This isn't 'blah, blah, blah' to me. The story, like that of the junk formaldehyde study, gets a lot of press and people only remember the negative headlines. Surveys show that public perception of e-cig safety has declined (from 80% to 65% from memory). We know that these reports cherry pick data from debunked studies and misrepresent the results of others.
Unfortunately, the larger population doesn't know that and it's not an issue they'll research unless it applies to them somehow which leaves them believing the headlines. So John Q Public will go right along with proposals to treat vaping like smoking, ignorant of the fact that vaping isn't smoking, that there are studies that show vaping has been an effective smoking cessation tool for many, that e-cigs are safeR that smoking, that there is no risk from 2nd hand vape, that vaping is a gateway from smoking, that teen smoking is down, that a drop of juice from an e-cig will not cause harm, and fail to put calls to poison control in perspective (check out how many calls they get for toothpaste) and I could go on.
Other states will follow CA like sheep presuming CA is right. Have you visited the legislation page and seen what states are already up to? Those warnings from CASAA at the top of the page keep on coming. It's sad how many areas basically copy the proposals from others.
I was blissfully unaware of the political situation for awhile. I have learned so much from resources here. Now I know I have to make my voice heard - be it comments countering the claims in poor articles or contacting state and federal representatives. For example, the state of VT is proposing to limit e-cig flavoring to just menthol. That makes no sense to me. Do we just let this go through as 'blah, blah, blah'? Not if I have any say so.