Nicotine != tobacco and is not a known carcinogen. Hence, this is now a moralistic conversation as we are now talking about a drug with health effects similar to caffeine (forbidden by Mormons for example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Contraindications

"The accepted medical position in 2007 was that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups"

Actually, as research continues we are beginning to understand the role nicotine can have with cancer. The link I've shared elsewhere in this thread is a good place to start.

The original cigarette epidemic led to a massive public campaign demonizing ciagerettes (justifiably so). This campaign (like all succesful PR compaigns) was very much conducted on moralistic terms [0].

Now, there is a public health discussion to be had about e-cigarettes, however they have inherited much of the moral baggage that we attached to traditional cigarettes (as well as much of the public perception of safety we have attached to traditional cigarettes).

If you are reading something in the opinion section of a general purpose news paper, odds are you are reading a moralistic piece. That is not the place where technical discussions of public policy occur.

[0] This is not to say the motivations of those conducting it were moralistic, but many of the compagns themselves were, and cigarettes are now widely viewed as a moral failing.

I wouldn't call the campaign demonizing, it's not like cigarettes are just a slightly bad for your health... There's way enough studies to back campaigns against it. I wouldn't call this moralistic...

I have the feeling that with vaping there's a "safe until proven unsafe" factor... The fact that it is used as a way to get people away from cigarettes tends to make think that it can just be better, which might be true, but at the same time there's absolutly no knowledge about long term effects.

Personally I think it would make sense to apply tobacco regulations to vaping. For safety purpose as well as respect for non smoker/vapers.

I know for a fact from people who worked for BAT that it is now a big part of their strategy.

When I see news like this, i can't help but make a parallel with tobacco lobbying: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45212444

>Reframing the debate in moralistic terms is not useful here. It's a public health issue, plain and simple.

Of course it is a moral debate. Sure its not healthy, but shouldnt people be allowed to use it regardless if they decide to do so? It only becomes a public health issue once people who dont smoke are effected, which is why we got bans to smoke in certain places and not a ban on smoking in general.

1) In countries with public heath system, people who don't smoke are also affected when the government has to subside treatment for smoking related diseases.

2) Smoking impacts on individual productivity which directly impacts on economy:

> Current smokers missed more days of work and experienced more unproductive time at work compared with former smokers and nonsmokers. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509

3) Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502793/

Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous in face of the numerous studies freely available on the internet.

You dont get what I said. I said, despite the effects on health. I am not arguing that smoking is not unhealthy. Its not an either or question between public health issue and moral question. Smoking is bad for you. It will likely kill you. And so are heroin crack and fast food. If it was only a matter of public health all would be banned. They are all unhealthy and cost the healthcare system massively. The decision that we still tolerate some and dont tolerate others is a moralistic one.

I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies for my disproportional rude tone.

I'm all for freedom of choice as long as it doesn't impact the collective. And To add to your point, imagine if sugar-rich and fast-food packagings were photos of sickly-looking obese people and insulin injections. Also imagine if fast-food was prohibited from being advertised. That's what some govs do with tobacco. As you said, allowing one but no the other is indeed a moral debate.

>The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers was 2623 dollars/year compared with 3246 dollars/year for former smokers and 4430 dollars/year for current smokers. More than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work.

Are you sure you don't see any methodological issues with this study & those claims? Cuz I see a lot.

>Dismissing discussions about impacts of smoking as moralistic is borderline disingenuous

Please consider avoiding backhandedly calling people liars.

Don't put words in my mouth. I called out parent's dismissal tone which adds nothing to the debate and provided studies to back what I wrote.

Meanwhile your comment also adds nothing to the debate by going straight to personal attacks and a vague dismissal of one of the linked studies.

To stay on topic:

Could you provide a study that disproves collateral damages, be it with to health or simply economic, to non-smokers?

Wow now that's a convincing argument.

>"if e-cigs turn out to be safe, or can be made safe, what is the problem?" This is weasle-wording.

Only if you can point out what the weasel word is.

Asking what's the problem if they're/can be made safe is not a weasel phrasing.

Is a totally legitimate question.

It would be a weasel phrase if the healthiness was assumed somehow.

Nicotine has many beneficial properties: increasing cognition and IQ, as a mood stabilizer, as a stimulant, while also helping prevent dementia and Parkinson's disease.