCTAS demonstrated the following weaknesses in the WHO FCTC statement…
“The WHO report fails to accurately present what is already known about e-cigarettes. In particular, it: positions e-cigarettes as a threat rather than an opportunity to reduce smoking; fails to accurately quantify any risks of e-cigarettes compared with smoking; misrepresents existing evidence about any harms to bystanders; discounts the fact that e-cigarettes are helping smokers to quit; does not recognise the place of some promotion of e-cigarettes to encourage smokers to switch to these less harmful products; fails to understand that the flavours in e-cigarettes are useful for people trying to stop smoking; mischaracterises the current e-cigarette market and appears to support very restrictive policies on e-cigarettes without including any good policy analysis. In addition, the WHO report does not acknowledge that significant restrictions on e-cigarettes could lead to unintended consequences, including increases in smoking.”
Without ever having seen Pasadena’s policy on e-cigarettes I am willing to bet a pound to a penny that it reflects all the weaknesses outlined above. And why am I so sure of that?
…You are nothing but sheep following the flock.
Everything expressed in this article is the personal view of the writer.