The ANTZ smoking rate shell game

In 1990, the number of smokers was 45.8 million (25.5%). The Surgeon General announced the goal of reducing the smoking rate to 15% by 2000.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1990

By 2000, the number of smokers was 46.5 million (an increase of 700,000 smokers) but the "prevalence" or "rate" (percentage of adults smoking) was "reduced" to 23.3%. The ANTZ claimed their efforts were working - because the smoking rate was reduced from 25.5% to 23.3% - but they needed billions more in funding because the goal of 15% was still not reached. So a goal of a 12% smoking rate was set for 2010.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2000

Hard to stand on that imaginary 'slippery slope'

In 2006, Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights published a document titled "What To Expect From The Tobacco Industry." In it, the group claimed a "tactic" of the tobacco industry and it's supporters would be to "introduce other issues in a smoke-free air campaign to imply that the real problem is something other than secondhand smoke, and/or that the creation of smoke-free air is a “slippery slope” of government regulation. Smoke=free opponents will often exclaim, “What’s next? Cheeseburgers?” Cheeseburgers do not cause disease and death in non-cheeseburger eaters. The issue isn't about cheeseburgers, or even about smoking, per se. It’s about smoking in ways that harm other people. It’s about protecting innocent people who are being exposed to a leading cause of preventable death and disease."

New nicotine product shows ANTZ e-cigarette "hazards" hypocrisy

There are a few countries that have issued warnings or even banned electronic cigarettes for having potential public health hazards in the ingredients. Many use specific reasons as to why e-cigarettes pose such a risk:

Health Canada issued a warning about e-cigarettes stating that the device "delivers a liquid chemical mixture that may be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals. Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant."

Vapers will need to step up now more than ever before

Despite the incredible promise that e-cigarettes hold for the millions of smokers in the U.S., the FDA has been decidedly hostile towards e-cigarettes and other reduced harm alternatives to smoking. The FDA attempted to characterize e-cigarettes as pharmaceutical products ,which would have resulted in a de facto ban. When that didn’t work, the FDA continued its war against tobacco harm reduction, misinforming the
public about the relative risks associated with e-cigarette use.

The FDA has announced that in April it will issue guidance on e-cigarettes and will regulate them as tobacco products. Depending on its approach, the FDA could effectively decimate the e-cigarette industry through excessive regulations. In light of the actions of the FDA to date, vapers should hold little hope that the FDA's proposed regulations will be reasonable.

Should people use e-cigarettes in public?

Yes!

The only way we'll get "the masses" to understand just how different e-cigarettes are from traditional cigarettes is for them to experience them up close and personal. Otherwise, all they have are pictures, which can't possibly convey how the vapor is non-irritating and basically odorless in an open setting where smoke may still bother them (ie., bar, restaurant, mall, park, pool, office.)

If you think of the fact that 99% of the support for laws against second hand smoke were passed based solely on the fact that people find it annoying (rather than any real proof of health risks,) it's the lack of annoyance factors that will "sell" e-cigarettes to non-smokers more than anything else. The only way to convince them that e-cigarette vapor won't annoy them is for them to actually experience it, because pictures and video just seem to show "smoking."

The same types of lies support most prohibitions

by Dr. Carl Phillips, CASAA Science Director

Dick Puddlecote just posted a nice analysis of the annoying tendency of cannabis users to attack tobacco (and alcohol) use and users, motivated in part by a misguided notion that by joining the attack on other drugs they will somehow make their own drug more respectable. As DP points out, this is very unlikely to serve their cause, and that the better strategy would be to join an alliance opposed to all prohibitions of moderately hazardous individual choices. Appeasement of the oppressors is seldom a useful strategy for more than a few minutes.

I would add to that the following: The exact same lies - junk science, hyping of moderate or trivial risks, scary claims about “chemicals”, hyperbole about cost burdens imposed on others, scapegoating of a minority, etc. - are embedded in the “anti” movements across all of these behaviors.  So not only does appeasement tend to empower the extremists, who move between attacking one behavior they personally disapprove of to another (basically depending on where they can get paid to do it), but it further institutionalizes the lies that can be used to support prohibitionism.  [Read More]

ANTZ CHECK #6: E-liquid poses a high poison risk to children

Follow my new "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)

---

RATING:
TOXIC SHOCKER

THE LIE:
Because the refill liquids contain nicotine, taste good and can "look like liquid candy," they pose a significant poisoning risk to small children. This is yet another reason to fear and distrust e-cigarettes (and other smoke-free tobacco products.)