3 ms·

I'm trying to follow the logic. E-cigarettes are already banned for those under-18 in America. Cigarettes and e-cigarettes are legal for those 18 and over. Beca

I'm trying to follow the logic. E-cigarettes are already banned for those under-18 in America. Cigarettes and e-cigarettes are legal for those 18 and over. Because those who smoke e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke real cigarettes, we should ban e-cigarettes? Even though they are way less harmful than real cigarettes? Why not just ban real cigarettes? Wouldn't that solve all the problems? Oh yes... black markets, prohibition, arrests, expanding prison population, and on and on... If we aren't going to throw cigarette smokers in jail, and e-cigarettes are already illegal for those under-18, then I'm not sure what else we can do. The state could aggressively fine retail stores who sell to those underage (although I doubt they sell them illegally). More likely, arrest 18 year old high school kids who buy them for their friends and underclassmen. Alcohol and cigarettes were bought for me by the burnout and local junior college kids when I was in high school.

antonvs 8y ago
> Because those who smoke e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke real cigarettes, we should ban e-cigarettes? The conclusion in the article suggests "restricting youth access to e-cigarettes." It's not talking about a general ban. > e-cigarettes are already illegal for those under-18, In the US, individual states have varying laws, and the FDA position has been evolving. Research like this presumably provides input to that ongoing process. > Why not just ban real cigarettes? They are already restricted at the federal level for under 18. > Alcohol and cigarettes were bought for me by the burnout and local junior college kids when I was in high school. The problem with personal anecdotes like this is that they give no idea of how many kids actually didn't do alcohol or cigarettes, or consumed less than they would have otherwise, because of restrictions. Your unstated premise seems to be that restrictions like this don't work. If you look into that, you'll find that's incorrect.
- seibelj 8y ago
  Yes, they are already banned. So why should the FDA ban the sale of Juul entirely?

antonvs 8y ago

> Because those who smoke e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke real cigarettes, we should ban e-cigarettes? The conclusion in the article suggests "restricting youth access to e-cigarettes." It's not talking about a general ban. > e-cigarettes are already illegal for those under-18, In the US, individual states have varying laws, and the FDA position has been evolving. Research like this presumably provides input to that ongoing process. > Why not just ban real cigarettes? They are already restricted at the federal level for under 18. > Alcohol and cigarettes were bought for me by the burnout and local junior college kids when I was in high school. The problem with personal anecdotes like this is that they give no idea of how many kids actually didn't do alcohol or cigarettes, or consumed less than they would have otherwise, because of restrictions. Your unstated premise seems to be that restrictions like this don't work. If you look into that, you'll find that's incorrect.

seibelj 8y ago
Yes, they are already banned. So why should the FDA ban the sale of Juul entirely?