[EdHominem]

Chuckle. Nobody will go from vaping something that tastes like candy to sucking on something that tastes like an ashtray.

Even if they were having a nic fit they'd still vape - you can get stronger fluid and vape more than you can get via smoking without feeling sick.

> I do appreciate that vaping is probably safer than cigarettes, but that's a very low bar indeed...

There's no probably about it. Smoking kills, and we don't see Vaping doing that.

> Just because it may be (and who knows until there are long term studies), doesn't mean as a society we should be encouraging, or even allowing vaping.

So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future?

You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.

[brokenmachine]

> So you'd recommend we pursue measures known to kill tens of thousands of people just because there's a vanishingly small chance of harm sometime in the distant future?

Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.

If you asked me to make a recommendation, it would be to make smoking illegal immediately. It's ridiculous that it's allowed at all, when it kills so many people for no good reason other than "it's not illegal, so get over it". It's so dangerous that it kills thousands of people that don't even do it!

I just don't want to see the horse bolt like it did with smoking. If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet so don't insinuate that has been proven.

Like I said, if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then that's a very low bar indeed.

> You're mainly just demonstrating the problems with democracy.

It's a problem with democracy that I want a new drug delivery system to be proven safe before being allowed/recommended?

I find you rude.

[EdHominem]

> It's a problem with democracy that I want a new drug delivery system to be proven safe before being allowed/recommended?

100%.

> if the threshold for safety is that things must be safer than cigarettes, then [...]

That's not the threshold for playground equipment, or shampoo, but for a smoking replacement.

> If it's safe, then it's safe. But nobody knows yet

Oh yes, we do. I don't have to say rock climbing is safe to know that shark-taunting is unsafe. We have a really good idea how many people die from smoking and we aren't seeing vape users have that issues, or at least not 1/50th as much.

The open questions isn't "is vaping unsafe" but "which fluids are unsafe to breathe the vapors from?" Even if we discovered that propylene glycol is unsafe that doesn't mean the idea of atomizing nicotine is a bad one.

> Disallowing vaping is not the same thing as recommending cigarettes.

Actually, it is exactly that. This isn't a thought problem of "Which drug would you want your citizens to be hooked on," the question is "given that they are already hooked on cigarettes, ...".

> I find you rude.

Another typical liberal thug. Willing to use the might of the government to kill people in the guise of helping, and whose greatest insults are "You hurt my feelings."

I'm sure you do find me rude, but I'd rather hurt the feelings of a few uninvolved busybodies than let the millions of innocent people who got hooked on cigarettes die from cancer.