While an intriguing thought exercise can we get back to the topic of 'E-Cig Enemy Motive'?
Do you have any evidence? Sources? Publications, papers, reports, documents?
No matter how compelling the circumstantial evidence is we need hard data to combat attempts to ban or overly regulate e-cigs. We cannot do this without hard evidence. We cannot do this with unsourced op-ed's.
Unfortunately the burden of proof falls on the accuser. They have evidence in the form of the CDC's studies and the already piled evidence of the dangers of nicotine, no mater how minuscule the dangers are compared to other legal substances.
If I was a non-smoking medical doctor tasked with preventing products from being sold that can hurt people I would honestly ban e-cigs too, if for no other reason than to nip it in the bud before it gets as entrenched and hard to regulate as analog cigarettes. Half of the battle against big
tobacco is because it is so entrenched that its removal is difficult and costly. This is a chance to ban a similar product before it hits the market.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: This means we need hard evidence and proof of the safety and legitimacy of our claims that these
devices provide an alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes with a minimal of health risks and enact safeguards, such as legally applying the
tobacco laws to e-cig devices and liquids. We do not need baseless, unsupported claims that attack the institutions that have launched these allegations at our hobby. We need evidence. We need facts.
