Electronic cigarette opponents' arguments lack logic

Status
Not open for further replies.

sherid

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2008
2,266
493
USA
Electronic cigarette opponents' arguments lack logic

April 11, 2009

JACOB SULLUM jsullum@reason.com
The first time Tom Kiklas saw an electronic cigarette, he recalls, "I couldn't stand it . . . I thought, 'I don't want to be involved in this.' I'm an anti-smoking kind of guy."

But after Kiklas realized that electronic cigarettes deliver nicotine without tobacco or combustion products, thereby eliminating virtually all of the health hazards associated with smoking, he was comfortable becoming media relations director for inLife, one of the companies that sell the devices in the U.S. Unfortunately, many anti-smoking activists and public health officials are stuck in that first stage of visceral antipathy toward anything that resembles cigarettes, an emotional reaction that could prove deadly for smokers.

Read the rest here
 
Last edited by a moderator:

csrober055

New Member
Apr 12, 2009
3
0
Wisconsin
The issue is quite plain: If it can't be taxed, it can't be passed. (Or: If I see it, tax it)

Until the product(s) mean goo-goo bucks for them, they want no part of it and you will NOT have a say. That's just that.

We have seen how much the government cares about what we have to say. They don't.

The matter here is simple: We don't matter because the monopoly has spoken. Phil Morris and other large and unfathomably, filthy rich companies/financiers will not accept this if they are not making a dollar per second on your use of it. Until this day, you wont use it here in the states. That's just that. Period.

What can we do about it? The only thing(s) that they they do to us, and they is NOT just words, as much as so many of us wish to believe in our make-believe lands of virtue: They are not virtuous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread