On the other hand, sorry I just have to throw this in.
Even if all the stuff about smoking causing disease is wrong, the folks making that case - lost. They lost that fight in the court of public opinion as conclusively as any similar fight has ever been lost. By now almost everyone thinks they are wrong. They are taken about as seriously as Luddites.
I disagree with this. I see a form of this routinely, but feel it is simply justification for not fighting the war, while thinking this battle can be won. If you think smoking politics is lost in court of public opinion, and can't be won, then I do not see how vaping can be won, except for some small scraps, which will be the EXACT SAME SCRAPS that smoking has, though (smoking is) arguably better in almost every way conceivable.
A prime example of the scraps I speak about is that no one is calling for a ban on smoking products. It's existence is not threatened on the planet. Yet, (some) vapers think that the existence of vaping products is threatened, and are doing what they can to prevent that threat. And yet, in doing so, there are factions within the vaping community that are clearly serving need for BV up on a silver platter. That is a sure way to ensure that vaping products survive an existential threat, but also will mean that the (legal) vaping market is, in reality, no different than the legal smoking market.
I'll also just note that the fight for "other stuff" was clearly "lost" about a hundred years ago. It was banned from society and thus anyone say in 1985 arguing that there is still a fight worth having on that front would've shown up as "fighting a battle that was already lost." And yet, we live in a world today where other stuff is making a very strong comeback, to become legal. Did that happen because people kept fighting the war, or because magical fairies decided to allow humanity one more shot to get that correct?
And then, it's certainly true that cigarette smoke has a very strong smell, it's unpleasant to almost everyone except smokers, it lingers more tenaciously than just about any other odor, and anyone who is around smokers for 8 hours a day will take it home with them because it settles in the hair and clothes. They don't like that. In fact they loathe it. Clearly that would make non-smokers receptive to any other anti-smoking arguments, even if they did happen to be bogus. Maybe we could eventually persuade them to let us vape around them, but not a chance in hell if we allied ourselves with the idea that smoking bans in the workplace and elsewhere should also be lifted.
If the majority of vapers were staying consistent, the argument for lifting smoking bans would be that it ought to be entirely up to the owner of the establishment, and not based on junk science for what makes for "clean air." If a bar, restaurant, movie theater, or even hospital wishes to allow it in either all locations of the establishment or in certain, well ventilated locations, then those who are so put off by the smell/action, can make the decision to never ever visit that establishment. While smokers / tolerant people can make perhaps the opposite decision. By disallowing it, and based on the reasons currently put forth, it really has very little chance of being a successful battle for vaping/vapers.
Though a vaper such as myself, who vapes everywhere with respect, will likely break the law because of how silly it is and how unlikely I am to be caught. Again, a hospital is easily one of the best places to vape indoors. I cannot say the same about smoking.
If we go into this fight saying cigarettes and vaping alike are getting the same bad rap we will be laughed out of school. Especially if, like Dr Phillips, we simultaneously promote THR, the idea that vaping is so much safer than smoking. Huh? Or was he just talking about chewing tobacco? Hard for me to tell after reading his rather incoherent Blog.
Let me know what parts of the article you found incoherent. I'll be glad to help you understand what was being stated.
In a nutshell, the piece is saying you can't say ANTZ were right about smoking, but are wrong about vaping, without leaving the door wide open to the notion that they may be "proven" right about vaping. Proven by their own made up lies and facts, or the ones you've accepted as "truth" about smoking.
A prime example of this is that vapers one day will die. And that a stat will be created to say, "x thousand people die from vaping annually." The vaping community, on forums especially, will dissect such a claim, and show that it is made up and based on a whole lot of junk science. But if the public is under the impression of "vaping kills" then the battle will be as over for vaping as it is, in your opinion, for smoking.
In practical terms the argument that we are not cigarettes is the best argument we have. That even sounds cynical to me. But I don't want to march into battle with a gigantic, universally loathed, long lost cause strapped to my back.
I would say in practical terms, the best argument we have is that vaping is a recreational choice for adults, and needs to remain a recreational choice that is made available on the legal/open market. All the scientific, moral and philosophical stuff is important (to me) but is not all that practical and not something that non-vapers will care a whole lot about. They might not care a lot about a recreational product they don't choose to engage in, but pretty sure they'd care if a black market ensued and lots and lots of money is being spent to try to enforce a silly ban on something that even they see as rather tame.
So the true "luddites" - the global warmers - are taken very seriously, by some.... "Liberalism is what smart looks like to stupid people."
