CDC Director Says Switching From Smoking to Vaping Is a 'Misconception'


FIN e-cigarette ad

Tom Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has been agitating against electronic cigarettes for the last year or so, sometimes inventing facts from whole cloth in an effort to portray the product as a grave threat to public health and a menace to "our children." In a recent interview with NPR, Frieden offers a glimpse of the mentality underlying his puzzling hostility to e-cigarettes, which show great promise as a way to reduce smoking-related disease:

There are an enormous number of misconceptions about e-cigarettes. For example, smokers routinely say, "Well, if I want to quit, maybe I should get an e-cigarette," rather than saying, "I'm going to get an FDA-approved medicine that will double or triple my likelihood of quitting." So there are certainly many misconceptions around e-cigarettes

According to Frieden, switching from smoking to vaping is not just a bad idea; it is a "misconception." In other words, the choice itself is scientifically incorrect, on par with declaring the world flat or attributing personality traits to the arrangement of stars in the night sky. That way of framing the issue assumes away individual tastes and preferences, which Frieden evidently considers irrelevant. But those factors matter a lot when it comes to the question of whether e-cigarettes can be a satisfactory replacement for the real thing. Because vaping delivers nicotine in a way that closely mimics the ritual of smoking, it may work better for smokers who have unsuccessfully tried to quit with other methods. Even if the overalll quit rate achieved with e-cigarettes is no higher than the quit rate achieved with "FDA-approved medicine," e-cigarettes might be more effective for some people.

Frieden loads the dice against e-cigarettes by exaggerating the effectiveness of the methods he prefers, which he says "double or triple" the likelihood of quitting. According to a 2008 review by the Cochrance Collaboration, nicotine replacement therapy (including gum, lozenges, patches, inhalers, and nasal sprays) increases quit rates by 50 percent to 70 percent, which is neither doubling nor tripling. Furthermore, the base rate is pretty low. The authors note that "studies of people attempting to quit on their own suggest that success rates after six to 12 months are 3-5%." Nicotine replacement might boost that to somewhere between 4.5 percent and 8.5 percent. Not exactly a magic bullet.

How do e-cigarettes compare? There is not a lot of research on that question, but a randomized study reported in The Lancet last year put the six-month quit rate at 7.3 percent for subjects who used e-cigarettes, compared to 5.8 percent for those who used nicotine patches. The researchers deemed e-cigarettes "modestly effective at helping smokers to quit, with similar achievement of abstinence as with nicotine patches, and few adverse events." Hence the choice that Frieden presents as utterly irrational—indeed, objectively wrong—seems at least as sensible as the course he recommends.

Frieden further illustrates his bias with this maxim:

When it comes to tobacco products, we really have to assume they're dangerous until they're proven safe, rather than the other way around.

This variation on the precautionary principle is questionable for several reasons, but here is the one that leaps out at me: E-cigarettes are not tobacco products. True, the nicotine they contain is derived from tobacco, which is the rationale for letting the Food and Drug Administration regulate them as tobacco products. But by the same logic, the nicotine replacement therapies that Frieden favors are also tobacco products. Like those "FDA-approved medicine[s]," e-cigarettes do not contain any tobacco, and they do not burn anything, which is why they are much less hazardous than conventional cigarettes. That much is beyond serious dispute, a point obscured by Frieden's misleading safe/dangerous dichotomy. Even if they are never "proven safe," whatever that might mean according to Frieden, e-cigarettes are clearly safer than conventional cigarettes, which is the crucial consideration for smokers contemplating a switch.

At one point in the interview Frieden actually acknowledges the harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes but dismisses it as entirely theoretical, in contrast with the fears that keep him up at night:

I certainly see the theory that they could be helpful, and I've heard some anecdotes about individuals who say they've helped them quit. But much more importantly is the actuality that right now we're getting millions of kids experimenting with or using regularly e-cigarettes. We're getting smokers who are perhaps not using them to quit but to keep smoking regular cigarettes.…We're seeing the reglamorization of smoking…We're also seeing potential exposure of nonsmokers, including pregnant women, to the nicotine in e-cigarette products. So I see theoretical potential benefits but definite harms occurring.

The situation is almost exactly the opposite of what Frieden claims. The "definite harms" he perceives—a "gateway effect" that lures teenagers into smoking by way of vaping, smokers "perhaps" not using e-cigarettes to quit, "the reglamorization of smoking," "potential exposure of nonsmokers" (some of whom might be pregnant!) to atmospheric traces of nicotine—are hypothetical. By contrast, the benefits he dismisses—actual ex-smokers who quit with the help of e-cigarettes—are real. Their experiences should count for something, and so should the choices of people who decide to follow their example despite the best efforts of scaremongers like Frieden.  

NEXT: Dash Cam Released in Fatal Police Shooting That Was Ruled Justified, No 'Warrants' Mentioned at Inquest

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gee, I can’t imagine why gun owners don’t trust the CDC to collect gun-related metrics. This is pretty much the most blatant example of mission creep there is. Smoking is not an infectious disease.

    1. Wrong-thinking is a disease.

      1. Wrong-thinking is a disease.

        So the CDC’s next pronouncement will be to ban the CDC?

    2. Communicable diseases are hard. The CDC has been in the public health and behavioral control business for a long time. It’s affirmative action for the stupid dog fuckers who work there.

  2. Frieden, like so many other morons of his ilk, is an animist. e-cigs are close enough to cigarettes in the way they often look and operate (inhaling) that his tiny mind can’t help but lump them in with the supernatural totems that he fears so much, which are actual cigarettes. E-cigs loom in his pea brain as equally evil and terrible as regular smokes. Gum or patches get a pass because they’re so different in look and operation. These people really are this stupid.

    1. Tom “Betty” Frieden?

      1. “You women’s libbers really know how to party! Hey, Betty Friedan, send a little of that lotion my way!”

        1. That’s either Bender or Rodney Dangerfield. Or both.

          1. It’s Nixon’s head you dope.

            1. Rodney is very similar to your Nixon in many respects.

          2. Maybe Dangerfield on a bender.

    2. Clearly to appease public health authorities, we need to come up with a way to ingest e-cigarette liquid that does not resemble smoking.

      Like… butt chugging

      1. “You’ve come a long way, Baby!”

      2. Wait, that’s not how I’m supposed to use it?

      3. Shotgunning is not recommended.

    3. People making their own decisions. Some must be done.

    4. No, that’s not it, he’s just trying to help his clients, who make & sell the gums, patches, etc.

      1. That would be my guess. He’s getting paid by somebody to fight e-cigarettes.

        You wonder why the guy seems unable to understand e-cigarettes? It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

  3. Vaping is the Von Dutch trucker hats of trends. You look so stupid.

    1. cool story, bro

      1. I realize that it makes me look like a douche, but I have smoked only two real cigarettes in the past year and feel much healthier than before.

        The hipsters who try to make it look “cool” irritate me as much as the hippies who see weed-smoking as a lifestyle. I’ve smoked weed before but I don’t make it my identity. That’s kind of sad.

  4. Someone please help me out. Is there anything harmful about smoking e-cigs? Isn’t it just a way of delivering nicotine? Is nicotine any worse than caffeine?

    (I trust you guys more than Wikipedia. And I’m lazy.)

    1. As far as I know, nicotine in small doses is basically harmless (in large doses it is a lethal poison, and is used as an over-the-counter pesticide by gardeners). There is absolutely no reason to consider vapers harmful in any way, and there is reason to consider them as possibly better for helping people quit regular smokes. But as I said above, they are too similar to “real” cigarettes for the moronic anti-smoking animists to handle, so they just lump them in their heads in with “real” smokes.

      1. Sorta like candy cigarettes, then. I used to get a pack in my stocking every Christmas when I was a wee lad. Too bad the nannies killed em.

        1. The candy cigarettes were better than the chocolate cigars, which just made a damn mess when you tried to light them.

        2. I heard rumors that they’ll be back this year but re-branded as candy reefer.

      2. As a friend of mine* who studied neuropharmacology @ Oxford and got his masters doing lab work with nicotine once said = “The differences between candy, medicine, and poison are mainly differences in concentration: not the chemical”

        *as a complete side note: this same guy had his liver replaced with one formerly belonging to a 20yr old Mormon. Every time he drinks, he toasts him.

        1. Well, he should. That liver’s going to get its own planet to rule when he dies.

      3. There’s some emerging research that shows that nicotine enhances cognitive functioning, and can help prevent Alzheimer’s. It’s the delivery mechanisms that are bad. Nicotine is good.

        1. Not sure about that, I still have trouble remembering where I set my glasses down.

      4. I don’t think it’s available as a pesticide anymore. And it does have some negative cardiovascular effects. But it’s certainly not the major harmful component of tobacco.

        The bad parts that give you cancer are mostly created in the curing process. Swedish Snus is a kind of oral snuff that is cured with steam at lower temperatures than smoking tobacco or American style chewing tobacco and it isn’t associated with any significant cancer risk like you see with other kinds of oral tobacco.

    2. Even if nicotine were worse than caffeine (and it doesn’t appear to be), vaping isn’t worse than the patch, unless you make elaborate arguments about vaping being a gateway drug that causes people to smoke tobacco. But most of the evidence is that people travel in the opposite direction.

    3. E juice has about five ingredients. Food grade prop glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and food flavourings.

    4. Nope. From a recent study at The College of Public Health at Drexel University published a month or so ago:

      By the standards of occupational hygiene, current data do not indicate that exposures to vapers from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern. There are no known toxicological synergies among compounds in the aerosol, and mixture of the contaminants does not pose a risk to health.

      Occupational hygiene standards, as pointed out by the study, is the most stringent standard government has to judge exposures to contaminants, and according to those standards, there is no risk to those who experience vaping aerosols involuntarily (secondhand vapor).

      That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.

    5. The fact that most anti-smokers conveniently overlook, is that toxins found in tobacco smoke are also found in far greater numbers in everyday foods…arsenic in water, formaldehyde in meat and fish etc etc. In fact, chemical analysis reveals that there are over 600 known toxins in a cup of coffee…far more than any real cigarette, never mind e-cigs!
      Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, wrote:
      .”All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
      Or, more commonly…”The dose makes the poison.”
      That is to say, substances considered toxic are harmless in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily harmless substance can be deadly if over-consumed.

      The fact is, we are surrounded by, consume, and inhale toxins everyday…all in harmless doses.

    6. Every (non-scientific) article I’ve read about nicotine calls it “toxic”, although it doesn’t seem to kill people, unless you massively overdose… which is similar to caffeine.

      Though I’ve never heard anyone claim that caffeine was “toxic”.

  5. Here’s my question:

    When they study how effective e-cigs are for helping smokers to quit smoking, would someone who vapes but never touches a cigarette be counted as someone who has quit smoking? Because they should be.

    Or, are they saying that you haven’t quit smoking as long as you keep vaping?


    We’re also seeing potential exposure of nonsmokers, including pregnant women, to the nicotine in e-cigarette products. So I see theoretical potential benefits but definite harms occurring.

    Aside from his leap from “potential” exposure to “definite harms occurring”, at what point does exposure to second-hand nicotine pose a health risk, and does that level of exposure occur from e-cigs?

    1. “Vapes saved or created”.

    2. I hate the binary distinction used to grade smoke cessation practices: you’ve either quit altogether, or you’re a life-long addict in need of treatment. Better would be grading products on how well they substitute for smokes, which is, you know, their purpose. I don’t see why a vaper who occasionally partakes in the real thing is dramatically worse off than a vaper who never again smokes, but I do see a fairly consequential difference between someone who irregularly smokes but mostly vapes and someone who solely smokes. There’s a gradient to mitigating risks.

      1. Completely agree. I smoked pretty regularly while I was in the Army, and since getting out I smoke maybe once or twice a year. I’ve never “quit” per se, but I’m getting all the health benefits of quitting. I am one of many who is highly influenced by cigarette taxes and partial bans like the ones that push smokers outside.

        Most prohibitionists, I suspect, are just dim and can’t see beyond, “I don’t like cigarettes, and no one should have them.”

        But some of it is strategic. Even though Pigovian taxes on cigarettes have been wildly successful, the prohibitionists aren’t satisfied with that, and the only step beyond it is a ban. If they admit a lesser reduction could be enough, they undermine their own case for a ban.

    3. I suppose you could look at either quitting smoking or quitting the nicotine habit.

  6. I smoke. I do it because I like it. I am sick and fucking tired of busy-body nannies telling me what is good for me. I will be the judge of what risks I will take, thank you very much.

    A little while back I was buying cigarettes. When I asked for them the little girl behind the counter, young enough to be my granddaughter, said ” Those are really not good for you! You should quit”.

    I widened my eyes and said as incredulously as I could ” Really?! I have never heard that before! Tell me more.”. I did not pour it on too thick and not sarcastically, but tried to seem as earnest as I could. I put my elbows on the counter and leaned forward with great interest.

    She turned beet red in the face, did not say a word, got the smokes and rang me up. I thought she was gonna cry.

    I bet she never does that shit again.

    1. I bet she takes up smoking to reduce the anxiety you caused her.

      1. I don’t believe in karma

    2. Was she hot? You could’ve said, “I’ll never smoke again if you show your tits.”

      1. “It was the *nicotine* talking, Occifer!”

      2. He didn’t say how young his granddaughter should be. It could be funny, or it could be criminal.

        1. She was old enough to be working at a gas station or liquor store, so at least 18.

          1. Behind him in line.

          2. My bad, I re-read.

    3. When someone tells me that smoking is going to kill me my reply is generally “Good, otherwise I’ve wasted a lot of money.”

      1. Seriously though, I just bought a vaporizer and have instantly gone from 20 a day to about 6. That’s just this week. I wish they’d had these fucking things when I was a teenager.

        1. Wow, how dare you report your actual experience! Don’t you know that CDC says the opposite? Do you think that they’ll let you think for yourself?

      2. My go-to response is, “There are actually a lot of things I do that are not increasing my lifespan. Collectively, I refer to them as ‘living’.”

        1. I like this

        2. In 2006, the ten oldest people on earth were all smokers, including Jeanne Calment, the oldest person who ever lived. She started smoking at 9 years old…quit at 117 after getting endless grief from her doctor and ‘friends’, and started up again at 118 because she said ‘not smoking made her depressed’. She eventually died at 123…about 10 years premature if you believe the health police!

          1. Right, being long lived is almost entirely a function of genetics. My grandather smoked, drank, ate raw hamburger sandwiches, never exercised. Died at 89 of a sprung blood vessel, sound of mind, sound of body (had a grip like a fucking bear), and slightly deaf. He just had good genes.

            That’s what scares people. That they can follow the rules of good health, and still die quicker then they were “supposed” to.

        3. First time I ever liked a sentence with the word ‘collectively’ in it. Extra points!

      3. My response to “that will take 10 years off your life” is: Have you seen those last 10 years? I’ll take them now, if you please.

        1. I’ll drink to that.

    4. Talking someone into quitting is pretty much impossible, anyway. I’ve been trying to get my mom to quit for decades. Nope.

      1. I quit trying with mom after I moved out. She’s unashamed of smoking indoors, which is fine now that it’s solely her house, but as a kid I had the routinely disgusting experience of walking into class having been dropped off by a chain-smoker and smelling like one, myself.

        I’ll definitely bring my (eventual) kids around to visit, because there’s nothing like spending an hour in a smoker’s den to remind me why I never took up the habit.

    5. “Then why are you selling them?”

    6. My brother in law smokes. And yet he’s one of those people that won’t take an Advil for a headache because he doesn’t trust what the pharmaceutical corporations but in them and other drugs.

      1. Kind of like this girl:

      2. Seems to me like your brother-in-law is a sensible guy.

    7. Srsly, anyone who wants to quit and has had trouble with the patch, gum or cold turkey, please consider vaping as an alternative. I vaped for about a year and a half before quitting and it was a nice, easy let-down. Immediate nicotine rush. No stinky clothes or fire hazard. Do it anywhere. Etc, etc.

      Ask if you want more info.

      1. Not to mention you can reduce the strength of your juice when you feel when you’re ready- go from 24 mg to 12 to 6 to 0.

    8. “I smoke. I do it because I like it. I am sick and fucking tired of busy-body nannies telling me what is good for me. I will be the judge of what risks I will take, thank you very much.”

      I very rarely smoke, but I also know that if we give nannies an inch, they will take a mile. They are a goddamned plague on society.

  7. There are an enormous number of misconceptions about e-cigarettes. For example, smokers routinely say, “Well, if I want to quit, maybe I should get an e-cigarette,” rather than saying, “I’m going to get an FDA-approved medicine that will double or triple my likelihood of quitting.” So there are certainly many misconceptions around e-cigarettes

    This is why Frieden pulls down the big bucks.

  8. The morality police will never go away, will they? The just change forms, but never go away.

    1. No, they won’t. It’s unfortunately part of humanity, it seems. The trick is how to strip away any power from them.

        1. I do not avoid the company of women, Pro El, but I deny them my essence.

  9. I heard that POS’s interview. Not once did he mention or acknowledge harm reduction as an issue. He characterized all evidence with which he did not agree as “anecdotal”. I’m sure he will never examine any evidence contrary to his beliefs so such evidence will always remain anecdotal.

    1. And dude, think about the fact that this guy is head of the fucking CDC. Ponder that on the tree of woe.

      1. Damn you, Epi. Of course I *&^%$#@@@! contemplated that as I was listening to it. I contemplated that I was paying his *&^%$#@! salary and that he considered me expandable in the war on tobacco. You wanna talk about your *&^%$#@! death panels, this is it.

        1. If it’s for the children you can get away with anything. It’s like boxing with head gear and brass knuckles.

          1. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
            Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf 1942

    2. Everything that undermines their arguments is merely anecdotal or trivial. Or racist. Everything that supports their arguments is obvious, absolute evidence, consensus. I’m detecting a trend.

      1. Why do you hate the children, PL?

        1. You’re right, I left out the children. Not actual children, mind you, just the perfect form of “the children.”

    3. It’s something that has been going on for a while in American medicine. Harm reduction is more and more a dirty concept these days.

      1. I recall reading a few months ago some medical association taking a firm and impassioned stance against making a powerful new pain killer legal for prescription because it was too addictive.

        ….It’s a drug designed to treat those in severe chronic pain to reduce their suffering. But because addicts and kids might get into it, no soup for those people.

        1. It’s really remarkable how blithely they ignore their own evilness. They *mean* well, so that’s all that matters.

          In all seriousness, I only wish the most ironic punishments on people like that.

        2. That was on NPR, too, within the past ten days. And there was this smug little twat from some group that wanted to end prescription painkiller abuse; because he’d lost someone to an OD, nobody could have effective pain meds. Of course there was no balance, no representation of the “better than pain and illegal drugs” pov.

        3. …It’s a drug designed to treat those in severe chronic pain to reduce their suffering. But because addicts and kids might get into it, no soup for those people.

          Or painkillers being reformulated by regulators because they aren’t harmful enough and the drug warriors are scared that people will feel freer to use them. Sick thinking.

        4. How will I ever enjoy my tasp if these sort of people infest the future, too?

        5. If sick people must suffer so that drug addicts have to work slightly harder to get their fixes, well then that’s just a price all Right Thinkers should be willing to pay.

        6. I wonder if any of these people want to ban morphine?

      2. Harm reduction is more and more a dirty concept these days.

        Why reduce harm, when you can leverage harm into control?

      3. At first I thought you wrote “ham reduction”

    4. The American Temperance Moment has their operatives in deep everywhere.

    5. I heard that POS’s interview. Not once did he mention or acknowledge harm reduction as an issue. He characterized all evidence with which he did not agree as “anecdotal”. I’m sure he will never examine any evidence contrary to his beliefs so such evidence will always remain anecdotal.

      The only actual empirical data I found when I first started researching these (and I was among the earliest adopters, having quit smoking with e-cigs back in 2010), was a study on the impact of proplyne glycol inhalation in labrats from an Australian chemist in 1942. The result: no harm noted in the PG-exposed group, and in fact, a lower overall rate of viral sicknesses.

  10. I was finally told on a flight this past weekend that I couldn’t vape on the plane. Was dumb and didn’t check to see if she was walking by. Oh well, vaped on the return flight with no issue.

    1. The important issue you’re dodging, did children witness you vaping?

  11. “You’re trying to quit smoking in a non-regulatory body approved way! GET HIM!”

  12. Maybe it’s the bourbon but what the heck, I’m Canadian…

    Go fuck yourself Frieden.

  13. I work at a gas station. E-cigs don’t work for everyone I sell them to, but a number of people swear by them. I got one for free from the Zig-Zag rep. It tasted like ass, but definitely reduced my cravings.

    On the other side of Suthenboy’s coin, I’m constantly being approached by old people while outside on my breaks who tell me to quit smoking. It’s really hard to enjoy a fucking cigarette when someone is telling you that they learned from TV that my limbs will fall off. Reminds me of that C.S. Lewis quote, people will pester you incessantly if they think it’s for your own good.

    1. Doin’ right ain’t got no end.

    2. Fuck e cigs. Try vaping instead.

      1. I thought e-cigs was a form of vaping.

    3. What kind of ass?

    4. I am continually surprised by the number of people that openly disclose their practice of analingus. How else would one know that something “tasted like ass”

    5. The thing is, e-cigs do vary wildly in flavor. The problem with most of the “gas station e-cigs” are the tiny battery they use. I tried a couple at first and thought, this is awful. I decided to order some with larger batteries and tanks for the liquid versus the little cartridges and I’ve been smoke free for over 4 months now.

      This is actually my second go-round with them. The only reason I gave them up last time was due to the nuisance of not being able to get supplies locally. There are now several e-cig shops around town if I forget to order supplies online.

      1. Best bet from my experience is to get a half-decent mod and experiment with flavors bought online. After a few you’ll find one you like a lot. Most of what gas station stores sell are awful.

  14. God you fucking libertarians are a rich bunch…

    E-Cigarettes are unregulated. Without proper oversight, it’s the wild west. Can’t you get that through your thick racist skulls?

    1. +wild wild west

      1. Myself, I am partial to Artemus Gordon, even if he was into to cross dressing. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

        1. But….Robert Conrad knows about your electrical power needs.


  15. When it comes to tobacco products, we really have to assume they’re dangerous until they’re proven safe, rather than the other way around.

    Translation: freedom means asking permission.

    1. Tangential note – this is the exact same idiotic logic used by those who continue to claim vaccines are injuring their children through autism or whatever else they imagine – that is “it’s not fully tested”.

      Not sure why the hard-on for trying to control e-Cigs (other than “we just want to control”) – but note here that his statement, if used as it has been used in the vaccine idiocy, can continue ad infinitum regardless of how much testing is ever done.

      Because if they produce a great double-blind study that shows more people have quit – they’ll argue “that doesn’t mean it’s not a gateway drug”.

      When that study exists and proves them wrong, it will be “well, can we really be certain of people answering polls about whether they use illegal drugs before or after e-Cigs?” or “sure, it helps people quit, and maybe it’s not a slippery slope as we thought, but there are no long term studies on whether this new method of ingesting nicotine has other unforeseen negatives – such as third had e-Cig fumes causing autism. Now, we’re not saying it does cause autism, there is no such proof, but without further studies how do we know it doesn’t?”

      & not a single person in the press will say “exactly how do you plan to study all of this after you make it illegal? Isn’t this the exact same BS that was used to ban marijuana?”


      1. Final post (sorry for the novela)….

        Either way – I hate predicting things as it almost always turns out horribly wrong – but my prediction here is that the contingent of people who think others are immoral for taking “unacceptable” drugs – will not be satisfied with simple control here anymore than they were happy with banning smoking in private establishments.

        They promised then – this is it – banning in private establishments is all we need.

        But now we have open air smoking bans (unless it’s marijuana), bans on smoking in parks, and serious attempts to modify child custody agreements if one parent continues to smoke (even if they do not smoke near or around the child – because there’s all that second-hand and third-hand smoke, which according to many “scientific” “studies” is just as dangerous as first hand smoking).

        Actually – now that I wrote all of this and have reread it…

        If you only analyze smoking opponents actions – the goal would seem to be only to demonize smokers.

        & at some point on the way to demonizing a certain group of people, just talking about it becomes boring.

        & since everyone knows these people are truly evil, at some point acting on those beliefs is the only thing that will satisfy the hatred. After all, how else to show agreement that smokers are evil if not by trying to ban their behavior?

        In a few years – it will common sense bans that everyone agrees with. After all, who wants to side with “smokers”?

    2. we really have to assume they’re dangerous until they’re proven safe, rather than the other way around.

      Oh, our old friend the precautionary principle. Friend of nannies, fascists, and authoritarians everywhere.

      None of whom seem bright enough to realize that it is self-negating. You can’t apply the precautionary principle because it violates itself.

  16. You know, sometimes you ksuit have to roll with it. Wow.


  17. Interesting hypothesis, he should test it…

    “Well, if I want to quit, maybe I should get an e-cigarette,” rather than saying, “I’m going to get an FDA-approved medicine that will double or triple my likelihood of quitting.”

    Take a dozen smokers and a CDC idiot, lock them together for a couple weeks. Give the smokers Chantix, no cigarettes, and each smoker also gets a fully loaded gun.

    1. One CDC idiot, one bullet per gun, would be my vote.

  18. Arrogant son of a bitch.

  19. This is very disappointing.

    Lots of hospitals are restricting pts from using these. My cancer pts need to quit smoking RIGHT now because when they get radiation from me they will have problems with ongoing smoking during therapy. They are really making life hard and its just the crazy talking.

    Plus – there is randomized data that has been published.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.