Banning E-Cigarrettes in New York
- Thread starter Knoell
- Start date
Sir_Fragalot
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
It seems like more of a ploy because they would be losing taxes on regular Cigs. E-Cigs output only water vapor so they can be smoked anywhere, and are safe because they only use a battery.
Not only thatm e-sigs are a lot less harmful than regular Cigs.
Not only thatm e-sigs are a lot less harmful than regular Cigs.
iamsobroke
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
They need to ban E-Cigs asap. Don't you know they cause lung cancer and thousands of people die every year!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='iamsobroke']They need to ban E-Cigs asap. Don't you know they cause lung cancer and thousands of people die every year![/QUOTE]
No they need to legalize selling of E-Cigs asap. Don't you know that every single claim made by the E-Cig company is 100% accurate? They aren't selling snake oil, it's real science! There's no way a company would commit fraud on the public health to turn a buck, not in America.
No they need to legalize selling of E-Cigs asap. Don't you know that every single claim made by the E-Cig company is 100% accurate? They aren't selling snake oil, it's real science! There's no way a company would commit fraud on the public health to turn a buck, not in America.
[quote name='camoor']No they need to legalize selling of E-Cigs asap. Don't you know that every single claim made by the E-Cig company is 100% accurate? They aren't selling snake oil, it's real science! There's no way a company would commit fraud on the public health to turn a buck, not in America.[/QUOTE]
Legalize it? It is already legal. We are talking about banning it when we havent banned cigarettes. Explain that one for me. They are making it sound as if E cigarettes are an impending doom to us all, and yet the government is just happy with collecting the money from regular cigarettes.
The government never puts tax income over the health of the people. We can trust them.
Which one is the impending doom that should be immediately banned again? I would figure that if people are stepping over to E-cigarettes and they end up being dangerous, they will never be nearly as dangerous as cigarettes.
Not that I think either should be banned. I know of 5 family members off the top of my head that have quit smoking (even the e-cigs too) because of these things, and new york wants to ban them.
new york.
Legalize it? It is already legal. We are talking about banning it when we havent banned cigarettes. Explain that one for me. They are making it sound as if E cigarettes are an impending doom to us all, and yet the government is just happy with collecting the money from regular cigarettes.
The government never puts tax income over the health of the people. We can trust them.
Which one is the impending doom that should be immediately banned again? I would figure that if people are stepping over to E-cigarettes and they end up being dangerous, they will never be nearly as dangerous as cigarettes.
Not that I think either should be banned. I know of 5 family members off the top of my head that have quit smoking (even the e-cigs too) because of these things, and new york wants to ban them.
new york.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Legalize it? It is already legal. We are talking about banning it when we havent banned cigarettes. Explain that one for me. They are making it sound as if E cigarettes are an impending doom to us all, and yet the government is just happy with collecting the money from regular cigarettes.
The government never puts tax income over the health of the people. We can trust them.
Which one is the impending doom that should be immediately banned again? I would figure that if people are stepping over to E-cigarettes and they end up being dangerous, they will never be nearly as dangerous as cigarettes.
Not that I think either should be banned. I know of 5 family members off the top of my head that have quit smoking (even the e-cigs too) because of these things, and new york wants to ban them. new york.[/QUOTE]
The claims are dubious and it is a health matter.
Listen, if someone in the mall was selling water and claiming it was insulin I think we could all agree it's in the public interest to shut it down. That would be a fraud on the public health, same as this.
If the E-Cig company wants to promote their product as "cool" or "fun" that's fine. If they can scientifically prove (not anecdotes - prove) that their product helps people quit smoking then that's fine. But when they start making health claims that are unbacked by medical science then I have no problem with the govt shutting it down.
The government never puts tax income over the health of the people. We can trust them.
Which one is the impending doom that should be immediately banned again? I would figure that if people are stepping over to E-cigarettes and they end up being dangerous, they will never be nearly as dangerous as cigarettes.
Not that I think either should be banned. I know of 5 family members off the top of my head that have quit smoking (even the e-cigs too) because of these things, and new york wants to ban them.
new york.[/QUOTE]The claims are dubious and it is a health matter.
Listen, if someone in the mall was selling water and claiming it was insulin I think we could all agree it's in the public interest to shut it down. That would be a fraud on the public health, same as this.
If the E-Cig company wants to promote their product as "cool" or "fun" that's fine. If they can scientifically prove (not anecdotes - prove) that their product helps people quit smoking then that's fine. But when they start making health claims that are unbacked by medical science then I have no problem with the govt shutting it down.
[quote name='Msut77']I think we found knoells job. Selling e ciggies.[/QUOTE]
Ha, my cousin who I am neighbors with quit smoking after 25 years because of them. He only uses the E-cigarette every once in awhile now.
He gave it to his brother, and now his brother does not smoke.
An uncle of mine uses them, but resorted to smoking again because the local convienence stores aren't allowed to carry them.
So what is your guys problem with them? That we don't know the health effects of glycerin and nicotine? Give me a break.
Ha, my cousin who I am neighbors with quit smoking after 25 years because of them. He only uses the E-cigarette every once in awhile now.
He gave it to his brother, and now his brother does not smoke.
An uncle of mine uses them, but resorted to smoking again because the local convienence stores aren't allowed to carry them.
So what is your guys problem with them? That we don't know the health effects of glycerin and nicotine? Give me a break.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Ha, my cousin who I am neighbors with quit smoking after 25 years because of them. He only uses the E-cigarette every once in awhile now.
He gave it to his brother, and now his brother does not smoke.
An uncle of mine uses them, but resorted to smoking again because the local convienence stores aren't allowed to carry them.
So what is your guys problem with them? That we don't know the health effects of glycerol and nicotine? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Anecdotes vs scientific proof. What don't you understand?
I honestly try to keep a civil tone here. However I must be frank - for a guy that claims to understand science you are pretty damn ignorant.
He gave it to his brother, and now his brother does not smoke.
An uncle of mine uses them, but resorted to smoking again because the local convienence stores aren't allowed to carry them.
So what is your guys problem with them? That we don't know the health effects of glycerol and nicotine? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Anecdotes vs scientific proof. What don't you understand?
I honestly try to keep a civil tone here. However I must be frank - for a guy that claims to understand science you are pretty damn ignorant.
[quote name='camoor']The claims are dubious and it is a health matter.
Listen, if someone in the mall was selling water and claiming it was insulin I think we could all agree it's in the public interest to shut it down. That would be a fraud on the public health, same as this.
If the E-Cig company wants to promote their product as "cool" or "fun" that's fine. If they can scientifically prove (not anecdotes - prove) that their product helps people quit smoking then that's fine. But when they start making health claims that are unbacked by medical science then I have no problem with the govt shutting it down.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong again, scientifically.
http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf
Listen, if someone in the mall was selling water and claiming it was insulin I think we could all agree it's in the public interest to shut it down. That would be a fraud on the public health, same as this.
If the E-Cig company wants to promote their product as "cool" or "fun" that's fine. If they can scientifically prove (not anecdotes - prove) that their product helps people quit smoking then that's fine. But when they start making health claims that are unbacked by medical science then I have no problem with the govt shutting it down.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong again, scientifically.
http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf
[quote name='camoor']Anecdotes vs scientific proof. What don't you understand?
I honestly try to keep a civil tone here. However I must be frank - for a guy that claims to understand science you are pretty damn ignorant.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to a post that said I was advertising e cigarettes. Stop being a dummy and understand that I was explaining why I believe banning them is a bad idea.
After you get that through your thick head, read the "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" that was done. However I am sure it will not be enough "science" for you, because you don't share its views.
I honestly try to keep a civil tone here. However I must be frank - for a guy that claims to understand science you are pretty damn ignorant.[/QUOTE]
I was responding to a post that said I was advertising e cigarettes. Stop being a dummy and understand that I was explaining why I believe banning them is a bad idea.
After you get that through your thick head, read the "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" that was done. However I am sure it will not be enough "science" for you, because you don't share its views.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']You are wrong again, scientifically.
http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf[/QUOTE]
Gee, seems like the folks who conducted that study agree more with me then you.
http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf[/QUOTE]
Knoell's Link said:
Gee, seems like the folks who conducted that study agree more with me then you.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
Eh, what's the point in banning them?
[quote name='camoor']Gee, seems like the folks who conducted that study agree more with me then you.[/QUOTE]
And this requires banning? Why don't you take a look at some of the other drugs that are legal that also require more testing.
You are wrong again.
And I will ask again, if New Yorks foremost reason for banning E cigarettes is peoples health, why are cigarettes still available? We KNOW what they do. Are we pretending this whole ban is to just gain a warning label on the e cigarette? Are you that dense?
[quote name='docvinh']Eh, what's the point in banning them?[/QUOTE]
That is my question. Camoor seems to think New York has the health of the citizens at heart. I seem to think cigarette lobbyists and the tax income from cigarettes are the bigger influences. Anyone remember my old thread? A pack of cigarettes is now $10 dollars because of taxes in new york. Higher in NYC.
And this requires banning? Why don't you take a look at some of the other drugs that are legal that also require more testing.
You are wrong again.
And I will ask again, if New Yorks foremost reason for banning E cigarettes is peoples health, why are cigarettes still available? We KNOW what they do. Are we pretending this whole ban is to just gain a warning label on the e cigarette? Are you that dense?
[quote name='docvinh']Eh, what's the point in banning them?[/QUOTE]
That is my question. Camoor seems to think New York has the health of the citizens at heart. I seem to think cigarette lobbyists and the tax income from cigarettes are the bigger influences. Anyone remember my old thread? A pack of cigarettes is now $10 dollars because of taxes in new york. Higher in NYC.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']And this requires banning? Why don't you take a look at some of the other drugs that are legal that also require more testing.
You are wrong again.
And I will ask again, if New Yorks foremost reason for banning E cigarettes is peoples health, why are cigarettes still available? We KNOW what they do. Are we pretending this whole ban is to just gain a warning label on the e cigarette? Are you that dense?
That is my question. Camoor seems to think New York has the health of the citizens at heart. I seem to think cigarette lobbyists and the tax income from cigarettes are the bigger influences. Anyone remember my old thread? A pack of cigarettes is now $10 dollars because of taxes in new york. Higher in NYC.[/QUOTE]
Noone is claiming that cigarettes are good for your health. In fact they have a big warning right on the pack so even nimrods like you will know that they are a health hazard.
However the ecig manufacturers are claiming that ecigs will help you quit smoking. If you claim something then you should be required to back it up, particularly when it involves the public health.
I don't know who's paying off who. If that was your point then maybe you should have made it and backed it up with some solid fact-finding journalism.
Instead you asked for opinions, don't get pissy because we don't all have the same opinion as you.
You are wrong again.
And I will ask again, if New Yorks foremost reason for banning E cigarettes is peoples health, why are cigarettes still available? We KNOW what they do. Are we pretending this whole ban is to just gain a warning label on the e cigarette? Are you that dense?
That is my question. Camoor seems to think New York has the health of the citizens at heart. I seem to think cigarette lobbyists and the tax income from cigarettes are the bigger influences. Anyone remember my old thread? A pack of cigarettes is now $10 dollars because of taxes in new york. Higher in NYC.[/QUOTE]
Noone is claiming that cigarettes are good for your health. In fact they have a big warning right on the pack so even nimrods like you will know that they are a health hazard.
However the ecig manufacturers are claiming that ecigs will help you quit smoking. If you claim something then you should be required to back it up, particularly when it involves the public health.
I don't know who's paying off who. If that was your point then maybe you should have made it and backed it up with some solid fact-finding journalism.
Instead you asked for opinions, don't get pissy because we don't all have the same opinion as you.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Why ban them?
follow the money/tax trail.
follow the money/tax trail.
[quote name='camoor']Noone is claiming that cigarettes are good for your health. In fact they have a big warning right on the pack so even nimrods like you will know that they are a health hazard.
However the ecig manufacturers are claiming that ecigs will help you quit smoking. If you claim something then you should be required to back it up, particularly when it involves the public health.
I don't know who's paying off who. If that was your point then maybe you should have made it and backed it up with some solid fact-finding journalism.
Instead you asked for opinions, don't get pissy because we don't all have the same opinion as you.[/QUOTE]
The study I gave you says that the E cigarettes that carry nicotine have shown to help you quit smoking cigarettes.
The part you outlined is saying that more studies need to be done to create appropriate warning labels, and be aware of the safety issues with addiction to nicotine.
I don't care if you disagree, it is these uninformed garbage posts I had a problem with. I doubt you even knew what was in E cigarettes before you came in here acting like they are the cigarette from hell.
Heres another question. At what time did they ban cigarettes when they were trying to think of "appropriate labeling"?
However the ecig manufacturers are claiming that ecigs will help you quit smoking. If you claim something then you should be required to back it up, particularly when it involves the public health.
I don't know who's paying off who. If that was your point then maybe you should have made it and backed it up with some solid fact-finding journalism.
Instead you asked for opinions, don't get pissy because we don't all have the same opinion as you.[/QUOTE]
The study I gave you says that the E cigarettes that carry nicotine have shown to help you quit smoking cigarettes.
The part you outlined is saying that more studies need to be done to create appropriate warning labels, and be aware of the safety issues with addiction to nicotine.
I don't care if you disagree, it is these uninformed garbage posts I had a problem with. I doubt you even knew what was in E cigarettes before you came in here acting like they are the cigarette from hell.
Heres another question. At what time did they ban cigarettes when they were trying to think of "appropriate labeling"?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Heres another question. At what time did they ban cigarettes when they were trying to think of "appropriate labeling"?[/QUOTE]
LOL we have our own mini Kevin Trudeau.
Don't know, don't care. But by all means, keep bitching about your banned ecigs. Maybe if you whine enough about your weak-willed uncle it will bring them back.
LOL we have our own mini Kevin Trudeau.
Don't know, don't care. But by all means, keep bitching about your banned ecigs. Maybe if you whine enough about your weak-willed uncle it will bring them back.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Actually I do have a question for you Knoell.
So instead of waiting for appropriate packaging and labeling, we should just throw these products out on the open market and come up with the proper dosage, instructions, and health warnings for medical conditions later? In that case why even bother, why not just let any snakeoil salesman make any claim he wants, caveat emptor amirite?
So instead of waiting for appropriate packaging and labeling, we should just throw these products out on the open market and come up with the proper dosage, instructions, and health warnings for medical conditions later? In that case why even bother, why not just let any snakeoil salesman make any claim he wants, caveat emptor amirite?
They never did ban cigarettes even when that huge investigation took place that found out they were devastatingly harmful.
They are already out and still around, and have been out for years. Noone is dying in the streets. Can you believe that? Oh wait not enough studies have been done about the addiction toing nicotine and glycerin yet. You have got to be kidding me.
They don't want to wait for appropriate labeling, they want to ban them because they say they can be addictive (nicotine) and appealing to children.
Anyone who has studied them says they show great promise in getting people to quit smoking. Just look it up, stop being ignorant. Speaking of ignorance........
Here is you again being absolutely ignorant of the scientifically documented facts about the addiction to cigarettes. Chances are someone in your family has died from smoking. They must have been weak willed as well huh?
They are already out and still around, and have been out for years. Noone is dying in the streets. Can you believe that? Oh wait not enough studies have been done about the addiction to
ing nicotine and glycerin yet. You have got to be kidding me.They don't want to wait for appropriate labeling, they want to ban them because they say they can be addictive (nicotine) and appealing to children.
Anyone who has studied them says they show great promise in getting people to quit smoking. Just look it up, stop being ignorant. Speaking of ignorance........
Here is you again being absolutely ignorant of the scientifically documented facts about the addiction to cigarettes. Chances are someone in your family has died from smoking. They must have been weak willed as well huh?
Knoell - I agree with you. It's crazy to ban e-cigarettes on the basis of public health, but allow and tax the sale of tobacco cigarettes.
Camoor - do you really think it's necessary for the government to step in and regulate the sale of "smoking cessation" products/methods? Of course they should ban the sale of something that's proven to be unsafe (like tobacco cigarettes). Beyond that, why should the government be involved? If a consumer chooses to use a certain product/method to help them stop smoking, why stop them?
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.
Camoor - do you really think it's necessary for the government to step in and regulate the sale of "smoking cessation" products/methods? Of course they should ban the sale of something that's proven to be unsafe (like tobacco cigarettes). Beyond that, why should the government be involved? If a consumer chooses to use a certain product/method to help them stop smoking, why stop them?
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
I'll tell you why they need to ban them: I hate those ing douchebags in the middle of the mall who think they're so cool by 'smoking' indoors. You're not cool, you look like a moron, so quit acting so smug.
ing douchebags in the middle of the mall who think they're so cool by 'smoking' indoors. You're not cool, you look like a moron, so quit acting so smug.[quote name='chiwii']Knoell - I agree with you. It's crazy to ban e-cigarettes on the basis of public health, but allow and tax the sale of tobacco cigarettes.
Camoor - do you really think it's necessary for the government to step in and regulate the sale of "smoking cessation" products/methods? Of course they should ban the sale of something that's proven to be unsafe (like tobacco cigarettes). Beyond that, why should the government be involved? If a consumer chooses to use a certain product/method to help them stop smoking, why stop them?
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.[/QUOTE]
Those books and magazines don't distribute and inhale the not very studied or documented nicotine.
Now but seriously I agree.
Camoor - do you really think it's necessary for the government to step in and regulate the sale of "smoking cessation" products/methods? Of course they should ban the sale of something that's proven to be unsafe (like tobacco cigarettes). Beyond that, why should the government be involved? If a consumer chooses to use a certain product/method to help them stop smoking, why stop them?
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.[/QUOTE]
Those books and magazines don't distribute and inhale the not very studied or documented nicotine.
Now but seriously I agree.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chiwii']Camoor - do you really think it's necessary for the government to step in and regulate the sale of "smoking cessation" products/methods? Of course they should ban the sale of something that's proven to be unsafe (like tobacco cigarettes). Beyond that, why should the government be involved? If a consumer chooses to use a certain product/method to help them stop smoking, why stop them?
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the govt should ban cigs because they are unsafe, we know they are unsafe, and it says so right on the box.
However I also don't think corporations should be allowed to sell snakeoil and claim it can cure cancer. If the ecig people have scientific studies proving that their products help people quit smoking then by all means advertise it on the package. Until then they can market the ecigs for what they have been proven to be - a less toxic alternative to cigs.
There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the govt should ban cigs because they are unsafe, we know they are unsafe, and it says so right on the box.
However I also don't think corporations should be allowed to sell snakeoil and claim it can cure cancer. If the ecig people have scientific studies proving that their products help people quit smoking then by all means advertise it on the package. Until then they can market the ecigs for what they have been proven to be - a less toxic alternative to cigs.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chiwii']There are tons of books and websites that give information on how to quit smoking. Where are the studies proving that those methods work? Maybe the government should ban books and websites that give any suggestions on how to quit smoking until the authors can prove with scientific studies that their suggestions work.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the government should allow anyone to claim anything about the health miracles their product can perform. Also don't bother with warning labels or dosage instructions. A laissez-faire market is always ideal amirite
Maybe the government should allow anyone to claim anything about the health miracles their product can perform. Also don't bother with warning labels or dosage instructions. A laissez-faire market is always ideal amirite
[quote name='camoor']Maybe the government should allow anyone to claim anything about the health miracles their product can perform. Also don't bother with warning labels or dosage instructions. A laissez-faire market is always ideal amirite[/QUOTE]
I don't consider quitting smoking to be a health miracle. IMO, there's a big difference between claiming that a product can help someone quit smoking and claiming that a product can cure cancer.
I don't consider quitting smoking to be a health miracle. IMO, there's a big difference between claiming that a product can help someone quit smoking and claiming that a product can cure cancer.
Not to mention the scientific study I linked to, says straight out that e cigarettes leads to decreased dependence on smoking.
there is another study from berkeley I keep hearing about that says the same thing but I cant find the PDF.
But camoor is only interested in the part of that study that says there needs to be more studies for saftey and labeling.
there is another study from berkeley I keep hearing about that says the same thing but I cant find the PDF.
But camoor is only interested in the part of that study that says there needs to be more studies for saftey and labeling.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Not to mention the scientific study I linked to, says straight out that e cigarettes leads to decreased dependence on smoking.[/QUOTE]
No it didn't.
Heck prove me wrong. If you're right it should be easy, just quote the damn thing.
No it didn't.
Heck prove me wrong. If you're right it should be easy, just quote the damn thing.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Not to mention the scientific study I linked to, says straight out that e cigarettes leads to decreased dependence on smoking.
there is another study from berkeley I keep hearing about that says the same thing but I cant find the PDF.
But camoor is only interested in the part of that study that says there needs to be more studies for saftey and labeling.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, it is important that more studies be done, I don't think you can wholly depend on one study, it needs to be replicated. I don't think they should ban them, that seems silly to me, but hey, cities ban all kinds of dumb stuff.
there is another study from berkeley I keep hearing about that says the same thing but I cant find the PDF.
But camoor is only interested in the part of that study that says there needs to be more studies for saftey and labeling.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, it is important that more studies be done, I don't think you can wholly depend on one study, it needs to be replicated. I don't think they should ban them, that seems silly to me, but hey, cities ban all kinds of dumb stuff.
the study camoor didn't read. said:
And docvinh I fully agree that there should be more studies done, I don't think anyone is contesting that. I like you have a problem with banning it, a product that shows promise of getting people off the most harmful parts of cigarettes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']And docvinh I fully agree that there should be more studies done, I don't think anyone is contesting that. I like you have a problem with banning it, a product that shows promise of getting people off the most harmful parts of cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
So you think more tests should be done but in the meantime these products should be allowed these products on the market? So snakeoil gets pulled only after the hucksters have had a chance to make a buck off of it?
Also
may - (used to express possibility): It may rain.
perhaps - possibly; maybe
I've heard weather reports that were delivered more confidently. I'm guessing you never heard of the placebo effect. Scientists use specific words for a reason, in addition to taking a 101 lab sciences course I suggest you brush up on your vocabulary and reading comprehension.
So you think more tests should be done but in the meantime these products should be allowed these products on the market? So snakeoil gets pulled only after the hucksters have had a chance to make a buck off of it?
Also
may - (used to express possibility): It may rain.
perhaps - possibly; maybe
I've heard weather reports that were delivered more confidently. I'm guessing you never heard of the placebo effect. Scientists use specific words for a reason, in addition to taking a 101 lab sciences course I suggest you brush up on your vocabulary and reading comprehension.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chiwii']I don't consider quitting smoking to be a health miracle. IMO, there's a big difference between claiming that a product can help someone quit smoking and claiming that a product can cure cancer.[/QUOTE]
Meh, you're missing the point, and I was using hyperbole.
Let me make it easy for you - there is a difference between printing an article and selling a product that pumps chemicals into your body. I'm just asking for proper labeling and directions on health-related products. If I had to check out drug manufacturers every time I needed a prescription or box of aspirin then I would be spending half my day on the internet and phone. Frankly I think it's the job of a responsible govt to make sure that corporations aren't selling snakeoil or products that can have adverse effects on a sizable percentage of the population without adequate warning labels.
Meh, you're missing the point, and I was using hyperbole.
Let me make it easy for you - there is a difference between printing an article and selling a product that pumps chemicals into your body. I'm just asking for proper labeling and directions on health-related products. If I had to check out drug manufacturers every time I needed a prescription or box of aspirin then I would be spending half my day on the internet and phone. Frankly I think it's the job of a responsible govt to make sure that corporations aren't selling snakeoil or products that can have adverse effects on a sizable percentage of the population without adequate warning labels.
[quote name='camoor']So you think more tests should be done but in the meantime these products should be allowed these products on the market? So snakeoil gets pulled only after the hucksters have had a chance to make a buck off of it?
Also
may - (used to express possibility): It may rain.
perhaps - possibly; maybe
I've heard weather reports that were delivered more confidently. I'm guessing you never heard of the placebo effect. Scientists use specific words for a reason, in addition to taking a 101 lab sciences course I suggest you brush up on your vocabulary and reading comprehension.[/QUOTE]
I am still trying to figure out how this is harming anyone that it needs to be pulled. Based on your above post, your argument is that by being available it is bringing some harm to consumers. Where is the harm? Best case scenario, people use it rather than smoking. Worst case scenario? People use it, and then crave cigarettes and stop using it.
I mean originally you were arguing about them saying it can help you quit smoking. And you want to ban it for that? Ridiculous.
I think you are simply arguing this to argue with me, because you are all over the place.
Also
may - (used to express possibility): It may rain.
perhaps - possibly; maybe
I've heard weather reports that were delivered more confidently. I'm guessing you never heard of the placebo effect. Scientists use specific words for a reason, in addition to taking a 101 lab sciences course I suggest you brush up on your vocabulary and reading comprehension.[/QUOTE]
I am still trying to figure out how this is harming anyone that it needs to be pulled. Based on your above post, your argument is that by being available it is bringing some harm to consumers. Where is the harm? Best case scenario, people use it rather than smoking. Worst case scenario? People use it, and then crave cigarettes and stop using it.
I mean originally you were arguing about them saying it can help you quit smoking. And you want to ban it for that? Ridiculous.
I think you are simply arguing this to argue with me, because you are all over the place.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']I am still trying to figure out how this is harming anyone that it needs to be pulled. Based on your above post, your argument is that by being available it is bringing some harm to consumers. Where is the harm? Best case scenario, people use it rather than smoking. Worst case scenario? People use it, and then crave cigarettes and stop using it.
I mean originally you were arguing about them saying it can help you quit smoking. And you want to ban it for that? Ridiculous.
I think you are simply arguing this to argue with me, because you are all over the place.[/QUOTE]
No. You are all over the place and now you're trying to bluff your way out. You were the one that said ecigs were scientifically proved to be effective and now that I have laid bare that there is no conclusive claim backing this up in your quoted scientific study, you are retreating back to the position that there is no harm in selling a potentially worthless health product. But selling snakeoil is exploitative. You are advocating that we allow corporations to make money selling potentially worthless cures to serious health issues and harmful addictions.
If we're going to give the government any chance at catching snakeoil salesman at their game then we must have reasonable policy that forces corporations selling health products to back their claims via conclusive scientific studies.
I mean originally you were arguing about them saying it can help you quit smoking. And you want to ban it for that? Ridiculous.
I think you are simply arguing this to argue with me, because you are all over the place.[/QUOTE]
No. You are all over the place and now you're trying to bluff your way out. You were the one that said ecigs were scientifically proved to be effective and now that I have laid bare that there is no conclusive claim backing this up in your quoted scientific study, you are retreating back to the position that there is no harm in selling a potentially worthless health product. But selling snakeoil is exploitative. You are advocating that we allow corporations to make money selling potentially worthless cures to serious health issues and harmful addictions.
If we're going to give the government any chance at catching snakeoil salesman at their game then we must have reasonable policy that forces corporations selling health products to back their claims via conclusive scientific studies.
[quote name='camoor']Maybe the government should allow anyone to claim anything about the health miracles their product can perform. Also don't bother with warning labels or dosage instructions. A laissez-faire market is always ideal amirite[/QUOTE]
This is a major problem in general.
We need more regulations of what kinds of claims manufacturers can put on things like stop smoking aids, vitamins and supplements etc.
Society as a whole needs a kick in the ass to move toward making more use of scientific evidence, and as such manufacturers should be able to claim that their product will help people quit smoking, or boost the immune system, or help lose weight or build muscle if there's not a large body of scientific evidence vetted by a government agency like the FDA that supports those claims. And large body of studies is key, not just a few studies. For instance, drugs get tons of randomized, controlled tests that are then reviewed and summarized before a medical drug is approved. Results can vary across studies, so you have to have a large enough number of studies to be able to do a meta analysis of their results and see what the average effect is etc.
It's not so much about banning products IMO, as it is banning advertising effects that haven't been scientifically proven. E-cigarettes are fine in my book, just don't allow them to advertise them or label them as an effective smoking cessation device until there's a vetted body of scientific evidence backing it up.
This is a major problem in general.
We need more regulations of what kinds of claims manufacturers can put on things like stop smoking aids, vitamins and supplements etc.
Society as a whole needs a kick in the ass to move toward making more use of scientific evidence, and as such manufacturers should be able to claim that their product will help people quit smoking, or boost the immune system, or help lose weight or build muscle if there's not a large body of scientific evidence vetted by a government agency like the FDA that supports those claims. And large body of studies is key, not just a few studies. For instance, drugs get tons of randomized, controlled tests that are then reviewed and summarized before a medical drug is approved. Results can vary across studies, so you have to have a large enough number of studies to be able to do a meta analysis of their results and see what the average effect is etc.
It's not so much about banning products IMO, as it is banning advertising effects that haven't been scientifically proven. E-cigarettes are fine in my book, just don't allow them to advertise them or label them as an effective smoking cessation device until there's a vetted body of scientific evidence backing it up.
[quote name='camoor']No. You are all over the place and now you're trying to bluff your way out. You were the one that said ecigs were scientifically proved to be effective and now that I have laid bare that there is no conclusive claim backing this up in your quoted scientific study, you are retreating back to the position that there is no harm in selling a potentially worthless health product. But selling snakeoil is exploitative. You are advocating that we allow corporations to make money selling potentially worthless cures to serious health issues and harmful addictions.
If we're going to give the government any chance at catching snakeoil salesman at their game then we must have reasonable policy that forces corporations selling health products to back their claims via conclusive scientific studies.[/QUOTE]
The study showed those results. I am not understanding how you think "mays" and "perhaps" cancels out the results of a study. Those "mays" and "perhaps" say that although the results favor e-cigarettes more studies need to be done. They do not say "may" and "perhaps" because their data is not consistant or erratic.
And quit it with the snake oil line. It is getting old.
The people do not need the government to intervene in a banning capacity. Regulatory, and labeling capacity? Sure. But it makes no sense to ban them. None at all.
If someone wants to smoke an E cigarette which has nothing in it that cigarettes don't have, then what is your problem? If they believe it might help them quit smoking? What is your problem? If it doesn't help them quit smoking? What is your problem?
This is where the health effects come in. We KNOW e cigarettes are far less dangerous than cigarettes, and if someone stops smoking for even a day to try them, they are helping themselves. If they do not end up quitting cigarettes, at least they smoked x amount of less cigarettes and those 4000 known chemicals into their lungs.
If we're going to give the government any chance at catching snakeoil salesman at their game then we must have reasonable policy that forces corporations selling health products to back their claims via conclusive scientific studies.[/QUOTE]
The study showed those results. I am not understanding how you think "mays" and "perhaps" cancels out the results of a study. Those "mays" and "perhaps" say that although the results favor e-cigarettes more studies need to be done. They do not say "may" and "perhaps" because their data is not consistant or erratic.
And quit it with the snake oil line. It is getting old.
The people do not need the government to intervene in a banning capacity. Regulatory, and labeling capacity? Sure. But it makes no sense to ban them. None at all.
If someone wants to smoke an E cigarette which has nothing in it that cigarettes don't have, then what is your problem? If they believe it might help them quit smoking? What is your problem? If it doesn't help them quit smoking? What is your problem?
This is where the health effects come in. We KNOW e cigarettes are far less dangerous than cigarettes, and if someone stops smoking for even a day to try them, they are helping themselves. If they do not end up quitting cigarettes, at least they smoked x amount of less cigarettes and those 4000 known chemicals into their lungs.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf?wb48617274=93E68B00
It's a pretty good read camoor.
It's a pretty good read camoor.
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf?wb48617274=93E68B00
It's a pretty good read camoor.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't care whether or not they are safe. He just cares if they are tricking people into spending money to not smoke cigarettes. He doesn't realize that unless they are buying both, they are still spending money regardless, he just doesn't want the e cig company to have it.
It's a pretty good read camoor.[/QUOTE]
He doesn't care whether or not they are safe. He just cares if they are tricking people into spending money to not smoke cigarettes. He doesn't realize that unless they are buying both, they are still spending money regardless, he just doesn't want the e cig company to have it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not so much about banning products IMO, as it is banning advertising effects that haven't been scientifically proven. E-cigarettes are fine in my book, just don't allow them to advertise them or label them as an effective smoking cessation device until there's a vetted body of scientific evidence backing it up.[/QUOTE]
Nicely put, I agree with everything you said especially this part.
[quote name='Knoell']The study showed those results. I am not understanding how you think "mays" and "perhaps" cancels out the results of a study. Those "mays" and "perhaps" say that although the results favor e-cigarettes more studies need to be done. They do not say "may" and "perhaps" because their data is not consistant or erratic.
And quit it with the snake oil line. It is getting old.
The people do not need the government to intervene in a banning capacity. Regulatory, and labeling capacity? Sure. But it makes no sense to ban them. None at all.
If someone wants to smoke an E cigarette which has nothing in it that cigarettes don't have, then what is your problem? If they believe it might help them quit smoking? What is your problem? If it doesn't help them quit smoking? What is your problem?
This is where the health effects come in. We KNOW e cigarettes are far less dangerous than cigarettes, and if someone stops smoking for even a day to try them, they are helping themselves. If they do not end up quitting cigarettes, at least they smoked x amount of less cigarettes and those 4000 known chemicals into their lungs.[/QUOTE]
Chewing bubble gum may help some people quit cigarettes. Saying the Hail Mary prayer before lighting up may help some people quit cigarettes. I'm sure the scientists would agree with both statements. It doesn't mean jack shit.
[quote name='Knoell']He doesn't care whether or not they are safe. He just cares if they are tricking people into spending money to not smoke cigarettes. He doesn't realize that unless they are buying both, they are still spending money regardless, he just doesn't want the e cig company to have it.[/QUOTE]
No. I think the ecig company should be able to sell their products right now. I agree that they are no more harmful then cigs, and some well-manufactured ecigs are probably less harmful. However that doesn't mean they are harmless. Cigarettes are subject to very stringent regulation, why should ecigs get a free pass? The ecig folks should not be able to advertise their product as something that will help you quit smoking until that claim is proven in a scientific study.
I'm surprised you and troy are against a level playing field for competing products.
I did a lazy Google search myself and suprise surprise this came up in the first hit:
http://news.discovery.com/human/e-cigarettes-health-nicotine-tobacco-110127.html
Leaky cartridges. No labeling. Undisclosed chemicals. It's a laissez-faire marketeer's wet dream. And you want your loved ones to put this stuff in their mouth and their body?
Nicely put, I agree with everything you said especially this part.
[quote name='Knoell']The study showed those results. I am not understanding how you think "mays" and "perhaps" cancels out the results of a study. Those "mays" and "perhaps" say that although the results favor e-cigarettes more studies need to be done. They do not say "may" and "perhaps" because their data is not consistant or erratic.
And quit it with the snake oil line. It is getting old.
The people do not need the government to intervene in a banning capacity. Regulatory, and labeling capacity? Sure. But it makes no sense to ban them. None at all.
If someone wants to smoke an E cigarette which has nothing in it that cigarettes don't have, then what is your problem? If they believe it might help them quit smoking? What is your problem? If it doesn't help them quit smoking? What is your problem?
This is where the health effects come in. We KNOW e cigarettes are far less dangerous than cigarettes, and if someone stops smoking for even a day to try them, they are helping themselves. If they do not end up quitting cigarettes, at least they smoked x amount of less cigarettes and those 4000 known chemicals into their lungs.[/QUOTE]
Chewing bubble gum may help some people quit cigarettes. Saying the Hail Mary prayer before lighting up may help some people quit cigarettes. I'm sure the scientists would agree with both statements. It doesn't mean jack shit.
[quote name='Knoell']He doesn't care whether or not they are safe. He just cares if they are tricking people into spending money to not smoke cigarettes. He doesn't realize that unless they are buying both, they are still spending money regardless, he just doesn't want the e cig company to have it.[/QUOTE]
No. I think the ecig company should be able to sell their products right now. I agree that they are no more harmful then cigs, and some well-manufactured ecigs are probably less harmful. However that doesn't mean they are harmless. Cigarettes are subject to very stringent regulation, why should ecigs get a free pass? The ecig folks should not be able to advertise their product as something that will help you quit smoking until that claim is proven in a scientific study.
I'm surprised you and troy are against a level playing field for competing products.
I did a lazy Google search myself and suprise surprise this came up in the first hit:
http://news.discovery.com/human/e-cigarettes-health-nicotine-tobacco-110127.html
Leaky cartridges. No labeling. Undisclosed chemicals. It's a laissez-faire marketeer's wet dream. And you want your loved ones to put this stuff in their mouth and their body?
[quote name='camoor']Meh, you're missing the point, and I was using hyperbole.
Let me make it easy for you - there is a difference between printing an article and selling a product that pumps chemicals into your body. I'm just asking for proper labeling and directions on health-related products. If I had to check out drug manufacturers every time I needed a prescription or box of aspirin then I would be spending half my day on the internet and phone. Frankly I think it's the job of a responsible govt to make sure that corporations aren't selling snakeoil or products that can have adverse effects on a sizable percentage of the population without adequate warning labels.[/QUOTE]
So, is the issue the fact that some manufacturers want to advertise their product as a smoking cessation device, or that you don't think enough research has been done to prove that the devices are safe, or that you think they need warning labels of some sort? I thought that we were talking about whether or not the manufacturers should be able to advertise their products as a smoking cessation device.
I don't think that smoking cessation products are a drug, and I don't think that they need to be regulated like a drug. I think consumers can use common sense to figure out if a product is helping them quit smoking.
Let me make it easy for you - there is a difference between printing an article and selling a product that pumps chemicals into your body. I'm just asking for proper labeling and directions on health-related products. If I had to check out drug manufacturers every time I needed a prescription or box of aspirin then I would be spending half my day on the internet and phone. Frankly I think it's the job of a responsible govt to make sure that corporations aren't selling snakeoil or products that can have adverse effects on a sizable percentage of the population without adequate warning labels.[/QUOTE]
So, is the issue the fact that some manufacturers want to advertise their product as a smoking cessation device, or that you don't think enough research has been done to prove that the devices are safe, or that you think they need warning labels of some sort? I thought that we were talking about whether or not the manufacturers should be able to advertise their products as a smoking cessation device.
I don't think that smoking cessation products are a drug, and I don't think that they need to be regulated like a drug. I think consumers can use common sense to figure out if a product is helping them quit smoking.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='chiwii']So, is the issue the fact that some manufacturers want to advertise their product as a smoking cessation device, or that you don't think enough research has been done to prove that the devices are safe, or that you think they need warning labels of some sort? I thought that we were talking about whether or not the manufacturers should be able to advertise their products as a smoking cessation device.
I don't think that smoking cessation products are a drug, and I don't think that they need to be regulated like a drug. I think consumers can use common sense to figure out if a product is helping them quit smoking.[/QUOTE]
Ecigs contain drugs. Nicotine is a drug, a very addictive drug. The cartridges are full of nicotine and god knows what else.
I don't think that smoking cessation products are a drug, and I don't think that they need to be regulated like a drug. I think consumers can use common sense to figure out if a product is helping them quit smoking.[/QUOTE]
Ecigs contain drugs. Nicotine is a drug, a very addictive drug. The cartridges are full of nicotine and god knows what else.
Wow....lazy google search indeed, if you would just open your eyes instead of believing the government on every damn detail.
First off noone is saying they should not be regulated as to how much nicotine they should be putting in. Banned is different than regulating.
Second off those "carcinogens" you are talking about are nitrosamines of which the levels in E cigarettes are similiar to those of nicotine patches and such. Levels in tobacco cigarettes are drastically higher.
Thirdly there are no other carcinogens in E cigarettes.
Fourth Read your own article -
"The relevant question is not, 'Are these things safe?'" he said. "But are these things much safer than real cigarettes, and do they help people quit smoking? The answer to both of those questions we know is yes."
First off noone is saying they should not be regulated as to how much nicotine they should be putting in. Banned is different than regulating.
Second off those "carcinogens" you are talking about are nitrosamines of which the levels in E cigarettes are similiar to those of nicotine patches and such. Levels in tobacco cigarettes are drastically higher.
Thirdly there are no other carcinogens in E cigarettes.
Fourth Read your own article -
"The relevant question is not, 'Are these things safe?'" he said. "But are these things much safer than real cigarettes, and do they help people quit smoking? The answer to both of those questions we know is yes."
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Wow....lazy google search indeed, if you would just open your eyes instead of believing the government on every damn detail.
First off noone is saying they should not be regulated as to how much nicotine they should be putting in. Banned is different than regulating.[/QUOTE]
Well this is how a new drug or health product is regulated:
1) Government health agencies study the product, conduct (or review) scientific studies, and draw up regulations based on the results.
2) Manufacturers must pass the regulations if they want to sell their products in the US.
Also - why do you believe the ecig corporations and lobbyists on every damn detail?
[quote name='Knoell']Second off those "carcinogens" you are talking about are nitrosamines of which the levels in E cigarettes are similiar to those of nicotine patches and such. Levels in tobacco cigarettes are drastically higher.
Thirdly there are no other carcinogens in E cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
You must have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about carcinogens in ecigs, the most I did was quote an article from Discovery news. If you are calling the integrity of Discovery news into question then just say so and move on.
[quote name='Knoell']Fourth Read your own article -
"The relevant question is not, 'Are these things safe?'" he said. "But are these things much safer than real cigarettes, and do they help people quit smoking? The answer to both of those questions we know is yes."[/QUOTE]
Same article:
It's called giving both sides of the story. It's hardly surprising that industry-funded studies would have find in the industry's favor. For me the real question is: what does the FDA think, what do independent studies find? In the independent study cited, the conclusive result was that these products contain nicotine and unknown toxins, they are leaky, they are not properly labeled, and they are often defective.
But relax Knoell, the courts have your back. Same article:
It's the wild west everywhere else so quit your bitching and just order them off the internet. That way your uncle can continue to put unregulated toxins in his body, exposing everyone else in the house to containers leaking nicotine and god knows what else.
First off noone is saying they should not be regulated as to how much nicotine they should be putting in. Banned is different than regulating.[/QUOTE]
Well this is how a new drug or health product is regulated:
1) Government health agencies study the product, conduct (or review) scientific studies, and draw up regulations based on the results.
2) Manufacturers must pass the regulations if they want to sell their products in the US.
Also - why do you believe the ecig corporations and lobbyists on every damn detail?
[quote name='Knoell']Second off those "carcinogens" you are talking about are nitrosamines of which the levels in E cigarettes are similiar to those of nicotine patches and such. Levels in tobacco cigarettes are drastically higher.
Thirdly there are no other carcinogens in E cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
You must have me confused with someone else. I never said anything about carcinogens in ecigs, the most I did was quote an article from Discovery news. If you are calling the integrity of Discovery news into question then just say so and move on.
[quote name='Knoell']Fourth Read your own article -
"The relevant question is not, 'Are these things safe?'" he said. "But are these things much safer than real cigarettes, and do they help people quit smoking? The answer to both of those questions we know is yes."[/QUOTE]
Same article:
It's called giving both sides of the story. It's hardly surprising that industry-funded studies would have find in the industry's favor. For me the real question is: what does the FDA think, what do independent studies find? In the independent study cited, the conclusive result was that these products contain nicotine and unknown toxins, they are leaky, they are not properly labeled, and they are often defective.
But relax Knoell, the courts have your back. Same article:
It's the wild west everywhere else so quit your bitching and just order them off the internet. That way your uncle can continue to put unregulated toxins in his body, exposing everyone else in the house to containers leaking nicotine and god knows what else.
It isn't giving both sides of the story. The article you quoted counters and explains away all of the original criticisms the toxicologist has of them besides leakiness which is too stupid to even comment on. It is called journelism, lure people in to gain their interest and then inform them. Your "expert scientist" is one person who looked at a bunch of E cigarette products. But hey that is enough conclusive evidence for you eh?
I have seen no indication of "leaky" containers, and I am sure quite a few of the E cig customers would be complaining about such a thing? Thats like buying a case of beer with a pin hole in the bottom of the bottles. Noone is going to bear with that.
The first phase is not to ban something when you want to regulate it. If this was the case, then why were cigarettes not banned when they started regulating them? The only thing that needs to be regulated is nicotine levels.
Lastly it is hardly surprising publically funded FDA studies would side with banning something that poses a direct threat to the cigarette industry and the tax income from cigarettes. At $10 dollars a pack, NYS has as much to lose as the E cigarette companies, if people start quitting, probably more. But no, your precious government would never be bias towards such a thing. That is why they didn't just raise the cigarette tax to cover a god damn budget gap.
For someone who constantly complains about corporate interferance with government, you sure are naive about tobacco lobbyists.
Edit: I forgot about the carcinogens part. If you took anytime to look at any study besides the FDA study to incite panic, you would know that the level of nitrosamines (which is the carcinogen your FDA report is talking about) is hundreds of times lower than the level of cigarettes, and is on par with nicotine patches. So yes I am calling the FDA a liar. They could have easily released that information but chose not to because why?
I have seen no indication of "leaky" containers, and I am sure quite a few of the E cig customers would be complaining about such a thing? Thats like buying a case of beer with a pin hole in the bottom of the bottles. Noone is going to bear with that.
The first phase is not to ban something when you want to regulate it. If this was the case, then why were cigarettes not banned when they started regulating them? The only thing that needs to be regulated is nicotine levels.
Lastly it is hardly surprising publically funded FDA studies would side with banning something that poses a direct threat to the cigarette industry and the tax income from cigarettes. At $10 dollars a pack, NYS has as much to lose as the E cigarette companies, if people start quitting, probably more. But no, your precious government would never be bias towards such a thing. That is why they didn't just raise the cigarette tax to cover a god damn budget gap.
For someone who constantly complains about corporate interferance with government, you sure are naive about tobacco lobbyists.
Edit: I forgot about the carcinogens part. If you took anytime to look at any study besides the FDA study to incite panic, you would know that the level of nitrosamines (which is the carcinogen your FDA report is talking about) is hundreds of times lower than the level of cigarettes, and is on par with nicotine patches. So yes I am calling the FDA a liar. They could have easily released that information but chose not to because why?
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='nasum']who needs regulation when you have them trustworthy profit seekers at the helm? Don't be so silly![/QUOTE]
Yeah, unfortunately this one went right over Knoell's head.
Not sure why a salesman and his lobbyist automatically get more cred then a public servant.
Yeah, unfortunately this one went right over Knoell's head.
Not sure why a salesman and his lobbyist automatically get more cred then a public servant.
bread's done