NEW OP-ED: Why Banning Vaping is a Mistake
My comment:
I realized that the writer is only focusing on the positive side of the vaping; every problem should be seen in both direction to figure out solutions. Here’s what I found out. According to a study constructed by Maciej L. Goniewicz, which was about comparing the nicotine and toxicants exposure in users of e-cigarettes, combustible tobaccos, and non-smokers. The result was shown that “current exclusive e-cigarette users had greater concentrations of biomarkers of nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds, and metals compared with never tobacco users”, meaning that e-cigs actually do harm your body in significant rates (Maciej L. Goniewicz, 2018). Looking at the statistics and the data, it is proven that vaping is actually not so much greater than the actual smoking. Although it is true that e-cigs contain much fewer toxicants than conventional tobacco, it’s only in terms of the original smokers. To people who haven’t smoked or vaped in their life before, I think it’s always better to refrain them from consuming what would pretty much consume the rest of their life.
Original OP-ED: Vaping Is Big Tobacco's Bait and Switch
Commenting on a comment
The comment: "From the very opening paragraph, the reasons that Ms. Interlandi chose to take up smoking were apparent and not linked to the evil acts of tobacco companies so much as the natural behavioral drives of a teenager.
We could be forgiven for thinking that Ms. Interlandi made her decision before much was known about smoking. In fact, she would likely have begun smoking in the late '80s or early '90s, a time when the health effects of smoking were common knowledge, and advertising was severely restricted by law.
To go on to claim that tobacco companies are using vapor products to gain a new generation is fanciful thinking rather than a true representation of facts. Instead, she piles on to the faux moral panic that is itself fueling the rise in teen curiosity about vapor products. [Familiarize oneself with the "Streisand Effect".]
While it is convenient to believe that restricting or banning vapor products would bring an end to teen use, such thinking flies in the face of reality. What will result instead is more likely to be a pendulum swing back towards smoking, the same smoking that Ms. Interlandi's knowledge about was insufficient to deter her from taking up?
The important ethical question, unasked, is: Should we have a world where the only available product kills half its users or a world where a vastly less harmful alternative is available?"
My comment on the comment:
I do think that you have a really good point. But the thing I think that we should talk about is: is E-cigarettes actually so much better than the actual tobacco? Here, I want to bring up one of the studies I have found–it's about comparing the toxicants of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. They conducted the study by comparing multiple groups of people, including smokers, e-cigarette users, and non-smokers. What they found out was that e-cigarettes are not so greater than the actual cigarettes. The result was shown that “current exclusive e-cigarette users had greater concentrations of biomarkers of nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds, and metals compared with never tobacco users” (Maciej L. Goniewicz, 2018). And one more thing, the research has found out that most of the people who smoke, eventually start vaping, and people who vape, start smoking at the end. And they also found out that if you start doing both, more toxicants ruin your body–"Exclusive cigarette users showed 10% to 36% lower concentrations of several biomarkers than dual users"(Maciej L. Goniewicz). I want to ask you, did you know about this information?
