hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 10, 2012 23:52:33 GMT
|
|
Brian
Super Member
AAEC #1 Vaping forum
Joined:January 2012
Posts: 2,692
Location:
Likes: 15
Recent Posts
Last Online Sept 15, 2013 7:17:09 GMT
|
Post by Brian on Oct 11, 2012 0:22:02 GMT
On 1st ad-break and just like to say Dave.
We call them stinkies, cos they do bloody stink.... we all have to agree to that.
Its not that we look down on smokers. We all smoked, but found a safer and cleaner way of doing it.
|
|
Anne (fuzzy)
Super Member
Joined:November 2011
Posts: 5,085 
Location:
Likes: 65
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 24, 2015 2:41:06 GMT
|
Post by Anne (fuzzy) on Oct 11, 2012 0:28:39 GMT
I watched it live and kept  as I didn't want to be banned from chat. |
|
Brian
Super Member
AAEC #1 Vaping forum
Joined:January 2012
Posts: 2,692
Location:
Likes: 15
Recent Posts
Last Online Sept 15, 2013 7:17:09 GMT
|
Post by Brian on Oct 11, 2012 1:12:43 GMT
Loved the credits scrolling at the end. Catering
Mrs stud
Tesco
Magnirs It does look like we are getting ASH changing tune to actually giving e-cigarettes a bit of credit. About bloody time. MHRA will be a different kettle of fish though. Great show Dave, and full marks to you, Cat and Sav for all the work you`ve obviously gone into in finding out whats around the corner. |
|
giles
Super Member
Rogue Element
Joined:August 2012
Posts: 2,208 
Location:
Likes: 709
Recent Posts
Last Online Feb 23, 2013 12:10:56 GMT
|
Post by giles on Oct 11, 2012 2:29:04 GMT
Sorry, but I don't agree at all about “standing shoulder to shoulder” with smokers.
If you do that you will lose. The argument about the danger to health of smoking has finished – the smokers lost. Every legislator knows this. If we stand together we will fall together.
You will also lose if you claim that there is no evidence that passive smoking is dangerous. Sure, most of the claims about it are nonsense, but the sad truth is that on average spouses of smokers die younger than spouses of non-smokers. The evidence for that is very good. I've looked at a lot of it, didn't want to believe it, but its based on very competent, large scale, well controlled studies and there is really no doubt. Again, every intelligent person involved in the legislative process knows this. If you claim otherwise you lose all credibility.
I think the long term aim of ASH UK is to ban the sale of cigarettes, replacing them with vaping, because they do not believe it will be possible to carry out a ban without a working alternative. I think they are right.
The WHO has a primary objective of banning nicotine. It has no right to hold this as a primary objective: its aims should be entirely about health. At some point we may be able to get them to recognise this – after all, there are a hell of a lot of us, with a great deal to lose. But we will need to be careful how we go about it. Pretending WHO have policies because they are 'against fun' is not helpful. We need to persuade these people, not insult them.
|
|
hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 11, 2012 9:41:15 GMT
I watched it live and kept as I didn't want to be banned from chat. You would not be banned from chat for sharing an opinion - the whole idea is to foster debate and discussion. |
|
hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 11, 2012 9:53:59 GMT
Sorry, but I don't agree at all about “standing shoulder to shoulder” with smokers. If you do that you will lose. The argument about the danger to health of smoking has finished – the smokers lost. Every legislator knows this. If we stand together we will fall together. Given that the WHO is making e-cig users out to be worse than smokers (because we're undermining the denormalisation process), you'll forgive me if I respectfully disagree. Again, over recent weeks and months, eminent scientists and epidemiologists have come forward and admitted that the kind of study to which you refer has been cherry picked, has had no control (it's almost impossible to set a control for ETS), and that the whole ETS is, effectively, a load of tosh. It's a very recent aim, one that has come about as their research showed just how many e-cig users there actually are in the UK. Again, forgive me if I'm a little suspicious of their motives. You may be right - but first, folks need to be told the truth about what their aims actually are, and, frankly, why. Given that there is no robust scientific evidence to support their aim of eradicating nicotine use, one must perforce assume that it's for puritanical and ideological reasons. Moreso when you delve deeper and see the rumblings at a low level with reference to caffeine and their already fairly high profile stance against alcohol. Any organisation that will stoop to social engineering in order to achieve its goals is one which, in my opinion, needs to be stopped. |
|
Brian
Super Member
AAEC #1 Vaping forum
Joined:January 2012
Posts: 2,692
Location:
Likes: 15
Recent Posts
Last Online Sept 15, 2013 7:17:09 GMT
|
Post by Brian on Oct 11, 2012 9:57:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Globalbloke (Tim) on Oct 11, 2012 12:25:33 GMT
I'm confused about the second hand smoke part. My old dear smokes indoors and her walls were disgusting, the tar and crap build up on them was awful and this was all through second hand smoke. If that is what walls look like after ten years of passive smoke then surely lungs of a healthy child/adult would look the same and retain the nasties that causehealth problems? I haven't read up on this but it is just an observation.
The curfue lad and his parents - if they have any relatives that are smokers and have been in their houses two things may be apparent, the smell (it aint nice whether you smoke or not) and the deposits left on walls, windows etc. So it may not be anything to do with what they have read or have been told.
Just saying.....
|
|
womble
Super Member
Joined:August 2011
Posts: 3,221
Location:
Likes: 712
Recent Posts
Last Online Jul 8, 2016 23:24:58 GMT
|
Post by womble on Oct 11, 2012 13:10:15 GMT
I'm confused about the second hand smoke part. My old dear smokes indoors and her walls were disgusting, the tar and crap build up on them was awful and this was all through second hand smoke. If that is what walls look like after ten years of passive smoke then surely lungs of a healthy child/adult would look the same and retain the nasties that causehealth problems? I haven't read up on this but it is just an observation. The curfue lad and his parents - if they have any relatives that are smokers and have been in their houses two things may be apparent, the smell (it aint nice whether you smoke or not) and the deposits left on walls, windows etc. So it may not be anything to do with what they have read or have been told. Just saying..... I used to clean cars, you could always tell a smoker by the yellow film on the windows........ you only have to look at the yellowness of smoking rooms (as we used to have) to know that passive smoking is at best, a bad idea. |
|
hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 11, 2012 14:07:04 GMT
The problem is, it's as good as impossible to construct a control group for a study - in essence, the control group would have to be out in a deserted island with no fires or anything else to possibly do anything nasty to the lungs. And the timescales would need to be very long - it's patently obvious that half an hour is nowhere close to being long enough for second hand smoke to have an effect, certainly with respect to heart attacks and so on. It seems logical to assume that because there's a tar deposit on walls and what have you that a lung would build up the same layer - but biology tells us that it doesn't - the lung is, essentially, self-cleaning - to a point. So, how much of that deposit actually stays in the lung and potentially damages it is very difficult to quantify - we need that control group that has no pollutants hitting their lungs as a baseline comparator. Otherwise, you see, everyday contamination from general life (think exhaust fumes, cooking oil fumes and all manner of other things) clouds the issue. Also, none of the headline scare stories the anti-tobacco and tobacco control organisations hit us with every so often are born out by epidemiological studies carried out by folks with no axe to grind - go and read Michael Siegel's blog - he's absolutely disgusted with the lies that TC and Antis tell, and how they both cherry-pick and exaggerate their results to demonise tobacco and smokers. They also leave out salient facts. The Scottish story on the reduction in heart attacks following the smoking ban did not report that the drop they saw was perfectly in line with the trend that had been ongoing for a number of years prior to the ban, and that said drop was not statistically significant, nor attributable to any one factor, much less, as they would have you believe, wholly, completely and utterly down to the smoking ban. I'm confused about the second hand smoke part. My old dear smokes indoors and her walls were disgusting, the tar and crap build up on them was awful and this was all through second hand smoke. If that is what walls look like after ten years of passive smoke then surely lungs of a healthy child/adult would look the same and retain the nasties that causehealth problems? I haven't read up on this but it is just an observation. The curfue lad and his parents - if they have any relatives that are smokers and have been in their houses two things may be apparent, the smell (it aint nice whether you smoke or not) and the deposits left on walls, windows etc. So it may not be anything to do with what they have read or have been told. Just saying..... |
|
giles
Super Member
Rogue Element
Joined:August 2012
Posts: 2,208
Location:
Likes: 709
Recent Posts
Last Online Feb 23, 2013 12:10:56 GMT
|
Post by giles on Oct 12, 2012 1:07:30 GMT
Hifistud, most of what I said in my post was opinion. You have yours, I have mine. But the data showing that there is a lower life expectancy of non-smoking people with smoking partners is clear. This is not opinion, it is fact. You have to trawl through the studies, but if you do so then you will come to the same conclusion that I did. Which is that the numbers of deaths are nowhere near those claimed by ASH - typically about 80% lower in fact - but the connection is undoubtedly there. The issues about controls with ETS that you mention do not apply here (unlike workplace passive smoking) because you are simply comparing people who say their spouses smoke with people who say they don't.
There are actually quite a lot of epidemiological studies carried out by folks with no particular axe to grind other than the furtherance of their own academic careers. Where the axemen come in is in the assessment of those studies. You have to remember that the money being spent to influence that assessment comes mostly from the tobacco companies.
I do agree that WHO has an ideological position about recreational drugs, including nicotine. But you can't 'stop' WHO - it is an important organisation in all sorts of ways. You have to change it.
The same applies to the Pharma companies. After all, we can't live without them. Some progress has been made recently on the subject of cherry-picking of studies - hence GSK's announcement yesterday that it will open up the detailed data from its clinical trials. There's still a long way to go, but we also need to start attacking their other tricks, such as failing to make proper comparisons - e.g. saying how good their new drug is compared to no treatment rather than to the normal current treatment; comparing vaping to inhaling air and not comparing it to inhaling smoke.
|
|
Anne (fuzzy)
Super Member
Joined:November 2011
Posts: 5,085
Location:
Likes: 65
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 24, 2015 2:41:06 GMT
|
Post by Anne (fuzzy) on Oct 12, 2012 1:57:17 GMT
You would not be banned from chat for sharing an opinion - the whole idea is to foster debate and discussion. Not so sure about that Dave as the language wouldn't have been very ladylike, but could have been very colourful as my blood pressure was going up! |
|
hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 12, 2012 7:44:13 GMT
Anne, there's no problem with that - well, within limits, obviously - it's personal attacks that would attract a swift response. We would never stifle honest opinion - certainly not during VT Talk, given that the aim of the programme is to foster debate and discussion, and folks doing further research.
The beauty about the chat mechanism we currently use is that it comes with built-in filters that help folks like you and me avoid having our rather more colourful language seen. That pretty much takes care of any language that we might not want 8 year olds seeing. The rest is the usual "attack the ball, not the player" thing - we want discussion and debate, not a fight.
|
|
hifistud
Super Member
Im A Fluffy Bunny Too
Watching, waiting...
Joined:March 2011
Posts: 1,035
Location:
Likes: 26
Recent Posts
Last Online Jun 18, 2013 20:10:50 GMT
|
Post by hifistud on Oct 12, 2012 8:04:00 GMT
Hifistud, most of what I said in my post was opinion. You have yours, I have mine. But the data showing that there is a lower life expectancy of non-smoking people with smoking partners is clear. This is not opinion, it is fact. You have to trawl through the studies, but if you do so then you will come to the same conclusion that I did. Which is that the numbers of deaths are nowhere near those claimed by ASH - typically about 80% lower in fact - but the connection is undoubtedly there. The issues about controls with ETS that you mention do not apply here (unlike workplace passive smoking) because you are simply comparing people who say their spouses smoke with people who say they don't. I have trawled the studies, and my interpretation seems to be at odds with yours. You're right when you mention the discrepancy in the numbers of deaths - one of the first alarm signs - but the issue I have with the lack of controls is palpable - ALL such studies need controls - without them, the results are worthless, as the baseline comparators (especially in self-reported criteria) are a vital element in establishing any underlying trends. Ah... You won't be surprised to see that I think that it's Big Pharma which fulfils that role. It has successfully stifled the voice of the tobacco companies via its financial contributions to the likes of ASH and the rest of the tobacco control organisations, which, in turn, have lobbied successive governments into enacting ever more draconian legislation to restrict their trade. And it has done this by, in my opinion, a consistent pattern of lying. If I thought that the WHO would ever exist on pure evidential science, I might hold out a little hope that lobbying for change would be of use, but it seems evident that the ideology that drives not just them, but the likes of ASH US and Australia is so deeply entrenched that forcing change will be exceedingly difficult. Wednesday's show will have, I hope, played a microscopic part in that change, by, hopefully, getting folks to look more deeply at the whole corrupt system, research as you seem to have done, and then form their own opinions, and not blindly accept the panoply of lies that the ideologues force feed them. Given the extent and nature of the lies we have been fed globally, and the admission that certain quarters of our society are seeking to destroy legitimate business (bear in mind that while all adults are more than aware that active smoking carries with it certain risks, the choice to take those risks is theirs to make) by the promulgation of untruths, half truths and downright lies, I feel that it's right that we are extremely suspicious of their motives. |
|
Click to subscribe - IT'S FREE!
as I didn't want to be banned from chat. 
