[Image-1]
I quit smoking a year and a half ago with my e-cigarette, and I’m not going to stand for the provinces position on e-cigarettes, and the banning of flavored e-liquids.
Science doesn’t support Nova Scotia’s contention that e-cigarettes are tobacco products. Numerous reputable studies have concluded,
again (http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf)
and again (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23033998),
that e-cigarettes propel no harmful vapors to others, and very little to the user – especially when compared to environmental toxins like auto exhaust, or cigarette smoke.
Vapor is not smoke.
Competent health boards around the world realize regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products is a big mistake. Literally millions of lives could be saved through the use of these devices. Nicotine by itself, without the chemicals included in cigarettes, is relatively harmless. It is addictive yes – and so is caffeine.
When can we expect the province’s ban on flavored caffeine products? When will the province ban flavored alcohol? When will the province ban flavored nicotine gum? Wouldn’t want to anger the pharmaceutical companies.
Reasonable people will accept a tax, and no one wants children to be using e-cigarettes. The unconscionable side of the legislation is in relation to flavorings.
It is clear that Dr. Strang knows little about e-cigarettes and cares little about the health of the population. He does exert a great influence to government as chief pharmaceutical industry stooge, however. This bill 60 is a perversion of health policy, and the Liberals should be ashamed they take the financial health of nicotine gum manufacturers above the health of their citizens.
I’m not back to cigarettes and your actions are a fucking outrage! —Michael Murphy
This article appears in Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2014.
It does seem to be an absurd over-reaction to something which, if not totally benign, is at least reducing second hand smoke. And the whole “Won’t someone please think of the children!” argument is getting very tiresome.
Hear Hear Michael!! I for one, have given up cigarettes in favour of a vaporizer. Well written bitch on this subject as the guberment knows they are losing big time on the taxes that cigarettes provide their pockets, now they want to put excise taxes on this as well to have complete control over e-cig vaporizers so coffers remain high for them to filtch from.
Studies have shown that there is no tobacco related substances involved and the nicotine is synthetically reproduced. Next thing you know they’ll put an excise tax on Timmies as caffiene is a drug as well. Old adage stands… Follow the money.
Battle stations are ready Ivan.
THE UNCONSCIONABLE USE OF “UNCONSCIONABLE”
“The unconscionable side of the legislation is in relation to flavoring.” Mchael Murphy
“Unconscionable” is a neologism not found in the dictionary. Neither for that matter is “conscionable.” However, the root derivation is obviously “conscience” which, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, refers to “the moral sense of right and wrong.”
As with so many others, the question in respect to the legislation on e-cigarette then ultimately devolves into one of Philosophy, in particular that of Moral Philosophy. However – and this is important – the bitcher has not engaged Moral Philosophy, particularly those grounds upon which the legislation on e-cigarettes might be see to be morally wrong. In other words, what moral principle has the legislation on e-cigarettes violated?
On the bitcher’s showing the answer can only be: “None.” In other words, the relationship between flavoring and the violation of any moral principle is not perspicuous. Therefore, one can only conclude that the bitcher’s use of “unconscionable” is itself unconscionable. Next.
(AVATAR #65: The HUMOROUS GERMAN)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
You’re a fuckin dummy OB! You have NOT quit smoking. You are simply using a different delivery system for your drug, nicotine…
Just wait til they start to tax the shit out of that stuff. Yup gubmint just can’t wait to be your nanny and then charge you for the ramming up your ass.
And this is what you end up with:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/e-cigarette-changes-debated-at-public-hearing-1.2822027
Tax junk food through the roof but leave e-cigs alone.
This bitch reminds me of a favourite quote which I often paraphrase: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…when first we practice to (self-)deceive.” Although, I’m not sure if e-cig users are more guilty of self-delusion or willful ignorance because a quick Google search casts many doubts on e-cigarette user claims of harmlessness or even harm reduction, enabling of cessation leading to fewer smokers, and so on. As time goes on they could even be found to be more harmful than regular cigarettes. And don’t delude yourself “vapers” – you are being targeted for marketing by a growing e-cigarette industry that would love to create a growing generation of users.
Do your own research but here are a few starter tidbits:
From: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/health-risks-e-cigarettes-emerge
“Electronic cigarettes, marketed as safer than regular cigarettes, deliver a cocktail of toxic chemicals including carcinogens into the lungs, new studies show. Using e-cigarettes may even make bacterial infections resistant to antibiotics” and “E-cigarettes deliver high levels of nanoparticles, the researchers found, which can trigger inflammation and have been linked to asthma, stroke, heart disease, and diabetes”
From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/are-e-cigarettes-about-harm-reduction-or-greater-harm/article20284141/
” Nicotine is not a carcinogen but it is a poison, one often used in pesticides. Users can and do suffer nicotine poisoning from overpuffing a device that, unlike a cigarette, never goes out. And the liquid itself can fatally poison a child just by getting on her skin.” and “The WHO has been monitoring a growing number of nicotine poisoning around the world. It is also watching a steady growth in the use of e-cigarettes, and it is concerned about the threat from both direct and second-hand contact with the vapour.” and, on the subject of cessation, “As well, the WHO says there is no evidence that vaping is an effective way to quit smoking and that, without regulation and prohibition, “children (and generally non-smokers) will initiate nicotine use with [e-cigarettes] at a rate greater than expected if [they] did not exist.”
Hear hear michael murphy for mayor! I agree, this is bullshit. I am addicted to smoking not gum chewing. The vaporizers work. The nicotine gum just gives me a headache and a gut ache. Sick of the controversy around e-cigs, why don’t they do some testing to get them FDA approved? Because then they would lose profits from tobacco sales and all the money generated by treating disease. There is no money in helping people quit, they need to protect their revenues because there’s more money in keeping people sick and addicted. It’s all about the all-mighty dollar.
OB claims: “Numerous reputable studies have concluded, again (http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/fil…) and again (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2303399…), that e-cigarettes propel no harmful vapors to others, and very little to the user. ”
Hmmm!
The first study OB referenced says near the end of the document that it was funded by what looks to me like an e-smokers’ rights group : ” Funding for this work was provided by The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) Research Fund. CASAA is an all-volunteer, donation-funded, non-profit organization devoted to defending consumer access to and promoting tobacco harm reduction; for more information, see http://casaa.org/.”
The second study, in turn, only looked at certain number of potentially hazardous emissions and said that e-cigarettes were safe “based on the compounds analyzed.” That doesn’t sound like a sweeping endorsement to me.
unconscionable not conscientious; not reasonable, unreasonably great, etc – The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, 1996.
UNCONSCIONABLE – Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. – West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005
Come on LouLou, get a Dictionary that was printed this century.
How about that game of Chess? I’ll even give you the choice of colour.
OB – Make your own E-juice, as I said on another thread it’s cheap and easy, albiet a bit messy (kinda like LouLou’s mother).
“Before we get started, the first thing we have to do is get a Philosopher’s input…” – Nobody Ever.
We should all just stay indoors in our own little bubbles.
The world is much too scary to venture out and be forced to succumb to pollution, carcinogens, other crazy animals (especially in fairview), and all the other worldly dangers.
no drinking… no smoking… no conversing with others, lest they have ebola and spittle flyeth from one chattering maw to our own.
Fear everything.
Fear it all and regulate everything, you political pricks.
This is just as bad as the ephedrine/creatine false harms bullshit.
RSVP
: Waldo (11/04, 1:43PM)
Waldo, is that you again? I must say, in addition to your obscure references – “West’s Enclyclopedia of American Law”? – that I found your reference to my mother inappropriate, unacceptable and even unconscionable. The Mod might have to spank you again as she did, quite rightly, on “Bikes are Very Special” (see my post of 10/25, 3:01PM) when she deleted what was no doubt a crude and virulent retort from you which, of course, we will thankfully never see. If the Mod does happen to see it as her duty to give you another spanking my advice would be to follow the Christian example and to simply turn the other cheek.
As I indicated in my post my point was very simple and I have no intention of engaging your absurd “King’s Gambit” or for that matter any other item which might engage your feeble powers any further. If not for me, have some consideration for the others on this site.
Of course, if you crave my forgiveness I just might re-consider my views on what can only be described as your egregious and unconscionable behaviour.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
What’s an Enclyclopedia?
West’s Encyclopedia Of American Law, I thought you would be familiar with it since you studied law, but then again your law books are probably from the 1800’s.
I got spanked? Must have slept through it.
Just come out and admit it, you don’t know how to play Chess.
On the bright side, LouLou learnt a new word today. “Unconscionable, RAWK”
“She may be messy, but her labia are magnificent.” – Ada McCallum
FYI – someone mentioned outdoor air pollution.
According to a recent study:
“A considerable proportion of smokers’ homes had air pollution levels that were the same or higher than the annual average PM2.5 concentration measured in Beijing,” a heavily polluted city.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/staying-indoors-with-a-smoker-similar-to-being-outdoors-in-beijing/article21442178/
Buncha drug addicts! Boohoo’n like a bunch of chillen cuz yo yummy flavors be gettin banned. Shut da fuck up.
RSVP
: Waldo (11/04, 4:35PM)
Is that you again Waldo? Two points only:
(a) My comment, “The Unconscionable Use of ‘Unconscionable'” on this thread was meant facetiously – you’ll probably have to look that word up as well, Waldo – but clearly you are too thick to have realized it. It’s one of the ways I amuse myself on this site. However, many who are thick like you manage to get along quite well in life, or so I’m told, albeit at a very rudimentary level of social existence.
(b) But your stupidity is not the major stumbling block, Waldo. Rather it is your corrosive envy of my superior educational attainments which, sadly, has rendered you mentally unbalanced, at least where I am concerned. You must remember that there is nothing to be ashamed of in having only grade four. Many, so I’m told, manage to get along quite well in life albeit at a very reduced level of intellectual existence. However, when stupidity and envy are combined, as in your case, the results can be catastrophic as we are now observing.
The consquence, Waldo, is that I must cease all further correspondence with you for fear of driving you over the edge, for fear of making you completely woo-woo. I’m sure you will understand, at least as far as one can use that word in the same sentence as that of “Waldo.” Do not reply. If you do I shall not respond.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“was meant facetiously” – backpedalling again I see. Get a new dictionary.
You’ve played the “jealous” card before LouLou, didn’t work then either.
How could I ever be envious of a mere dilettante such as yourself? That would be like Chuck Norris being jealous of Woody Allen’s pugilistic skills.
Yes, do go hide and pretend that big bad Hugo isn’t your intellectual superior.
RSVP
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
: Michael Murphy (11/05, 7:33PM)
Well yes, I knew that but, as I attempted to explain to Waldo (but apparently without success) I was being facetious. You might want to look that up for future reference.
Of course such is the evolved state of my mind, even my being facetious has layers of meaning. The fact is that “unconscionable” is indeed a neologism according to standard lexicographical reference (think the “Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English”) which means it is a “new word” or a “new usage,” so there was a factual basis for my facetiousness.
Maybe you want to try explaining that to Waldo. Good luck with that one.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Good Morning LouLou =) How’s my little waste of time today?
The first link describes the emotions and feelings that you are now experiencing (it’s a neologism that is in the dictionary).
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/333…
The second link is a report that you can fill out and send to The Coast for Mod’s consideration.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebo…
Active parenting is the answer, Michael.