Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: E-cig Quote thread; the good the bad and the ugly.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    143

    E-cig Quote thread; the good the bad and the ugly.

    Thought maybe a thread for collecting the quotes which make you want to write the individual in question either a congratulatory letter or perhaps send them a turd in an envelope. It is possible there already is such a thread but I cannot find it?

    Anyway one of my favourites is from Professor Michael Siegel a prominant anti smoking campaigner with a quote buried within from David Sweaner. He replies to a question of how safe are e cigs with this quote that in its simplicity is pure gold;

    Michael: I can’t say how safe the electronic cigarette is, but what I can say is that it is substantially safer than the conventional cigarette. Inhaling nicotine cannot be nearly as dangerous as inhaling nicotine plus thousands of other chemicals, including more than 40 carcinogens. It doesn’t take long-term studies to make that determination. As David Sweanor astutely pointed out, determining that a tobacco-free nicotine delivering product is safer than a product that delivers nicotine with thousands of tobacco smoke constituents is a fact of basic science, and anyone who challenges such a notion would probably benefit from a remedial course in basic sciences.
    Actually there is a second quote there that is also gold but relates to tobacco cigarettes rather than e cigs. While I have linked to the interview I might as well put it up too;

    ECD: Could you reveal some of the worst examples of the lies you have found?

    Michael Siegel: Perhaps the greatest example is the statement, being made by many anti-smoking groups, that a mere 30-minute exposure to secondhand smoke may cause atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). The truth is that it takes many years to develop atherosclerosis. Even among active smokers, you don’t see heart disease until a person has smoked for at least 20 years or more. So it is literally impossible for a single 30-minute exposure to secondhand smoke to cause the arteries to harden.
    It is probably best it is viewed in context with the rest of the interview which can be found here:

    http://realecig.com/2010/04/an-inter...ichael-siegel/

    Because of this scientific approach he has been accused of being in the tobacco industries pockets to e-cig companies.
    Last edited by tom32; 08-06-11 at 01:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Acb
    Acb is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Fred Nile

    "I have conclusively worked out that the bible decrees ecigs to be the work of the devil, particularly those of the "variable voltage" kind", and those that succumb to this evil take baby Jesus name in vain and will forever thereafter be doomed to the pits of he'll". ....oh fuk another priest has been charged for molesting kids ..must have been using that new fan-dangled blue foam cart 510 thingy - hey you're tape isn't still running is it?

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,466
    “This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health. A public policy maker who touts himself as being a champion of the public’s health as well as some of the leading national health advocacy organizations is demanding that we ban what is clearly a much safer cigarette than those on the market, but that we allow, protect, approve and institutionalize the really toxic ones.”

    MICHAEL SIEGEL, A PHYSICIAN, RESEARCHER AND PROFESSOR AT THE BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBURG’S LETTER TO THE FDA SUGGESTING THE BAN OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.
    “We have every reason to believe the hazard posed by electronic cigarettes would be much lower than 1% of that posed by (tobacco) cigarettes. The testing guidelines in the current tobacco act (circulating through Congress) would represent a ban on electronic cigarettes, (yet) if we get all tobacco smokers to switch from regular cigarettes (to electronic cigarettes), we would eventually reduce the US death toll from more than 400,000 a year to less than 4,000, maybe as low as 400.”

    JOEL NIZTKIN, MD, MPH, DPA, FACPM, CHAIR, TOBACCO CONTROL TASK FORCE, AMERICAN
    ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIANS
    “The vast majority of the harm caused by smoking is from the method of nicotine delivery rather than from the nicotine itself. There would be a parallel problem if people got caffeine from smoking tea leaves rather than making an infusion of these leaves in hot water. It is clear to far-sighted researchers that there are huge gains to be made from dealing with the delivery system.”

    DAVID SWEANOR, BA, JD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
    “Nicotine is probably the second most used drug after caffeine.” Amazingly, no one thinks of caffeine as a harmful drug. Nor should they. “The possible dangers of nicotine are dwarfed by the dangers associated with tobacco. Pure nicotine has not been associated with the risk of cancer.”

    THE INTERNATIONAL HARM REDUCTION ASSOCIATION
    “The standard for lower-risk products for use by current smokers should be the hazard posed by (tobacco) cigarettes, not a pharmaceutical safety standard.”

    JOEL NIZTKIN, MD, MPH, DPA, FACPM, CHAIR, TOBACCO CONTROL TASK FORCE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH PHYSICIANS
    “Telling smokers they may not use electronic cigarettes until they’re approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak.”

    JACOB SULLUM, SENIOR EDITOR AT REASON MAGAZINE, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
    AND AUTHOR OF THE CRITICALLY-ACCLAIMED BOOK FOR YOUR OWN GOOD: THE ANTI-SMOKING CRUSADE AND THE TYRANNY OF PUBLIC HEALTH (FREE PRESS, 1998).
    “If the FDA would act within its own historical context it should recognize that when faced with an epidemic it should be focusing on the greatest possible reduction in deaths rather than looking at alternatives to cigarettes as if cigarettes themselves did not exist. Had the FDA acted like this in 1938 we’d likely still not have antibiotics, and had they acted this way during the various vaccination campaigns smallpox would likely still be around.”

    DAVID SWEANOR, BA, JD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
    “Huge disparities and inconsistencies exist between the tobacco and nicotine product regulations. Combustible tobacco products are the least regulated and nicotine products are the most highly regulated. Given the huge differences in the proven or likely hazards of these products to individual and public health, this represents
    a substantial and illogical regulatory imbalance. The regulation of nicotine products needs to be radically overhauled to encourage the use of less harmful products.”

    ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
    “If one could entertain the unrealistic assumption that all tobacco users would switch to clean nicotine tomorrow, we would see an immediate effect (for the better) on cardiovascular disorders, and a delayed effect on respiratory and cancer disease.”

    THE INTERNATIONAL HARM REDUCTION ASSOCIATION
    “Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly urges the FDA to consider the enormous public health disaster the agency would create by banning electronic cigarettes. Denying 45 million (tobacco) cigarette smokers access to this exponentially less hazardous alternative would result in millions of preventable deaths among smokers and millions of nonsmokers continuing to be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution. It is absurd to even contemplate protecting the deadliest nicotine products (tobacco cigarettes) from market competition by these less hazardous nicotine products.”

    WILLIAM T. GODSHALL, MPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SMOKEFREE PENNSYLVANIA
    “It would wrong to characterize those on a moral quest as being public health advocates, and this is true whether looking at abstinence-only campaigns on sex, on alcohol, on illicit drugs or on nicotine. Campaigns based on making better people rather than making people better are driven by moral concerns rather than public health concerns.”

    DAVID SWEANOR, BA, JD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
    “There are no grounds to suspect appreciable long-term adverse effects on health from the long-term use of NRT (nicotine replacement therapy). The use of NRT is many orders of magnitude safer than (tobacco) smoking.”

    “Although stopping tobacco use is the ideal outcome for individual and public health, this is difficult to achieve. Harm reduction approaches in public health are sometimes criticized for condoning the activity they are trying to make safer. The Royal College of Physicians takes no position on the morality of smoking. However, since smoking (tobacco) is dangerous to health, and is hard to give up, the College wants to see a range of effective methods to smokers quit or to reduce the harm they sustain.”

    ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS
    “Oddly, though there has been much focus on issues such as where the product could be used, how it was taxed, limits on advertising, controls on places of sale, packaging requirements … there has been little to nothing being done about the product itself.”

    “If we recognize that the needs of smokers can be met in a way that does not necessarily result in the untimely death of roughly half of long term users maybe we can move society conceptually to the point that nicotine delivery can go through the same metamorphosis as we’ve seen with auto safety, telecommunications, sanitation, pharmaceuticals, food preparation standards, alcoholic beverages and a myriad of other goods and services. The market could be transformed through a virtuous circle of increasing consumer awareness and ever-less-hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.”

    DAVID SWEANOR, BA, JD, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
    MissMist, MrGruffy and Altered1 like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    172
    WOW, Good one Mick, this is by far the best collaboration I've seen yet. This would certainly put the situation into perspective for all those ill informed nay sayers. Too bad it's too large to post as my facebook status :P

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    1,992
    "and anyone who challenges such a notion would probably benefit from a remedial course in basic sciences."

    Looks like every health department in Australia, plus the Cancer Council, plus QUIT all failed basic science at high school

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    Fantastic posts everyone.!!!!

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    FNQ
    Posts
    20
    Loved it! Great posts people

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SW Vic
    Posts
    686
    Mickg33,
    I hope you do not mind but I had to copy and paste your post in reply to a Greenie who had the effrontory to send me a post about the harmful effects of e-cigarrettes.
    Poisonings from E-Cigarettes and Synthetic Pot Are Surging

    I am also in the process of including Dr Farsalanos findings etc.
    What a God-damn cheek !!!!! Obviously the Greenies are not immune to a quick hand in the back pocket !
    Cheers
    Sodd
    Mickg33 likes this.

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Banksia Grove, Perth, WA
    Posts
    946
    bloody hell mate did you use a backhoe to dig this thread nice find though.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    143
    I'm glad this was dug up for two reasons.

    These quotes are from 2011... People then were arguing against zealots who said we cannot be sure what's in them with rational scientists explaining they have to be a whole lot better. 3 odd years later and the zealots still continue to say we don't know what's in them. I wasn't 100percent sure what was in the pasta salad I ate tonight at the pub either but I reckon it was better for me than a smoke.

    The second reason was for this quote:

    “Telling smokers they may not use electronic cigarettes until they’re approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak.”

    That's gold, and exactly the kind of analogies / logic the anti's need to hear. Don't make things too complicated. After all they must have failed science in high school to arrive at their position on ecigs.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:35 PM.