For present purposes, we don't have much of a choice. In the absence of new legislation that creates a more sensible regulatory scheme for this product class, we are locked into the paradigm of "e-cigs are
tobacco products." Thus, we have no option but to demonstrate that they're the most non-hazardous
tobacco products ever devised.
If we actually have no option, then we are relegated to playing on ANTZ turf where they control 'facts' about smoking and we get to imagine that we control facts about eCigs as a tobacco product. I predict it will be an uphill battle for the foreseeable future and 'vaping harms' or 'vaping kills' will be what we are asked to disprove in face of propaganda showing persons harmed by vaping or mere fact that as vapers die (at some point) then indeed vaping kills.
IMO, it would be wise to either attack 'facts' on smoking to discredit ANTZ at the core or every time vaping is compared to smoking (harms) just laugh as if there is no reasonable comparison to be made. There's a superficial comparison, for sure. But contrasting vaping from smoking is laughable. Even apart from ANTZ lies about smoking (harms). IMO, it's as laughable as comparing vaping to breathing, and thinking 'now I'm being reasonable.'
Does any eCig/PV have same/similar taste to smoking? (I would say clearly no)
Could a person age 6 and up tell the difference between any eCig device and a cigarette? (I would call this a no brainer)
Has anyone ever mistaken the smell from an eCig for a smoke?
Even on the superficial, it is a laughable comparison. But the act of vaping and smoking are similar, just as the act of breathing and smoking are similar.
IMO, the 'science' really ought to be as pertinent to the discussion as *other stuff.* In fact, smoking ought to be treated as *other stuff* and be consistent with what's actually being considered.
