Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree10Likes
  • 5 Post By Old Dog
  • 3 Post By tugboatofdeath
  • 2 Post By Old Dog

Thread: Redheadfullofsteam on indefatigable ANTZ.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656

    Redheadfullofsteam on indefatigable ANTZ.

    Go Jo, stick it to them !

    Excellent. The sanctimonious sociopaths who form the tip of Big TC’s spear are really showing how it is this week, no doubt having been emboldened by Luciana Berger and the UK Labour party’s successful hijacking of a bill that was designed to protect children and now has quite wonderfully been repurposed to serve the iron will of tobacco control.

    Not to be outdone, Ash in all its vainglorious forms has stepped up its game. First, Ash Scotland deftly descends into self parody by employing its minions to measure how much smoke from the cigarettes smoked by the residents of Birchwood Highland’s recovery center finds its way into staff areas.
    redheadfullofsteam | coming down upon the opponents of vaping with great vengeance and furious anger

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Drake
    Posts
    46
    I find it amusing that the first comment on the article contains what appears to be a comment by SC that comprehensively tears Prof John F Banzhaf III a new arse and completely debunks his entire argument by showing that tobacco smoke (according to the studies listed in the C&P comment) is one of the least polluting source of Ultra Fine Particles.
    "One more toot on that bosun's whistle Middy and you have to fart to use it. We understand each other sir?" - CPO to the fresh Midshipman

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144
    SC is not stupid. He's sure as hell not going to get behind things as crass as 3rd hand and outdoor smoking bans as its an open invitation to be ridiculed. He is even pretty down on NRT. His 'safe' position is unassisted cessation, this is why recently he didn't respond to a tweet on recent research stating that e-cigs are *better* than unassisted

    Old Dog, Olfella and Mathy like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    I've read a lot about our friend Chappy over the last year, and I think he just hates Big Tobacco.

    Most of his vitriol is aimed at them, and has been from the start of his career.

    We meet the BUGA-UP paint-bombers, recalling their campaign against cigarette advertising in the late 1970s. Spray cans in hand; the small team of vandals were determined to cleverly deface billboards promoting cigarettes.

    PROFESSOR SIMON CHAPMAN: And they said, "We've been going out spraying billboards." And they said, "OK, you're MOPUP. We're...BUGA-UP." And Billboard-Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions was officially born that night as well.

    PROFESSOR SIMON CHAPMAN: The tobacco companies didn't know what to do. They were running round like headless chooks, and fulminating - "This was vandalism!" "How immoral!" Well, that was pretty rich coming from them. They raised the boards, and BUGA-UP countered by filling paint-bomb balloons.

    PROFESSOR SIMON CHAPMAN: That period, from the late 1970s through to the mid-1980s changed everything. It was the point of no return for the tobacco companies.
    Buga-Up:


    With all the recent 'new age' Public Health experts now coming out (forced out) in favour of THR, I'm sure that Simon would love to display his newly found credentials, but alas ...


    We grant that indoor smoking bans were premised on reducing harm to non-smokers. But such bans have had enormous collateral benefits for smokers themselves, by stimulating them to quit. Indeed smoking bans have been widely appreciated by a large majority of smokers. The industry's “dual use” ambitions—that is, using snus to promote cigarettes—could destroy much of these collateral benefits. Again, whose interests would be served by subverting the beneficial effect of smoking bans?

    So we reiterate: smokeless tobacco has low appeal for the overwhelming majority of the world's smokers. There are profound risks in letting tobacco industry tigers off their leash to use snus to subvert the hard-won provisions of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control—provisions that include a ban on all tobacco advertising. Such a ban has already been achieved in some nations, but not in the US, from where much of the enthusiasm for snus now comes.
    Should the Health Community Promote Smokeless Tobacco (Snus) as a Harm Reduction Measure?


    If he backs down on ecigs, he's going to have to explain why he lobbied against snus, and how many lives could have been saved since 1993.

    None of them saw what was coming, and now they're all caught with their pants down.

 

 

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 © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 11:38 AM.