LETTERS: Editorial misleads kids on effects of smoking electronic cigarettes
To the editor:
Why does the Review-Journal editorial page appear to be a propaganda machine for the electronic cigarette industry, making claims about the health impact of e-cigarettes as statements of fact that are anything but? (“Smoke signals,” Dec. 20 Review-Journal).
Fact: E-cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device. Kids are getting hooked on nicotine, and the e-cigarette industry is banking on a new generation of nicotine addicts. It shamelessly sells “Hello Kitty” e-cigarettes to kids.
About 90 percent of the world’s e-cigarettes are made in China. The FDA has no regulations for e-cigarettes. The health risks of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke have been settled for decades.
The science is still evolving for e-cigarettes. Studies have shown e-cigarettes do not emit a harmless aerosol but contain chemicals identified as known carcinogens and toxins, including tiny metal particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs. What’s worse is that e-cigarette manufacturers are not required to disclose ingredients in their products. Big Tobacco is heavily involved in the e-cigarette/nicotine addiction industry.
Why does the Review-Journal think it knows better when it comes to teens and e-cigarettes? On one hand, the editorial states, “Obviously, kids 17 and younger shouldn’t use tobacco or nicotine products. But they do.” So what do they propose? Eliminate barriers for use by minors, don’t prohibit sales to minors, don’t regulate and tax e-cigarettes like other products that contain nicotine, and let kids use e-cigarettes to quit smoking when they are not approved for this purpose.
These Review-Journal opinions defy logic and make sense only to the e-cigarette industry.
BEVERLY DALY DIX
HENDERSON
The writer is a board member for the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition.
Anti-police rhetoric
To the editor:
These days in America, anti-police rhetoric is raging like violent waves. A couple of weeks ago, The New York Times reported that police practices were marked by racism, which was a shamefully twisted anti-police spin, nothing short of outrageous.
Radley Balko’s commentary listed all kinds of police misconduct, overreaches and overreactions (“Civil liberties follies,” Sunday Review-Journal), but the reason for officers’ practices being so aggressive were omitted, conveniently or ignorantly. It is obvious anti-police rhetoric. Mr. Balko apparently makes a living by writing anti-police materials, such as his book, “Rise of the Warrior Cop.”
Yes, we’ll probably see more door-kicking raids and other aggressive police tactics, but you have to understand they are necessary because police officers’ jobs are very dangerous in this increasingly unsafe society. Officers’ jobs are also physically, mentally and emotionally draining, with no margin for error.
Consider these facts: Not too long ago, two police officers in Las Vegas were shot and killed unprovoked at a restaurant where they were taking their lunch break. Two officers in New York City were ambushed and murdered senselessly recently as they sat in their car. One 25-year-old officer in Arizona was shot and killed a couple of weeks ago when he was responding to a domestic violence call. More than 120 law enforcement officers were slain in the line of duty in 2014.
These facts prove that officers’ aggressive practices are warranted. Not because they’re racists, as The New York Times implies, or because law enforcement officers are a bunch of lawless crooks, as Radley Balko hinted, but because they were protecting the public’s safety and maintaining social order — while protecting their own lives, as well.
Implications and suggestions to the contrary, along with liberal politicians’ anti-police rhetoric, will undoubtedly bring more violence against law enforcement officers. Our society should recognize police officers’ indispensable contributions and support them earnestly, instead of criticizing their courageous efforts, because they are the ones we call for help when we confront danger.
JOHN LEE
HENDERSON
Play down Reid
To the editor:
Why did the Review-Journal feel it necessary to put Sen. Harry Reid’s exercise accident on the front page? (“Reid breaks ribs, bones; released from UMC,” Jan. 3.) It should have been buried on the last page. Sen. Reid has embarrassed the state of Nevada numerous times. I find anything he says and does unworthy of the front page. Hopefully there will be a change in the near future. Now that would warrant a front-page headline: “Harry Reid voted out of office!”
MARLENE DROZD
LAS VEGAS
‘The Interview’ rebuttal
To the editor:
I suggest that letter writer Leon Pitt (“The Interview,” Tuesday Review-Journal) do a little more research before writing on a subject. Offhand, I can think of eight films that revolve around the plot to kill a sitting American or European president or political leader: “The Manchurian Candidate,” “Vantage Point,” “Death of a President,” “JFK,” “The Day of the Jackal,” “Shooter,” “The Assassination of Richard Nixon,” “The Conspirator” and “Executive Action.”
Mr. Pitt also criticizes our country’s use of drone strikes, saying they are uncalled for since they kill non-combatants as well as our enemies. When you have an evil enemy that hides in schools, hospitals and behind innocent civilians, there will be collateral damage. If we would have fought World War II under the mentality Mr. Pitt advocates, we would now be speaking German and Japanese.
JOHN J. ERLANGER
LAS VEGAS
