3 ms·
The original cigarette epidemic led to a massive public campaign demonizing ciagerettes (justifiably so). This campaign (like all succesful PR compaigns) was ve
by gizmo686 8y ago
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.
- boudin 8y agoI 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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45212444