An unnecessarydebate about e-cigs
Here comes the sound of anti-smokers talking about the harms of e-cigarettes, you know the ones that burn no tobacco, only heat up a solution containing nicotine. No harms are known either to the smoker or anyone close by but that still will not stop the shrill voice of the tobacco critic claiming regulation must be done to protect the public from the great unknown.
What part of no danger don’t you understand? What cancer is to a healthy body is the same as a regulator is to a healthy nation that wants to do its job or live its life and be left alone from a bully, disguised as a public servant.
Even the harms of passive smoking were manufactured by public health. A claim of danger brought about by junk science brought in over a billion dollars over the last 20 years of public health (taxpayer) and other special interest monies. The tobacco settlement brought in 100s of billions. Would ongoing paydays like this be an incentive to cook the books? What do you think! It has been enough money to purchase a cultural shift in attitudes.
When critics complained they were always ignored, even when the most basic premise of science is the debate of the legitimacy of the claim.
Why should e-cigarettes be any different? Junk science factories already have the gears humming because of the possible regulation by the FDA.
The science of risk assessment has been corrupt and badly broken since the mid ‘80s and has been able to make up the rules of acceptable science as they went.
It is classic that e-cigarettes have given public health everything they said they wanted, smoke with no odor or effects to bystanders and safer for smokers because they don’t inhale anything burning to get nicotine.