NPR: Officials Probe E-Cigarettes' Health Claims

[Kate]

It's difficult to be objective when there's so much hype and doom around.

I try to hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.

[Lorddrek]

There's an awful lot of that around here, masquerading as realism.

I do agree with that. I too have seen much of this lately.

[strayling]

I agree.

Thanks for that. I'm glad I'm not the only hopeful person here

[westcoast2]

Lorddrek suggested

Respect smoking laws-Stop flaunting this product in unapproved places just because of a loophole. Your making far more enemies than friends. Sneak a puff here and there if you have to but don't make a scene. Using your vaporizer in actual smoking areas is also a great place to inform the smoking public about this new device.

A couple of things. What loophole? My understanding of a loophole is being able to continue to do something that the law intended to prohibit.

In the UK, the intention of smoking restrictions was the 'protection' of people from second hand smoke. So can you clarrify what is meant by 'loophole'. Indeed many anti-smoking groups have said 'smoking isn't banned'. Does second hand vape (SHV) carry health risks to others and was the law framed to restrict it?

Secondly, why would a person who smokes regulars be interested in an e-cig/PV?
Health? This was discounted in another suggestion.
Cost? There is an initial investment which some may not want to make, even though on-going costs are less. This maybe more of a consideration as taxes increase.
Cut-down? Some may want to and this can be a side affect though uncertain.
Convienience? This IMHO, is a big reason. To be able to vape instead of smoke in smoking restricted places. At work or in a pub (if owners offer the choice). The person who smokes asks 'why change if I still have to stand out in the cold and rain (UK ) to vape'? 'I may as well stick to regulars'.

Sure be discreet and not flaunt it but by abiding by smoking restrictions arn't you buying into the harm to others and denormalization agenda?