in this case there isn't even a clear group benefitting. That's why it's particularly shameful. It's basically just people needing to hate on something because it seems "too easy" to quit smoking in that way, without suffering too much and enjoying yourself.
News flash: the anti-vaping media campaign is yet another moral panic over a 'health risk' that isn't a serious health risk, and that replaces a much more serious health risk. Always ask: who benefits from the moral panic?https://twitter.com/JGunlock/status/1176501090306670593 …
Hey guys, the House is about to have a hearing on vaping. The witness list is solidly anti-vaping. The hearing is designed only to misinform and fuel the vaping hysteria.
If you want the truth, ignore the hearing, and read this
Vaping SAVES lives! https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1176489596164722690 …
Vaping SAVES lives! https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1176489596164722690 …-
-
-
Um, is it possible that Big Tobacco might benefit?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Successful ex-smoker here
. I think it’s a little weird that they want to keep tobacco flavors around. It’ll just make it more easy for kids to make the transition to cigarettes. Big tobacco corners the market once again.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Moral entrepreneurs benefit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Still, the vitamin e acetate shouldn't be in there.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Public health" is code for "I don't know how to mind my own business and get a kick out of telling other people what to do because I can't face my own vacancies."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And how exactly do we know it's a less serious health risk? Do we have decades worth of data on the longitudinal effects of vaping? What currently available information allows us to make inferences about long-term effects?
-
Intuitively, nicotine + carcinogens is worse than nicotine alone. Whether the other chemicals involved (flavoring, etc.) add an additional risk is a good question. Topping carcinogens still seems like a bit of a long shot.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Who benefits? Why the tax collectors, of course!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When states accepted the massive settlement with the cigarette makers, they (mostly) sold bonds on the future revenue stream so they could spend it now. Steep declines in smoking mean less revenue, so states are now trying to suppress vaping.https://jebkinnison.com/2016/05/05/fda-wants-more-lung-cancer/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.