Good piece. Makes me think and want to write on the deeper issues of the fight we are up against. But also feel like I've said them before.
I dislike that people (includes vapers) need to position
vaping against smoking to make vaping appear 'so much better.' This piece conveys, "according to the CDC, about 480,000 deaths annually are still attributable to smoked tobacco, which remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, responsible for about one in every five deaths."
I don't get how the fight has lead us to a point where it is blatantly obvious that CDC, FDA and other anti-smoking operatives who are steadfastly opposed to free reining eCigs are to be trusted on the data on smoking. I know one of the THR big guys (Carl or Clive, can't remember which) has pointed this out. If you say they were (absolutely) right about smoking data, and turn around and say they are (absolutely) wrong about eCigs, it seems like you, or we are in a position to forever defend our rational on eCig use.
The whole time, they get to influence the eCig market. Making changes, enforced by regulations. So, plausible that the eCig 10 years from now won't look / operate / contain ingredients that are substantially equivalent to the eCig today, where we understand things to be 95% safer. Then, they'll be able to say (10 years from now) that we need at least another 20 years (from then) to truly know if they are safer.
What a game they are playing. I'd rather call them out on the data from 50 years ago that allows them to hold position of 'we are absolutely right about smoking, and is why you absolutely should listen to us first, because we are the knowledgeable, honest people in the game. Whereas big tobacco is clearly liars and deceivers. Not us. You can trust us.'
Yesterday, a local radio talk show host was speaking about eCigs and pending regulations. Essentially, I would convey that this host is IMO predisposed to favor eCigs in the free market. But was taking calls from people and appearing to remain neutral. Until the host got enough calls from people who had been smokers for decades, unable to quit, and then eCigs worked for them to tune of zero smokes in last 1 to 3 years, depending on the caller. This had the host see it as no-brainer to favor eCigs as a free market solution to whatever is the problem in our society with regards to smoking.
I find that when most people walk through that scenario of how utterly fantastic eCig/vaping is toward smoking cessation, it changes minds. Significantly. I think if anyone understood how wonderful and easy vaping is for smoking reduction, it would be impossible to maintain high sense of caution around them. Some caution, sure. But I'm not aware of any smoking cessation / reduction program that has certainty for being without any concerns in its method, and this includes going cold turkey. Anything that relies on a chemical to lead to cessation, is just a crap shoot and incredibly lucky in every case where it doesn't produce any detectable side effects.
But I write all this cause I know from my own experience and from experience pre-vaping and post-vaping that once a person is liberated from the hold that traditional smokes can have on a person, then that person suddenly allies with non-smoking types and may ally with anti-smoking factions. Which is what vaping is forever feeding into. I wish there were a rational way around this, because it sets up the scenario where a segment (apparently the majority) will see CDC claim of preventable deaths as indisputable fact.
I now see it as disputable information that is quite plausibly made up / hyped to ensure a whole lot of funding and political power going forward. That it already has obtained enormous funding and clearly influences politics ought to be a red flag to everyone. Instead, that seems to slip under the radar while anti-smoking activists get to appear like white knights in shining armor. Never to be poked at for fighting the good fight.
There's no other substance / activity on the planet that would hold up if it were scrutinized as much as eCigs, and eCigs aren't even all that much scrutinized compared to traditional smokes. But the beast is alive and doing its number on eCigs now. Thing is, the more it prattles on about the dangers of either activity, the more it opens up a can of worms, that I think will only hurt its fundamental cause, which likely has very little to do with smoking in the first place. Essentially, they risk being exposed as the great deceivers they are when they allow themselves to use the rationale they do, and think it has 'won the day.'
