| > 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. |