This has been my finding too. Especially the sentiment of, “Why don’t you just quit (entirely)?” I find this is a very shortsighted view. This implies there are no benefits to continuing the behaviour or that from that person’s point of view (often someone who has never smoked or vaped) that the perceived benefits like being free from the control of an addictive substance (for nicotine users of any kind) and better general health (for smokers) outweigh the benefits of continuing to use. They discount the benefits as if there are none. Newsflash- if there were no benefits to use, nobody would smoke.
I’m all for harm reduction. I hate that there is a public health agenda that stifles research on vaping and skews research on regular smoking. Actually, that is something annoying and fascinating about science in general. It is so affected by the views of the people carrying out the science and it is hard for people to be impartial.
Anti-vaping campaign is more about ideology than public health.
By Steven Greenhut
After I began to occasionally puff on cigars while arguing politics and sipping bourbon with friends, I researched the potential health effects of this habit (the cigars, not the political arguments or booze). Much information seemed designed to scare aficionados, rather than to provide a dispassionate review of the facts.
Some studies assumed smokers inhaled the stogies and lit up several a day — rather than one every couple weeks. Activists seemed more interested in changing behavior than helping us make informed decisions. I’ve seen the same dynamic with marijuana and weight issues. Now we’re seeing it with e-cigarettes — electronic devices that heat up nicotine-infused liquid to create an inhalable vapor.
The New England Journal of Medicine recently touted a study showing that although e-cigs don’t burn tobacco, the vapor has “high levels of formaldehyde,”…
View original post 495 more words