4 ms·
I'm a life-long straight-edger who knows next to nothing about e-cigarettes except that it looks like they're much better nicotine-delivery systems which don't
by olcor 7y ago
I'm a life-long straight-edger who knows next to nothing about e-cigarettes except that it looks like they're much better nicotine-delivery systems which don't have the extra harmful stuff cigarettes have wrapped up, so please take all I say with multiple grains of salt.
IMO is a good decision. And I say this with full cynicism; I really don't care either way. I don't have many people in my circle who're smokers or vapers, and I've never done either, so I can't really relate.
I feel this is a good decision because:
- Cigarette and beedi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beedi) companies have been entrenched in this society for long, so they can battle things out for the existing products. Most people have started to wisen up to these though, so the effects on mass population are reducing day by day (education and those large images of cancer help). In e-cigarettes' case, getting something out before it becomes entrenched, is IMO, a good thing, however unpopular. It took so damn long for people to realize tobacco is dangerous. Better this info gets out quicker now, especially in a country like India where accurate and well-rounded information is hard to get.
- E-cigarettes still contain addictive nicotine. While the current war against normal cigs/bidis might be about the smoke and other stuff, the central hook is still an addictive substance. E-cigs have the potential to dial up delivery of this addictive stuff up to 10. This isn't good for most people.
- Say whatever you want about e-cigarettes. It's known that it's seen as a cool thing among kids, and the packaging is damn near perfect. a country could do better to avoid getting its future generations getting hooked up with a snazzy-looking thumb drive before realizing too late that their parents' money is now captive to fruit-flavored pods. I've noticed juul usage amongst teens in the US, and some seem hooked beyond repair (just like smokers are today).
I don't really care however this goes, I'm not going to be the one who'll be vaping or smoking or whatever so I don't have much of a stake in this (I don't even like the current politics either). But to me, getting something out of the picture before it becomes a huge issue might be a good idea (unless, like in Harry Potter parlance, where the best thing Umbridge did to make sure The Quibbler was read was banning it...)
- Clubber 7y agoYa, who cares how many people this decision kills. It doesn't affect you, right?
- olcor 7y agoWell yes, it doesn't affect me. Doesn't mean that my viewpoint is not of any value. I'm not sure if this decision "kills" people. I know nicotine is addictive. I know giving up addictive stuff is hard. But if you think that having something which is less harmful for people already consuming more harmful stuff and more harmful for the rest who might be pulled into this, I'd believe that some action to reduce the damage being taken is not a unilaterally bad decision. I try very hard to not get addicted to stuff, because I know it's damaging. But I'm not sure if it's a good idea to keep something we are pretty sure is bad (nicotine addiction) around just because it's an easy out for someone who's already doing harm for himself and people around him. People fought to contain smoking, they lost. Clearly neither forced abstinence or knowing temperance is an awesome solution. But I'd rather ban something small which has the potential to get to the big bad real soon (e-cigarettes don't come with a doctor's approval as far as I know), because it's doable, than handhold people into something we know is not ideal, and can possibly be much worse.