|
luxury handset posted:big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes This is a complete misread of what happened and what the article says. The primary concern at that time wasn't vaping itself, but the flavor ban. The tobacco companies were lobbying against that regulation not because they loved vaping, but because they didn't want it to be used as precedent to axe the menthol and cigar exceptions in the 2009 flavored cigarette ban. And although big tobacco was against the regulation, the majority of meetings and concern came from small businesses selling non-cigarette nicotine products such as vape fluid. If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice? FoolyCharged posted:That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now. Whether or not something can be used for quitting and whether or not something is designed specifically for quitting are two different things. Terra has been saying the former, and the fact that the products were not designed or marketed for that purpose doesn't mean it's not true. Lots of stuff falls under the "can be helpful for quitting, but was not designed for quitting" umbrella. A non-cigarette nicotine delivery system where you can taper down the amount of nicotine over time seems, pretty clearly, like it would be a useful cessation tool even if it wasn't designed for that purpose. Arguing it's not is just silly. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Oct 3, 2019 |
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:06 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:05 |
|
ErIog posted:If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice? Amusingly they thought that most people actually gave a gently caress about the tobacco and weren't just buying their product because of marketing and nicotine addiction compulsion, which was and is basically the entirety of the tobacco (or now, nicotine) industry. Like there's zero way that they wouldn't have switched to selling vapes at that point in time if they thought it was at all commercially viable because you can extract nicotine from fresh plant which is literally pennies on the dollar compared to the process involved in drying ageing and curing tobacco leaf. They just misread the market.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:13 |
|
ErIog posted:This is a complete misread of what happened and what the article says. The primary concern at that time wasn't vaping itself, but the flavor ban. that is... exactly what i said? luxury handset posted:big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes ErIog posted:If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice? do i really have to explain why a company that wants to boost its profit margins would prefer to sell proprietary non-refillable products is that where we are at now, in this thread
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:15 |
|
Speaking as someone who has grown, dried, and cured tobacco it is an insanely difficult and complicated process requiring a ridiculous amount of storage space compared to just growing a ton of tobacco plants and mulching it all and extracting the nicotine out of the resulting tobacco slurry. That said, the growing part is super easy and they're fun to grow
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:17 |
|
luxury handset posted:that is... exactly what i said? Okay, so it's clear you're arguing in bad faith now. I posted that big tobacco wasn't really on board with vaping, and in response you posted an article about them opposing a flavored vape ban as evidence that they actually liked vaping. I clarified that, in the situation the article is describing, the tobacco companies were against it due to possible impact it could have on flavored non-vape products like menthol cigarettes. Then you try to pretend you said that too when you clearly didn't. You claimed the article showed big tobacco supported vaping. I'm saying it shows they opposed a ban on flavored products, and vaping as a nicotine delivery system was probably not something they were seeking to protect considering the money they were spending at the time on heat-not-burn products that sought to compete with vaping. I'm not saying there's no conspiracy with big tobacco. There certainly is, but it's not the conspiracy you think it is. The thing big tobacco has a long record of attempting to do is getting competing (and often less harmful) nicotine products regulated out of existence to clear a path in the market for either cigarettes or a knock-off version of the product they completely control. Just because Altria has hedged their bets a little bit with Juul doesn't mean this fight is over. Big tobacco are still pushing their heat-not-burn products even though, as herstory points out, it probably would just be cheaper for them to make vape juice. The problem with vape juice, though, is that margin on it probably isn't as high as their insane margin on cigarettes. One of the perverse things about the insane cigarette taxes that has happened is that it allows cigarette companies to increase their margins while not increasing the perceived cost very much due to the majority of the sticker price being taxes. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Oct 3, 2019 |
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:30 |
|
FoolyCharged posted:The context being that both the FDA and the company agreed it wasn't the thing you keep claiming it is, because if it were a cessation device it wouldn't legally meet standards and could be seized? It doesn't. That's why I refer back to the studies in the op like the one where the RCP says these should be promoted as widely and often as possible as a tool for reducing smoking. I guess they're in on it too? luxury handset posted:i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out I'm not repeating corporate marketing. I'm repeating what the loving science and studies have said. This is why I keep referring your dense rear end to read and review what they say. You keep claiming I'm shilling. I can point you to where I got my information from because I disclosed it in the very first post and none of it came from any corporation anywhere. When you say this you are lying and you know you're lying. FoolyCharged posted:That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now. It has since been utilized and endorsed by some pretty substantial groups as a tool for quitting. Millions have used it as a tool to quit smoking and succeeded. I legitimately do not understand why I need to keep repeating any of this. I'm not repeating corporate talking points, I'm referring back to reputable sources and studies that were not industry funded. You guys keep saying they aren't a cessation device despite the fact that that is what most people use it for and many have completely succeeded. There is no answer that I can give either of you that will satisfy you. luxury handset posted:also please compare these statements by the RJ Reynolds corporation with any of the arguments made by the OP and tell me where they differ Let's look at the statements they are making first: quote:There has been a significant decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the past 30 years, but the rate of decline has slowed. A substantial body of scientific research has shown that smokeless tobacco products present significantly less harm than cigarettes. All of this is true. The first part only pertains to use in the US because globally tobacco use has been growing, especially in Asia. quote:In addition to smokeless products, we believe that other non-combustible smoke-free products, such as vapor products and other innovations, may reduce harm to smokers who switch to them. Also true. quote:Emerging product categories that offer the potential to reduce tobacco harm allow us to be growth leaders in expanding markets that also offer potential for higher margins. Considering how little involvement they have had with the market as a whole....eh not sure about this one. Question for you: If all tobacco companies ceased production and sales of tobacco products and moved exclusively to vaping would that be a net gain or loss for public health in your opinion?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:41 |
|
ErIog posted:Just because Altria has hedged their bets a little bit with Juul doesn't mean this fight is over. Big tobacco are still pushing their heat-not-burn products even though, as herstory points out, it probably would just be cheaper for them to make vape juice. Just want to point out, again, that heat not burn tech has already been approved by the FDA. If the FDA banned vaping entirely this product would still hit the market and it has been tested and studied much less vigorously than vaping. What studies have shown is that while there is a drop off in carcinogens, it's still not anywhere near as dramatic as with vaping which is comparable to approved NRT. But hey it will be FDA approved! That's what you guys want right?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:44 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:Just want to point out, again, that heat not burn tech has already been approved by the FDA. If the FDA banned vaping entirely this product would still hit the market and it has been tested and studied much less vigorously than vaping. What studies have shown is that while there is a drop off in carcinogens, it's still not anywhere near as dramatic as with vaping which is comparable to approved NRT. But hey it will be FDA approved! That's what you guys want right? Yes, that's a good point I did not realize. It's a good example of big tobacco using the regulatory state for their own purposes even when the effect on end users is clearly detrimental.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:47 |
|
ErIog posted:in response you posted an article about them opposing a flavored vape ban as evidence that they actually liked vaping no i didn't i posted an article demonstrating big tobacco lobbying against regulation on vaping. you may be reading it differently but again, this is your problem, not mine i guess i could see how it would be confusing if you believe big tobacco hates vaping so much that they release vape products and buy vape companies and lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:53 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Amusingly they thought that most people actually gave a gently caress about the tobacco and weren't just buying their product because of marketing and nicotine addiction compulsion, which was and is basically the entirety of the tobacco (or now, nicotine) industry. Like there's zero way that they wouldn't have switched to selling vapes at that point in time if they thought it was at all commercially viable because you can extract nicotine from fresh plant which is literally pennies on the dollar compared to the process involved in drying ageing and curing tobacco leaf. They just misread the market. This isn't entirely accurate. Tobacco companies have been trying to break into vaping but their devices were generally regarded as bottom tier garbage and none succeeded commercially. That's why Altria invested in Juul. They couldn't figure out how to do it themselves.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:54 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:I'm not repeating corporate marketing. I'm repeating what the loving science and studies have said. no, you are repeating corporate propaganda. here is what altria has to say, what part of this do you disagree with? http://www.altria.com/harm-reduction/Supporting-Cessation/Pages/default.aspx quote:The Role of Nicotine if your statements itt are indistinguishable from the public statements of big tobacco companies, then why do you dislike being associated with these words which are identical to yours?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:56 |
|
luxury handset posted:lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make Altria and Juul have repeatedly said they are not going to fight or lobby against the flavor ban. Every time some type of regulatory enforcement comes up against vaping tobacco stocks rise. Financial analysts have predicted that the bans being enacted are going to cause people to go back to smoking and that it will produce positive investment growth.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 06:59 |
|
here's what philip morris has to say https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/designing-a-smoke-free-future quote:How long will PMI be in the cigarette business? if your arguments are identical to the largest tobacco companies in the world, then where is the distance between you and them? you can keep claiming that your arguments are different because big tobacco is bad and you are good, but the arguments do not differ in any way i can see. i have to assume that you are being dishonest with yourself
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:00 |
|
luxury handset posted:no, you are repeating corporate propaganda. here is what altria has to say, what part of this do you disagree with? I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. I dislike it because, as I've stated multiple times, I am pulling my positions from the evidence available that I've presented to you again and again. If you have a problem with the studies, point to where they are wrong. If you have a problem with the organizations that put them together, show me where the issue is. You're also using it as an excuse to dodge any other type of argument I put forward because you dismiss it all and honestly it's pretty exhausting calling you out on your poo poo again and again. As Erlog pointed out you're just arguing in bad faith at this point. You don't address anything I say and when I do you just go back to calling me a shill. I get it. You hate vaping. You hate all forms of nicotine. Harm reduction does not have a place in tobacco control policy for you. I get it.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:04 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:05 |
|
luxury handset posted:i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa It's weird because unless I'm mistaken you think flavor bans are good and yet Juul and Altria are not going to fight the FDA on that and they are okay with all the other regulations coming down the line. They also think that it is good. Not sure why that doesn't give you pause but I guess the standard doesn't apply to you! Also my arguments stem from the research and recommendations of the studies in the first post. Tell me what your issue is with them and the organizations that published them.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:09 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:Juul and Altria are not going to fight the FDA on that i'm confused about when you choose to trust the words of big tobacco or not. like i personally don't trust them when they make claims under pressure in a moment of bad press and PR crisis, especially when they have a shadow network of "grassroots" firms to do this lobbying on their behalf. but it seems you don't trust the companies when they make the same statements you make, using the same language and justification, which are different somehow for reasons so far unclear to me if your arguments are derived from rational facts and logical science, is this true for the identical arguments made by big tobacco companies? if so, why is the FDA dragging their heels about permitting these devices to be sold as smoking cessation tools as claimed by both you and the largest tobacco companies?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:16 |
|
luxury handset posted:i'm confused about when you choose to trust the words of big tobacco or not. like i personally don't trust them when they make claims under pressure in a moment of bad press and PR crisis, especially when they have a shadow network of "grassroots" firms to do this lobbying on their behalf. but it seems you don't trust the companies when they make the same statements you make, using the same language and justification, which are different somehow for reasons so far unclear to me I'm not sure repeating what I have already said clearly in multiple ways is going to give you an answer that will satisfy you. quote:if your arguments are derived from rational facts and logical science, is this true for the identical arguments made by big tobacco companies? I've already addressed this multiple times. I'm reading the studies and reviews, not PMI PR packets. quote:if so, why is the FDA dragging their heels about permitting these devices to be sold as smoking cessation tools as claimed by both you and the largest tobacco companies, and multiple public health agencies such as Public Health England, Cancer Research UK,the Royal College of Physicians, and countless others? I've already addressed my thoughts on the FDA. Nobody knows what they are doing. Fixed that last part for you though. I have a question for you. Why do you think Public Health England are promoting this as a safer alternative to smoking? Are they being bankrolled by Altria too?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 07:25 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. I dislike it because, as I've stated multiple times, I am pulling my positions from the evidence available that I've presented to you again and again. If you have a problem with the studies, point to where they are wrong. If you have a problem with the organizations that put them together, show me where the issue is. No one is saying that you are shilling, just that your words are indistinguishable from a shill Any time you, a private citizen, finds yourself thinking thoughts that 99% align with a multibillion dollar corporation it should give you pause.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 08:06 |
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:No one is saying that you are shilling, just that your words are indistinguishable from a shill i am saying both. not that OP is actually accepting money from a tobacco company, but if they were they would not have to change their speech in any way. corporate market research is just that effective at persuasion. well, you do not have to do much to persuade a nicotine user to find positive things to say about continued nicotine use
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 08:10 |
|
luxury handset posted:i guess i could see how it would be confusing if you believe big tobacco hates vaping so much that they release vape products and buy vape companies and lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make You're twisting facts and the timeline to build this narrative, but it doesn't hold together. Big tobacco hasn't really released vape products in a big way (or at least not as big as heat-not-burn). They developed cigarette-based heat-not-burn which superficially looks similar to vaping, but works completely differently. In that same time-frame as they were releasing/marketing heat-not-burn they opposed a flavored vape ban because they were worried it could lead to a menthol cigarette ban and a flavored cigar ban. Then, 4 years later, after it was clear that heat-not-burn couldn't compete with vaping, Altria finally invested in Juul. They own 35% of Juul, by the way. They didn't buy the company as you stated. So if they liked vaping as much as you say they do, why did they waste time and money on heat-not-burn? You said they couldn't make vaping proprietary, but that's idiotic. loving printer manufacturers make proprietary ink. They could have made a proprietary cartridge-based vape product. Why did it take them 4 years after opposing the flavor ban to do anything vaping related? You really want the narrative to be that big tobacco was pushing vaping, but that's just not what happened. They never wanted anything to do with vaping until extremely recently. The record shows they were pushing and still are pushing heat-not-burn cigarettes. Even if you're only talking about the situation as it stands today in 2019, a single tobacco company having a 35% stake in a single vape company isn't an industry trend. The industry hasn't moved to vape products en masse. ErIog fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Oct 3, 2019 |
# ? Oct 3, 2019 08:12 |
|
ErIog posted:Big tobacco hasn't really released vape products in a big way (or at least not as big as heat-not-burn). ErIog posted:Even if you're only talking about the situation as it stands today in 2019, a single tobacco company having a stake in a single vape company isn't an industry trend. The industry hasn't moved to vape products en masse. yes, they have https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-cigarettes quote:Tobacco companies were relatively slow to enter the e-cigarette market, but soon made up for lost time using their size and financial firepower to take over a market that was reported by the Financial Times in June 2013 to be worth $3 billion globally. Historically, the market was highly fragmented and largely dominated by small players but large manufacturers are increasingly entering the market with their own products and are also buying already established brands. Tobacco companies already have established distribution points and the resources to cover the costs of marketing and the demands that will likely come with future regulation.[1] this is where you are supposed to pivot and move the goalposts to "these products weren't successful anyway"
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 08:23 |
|
That sure is a snippet that mixes liquid vaporizers up with heat-not-burn, lists a single company being shuffled around as 3 different investments, and also double-dips with the Altria/PMI. Like, yeah, those are technically separate companies, but lol. I get your point there was some investment by tobacco companies, but even this wiki you're citing mentions PMI's interest in heat-not-burn over liquid vaporisers: https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-Cigarettes:_Philip_Morris_International I guess you're going to say it doesn't matter, it's all the same grand conspiracy. I think that's silly considering the difference in health consequences between heat-not-burn and liquid vaporizers. You appear to support banning vaping because you think it's the same as smoking or heat-not-burn, and that's extremely short-sighted. Using the current hysteria as an opportunity to ban vaping wouldn't hurt big tobacco. They would just continue plowing forward with heat-not-burn, and a significant number of vape users would go back to smoking cigarettes. So you can be a maximalist on this point all you want, but your point of view is fundamentally worthless because it doesn't account for the fact that vaping just isn't as dangerous for your health as smoking cigarettes.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 09:02 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:I've already addressed my thoughts on the FDA. Nobody knows what they are doing. Fixed that last part for you though. Not approving the stuff these guys are selling. The fact that it continues to get sold is kind of a red flag.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 09:06 |
|
ErIog posted:I guess you're going to say it doesn't matter, it's all the same grand conspiracy. there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect ErIog posted:You appear to support banning vaping because you think it's the same as smoking or heat-not-burn, and that's extremely short-sighted. Using the current hysteria i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. this makes the people advocating those arguments itt highly uncomfortable and prone to lashing out with accusations of moral panic or galloping into irrelevant detail about the noble history of the vape industry, for reasons which should be obvious i have also pointed out the links between personal nicotine usage and shoddy argumentation itt, which should also be obvious
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 09:08 |
|
luxury handset posted:i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. this makes the people advocating those arguments itt highly uncomfortable and prone to lashing out with accusations of moral panic or galloping into irrelevant detail about the noble history of the vape industry, for reasons which should be obvious And there is uniform similarity between your arguments and those of someone having a moral panic over the existence of nicotine as a recreational drug. You're not actually advancing any argument you're just doing this weird ad-hom strawman thing where someone puts something forward, and then you say, "Well.. that sounds like something someone evil may have said before! Checkmate!" Do you have any hot takes about how the interstate system is fascist because it's what the nazis did? luxury handset posted:i have also pointed out the links between personal nicotine usage and shoddy argumentation itt, which should also be obvious More than pointing it out, it seems like you've demonstrated it clearly with your posts.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 11:09 |
|
luxury handset posted:there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect are you against safe-injection sites for opiate addicts?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 13:34 |
|
FoolyCharged posted:Not approving the stuff these guys are selling. The fact that it continues to get sold is kind of a red flag. They haven't denied any pending applications. They didn't give out guidance for what they wanted to see until this past year. The process for submitting is insanely expensive and a lot of companies won't be able to afford it. The ones that can are the large tobacco companies. What they have approved is a new tobacco product though. I addressed this in the first post. luxury handset posted:there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect What you posted also reinforces what have I said all along, and also glosses over what big tobaccos market share was prior to late 2018. They weren't moving units until Altria bought into Juul. Prior to that they couldn't get a foot hold. Most users were very averse to trying or using anything they made for obvious reasons. You have repeatedly claimed that vaping is something being driven by big tobacco which is, to use your own words, factually incorrect. When confronted by this you say it doesn't matter and everyone selling nicotine is just the same. This doesn't seem to matter to you, but it should. Why? Because based on the FDA requirements of products entering the market going forward big tobaccos investments in the last 1-2 years are going to give them the ability to completely corner the market. If you don't understand why any of that is relevant to the discussion, or how it undermines your arguments about BT, then it's clear you are not interested in debating any of this in a meaningful honest way. luxury handset posted:i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. Weird how you talk about moving the goal posts but won't address the point that the science says the same thing. That's always conveniently left out in your insinuations. If it was just RJ Reynolds saying this stuff I would worry. When it's the Royal College of Physicians then I'm a lot more confident in my position. It also happens to be a fact that you repeatedly gloss over and pretend doesn't exist for some reason. The question you should be asking is why is RJ Reynolds saying the same thing as the RCP, PHE, and countless other health organizations? Once again, please show the fault in the data and the organizations who put out the reviews and studies. If you cannot do this then shut the gently caress up about who is parroting what talking points. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Oct 3, 2019 |
# ? Oct 3, 2019 16:34 |
|
vincentpricesboner posted:are you against safe-injection sites for opiate addicts? Or condoms, or seatbelts, or basically any other intervention that allows people to do risky things with significantly reduced risk.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 16:45 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:Weird how you talk about moving the goal posts but won't address the point that the science says the same thing. That's always conveniently left out in your insinuations. luxury handset posted:there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though On Terra Firma posted:What you posted also reinforces what have I said all along, and also glosses over what big tobaccos market share was prior to late 2018. They weren't moving units until Altria bought into Juul. Prior to that they couldn't get a foot hold. Most users were very averse to trying or using anything they made for obvious reasons. You have repeatedly claimed that vaping is something being driven by big tobacco which is, to use your own words, factually incorrect. When confronted by this you say it doesn't matter and everyone selling nicotine is just the same. luxury handset posted:https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-cigarettes
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:01 |
|
luxury handset posted:words So your position is that all of those health organizations went into their reviews with bias and selected hundreds of studies that pointed in one direction to establish a basis for public health policy? Including a study that went out and took direct measurements of carcinogens from users? That's what you're going with? How is your position any different from climate change denial?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:08 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:So your position is that all of those health organizations went into their reviews with bias and selected hundreds of studies that pointed in one direction to establish a basis for public health policy? Including a study that went out and took direct measurements of carcinogens from users? That's what you're going with? How is your position any different from climate change denial? luxury handset posted:but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:10 |
|
Yeah that's what I thought. You have no argument. You can't address it. Thanks!
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:16 |
|
Can you answer any of my questions? Would you rather have a family member of yours vape or smoke cigarettes? Quitting isn't an option in this scenario. Most adult smokers will never be able to quit. Studies have said its harder to quit than HEROIN. I appreciate your enthusiasm against big business, its coming from the right place. But drat man, this is not the fight. Life isn't always "All or nothing", if we can get more smokers to vape, thats a big loving win for everyone. Its the same for literal heroin. Its better to give them safe injection sites to lower the risks than to say "quit or die".
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:22 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:Yeah that's what I thought. You have no argument. You can't address it. Thanks! luxury handset posted:i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:28 |
|
luxury handset posted:you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this Yeah, same. Just so it's clear what I'm referring to. You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. I said no and directed you to the evidence reviews. I asked you about the studies in the OP. You don't have an response other than making a vague claim about bias in selection. Now you're back to solely addressing what tobacco companies are saying and not the science itself. You're going in circles and trying to explain this to you is like debating with a toddler. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Oct 3, 2019 |
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:43 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:Just so it's clear what I'm referring to. You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. I said no and directed you to the evidence reviews. luxury handset posted:i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 17:51 |
|
So the evidence reviews by PHE and the RCP are big tobacco talking points now?
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 18:58 |
|
On Terra Firma posted:So the evidence reviews by PHE and the RCP are big tobacco talking points now? luxury handset posted:i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 19:01 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 09:05 |
|
I'm not going to make any claims about seat-belt equipped vehicles being safer than non seat-belt equipped vehicles. The jury is still out. What if I got stuck in the seat-belt and drowned, huh. Smart guy?!? There is no difference in safety, you fool, you literal idiot.
|
# ? Oct 3, 2019 19:08 |