|
luxury handset posted:of the reasons you may be arguing like this, the most charitable reason i can think of is that you are trying to rationalize the continued use of a substance which is highly addictive Over and over you do this thing where you pull it all back to, "Well, it's still nicotine!" Do you have any evidence that nicotine, by itself, is as harmful as you're painting it to be? You understand vaping isn't the only non-cigarette form of nicotine delivery, right? Swedish snus has been around for more than a century, and the nicotine-essentialist argument you're advancing here has been being hashed out in public health research for decades before vaping became huge. Having read the derail in US News and this thread, you seem to have either a hang-up or a chip on your shoulder about substances in general. If the substance in question isn't really that harmful on its own (similar to other legal substances such as alcohol, for instance) and there are safe delivery systems then why do you care? It seems like you desperately need there to be bad health consequences from vaping, no matter that actual facts, so that you can feel better about yourself or continue on your moral crusade. It's very childish and extremely tiring. ErIog fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Oct 3, 2019 |
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
luxury handset posted:people who are addicted to a substance have a very good and compelling reason to make faulty arguments in favor of the continued use of that substance Maybe you should just admit you're making a moral prohibitionist argument instead of trying to pretend you're engaging in any kind of actual rationalism. It would go better for you, and we could all move on with our lives instead of have to deal with you "just asking questions" and arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
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? Stop removing context to make the narrative fit your bias. The companies weren't interested in selling a cessation product specifically, and so weren't interested in certifying it as such or being forced to certify it as such. They were selling a nicotine product for recreational use. Do you think O'Doul's or non-alcoholic versions of beverages are all a devious plot because they're not all FDA certified as ways to quit drinking alcohol? 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 Vaping wasn't corporatized until very recently, though. The tobacco companies were fighting it tooth and nail, and in a lot of ways they still are. This is why Phillip Morris and other companies put a lot of money into developing dumb cigarette-based bullshit like iQos. It's clear based on the history of their actions they would prefer to stay in the cigarette business. You saw this same pattern with snus, worldwide, when it became more popular outside Sweden. The cigarette companies develop some insanely unhealthy bullshit to try to tie into the craze while using their lobbying efforts to shut the newcomers out of the market. One the one hand you accuse On Terra Firma of being a corporate shill for big tobacco, but if you actually look at what big tobacco wants right now it's actually closer to your position. Big tobacco would very much like vaping to be more heavily regulated than cigarettes so they don't have to compete with it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You are, of course. Not least, let's take this, perhaps your most brazen and obvious lie and the foundation of basically all of your argument He said "most people." If you want to focus on kids that's fine, but don't pretend the majority of people vaping are kids unless you have data to back it up. Also, that data doesn't show that vaping is more prevalent than cigarette smoking was before the explosion of vaping. I'm not sure which numbers you're looking at to come to that conclusion, but according to the page you linked, overall tobacco use has dropped from 46% of high schoolers in 2013 to 27% in 2018. Vaping has become more popular than smoking among children using nicotine, but overall rates of nicotine usage for children have continued to decline. What appears to have happened is mostly that kids who previously would have smoked cigarettes are vaping instead. That's still a problem that deserves attention and regulation, and one of the most likely reasons for the popularity of vaping among teens is simply accessibility. That can be dealt with similar to how accessibility of cigarettes was dealt with. This isn't really a new problem, and it doesn't really have any bearing on the efficacy of harm reduction of vaping for adults. I feel like all the energy being expended on panic over vaping could be better used advocating for bans on more harmful combustible forms of tobacco. ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:It's possible to work on two issues at once. The people arguing with the OP don't seem to think so. They clearly appear to think that supporting harm reduction comes at the expense of doing anything about regulating nicotine overall. If they didn't think so then why would they argue so vehemently against harm reduction?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that is not what the page says. the all tobacco use last 30d for high schoolers was 22.9%. you are comparing the “ever used tobacco” 2013 number to the “last 30d” number from 2018. vaping has driven the first increase in that number in a long time. You're correct I got the numbers confused (because that site loving sucks), but then please tell me what the number was before and what it increased to. The only takeaway I can see from that page is that vaping is up while cigarette smoking is down. I don't see any numbers that show tobacco usage overall is up. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Vaping doesn’t need to be banned but it needs to be heavily regulated and when people whine about regulations with tobacco company logic we should come down hard on that nonsense. This thread is about positioning an highly addictive substance, sold for profit by companies with identical financial incentives to those tobacco companies had, as something benign or beneficial that should be let to run free with only the good will of vape shops restricting it. That’s nonsense. This is strawman. The OP points out in the first post there are bad actors in the sector and it requires more regulation. You're assuming based on a lack of support for the specific ban on flavored vapes that they don't want any regulation. That's just not true. Also, this "using tobacco company talking points" is a silly argument. Of all the possible new regulations and controls on vaping, do you think it's an accident the Trump administration is supporting the one that causes cigarette company stocks to rise? Why do you assume the flavor ban currently on the table is being done in good faith? Can't we question why they're not also proposing other obvious things to restrict accessibility for minors? Can't we question why the admin isn't proposing stricter controls on actual cigarettes? By that same logic, we could just as easily accuse everyone arguing for the vape ban in this thread of being Trump supporters. I mean, you clearly seem to trust him on this issue. That's what I find objectionable about the "why can't we do both?" argument. The thing the current admin is advancing clearly isn't doing both, and so it's important to discuss whether or not, in the absence of other regulations, this current proposed regulation is a good idea. You might just end up increasing cigarette sales. As long as this stuff is as accessible as it is you might also not really see much drop in teen usage. ErIog fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Caffeine has like 5 annual deaths You guys keep saying you're not engaging in moral panic, but then you also keep doing this thing where you pretend vaping/nicotine gum/etc is as harmful as cigarettes. And then you lash out when people accuse you of being irrational. This isn't to say there aren't health consequences, but you're telling on yourself by refusing to engage with any kind of nuance. ErIog fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 11:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Omobono posted:
I'm not lying. It's not bad faith. That website really sucks poo poo because they twisted everything on it instead of just posting the raw table for easy comparison. Evilweasel didn't post the numbers as you did. If I'm wrong on that point I'll accept it. However, what I will not accept, is pretending that a study of children using nicotine says anything about whether or not adults use it to quit smoking. That's moving the goal posts, and it's double stupid because everyone arguing against that point in this thread is on board with more restrictions on accessibility of nicotine for children. The other thing that your side hasn't grappled with at all is how much of that increased usage is because the market, being not regulated properly, is extremely accessible to children. Ban the flavors all you want, but if you don't fix accessibility the kids are still gonna vape. You can say that's what you're fighting for, but it's pretty clear you aren't because the entire reason your side is arguing in this thread is because they were mad someone didn't take Trump's policy position at face value. ErIog fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 12:37
|
|
