This is a really long read, but well worth it!! A great article by Wired on the spread of irrationality happening right now with regard to the anti-vaccine movement.
An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
They hit the nail on the head with many points in this article.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Decriminalizing Drugs = A Good Thing
This was some particularly happy news to me yesterday (link is below). Add to this the Holland experience, where they have actually closed jails in the recent past because they are empty. Meanwhile, in Canada and the U.S., evidence like this is ignored or downplayed because of our government's heroic efforts to validate their drug-war stance by claiming if we were to decriminalize drugs, everyone and their dog would start doing them, and just think about the shambles society would be in then, oh my! What I think is really going on is that people simply don't agree that drug use is "morally good" (apparently someone has made them an authority on this type of thing and the rest of us have to follow suit) and want their drug policy to reflect their moralistic feelings on them. However, realizing that this alone may not be enough to back a huge, tax-funded, forever unsuccessful war against them, they also have to pretend that it really is about health (and some of them I'm sure honestly believe that, despite the ever-growing base of evidence to the contrary). For example, why is Harper's government still trying to close down Insite, the safe injection house in Vancouver, despite the success it has had (i.e. lower infection rates, fewer overdoses)? ...Why, because it's not really about public health, it's about making a statement. In reality, prohibiting drugs make the "drug problem" worse, and it ruins lives.
But enough from me... and yay harm reduction!
The following is from: Freemarketmojo
According to The Economist, the evidence from Portugal since 2001 shows that decriminalizing drug use and possession has “benefits and no harmful side-effects”:
Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”
The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso.
The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”
But enough from me... and yay harm reduction!
The following is from: Freemarketmojo
According to The Economist, the evidence from Portugal since 2001 shows that decriminalizing drug use and possession has “benefits and no harmful side-effects”:
Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”
The number of addicts registered in drug-substitution programmes has risen from 6,000 in 1999 to over 24,000 in 2008, reflecting a big rise in treatment (but not in drug use). Between 2001 and 2007 the number of Portuguese who say they have taken heroin at least once in their lives increased from just 1% to 1.1%. For most other drugs, the figures have fallen: Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups, according to Mr Cardoso.
The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The FDA and E-Cigs... Shoddy Science
The FDA recently announced its findings re: the electronic cigarette. It was oddly done, and that disappoints me (more details in the link). I am baffled as to why they only tested two manufacturers (one reputable - NJoy, the other not so much), and didn't include results from their control. They also conflated the fact that TSNA's were present in detectable levels, however failed to show the actual concentration, and failed to mention that at low levels these are not worrisome (and, interestingly, didn't mention that nicotine replacement aids like Nicorette products ALSO contain TSNAs). Sounds kind of fishy to me.
The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigs
The link above is to a much greater explanation of the flaws in the FDA's report. For the record, I actually agree that the e-cigs should be tested to ensure that contamination does not occur. But this is all splitting hairs when we're comparing the e-cigs to smoking real cigarettes...
The FDA Crusade Against E-Cigs
The link above is to a much greater explanation of the flaws in the FDA's report. For the record, I actually agree that the e-cigs should be tested to ensure that contamination does not occur. But this is all splitting hairs when we're comparing the e-cigs to smoking real cigarettes...
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Health Canada issues warning about Champix
Well, more focus on the e-cig in this blog... I'm not too sure how the hypocrisy of Health Canada regarding the e-cigs could be better displayed than by this latest warning from them about Champix having "serious adverse psychiatric effects", and yet still allowing it on the market, while the e-cig is banned.
Warning issued re: Champix
Champix is capable of stirring suicidal and homicidal thoughts in people.
So what does this mean re: the the e-cig? The e-cig was banned on simple suspicion of having some adverse effects on people's physical health. There is no evidence (in fact, there is evidence to the contrary) of the e-cig having any adverse effects. In fact, all evidence points to it being a much safer alternative to the conventional cigarette (which obviously has well-known adverse effects). It is still possible that the propylene glycol used in the e-cig to simulate smoke may turn out to be not great for inhalation over the long term; however, there is little reason to suspect that this possible adverse effect is anywhere near the adverse effect of inhaling smoke over a similar time frame, and certainly, all studies so far have shown that it is a much safer alternative to smoking.
Not sure what else to say on the topic. It just doesn't add up. I will say that lately it seems there is little point in arguing with our Harper government; they do what they want, regardless of what might be best, or what people might want. Bill 44 is prime example. But I digress. Maybe I've just developed some 'learned helplessness' lately...
Warning issued re: Champix
Champix is capable of stirring suicidal and homicidal thoughts in people.
So what does this mean re: the the e-cig? The e-cig was banned on simple suspicion of having some adverse effects on people's physical health. There is no evidence (in fact, there is evidence to the contrary) of the e-cig having any adverse effects. In fact, all evidence points to it being a much safer alternative to the conventional cigarette (which obviously has well-known adverse effects). It is still possible that the propylene glycol used in the e-cig to simulate smoke may turn out to be not great for inhalation over the long term; however, there is little reason to suspect that this possible adverse effect is anywhere near the adverse effect of inhaling smoke over a similar time frame, and certainly, all studies so far have shown that it is a much safer alternative to smoking.
Not sure what else to say on the topic. It just doesn't add up. I will say that lately it seems there is little point in arguing with our Harper government; they do what they want, regardless of what might be best, or what people might want. Bill 44 is prime example. But I digress. Maybe I've just developed some 'learned helplessness' lately...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) happy to make ass of themselves
I thought I would give a quick update as to a few super absurd things that have happened lately around the e-cig argument.
Firstly, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), with their collective IQ rivaling that of a squirrel, has come up with a new petition to try and thwart the e-cig from saving smoker's lives... I've pasted the below from their website, with the link here:
"ASH Seeks Regulation of E-CigarettesCopy of Petition Below - See How YOU Can Help
If you don’t want people sitting next to you – in a waiting room, restaurant, bar, or any other area where smoking is now prohibited – using one of these devices to get around smoking bans, and forcing you and your loved ones to inhale deadly nicotine – please help now!
SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP.
COMING SOON TO A NO-SMOKING SECTION WHERE YOU ARE SITTING"
As in a previous blog, I've already gone over why this war on the e-cigs is so utterly absurd, but the fact that these guys are completely uninterested in being remotely accountable for their information is disgusting to me. "inhale deadly nicotine" - but from where, ASH? Well firstly, nicotine isn't even the "deadly" component in cigarette smoke... the smoke is. Nicotine in a normal dose has a very similar effect as caffeine does. Not to mention that the nicotine inhaled from a puff from one of these e-cigs is almost immediately absorbed into the user's mouth (and secondarily their lungs, but it probably disappears even before it reaches there). Since there is no nicotine in the resulting exhalation by the "smoker", there is no vapour emanating from the other end of the e-cig, and the vapour exhaled by the user disippates immediately, and is odourless and harmless to even those sitting immediately next to the user, I fail to see where their logic lies. Or, could this perhaps be complete and utter disinformation? Ohhhh, ok, I see what you're doing then, ASH...
What ASH is doing here isn't helping anyone, and frankly, groups like this will actually be partially responsible for the deaths of smokers if they're successful in getting rid of the e-cig. Overly-dramatic? Not really. Now that Health Canada has banned the e-cig thanks to the successful lobbying by groups like these, I have a loved one who had successfully switched to the e-cig who is now back on real cigarettes. You can imagine how thrilled I am.
Anyways, here's another piece frustrated with another anti-health message being sent by an anti-smoking group.
And something a little lighthearted... Now, this isn't exactly rocket science, but I found this little site quite amusing.
Low-tech testing of the e-cig
Basically, this guy does a "breath test" of his exhaled breath from an e-cig, vs that from a real cigarette. All he does is breathe out onto a piece of toilet paper, and then observe the results. Alright, fine, it's not exactly the evidence Health Canada is looking for (then again, who knows what that actually is), but it's pretty interesting to see the results.
Ok, well my rant's over for the day.
Firstly, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), with their collective IQ rivaling that of a squirrel, has come up with a new petition to try and thwart the e-cig from saving smoker's lives... I've pasted the below from their website, with the link here:
"ASH Seeks Regulation of E-CigarettesCopy of Petition Below - See How YOU Can Help
If you don’t want people sitting next to you – in a waiting room, restaurant, bar, or any other area where smoking is now prohibited – using one of these devices to get around smoking bans, and forcing you and your loved ones to inhale deadly nicotine – please help now!
SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP.
COMING SOON TO A NO-SMOKING SECTION WHERE YOU ARE SITTING"
As in a previous blog, I've already gone over why this war on the e-cigs is so utterly absurd, but the fact that these guys are completely uninterested in being remotely accountable for their information is disgusting to me. "inhale deadly nicotine" - but from where, ASH? Well firstly, nicotine isn't even the "deadly" component in cigarette smoke... the smoke is. Nicotine in a normal dose has a very similar effect as caffeine does. Not to mention that the nicotine inhaled from a puff from one of these e-cigs is almost immediately absorbed into the user's mouth (and secondarily their lungs, but it probably disappears even before it reaches there). Since there is no nicotine in the resulting exhalation by the "smoker", there is no vapour emanating from the other end of the e-cig, and the vapour exhaled by the user disippates immediately, and is odourless and harmless to even those sitting immediately next to the user, I fail to see where their logic lies. Or, could this perhaps be complete and utter disinformation? Ohhhh, ok, I see what you're doing then, ASH...
What ASH is doing here isn't helping anyone, and frankly, groups like this will actually be partially responsible for the deaths of smokers if they're successful in getting rid of the e-cig. Overly-dramatic? Not really. Now that Health Canada has banned the e-cig thanks to the successful lobbying by groups like these, I have a loved one who had successfully switched to the e-cig who is now back on real cigarettes. You can imagine how thrilled I am.
Anyways, here's another piece frustrated with another anti-health message being sent by an anti-smoking group.
And something a little lighthearted... Now, this isn't exactly rocket science, but I found this little site quite amusing.
Low-tech testing of the e-cig
Basically, this guy does a "breath test" of his exhaled breath from an e-cig, vs that from a real cigarette. All he does is breathe out onto a piece of toilet paper, and then observe the results. Alright, fine, it's not exactly the evidence Health Canada is looking for (then again, who knows what that actually is), but it's pretty interesting to see the results.
Ok, well my rant's over for the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
