[quote name='dmaul1114']It's not so much about banning products IMO, as it is banning advertising effects that haven't been scientifically proven. E-cigarettes are fine in my book, just don't allow them to advertise them or label them as an effective smoking cessation device until there's a vetted body of scientific evidence backing it up.[/QUOTE]
Nicely put, I agree with everything you said especially this part.
[quote name='Knoell']The study showed those results. I am not understanding how you think "mays" and "perhaps" cancels out the results of a study. Those "mays" and "perhaps" say that although the results favor e-cigarettes more studies need to be done. They do not say "may" and "perhaps" because their data is not consistant or erratic.
And quit it with the snake oil line. It is getting old.
The people do not need the government to intervene in a banning capacity. Regulatory, and labeling capacity? Sure. But it makes no sense to ban them. None at all.
If someone wants to smoke an E cigarette which has nothing in it that cigarettes don't have, then what is your problem? If they believe it might help them quit smoking? What is your problem? If it doesn't help them quit smoking? What is your problem?
This is where the health effects come in. We KNOW e cigarettes are far less dangerous than cigarettes, and if someone stops smoking for even a day to try them, they are helping themselves. If they do not end up quitting cigarettes, at least they smoked x amount of less cigarettes and those 4000 known chemicals into their lungs.[/QUOTE]
Chewing bubble gum may help some people quit cigarettes. Saying the Hail Mary prayer before lighting up may help some people quit cigarettes. I'm sure the scientists would agree with both statements. It doesn't mean jack shit.
[quote name='Knoell']He doesn't care whether or not they are safe. He just cares if they are tricking people into spending money to not smoke cigarettes. He doesn't realize that unless they are buying both, they are still spending money regardless, he just doesn't want the e cig company to have it.[/QUOTE]
No. I think the ecig company should be able to sell their products right now. I agree that they are no more harmful then cigs, and some well-manufactured ecigs are probably less harmful. However that doesn't mean they are harmless. Cigarettes are subject to very stringent regulation, why should ecigs get a free pass? The ecig folks should not be able to advertise their product as something that will help you quit smoking until that claim is proven in a scientific study.
I'm surprised you and troy are against a level playing field for competing products.
I did a lazy Google search myself and suprise surprise this came up in the first hit:
For other experts, the list of unknowns is still too large for them to consider e-cigarettes worth recommending. Some users, Talbot said, have reported problems with their lungs and throats that have forced them to stop using the devices.
And even though industry-funded studies have deemed the devices to be safe, an FDA report found levels of carcinogens and toxic contaminants that they determined to be were worthy of concern. Without regulation, Talobt added, cartridges may contain undisclosed chemicals that could end up being more toxic than tobacco smoke.
Quality control is also lacking. In a recent study, Talbot evaluated six brands of e-cigarettes acquired over the Internet. None of the devices were labeled clearly with nicotine levels, expiration dates or other information, she reported in December in the journal Tobacco Control.
Most cartridges leaked onto her hands, the study found, and all were defective in some way. Talbot also found unsubstantiated health claims on many of the company websites and print materials. One says they put vitamins in their e-cigarettes.
http://news.discovery.com/human/e-cigarettes-health-nicotine-tobacco-110127.html
Leaky cartridges. No labeling. Undisclosed chemicals. It's a laissez-faire marketeer's wet dream. And you want your loved ones to put this stuff in their mouth and their body?