|
luxury handset posted:there's no conspiracy between big tobacco and big government to kill vaping. big tobacco is the vaping industry, despite how much pro-vapers itt would like to pretend otherwise with marketing based on manufactured authenticity Citation needed. Remember, there's a difference between facts and opinions. Why are you trying to shut down a valid conversation? It sounds like you don't want anyone to discuss anything in this thread. Better yet show us your proof. If you truly believe vaping is all big tobacco I want to see your source for that. inkblottime fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Oct 24, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
inkblottime posted:Citation needed. Remember, there's a difference between facts and opinions. are you asking me to provide a citation for your claim that the CDC is publishing misleading information in an effort to kill vaping?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Citation needed. Remember, there's a difference between facts and opinions. He has repeatedly claimed that vaping arose entirely from tobacco companies and that the industry is just big tobacco in disguise. I've repeatedly debunked this and explained in detail why he is wrong and every time he ignores it. This is how pretty much every interaction with him goes. luxury handset posted:are you asking me to provide a citation for your claim that the CDC is publishing misleading information in an effort to kill vaping? I think he's asking you to provide a citation for your claims that big tobacco is the vaping industry. You can't do that though. I think explaining why the CDC has dragged their feet in issuing accurate warnings even though the FDA and state agencies came out much earlier in identifying the problem would be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:are you asking me to provide a citation for your claim that the CDC is publishing misleading information in an effort to kill vaping? Deflection. You're avoiding my request. I need a citation from you that you definitely know the stuff you know. Otherwise it's just your opinion. It's not hard. When you make a statement, back it up. I made a concerted effort to propose an issue and I backed it up with what I see as evidence. Right now it's just a theory because I don't know all the facts. The few facts I've discerned I've made an effort to include. I want to see you use that same effort when you make your statements. Where have you gotten your information to come to the conclusions you have reached? Here's a hint, if/than statements like "if you are upset about the vaping ban than you are a supporter of big tobacco" don't work. inkblottime fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Better yet show us your proof. If you truly believe vaping is all big tobacco I want to see your source for that. ah, right https://prospect.org/health/big-tobacco-lobbied-to-save-vaping-juul-altria/ quote:Just as interesting is the identity of the various lobbyists who pushed to preserve flavored e-cigarettes. You would expect the involvement of Juul, the most dominant e-cigarette manufacturer (Juul controls nearly three-quarters of the market and vaping is now often simply called “juuling”), which skyrocketed in particular thanks to flavors like mango and mint. One former OMB policy analyst who lobbied against the rule, Andrew Perraut, ended up as a public policy director for Juul. on the surgeon general's report from 2016 you can see data from 2014 showing brands by sales, many of which were owned or acquired by big tobacco. i haven't found more specific recent data but more than 80% of the vape market is controlled by companies that are partially or fully owned by big tobacco companies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538679/figure/ch4.fig1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538679/ i think this is the part where you are obligated to pivot to talking about the fake cultural disconnect between small nicotine sellers and big nicotine sellers, and how they are different somehow or have different intended uses for their products in mind
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:ah, right Don't be lazy rear end in a top hat. Parse it out then cite your info. Where does it say owned by, which ones? Be specific. I found this in your article: quote:Paradoxically, the crackdown on vaping could wipe out Juul’s retail competition at mom-and-pop vape shops, leaving them as the only distributor able to withstand the blow. The limitless resources and lobbying heft of Altria could rescue an upstart nicotine delivery device from federal attack. Juul has become an escape hatch for an old Big Sin power to buy in on the next Big Sin wave. It supports my theory that big tobacco will win out if the ban runs mom and pop shops out of business. That's in the same one you just threw out like it was proof. inkblottime fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:ah, right You do realize that sales from vape shops are not tracked by any of this right? You're looking at data gathered from convenience stores. The study you cite points this out: quote:Numerous gaps exist in research about “vape shops,” including information on consumer behavior, the use of tracking systems for sales data, marketing surveillance, purchases by youth, and the opinions of retailers and the general public about regulations. quote:Through growth in their sales, tank-style e-cigarettes (also known as mods) and advanced personal vaporizers (APVs) have begun to play an increasingly important role in the e-cigarette market (Wells Fargo Securities 2015a). “Vape shops,” which provide a range of e-cigarette devices and products, have emerged as the primary retail channel for consumers seeking such products (Lee and Kim 2015). Unlike conventional retail outlets, “vape shops” sell a wide range of more complex and powerful tank-style e-cigarettes and many different types of liquids for e-cigarette devices (e-liquids or e-juices) (Sussman et al. 2016). That's where everyone gets their supplies and devices and none of this data is tracked. Prior to Juul I had never seen any big tobacco product mentioned in stock at any of those shops. The devices they are referring to (Wide range of more complex and powerful tank-style devices) were not made by tobacco companies. Ever. They have only made pods/cig-a-likes. If you ever spoke to someone who vaped you would know this. Even now if you go on pretty much any online retailer or any shop in person you would be hard pressed to find products made by tobacco companies. Look for yourself if you don't believe me: https://www.myvaporstore.com https://www.elementvape.com https://eciggity.com/ The presence of big tobacco companies is almost non-existent unless you define big tobacco company as any company selling anything to do with nicotine or the consumption of nicotine. You need to stretch the definition in order to make it fit. The article you posted from prospect, which gets a lot of poo poo wrong and even pushes the popcorn lung myth, even brings up the fact that Altria and the tobacco companies are positioning themselves to take advantage of bans in order to take over the market: quote:Paradoxically, the crackdown on vaping could wipe out Juul’s retail competition at mom-and-pop vape shops, leaving them as the only distributor able to withstand the blow. The limitless resources and lobbying heft of Altria could rescue an upstart nicotine delivery device from federal attack. Juul has become an escape hatch for an old Big Sin power to buy in on the next Big Sin wave. quote:When it made its investment, Altria highlighted how it would be able to help Juul navigate the Washington regulatory process. Altria CEO Howard Willard bragged in a conference call after the purchase about how well-positioned the company would be to collaborate with Juul on an FDA application required of all e-cigarette makers before 2021 to remain on the market. “We have years of experience” with FDA regulations, Willard argued. I find it really ironic that you claim I'm going out of my way to find sources that agree with me when that's exactly what you're doing. The difference is I'm not citing sources pushing debunked myths and misleading/bogus claims about the market. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Don't be lazy rear end in a top hat. Parse it out then cite your info. Where does it say owned by, which ones? Be specific. i... quoted it? don't call me an rear end in a top hat because four paragraphs are too much to read. is two paragraphs too much? quote:But it would be a mistake to separate vaping and cigarettes as separate concerns, rather than lumping them all into the umbrella category of Big Sin. Altria’s special pleading on behalf of e-cigarettes proves it, and should end the false PR campaign pitting the two industries as rivals. Indeed, just a few years after successfully saving flavored liquids from a ban, Altria bought a 35 percent stake in Juul, the company that benefited most from the lobbying effort. juul itself is 75%ish of the vape market inkblottime posted:It supports my theory that big tobacco will win out if the ban runs mom and pop shops out of business. That's in the same one you just threw out like it was proof. they've already won though. you have to pretend like there is a difference between small vape and big vape because it's uncomfortable to be anti-big tobacco while consuming their products. we call this manufactured authenticity big tobacco won this market so hard that people repeat big tobacco talking points with one breath and in the next they say "oh i don't like big tobacco at all, despite repeating their words precisely, we are actually quite different" Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
The thing to remember is that tobacco companies want to sell tobacco. That's why they're pushing the iqos, it still utilizes the tobacco plant. They have this huge, profitable infrastructure of subsidized farms that will be totally useless if everyone in the world who smoked cigarettes switched over to PG/VG vape juice systems. They aren't called "nicotine companies".
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Maybe it will help if I share why I came to this thread. I want to hear points and views on the issue that are based in some form to facts. Opinions are fine but you can't really argue if someone has a firm belief they are unwilling to back down from. I guess I was hoping to have a conversation that would challenge me, prove me wrong or otherwise open up my perspective. But this isn't going anywhere so I guess you control the thread? What do you get out of this thread? Like what is your agenda? What do you want people to know? I would prefer if you backed up your statements with facts but please, you worked so hard to shut everyone down. What did you expect to get out of posting in this thread? Did you get what you wanted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:juul itself is 75%ish of the vape market Vape shops are not included in this tracking and it's where most people get their devices. What you posted supports this statement. Juul was only partially acquired in December of 2018 too. Prior to that they were not owned by any tobacco company. quote:they've already won though. you have to pretend like there is a difference between small vape and big vape because it's uncomfortable to be anti-big tobacco while consuming their products. we call this manufactured authenticity You have to pretend there is no difference even though the differences have been explained to you over and over again and ignored. Repeatedly making false claims is called lying, which is what you are doing. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/e-cig-tobacco-fda-050357 quote:“The rule as drafted is designed to help only the largest players in the market, the big tobacco companies,” said Tony Abboud, president of the Vapor Technology Association, which represents smaller brands and thousands of vape shops. quote:Small companies that helped create the vaping industry, but don’t have the lobbying leverage, are panicking. quote:Juul split with the association this summer, in part over its hostile approach to FDA, and the chasm continues to grow. More than 600 vapor retailer and manufacturers sent a letter to Congress this month pressing different reforms they say will curb teen vaping — and laying blame for the teen vaping crisis at the feet of Juul. How you can say they are the same with a straight face baffles me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:The thing to remember is that tobacco companies want to sell tobacco. That's why they're pushing the iqos, it still utilizes the tobacco plant. They have this huge, profitable infrastructure of subsidized farms that will be totally useless if everyone in the world who smoked cigarettes switched over to PG/VG vape juice systems. They aren't called "nicotine companies". the nicotine in vape juice is derived from tobacco. not the same tobacco used in cigarettes, but the difference here is academic. they don't really care how you ingest nicotine, the addictive substance which makes people consume tobacco in the first place if tobacco companies don't want to sell vapes then i think that would be news to the tobacco companies who are collecting hundreds of millions in dollars of revenue from these products they don't want to sell  https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/28/2/146 inkblottime posted:What do you get out of this thread? Like what is your agenda? What do you want people to know? I would prefer if you backed up your statements with facts but please, you worked so hard to shut everyone down. What did you expect to get out of posting in this thread? Did you get what you wanted? mostly i just want to keep pointing out the guy who is repeating corporate propaganda and doublespeaking about big tobacco, and can't admit it, despite it being really, really obvious like calling out bad arguments is important, especially when those bad arguments are being made by someone advocating for nicotine use on behalf of giant companies Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:mostly i just want to keep pointing out the guy who is repeating corporate propaganda and doublespeaking about big tobacco, and can't admit it, despite it being really, really obvious Again, you're making this up. You can repeat this as many times as you want and it will still be a lie every single time. quote:like calling out bad arguments is important, especially when those bad arguments are being made by someone advocating for nicotine use on behalf of giant companies Still lying. Still incredibly ironic for you to be posting about bad arguments though.  The article you posted is from 2015-2017 which is before any investment from big tobacco was made in Juul. It also, once again, does not track sales data from vape shops and therefor does not represent the full scope of vaping sales in the US. It's misleading. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
I think the entrance of Altira into juul is a self-preservation tactic in the face of a vastly superior product, rather than part of their plan all along to keep people addicted to extremely harmful cigarettes. There are still 34 million American smokers, while only 9 to 14 million americans vape. To call vaping an "epidemic" in the face of smoking numbers still that high reflect bad priorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:I think the entrance of Altira into juul is a self-preservation tactic in the face of a vastly superior product, rather than part of their plan all along to keep people addicted to extremely harmful cigarettes. it's both - buying the better product while also gaining new entry into markets that have been flagging, like the youth market Bullfrog posted:There are still 34 million American smokers, while only 9 to 14 million americans vape. To call vaping an "epidemic" in the face of smoking numbers still that high reflect bad priorities. it depends on if your priorities are more heavily weighted in the short term around adult smokers, or weighted in the long term around preventing new generations from becoming addicted to nicotine the surgeon general has declared youth vaping an epidemic, but i've heard from a reliable source that the government public health apparatus can't be trusted because they are in cahoots with big tobacco because *something mumbles something* https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/surgeon-general-advisory/index.html quote:I, Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, VADM Jerome Adams, am emphasizing the importance of protecting our children from a lifetime of nicotine addiction and associated health risks by immediately addressing the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use. The recent surge in e-cigarette use among youth, which has been fueled by new types of e-cigarettes that have recently entered the market, is a cause for great concern. We must take action now to protect the health of our nation’s young people. quote:E-cigarettes entered the U.S. marketplace around 2007, and since 2014, they have been the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. youth.2 E-cigarette use among U.S. middle and high school students increased 900% during 2011-2015, before declining for the first time during 2015-2017.3 However, current e-cigarette use increased 78% among high school students during the past year, from 11.7% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2018.4 In 2018, more than 3.6 million U.S. youth, including 1 in 5 high school students and 1 in 20 middle school students, currently use e-cigarettes. and one of the arguments put forth in this thread is that the CDC can't be trusted. we keep circling around this disagreement on basic facts about nicotine use which is going to stifle any sort of agreement
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:it's both - buying the better product while also gaining new entry into markets that have been flagging, like the youth market Considering that youth uptake among people who do not have a history of tobacco use is almost non-existent it's probably worth prioritizing getting people off tobacco products as quickly as possible. You seem to disagree and I do not know why that is. Do you think adult smokers should be discouraged from switching to less harmful products? quote:the surgeon general has declared youth vaping an epidemic, but i've heard from a reliable source that the government public health apparatus can't be trusted because they are in cahoots with big tobacco because *something mumbles something* The numbers do not support that we're in the middle of an "epidemic" and those are the governments own figures. We've been over this multiple times. If they make the claim that 25%-27% of youth are vaping when only around 20% of those are regular users (More than 20 days a month), then the statistic is deliberately misleading. Only 1% of that 20% are people who were not already using tobacco. 1% of 20% of 25% is not an epidemic. How you frame the issue will determine how it's addressed and if you are misleading people by how you frame it then the actual underlying problem will not be addressed. Which it's not. https://www.qeios.com/read/article/384 quote:and one of the arguments put forth in this thread is that the CDC can't be trusted. we keep circling around this disagreement on basic facts about nicotine use which is going to stifle any sort of agreement We're circling around because you consistently lie and ignore anything that runs counter to what you believe. My beliefs about the CDC are grounded in their response to the THC lung illness outbreak and how they were not forthcoming with the cause that the state agencies themselves were reporting. It was abundantly clear what the problem was from the onset and they dragged their feet and for one reason or another conflated nicotine vaping with THC. Whether this was deliberate or not is up for debate, but it still reinforced the misconception (and lie) that vaping is equally dangerous or more dangerous than smoking tobacco. If the CDC is not going to clarify that then they should be held responsible for the outcome. That includes people migrating back to combustible tobacco whether it's adult users or youth. You seem to have no problem with that. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:the nicotine in vape juice is derived from tobacco. not the same tobacco used in cigarettes, but the difference here is academic. they don't really care how you ingest nicotine, the addictive substance which makes people consume tobacco in the first place Is your objective to shut this thread down or turn it into anti-smoking/anti-vaping? I'm just trying to understand since the evidence you have provided doesn't always match up or it mostly comes off as opinion. Quoting news source opinions doesn't carry a lot of weight as you are still quoting opinion. It might help support your opinion but I haven't seen the silver bullet yet. Also, do you have a source to verify all vaping comes from big tobacco? And if so which ones, and which big tobacco supports them. These are the kind of facts I would be interested in hearing but just saying so doesn't make it so. I don't take people's word at face value. Example: I shop at Mt Baker Vapor. Can you tell me where their juice is sourced? inkblottime fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Is your objective to shut this thread down or turn it into anti-smoking/anti-vaping? i've already said, my objective is to criticize bad arguments. that's what i have done consistently inkblottime posted:I'm just trying to understand since the evidence you have provided doesn't always match up or it mostly comes off as opinion. Quoting news source opinions doesn't carry a lot of weight as you are still quoting opinion. It might help support your opinion but I haven't seen the silver bullet yet. Also, do you have a source to verify all vaping comes from big tobacco? And if so which ones, and which big tobacco supports them. These are the kind of facts I would be interested in hearing but just saying so doesn't make it so. I don't take people's word at face value. i dont think you can call the british medical journal a "news source opinion" at this point i just have to point out that we're arguing about if the very motives and methodology of the centers for disease control are questionable, which highlights the quality and motivations of some of the arguments advanced itt regarding minimizing and dismissing growth in teenage nicotine use. if you want my personal opinion i think that this line of thinking is ghoulish and rooted in personal adherence to a lifestyle of substance abuse, but i don't need to elaborate on that for the Nth time e: also it's confusing to keep track of which parts of global epidemiology are credible and noble, and which parts are in the pocket of big tobacco, because it seems arbitrary as to what evidence should be accepted and which should be disregarded. again, i think this line between good and bad scientific information is drawn for personal convenience above all other reasons Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Is your objective to shut this thread down or turn it into anti-smoking/anti-vaping? Shut the thread down? 90% of the thread is him and the op arguing past each other. For better or worse, he and the op ARE the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i've already said, my objective is to criticize bad arguments. that's what i have done consistently If you were even had the slightest desire to reflect on your own arguments you'd see how loving stupid this sounds coming from you. quote:i dont think you can call the british medical journal a "news source opinion" I don't think you can say the sources I cite are all parroting tobacco talking points either but hey who's keeping track! quote:at this point i just have to point out that we're arguing about if the very motives and methodology of the centers for disease control are questionable, I am for good reasons which you have once again ignored. quote:if you want my personal opinion i think that this line of thinking is ghoulish and rooted in personal adherence to a lifestyle of substance abuse, but i don't need to elaborate on that for the Nth time "This is because you're all addicts". Yeah we heard you the first time. quote:e: also it's confusing to keep track of which parts of global epidemiology are credible and noble, and which parts are in the pocket of big tobacco, because it seems arbitrary as to what evidence should be accepted and which should be disregarded. again, i think this line between good and bad scientific information is drawn for personal convenience above all other reasons really now 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Shut the thread down? 90% of the thread is him and the op arguing past each other. For better or worse, he and the op ARE the thread. He's not even arguing. He's just making poo poo up and hoping I don't notice he's ignoring most of what I and others have said to him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:I think the entrance of Altira into juul is a self-preservation tactic in the face of a vastly superior product, rather than part of their plan all along to keep people addicted to extremely harmful cigarettes. Depending on how big the pod/cartridge market can grow, tobacco companies might be in for a very hard time. A gallon of nicotine liquid costs only a couple of bucks and lasts you ten life times. Flavour and base are even cheaper. Can't buy a private jet off these profit margins. If I was in their position I would do everything imaginable to fight vaping through legislative means, try to build up brand recognition in the pod market and try to discredit non-pod vaping. (Maybe also make an account at a dead gay comedy forum and screech about THE CHILDREN.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:He's not even arguing. He's just making poo poo up and hoping I don't notice he's ignoring most of what I and others have said to him. 90% of this thread is the two of you going "no, you're stupid" at each other. That's kind of arguing. Also, you missed my point earlier. The THC vapes killing kids are a completely different product, I am aware of that. But your insistence that your vaping stuff exists in isolation from that denies it's role in kids dying to what was almost certainly described to them as "vaping weed." Vaping becoming normalized allowed that experimentation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i've already said, my objective is to criticize bad arguments. that's what i have done consistently So you dismiss any thought that the CDC might be misleading people by posting vague or unattributed information? Simply because it's the CDC? Do we have a right to be critical of the government when questionable decisions are made? Sorry I'm having a hard time following the last part. Are you discrediting evidence? Like in general? Cuz that would gently caress this poo poo all up. I'm going to ask again: Where's your source that all vaping is tied to big tobacco? Like supply, ingredients and such. I really want to know this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:90% of this thread is the two of you going "no, you're stupid" at each other. That's kind of arguing. I've made plenty of attempts to meaningfully address his accusations and lies. quote:Also, you missed my point earlier. The THC vapes killing kids are a completely different product, I am aware of that. But your insistence that your vaping stuff exists in isolation from that denies it's role in kids dying to what was almost certainly described to them as "vaping weed." Vaping becoming normalized allowed that experimentation. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I do think there's a convenience side that gets overlooked. It's a much more efficient way of getting high if you can just order carts off of ebay and use them without stinking up a high school bathroom. If there is some cause and effect thing going on I don't know how you'd stop it at this point. I know there have been some massive drug busts breaking up rings of illicit THC dealers. The question is whether or not the people using the carts would be users of just plain old weed. I'd guess the answer is yes but there isn't enough information out there to determine if that's true. Took me a minute to find again but here's a good article about the change in use patterns. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/10/23/20918807/marijuana-legalization-2019-vaping-lung-disease
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
luxury handset you are a bad faith arguing rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:So you dismiss any thought that the CDC might be misleading people by posting vague or unattributed information? Simply because it's the CDC? Do we have a right to be critical of the government when questionable decisions are made? yes, because i don't think the CDC is in the business of misleading the public. this line of thought is a bit conspiratorial in my opinion, and the criticisms meant to dismiss rising rates of youth nicotine usage conveniently fold into the big tobacco talking points which are the main focus of this thread inkblottime posted:Sorry I'm having a hard time following the last part. Are you discrediting evidence? Like in general? Cuz that would gently caress this poo poo all up. no, i'm pointing out the selective nature of which public health agencies are trustworthy itt. it seems like the ones which are credible are the ones which can be used to advance a pro-ENDS agenda inkblottime posted:I'm going to ask again: Where's your source that all vaping is tied to big tobacco? Like supply, ingredients and such. I really want to know this. i've already posted it itt, here's one you may not have seen yet but the other post is on this page and you didn't accept it. i see no need to go in circles about which facts are acceptable, or to go chasing goalposts
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yes, because i don't think the CDC is in the business of misleading the public. this line of thought is a bit conspiratorial in my opinion, and the criticisms meant to dismiss rising rates of youth nicotine usage conveniently fold into the big tobacco talking points which are the main focus of this thread If they are not sharing accurate or up to date information for one reason or another then there is something broken in the process. They did this. They, for whatever reason, did not clarify what the source of these illnesses were even though state agencies were reporting what they were seeing from the early days of the outbreak. The FDA issued reports about avoiding THC long before the CDC did. This has been well documented and public health experts have been wondering what the gently caress they've been doing as a result. quote:no, i'm pointing out the selective nature of which public health agencies are trustworthy itt. it seems like the ones which are credible are the ones which can be used to advance a pro-ENDS agenda Same goes for this. If you are not making the relative risks of these products clear or mis-representing the research then that is a problem. This includes the effectiveness of the products in transitioning people away from tobacco. The reason you started replying in this thread again was because I made a post about Snus. Snus has decades of study and epidemiology to support the claim that it is a reduced risk product. The FDA has only recently said the company can make that claim despite overwhelming evidence that it was true that's been available for years. Why? I don't know, but that doesn't sit well with me and I don't think being skeptical of something like that is unreasonable. quote:here's one you may not have seen yet but the other post is on this page and you didn't accept it. i see no need to go in circles about which facts are acceptable, or to go chasing goalposts
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:yes, because i don't think the CDC is in the business of misleading the public. this line of thought is a bit conspiratorial in my opinion, and the criticisms meant to dismiss rising rates of youth nicotine usage conveniently fold into the big tobacco talking points which are the main focus of this thread This is your theory to prove, not mine. You have not proven it to me other than shoving random data at me. This doesn't do it. I want specifics. Does "other" count as big tobacco and where exactly does it count and to whom? What exactly is this data saying. Paraphrase, don't plagiarizer your opinions. Please do the leg work to prove your point. I have not seen that yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:If they are not sharing accurate or up to date information for one reason or another then there is something broken in the process. They did this. They, for whatever reason, did not clarify what the source of these illnesses were even though state agencies were reporting what they were seeing from the early days of the outbreak. The FDA issued reports about avoiding THC long before the CDC did. This has been well documented and public health experts have been wondering what the gently caress they've been doing as a result. That's really the issue I've had with it. My governor confirmed my concerns when he conflated the lung disease with keeping children safe. The CDC was slow to weigh in on vaping, like YEARS slow, and when it did it conflicted with what we were hearing in real-time. I'm happy to see they updated some of their info to clarify that THC vaping products appear to be the main concern and that they only recommend you stop vaping nicotine if you want to have zero risk, which makes perfect sense. The one thing that was sticking in my head and really the only thing I can't dismiss because I don't fully understand it, is the process of making the flavors. I really do wish there was more info on this, either saying it's fine or here's the possibility for risk. I know manufacturers are already required to send info to the FDA so I'm mostly confident that that is keeping things in check but if my governor had come out and said " we don't know if flavors are causing some of the illnesses reported and we need time to make sure it safe so I am enacting a ban for..." I would have been bummed but I would have also understood. As it is, banning every flavor but one for four months and leave that one flavor in place, in order to evaluate the safety of these products is just bad faith. Tell it like it is. A lot of the old school vapor users had to do a lot of tinkering and we can figure a lot of this poo poo out. Stop pulling the wool over our eyes. Edit: If you wish to watch it, I've included a video here with the after Q/A that was left off the official news source. Note: This is pro-vape commentary so please take the narration with a grain of salt. From the governors reaction during the Q/A I believe he really does want vaping to go away for the sake of teens. That doesn't change the fact that it's a drastic move under false pretenses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5WtmD6ainI inkblottime fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:Edit: If you wish to watch it, I've included a video here with the after Q/A that was left off the official news source. Note: This is pro-vape commentary so please take the narration with a grain of salt. From the governors reaction during the Q/A I believe he really does want vaping to go away for the sake of teens. That doesn't change the fact that it's a drastic move under false pretenses. Even with Inslee issuing the ban, I still respect him and the vast majority of his positions. I am glad he was able to at least move the needle on climate change in the Dem primary although I doubt that will stick since nobody even brings up the issue during debate questioning. I honestly believe that a lot of politicians are being fed information from tobacco control experts that don't know what to do with vaping and would rather smother it in the crib. They believe that years of work stigmatizing smoking and convincing people to give it up or never take up the habit to begin with is just all coming apart. I think their heart is in the right place, for the most part. It's just that they are starting from a position of believing a thing and working backwards to confirm those beliefs rather than letting the science dictate the policy. There are plenty of examples to pull from that illustrate this. The diacytl scare, the gateway hypothesis, the claim ENDS are associated with higher risk of heart attack, and countless others. All of these things crumble under any amount of rigor, but how many times do you see researchers retract their claims and pull the studies? If everyone around you that's in charge of dealing with public health is telling you that these things are bad, you're probably going to listen to your advisers. If you are being told there is an "epidemic" or that vaping nicotine is causing the lung outbreaks, you're probably going to want to act on that. This is how it should work. You place people in positions of authority you hope you can count on to give you accurate information. Unfortunately that hasn't happened here and it still isn't happening. Here are some examples: http://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/tobacco/ecigs.html This is the Alabama public health information portal for the vaping illnesses. There is no mention of THC anywhere. They refer to what's contained in Juul pods as "oils" even though there is no oil in nicotine eliquid. http://www.dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/prevention-wellness/tobacco/e-cigarettes-and-vapes This is Illinois. Once again no mention of THC in the health update. https://chfs.ky.gov/News/Documents/nrvapingcaution.pdf Once again, no mention of THC. So not only are these states not warning people about what was actually making people sick and killing them, they were spreading hysteria about something else entirely and probably caused quite a few people to second guess their decision to vape in the first place. Keep in mind the vast majority of users are former smokers, so most of these people will likely go back to smoking. This will also have the possibly intended effect of putting people off to the idea of switching. So, people keep smoking and people keep dying and more of these lung cases will pop up because nobody rang the alarm bell about what was causing them. This public health posturing is probably contributing to the public believing more and more than vaping is more harmful than it actually is despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2729471 There is something driving this belief, and I think it's all the weird breadcrumbs of incorrect information and uninformed warnings. When the same people who peddle this poo poo advise politicians, you get bans. When the FDA and CDC do not clear away bad information or incorrect assumptions, they're contributing to it. That's a danger to public health. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
https://www.npr.org/sections/health..._medium=twitter Takes until paragraph 12 to get any kind of quote from the CDC on what's causing the outbreak. This still does not line up with their public updates or statements. The headline still doesn't specify what kind of vaping devices are involved. This is why people are distrustful. This is why people are frustrated. This is putting people in danger. On Terra Firma fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:https://www.npr.org/sections/health..._medium=twitter The doctor heading the investigation has no experience in tobacco or vaping.  But that image of the dude with the vape testing base.  I'm getting flashbacks to the infamous cardo tests they did years ago that they said proved that vaping had carcinogens. Of course they were testing them upside down so the cardos were dry burning. Even now, I think most people who vape know not to do it inverted like in that picture (flooding, dry-burn, oh my!). Jesus. EDIT: The conclusion blows my mind. quote:"Some of the underlying factors that have brought us here are going to be very difficult to deal with," she says. If this were simply a case of contaminated food, the CDC could identify the product and recall it from the shelves. It's very different to intervene in an outbreak "that we believe is due to behaviors that may be quite common and products that, for whatever reason, seem to be quite risky." Are they talking about all vapes? "...seem to be quite risky." Seriously? If they are talking about THC vaping, which granted, I have little to no experience with but I thought weed wasn't an addictive product. What exactly do they mean by "hard to quit" unless they are also including nicotine. I loving hate this mixing of subjects to confuse the issue. inkblottime fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Oct 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
inkblottime posted:The doctor heading the investigation has no experience in tobacco or vaping. That gave me pause. I understand their thinking with putting someone in charge of outbreaks that has experience, but those were infectious diseases and not incidents of acute exposure to a particular chemical or compound. I think it's one of the reasons why their messaging is all over the place. There's nobody at the helm that understands the technology or epidemiology. quote:I'm getting flashbacks to the infamous cardo tests they did years ago that they said proved that vaping had carcinogens. Of course they were testing them upside down so the cardos were dry burning. Even now, I think most people who vape know not to do it inverted like in that picture (flooding, dry-burn, oh my!). Jesus. They're still doing that. I read a study yesterday about finding metals in vapor that I dug into. They were using an MVP 2 with an ego tank (Which is god knows how many generations of tech behind where we are now) as well as a more recent mod with an RDA. They were setting the mods at 5 volts and taking 4 second draws or more. If you took a 4 second draw on an RDA at 5 volts your lips would be scorched off your face and you would have burns down your tongue and throat. You wouldn't even be able to inhale! They discussed how more metals appeared at 600 c and how that's something researchers need to watch out for. That's like conducting vehicle safety tests at 300mph instead of 55-65 or whatever speed they use normally and presenting that as real world use. It's loving insane. quote:Are they talking about all vapes? "...seem to be quite risky." Seriously? If they are talking about THC vaping, which granted, I have little to no experience with but I thought weed wasn't an addictive product. What exactly do they mean by "hard to quit" unless they are also including nicotine. I loving hate this mixing of subjects to confuse the issue. Again this is another example of why I don't fully trust the CDC here. I do not think the person making these statements is doing so with the intent of demonizing ENDS or whatever. It just appears that a lot of people have zero familiarity with the product, don't understand how or why it's used, and are scared of it because of that. It sounds like less of trying to confuse the issue and more being confused by the issue itself. Reminds me of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Another great example of why Juul is poo poo and why passing regulations that will give them all or most of the market is loving insane. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/lawsuit-juul-sold-tainted-e-liquids-to-users-drunk-and-vaping-like-mo-fos/ quote:Breja accuses ex-CEO Kevin Burns of managing the company like a dictator, operating in a “win-at-all-costs, reckless fashion,” and fostering a “culture of silence.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Another great example of why Juul is poo poo and why passing regulations that will give them all or most of the market is loving insane. I really don't like juul, but I'm curious as to what "contaminated" means and how it affected the products. What were they contaminated with? Were they just expired? How did being expired affect the juice? etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:I really don't like juul, but I'm curious as to what "contaminated" means and how it affected the products. What were they contaminated with? Were they just expired? How did being expired affect the juice? etc. This is a good case for examining flavors. It's unfortunate they don't have or don't want to release the information on what the contaminant is. I love mint and this kinda scares me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Bullfrog posted:I really don't like juul, but I'm curious as to what "contaminated" means and how it affected the products. What were they contaminated with? Were they just expired? How did being expired affect the juice? etc. Who knows. It's a really good case for why giving control of the market to like 3 companies is a bad idea though! inkblottime posted:This is a good case for examining flavors. It's unfortunate they don't have or don't want to release the information on what the contaminant is. I love mint and this kinda scares me. The FDA knows what is in all of the flavors already. They require ingredient lists from all manufacturers. They just don't regulate quality or accuracy because that would be hard. Somehow the UK has managed to test every liquid on the market just fine though so 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
This obfuscation is what drives me nuts. Is the "contaminate" on the list sent to FDA? Is it something they added without telling the FDA? Is it a known result of adding a catalyst (heat) to two known chemicals? I wish they would break this stuff down. But yeah, I would not be sad if Juul died in a fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:They're still doing that. I read a study yesterday about finding metals in vapor that I dug into. They were using an MVP 2 with an ego tank (Which is god knows how many generations of tech behind where we are now) as well as a more recent mod with an RDA. They were setting the mods at 5 volts and taking 4 second draws or more. If you took a 4 second draw on an RDA at 5 volts your lips would be scorched off your face and you would have burns down your tongue and throat. You wouldn't even be able to inhale! They discussed how more metals appeared at 600 c and how that's something researchers need to watch out for. one the one hand, sure, sounds like a poo poo study. on the other hand, there are hundreds if not thousands of different vaping devices on the market, most of them are being manufactured in china, most of them are extremely inexpensive, and I'd be frankly shocked if some of them didn't expose you to heavy metals as a result of routine use. the stuff you're citing might look like junk science, but it's a hell of a lot more rigorous and thoughtful than anything the manufacturers of this bullshit are doing. I use a Yocan when I'm on the go because I am too old/reasonable to carry an acetylene rig around and use it in a moving car like some people I know, and I sort of figure the plant material I'm not burning as a result of vaping my own cannabis oil, makes up for some amount of bullshit I might be getting from the device, but I wonder about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:16
|
|
