Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[metis]

I

I don't. I find your pseudo intellectualism and spin hilarious. Undeniably hilarious.

And I find your lack of honesty matched with your sarcasm to be worse than putrid. I gave you the opportunity to redeem yourself by putting forth evidence for your claim, but you're not even close to being honest enough to take advantage of it.

I'm done having anything to do with you.

 

[Acim]

I'm done having anything to do with you.

Hallelujah!

 

[Underhill]

I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before on RF, but I've seen plenty of evidence of national Dems dismissing science when it comes to politics around eCigs/vaping. Schumer for sure, and if I did a wee bit of investigating, I know I can name other names. They (Dems) are waging a clear propaganda battle due to the idea that they think it renormalizes smoking and feel it helpful to control the narrative around that issue. So, you get such idiotic claims that the only reason certain flavors exist is to appeal to kids and get them hooked on eCigs for life. I could honestly speak another 25 paragraphs this length, or longer, on this topic. But it is for me one of those issues where science has taken a significant hit on its credibility for having (paid) researchers, some of whom are employed by the government (i.e. FDA) and who are espousing things that are for sure questionable if not outright deceptive. For me, it's not the only issue, but it is the one that compelled me to vote against the Dems in 2016 POTUS elections and the one I feel quite comfortable talking about even at the level of science, as I have looked into and thoroughly reviewed about 20 scientific studies in past 5 years.

I see American version of science becoming observably partisan at this point and from a philosophical perspective, I find it quite embarrassing for science.

e-cigarettes? Really? Sorry but I never even imagined it as an issue.

But I have to say, I agree with the dems on this one. They may not be as bad for you (although I did just hear of a study that found they were pretty bad) but I see no reason they should be treated better than regular cigarettes. It may not be so much medical science (although they aren't good for you) as psychological but I don't see it as dismissing science so much as having alternative reasoning.

 

[Acim]

But I have to say, I agree with the dems on this one.

Then you are clearly dismissing science.

They may not be as bad for you (although I did just hear of a study that found they were pretty bad)

I'm quite certain I've read whatever study you are not referencing directly. Pretty sure I've seen it debunked as well. Based on science that exists.

but I see no reason they should be treated better than regular cigarettes.

Then IMO, you are not looking at reason and are only filtering it through propaganda. Were this the topic of 'climate change' and I were on the left, I'd call you full blown denier of science. Being that I have more integrity, I'd say feel free to maintain skepticism and question what are the known data points on a product that we in fact do not have long term studies for. But don't think you can have it both ways where smoking is treated as "#1 killer in America" and eCigs are on par with that. If anything, what I get from your wording is that smoking isn't actually all that bad, which given the level of deception at work on this political issue, now over a half century old, I would rejoice if that were your understanding. But seeing that you're likely still on square one, I think you think eCigs are actually as (allegedly) deadly as smoking is said to be (when in reality smoking is not).

It may not be so much medical science (although they aren't good for you) as psychological but I don't see it as dismissing science so much as having alternative reasoning.

It's both. There are scientists on both sides and it is clearly at level of alternative reasoning, which makes for ongoing propaganda battle.

Part of the reason I am so passionate on this topic is because of the history and how (American) science, particularly of the public health variety, has emerged in the last 50 years, I honestly see it stemming from the anti-smoking zealots and their not so hidden agenda. It makes (those who oppose) Trump and his alleged fascism look like amateurs. Doesn't help that anti-smoking nazis were actually inspired by Hitler's Nazis in their end game which just so happens to be alive today.

 

[Underhill]

Then you are clearly dismissing science.

I'm quite certain I've read whatever study you are not referencing directly. Pretty sure I've seen it debunked as well. Based on science that exists.

In my quick research, I would say that at the very least the jury is still out. The Lung Association, along with a great many other health organizations have said they think they are bad for you. I would say that pumping anything into your lungs sounds like a bad idea.

Then IMO, you are not looking at reason and are only filtering it through propaganda. Were this the topic of 'climate change' and I were on the left, I'd call you full blown denier of science. Being that I have more integrity, I'd say feel free to maintain skepticism and question what are the known data points on a product that we in fact do not have long term studies for. But don't think you can have it both ways where smoking is treated as "#1 killer in America" and eCigs are on par with that. If anything, what I get from your wording is that smoking isn't actually all that bad, which given the level of deception at work on this political issue, now over a half century old, I would rejoice if that were your understanding. But seeing that you're likely still on square one, I think you think eCigs are actually as (allegedly) deadly as smoking is said to be (when in reality smoking is not).

Well, you just lost me. I've witnessed the affects of smoking. If you think it isn't actually all that bad then you need the reality check, not me.

It's both. There are scientists on both sides and it is clearly at level of alternative reasoning, which makes for ongoing propaganda battle.

Part of the reason I am so passionate on this topic is because of the history and how (American) science, particularly of the public health variety, has emerged in the last 50 years, I honestly see it stemming from the anti-smoking zealots and their not so hidden agenda. It makes (those who oppose) Trump and his alleged fascism look like amateurs. Doesn't help that anti-smoking nazis were actually inspired by Hitler's Nazis in their end game which just so happens to be alive today.

You have gone off the rails of reason and into insane territory. If people are zealots about the dangers of smoking, it is only because they have seen the impact first hand. As have I. Spend a bit of time in a cancer hospital. I did in the 90's and I can tell you that it was damn traumatic. The vast majority of people in there were smokers. I witnessed addicts smoking thru a hole in their neck. Saw people riddled with cancer begging and crying for a smoke.

You sound an awful lot like an addict trying to justify a habit.

 

[Acim]

In my quick research, I would say that at the very least the jury is still out.

There's some truth to that, of course, but also is part of political manipulation going on. Or what would be example of technology from last 10 years that from scientific perspective the jury is in and we know all the long term (read as 30 years of longer) effects? Would you then recommend that we treat all of that as inherently unsafe and regulate it as such?

The Lung Association, along with a great many other health organizations have said they think they are bad for you.

Really? I did not know that. /cynicism. Given the tone you take later on, all I can say is you are the one demonstrating insanity to tow this rhetorical line.

I would say that pumping anything into your lungs sounds like a bad idea.

Really, is pumping air in your lungs a bad idea? Given what you said, it must be. Given available science, exhaled vapor is about as harmful as air, and inhaled vapor is arguably more healthy for you than ambient air. But, you might not find such information on quick research.

Well, you just lost me. I've witnessed the affects of smoking. If you think it isn't actually all that bad then you need the reality check, not me.

Disagree. I think what you reference is you've witnessed the affects of abusive smoking. People that smoke 1+ packs a day and cannot, from sheer willpower alone curtail their usage and go to say a more moderate usage pattern. Like saying, I've witnessed people drowning in water, and therefore I conclude that water is inherently unsafe for humans. If you disagree, you need the reality check, not me.

You have gone off the rails of reason and into insane territory. If people are zealots about the dangers of smoking, it is only because they have seen the impact first hand. As have I. Spend a bit of time in a cancer hospital. I did in the 90's and I can tell you that it was damn traumatic. The vast majority of people in there were smokers. I witnessed addicts smoking thru a hole in their neck. Saw people riddled with cancer begging and crying for a smoke.

You sound an awful lot like an addict trying to justify a habit.

Wow, haven't heard that take before. (Again, cynicism.) I get that you've only barely scratched the surface on this topic, so I'll go easy on you and invite you to do more research as may be desired. Feel free to get back to me after you have.