LETTERS: Why stomp e-cigarettes if they do some good?

To the editor:

Regarding Daniel M. Cook’s commentary about e-cigarettes (“E-cigarettes put up smokescreen, must be snuffed out,” Aug. 5 Review-Journal), I disagree with many of his comments.

The rhetoric always seems to be the same: There are no good studies on e-cigarettes; the cigarette companies are targeting the kids with flavors such as bubble gum, cherry, etc.; e-cigarettes don’t help people stop smoking; the vapor from the e-cigarette is just as bad as secondhand smoke. It’s not uncommon for those with an agenda to mislead.

I suspect that health departments and agencies are so determined to outlaw anything that resembles smoking that they have no problem with manufacturing facts or using fuzzy research to get their points across. Health districts across the nation often deal in scare tactics, using the scared-straight approach on people. Just look at the sick, gross promotional ads they use against cigarettes. There is no doubt smoking is bad for one’s body, no argument there. But so is stuffing one’s face with desserts, or drinking alcohol to excess, smoking marijuana or abusing prescription drugs.

Furthermore, not everything is addicting. Believe it or not, a person can have only one or two glasses of wine or beer with dinner. That doesn’t make the person an alcoholic. Everybody is not an addict.

Numerous studies in Europe that found e-cigarettes indeed helped people cut down on actual cigarettes and helped people stop smoking cigarettes in favor of the e-cigarette.

Do e-cigarettes contain nicotine? Yes and no. You can have cartridges with different levels of nicotine. Many companies offer e-cigarettes free of nicotine, and many e-cigarette users choose such a cartridge. Is vapor like secondhand smoke? No way. E-cigarette vapor has no smell and no lingering odor that will offend bystanders.

This campaign against e-cigarettes is shallow, one-sided and has no real merit. Let adults choose their poison, so to speak. Enough of the nannies. People are intelligent enough to choose how they want to live and what they want to consume. Freedom of choice, please.



Federal tyranny

To the editor:

I read the editorials and the commentary in the Aug. 5 Review-Journal (“It’s really crazy!” and “E-cigarettes put up smokescreen, must be snuffed out”). Both pieces addressed the same problem: tyranny.

I was on board with all aspects of the editorial until the last paragraph. Then the opinion went limp and was a wet rage. That paragraph states, “Yes, it’s crazy. The unresponsive, unaccountable federal bureaucracy is unfit to properly address matters of local concern. The only way to bring common sense to land-use decisions is to empower communities and states and give them more control of their land.” If they are our lands, the states should have all control, not just more. If we want help with some aspect of our lands, then we should decide if the federal government should be allowed on them.

That is the problem with all state governments — they fear taking powers from the federal government. But they adore the money that the federal government brings in. Consequently, we will never rid ourselves of this tyrant called the federal government.

In the e-cigarettes piece by Daniel Cook, there is an arrogance of control of the peoples’ lives floating throughout. I don’t smoke and therefore have not paid attention to e-cigarettes. People should be informed of the potential health hazards. If they still want to smoke, that is none of my business.

There are those who will say it might cost more for health care. I agree, and for this reason, the federal government — and all governments — should get out of the health care business. Government intervention always leads to tyrannical control of individuals. This control only helps governments — certainly not the people, as both these articles showed.



No fan of Griffin

To the editor:

It is no wonder that the Review-Journal gets thinner and thinner. I got my paper early in the morning on Aug. 5, read the front page and checked the weather forecast. Then I turned the page, and there was no Norm Clarke column. I thought, maybe I’ll skim Doug Elfman’s “Vegasland” column and see if he has anything worth reading. It’s usually just some dumb telephone interview with a no-name bore or worse.

Well, this was the worst yet. He interviewed that airhead Kathy Griffin. These were the most offensive and insensitive paragraphs I’ve ever seen in the R-J. “I can’t wait for my first Rascal (mobility scooter). What better town to break it in,” she said, followed by: “Trust me, I would love nothing more than to go on stage on a Rascal, with an oxygen tank, a colostomy bag, and maybe a walker off to the side with the tennis balls on the legs.”

Maybe someday, she will get her wishes and tell us all about it. First, though, she must have life-saving surgery to remove her large bowel. And about the oxygen, that’s necessary to breathe, and the walker makes it possible to walk (not too far, though). The Rascal gives you independence again. You can go places without anyone’s assistance — what a blessing.

My husband and countless others used all of these devices. He lived to be 85. If leukemia hadn’t gotten him, he’d still be rolling along.



News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like