Having your a smoking alternative as a preference should be a right determined by individuals not law. The overshadowing concerns from anti-vape advocates drive unsupported claims holding little to no solid concrete evidence. Anti-Vapers relay talking points that don't clarify the effects or negative impact vaping produces over any long-term periods of time.
The consensus created almost ignores the testimony spoken from the vape community it's self. Vapers have consistently voiced immediate differences in response to the personal effects of vaping vs. smoking. While a subjective perspective shouldn't be a silent one, policy speakers’ dismissive actions almost sends a message that it should. Encouraging such a message almost intrinsically translates that the vape community's too incompetent of making decisions beneficial to themselves. While we know this to be far from the truth, often those with the largest microphone are the first to tell their version of it.
While it may be to early to have a database with decades of credible case studies against vaping, today we can point out hard factual evidence with the negative effects of smoking tobacco. When we look at how facts even stack up in our own court of law, they are often measured by affirmations that can be brought forth. Information leveraged by our judicial system is weighed against what can be proven, backed by testimony and a supportive level of uncorroborated evidence. Lack of evidence also allows people to walk free. Shouldn't policy makers use the same theories applied to enforcing laws as a foundation for creating them?
Should the FDA continue to uphold an indefensible ban against vaping? Should the president's administration continue to follow compliance with these policies? Read more below on the article from the National Review on e-cigarette bans. Feel free to leave your thoughts.