Alright, I'm interested in actual topic discussion. So, let me quote what is already mentioned in OP:
The growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence consistently indicates that electronic cigarettes (e-cigs):
- are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes
Would be nice to have this claim backed by cited scientific evidence. It is such a bold claim that I think opposition won't have much of a problem poking at it, and then claiming that those people who argued it was 99% less hazardous weren't being exactly honest with you.
are consumed almost exclusively (i.e. >99%) by smokers and exsmokers who quit by switching to e-cigs
Either outdated data or very soon not likely to be the case.
I fully realize that these first 2 points are ones that work for vapers politically here in the early going of
vaping rights. But they are overstated IMHO, and are making the case that
vaping must always be tied to smoking for vaping to make sense. 99% leaves only 1% room for error/reasonable doubt. That's overstatement. Neither statement being backed by the alleged mountain of science that exists.
Next 4 points on the list all making the case for why vaping must always be seen through the prism of anti-smoking rhetoric.
pose no risks to nonusers
Again, I find this overstated. No risks would seem very easy to poke at. I am in harmony with this point of very little (as in trace amount) of risks, but feel it sets up vaping enthusiast for a bit of a fall to claim no risks.
Also feel the person who expresses this believes in 'substantial risk' to nonusers from SHS, towing the politically correct line of ANTZ. I find both SHS and SHV data to be highly trumped up data that is NOT backed by mountains of scientific evidence, and to the degree it is supported by evidence would be by them who are accurately referred to as ANTZ. Meaning, if you believe SHV is of little to no risk to bystanders, then surely you can re-examine data on SHS and see how it has been blown out of proportion, all in the name of demonizing those users.
But instead this piece would continue that sort of demonizing by saying vaping isn't THAT bad.
- have further denormalized cigarette smoking,
- have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker, and
- have never been found to precede cigarette smoking in any daily smoker.
All three points that I agree with, even while I believe they are overstatements. And all points that are really side swipes at smoking rather than saying anything substantial about vaping.
But instead of correcting or clarifying (or apologizing for) their many false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs (in a failed attempt to win a lawsuit), FDA officials (and other DHHS officials) have further misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence on e-cigs to lobby for their recently proposed Deeming Regulation, which will protect cigarette markets by banning >99.9% of all e-cigs, and will give the e-cig industry to the Big Tobacco companies.
I expect FDA officials to correct their misleading fear mongering claims right around same time they correct their misleading fear mongering claims about smoking/SHS. Or around same time that an anti-smoking activist might do the same. Or around same time that an activist apologizes for fear mongering claims of 99.9% of products will be banned and given to the evil BT companies.
Read as never.
