WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 20855746

(no title)

intertextuality | 6 years ago

It’s so strange to me how vaping is seen as this miraculous thing and any criticism is seen as being a hater.

10 years is not nearly long enough to measure long term health effects, sorry. Being “safer than cigs” isn’t worth anything at all.

discuss

order

oh_sigh|6 years ago

It's worth a lot if people vape over smoking cigarettes. It's worth negative if people who wouldn't otherwise smoke cigs take up vaping.

idDriven|6 years ago

More complex question would be if I vape my dessert flavor with or without nicotine is that better for me than eating said dessert? I have had so many people tell me how they 'cant resist' sweets, and I'd rather vape my cake.

idDriven|6 years ago

Before I switched from smoking 12-ish years ago my lungs would physically hurt in the morning and I would cough when I woke up. To me, and other people who legitimately view vaping as something that was life-changing in a very positive way that comes off as a very uncaring attitude. Vaping dramatically improved my health.

mastazi|6 years ago

A lot of the resistance you describe comes from the fact that vaping is illegal in many countries (interestingly, smoking is legal in almost all of those places) and people living in places where vaping is legal, are concerned that there might be a push towards prohibition.

I agree with you that the amount of evidence we have is not conclusive and if you browse the various vaping forums online, you can see that most vapers openly admit that as well, the problem arises when the lack of conclusive evidence is used as an argument in favour of prohibition, that is what drives many vapers to respond.

In other words, if something is “possibly harmful but we’re not sure yet”, is that a sufficient reason for making it illegal? Most vapers think that the answer is no.

shkkmo|6 years ago

> people living in places where vaping is legal, are concerned that there might be a push towards prohibition

Spreading false, misleading information doesn't help legitimize your cause.

> the problem arises when the lack of conclusive evidence is used as an argument in favour of prohibition, that is what drives many vapers to respond

I haven't see anyone here doing that, I certainly haven't.

> In other words, if something is “possibly harmful but we’re not sure yet”, is that a sufficient reason for making it illegal? Most vapers think that the answer is no.

I do not thing there is any doubt that vaping is harmful to some degree (that appears to be the scientific consensus). The unresolved questions are "how harmful?" and "is it a net negative for society?". However, even if the answers are "almost as harmful as cigarettes" and "yes, it increases public health risks overall despite reductions in smoking", I still would not support banning e-cigs (though I would support advertising restrictions).