3 ms·
Man, I have never seen an article where one side of an argument seemed so consistently silly. Really, you're banning it because people might see it and decide t
by mistercow 13y ago
Man, I have never seen an article where one side of an argument seemed so consistently silly. Really, you're banning it because people might see it and decide to light a real cigarette?
And how does one figure that this "turns back the clock on public health advances"? It has the potential to turn countless potential smokers to a way safer (and perhaps even negligibly dangerous) alternative. How many otherwise nonsmokers would have to start using ecigs to cancel the benefit of one otherwise smoker using them?
I feel like this is what happens when a newspaper feels the need to present "both sides" of an issue that maybe has 1.1 sides.
- greensaxman 13y agoWith that logic people shouldn't be allowed to eat ice-cream in public because it makes others want to eat sweets leading to obesity. Pure BS.
- freehunter 13y ago>Really, you're banning it because people might see it and decide to light a real cigarette? I can actually see where they're coming from on this one, and in part, it's the fault of the e-cig makers for producing and pushing look-alikes. With some popular brands (mainly gas station disposables, but not always), the e-cigs actually look like cigarettes. The problem isn't that it puts the idea in the smoker's minds, its that the smokers think the other people are legitimately smoking. If he's got a cigarette, I can have one too, right? The e-cigs that have blue tips or don't resemble normal cigarettes won't give off this confusion. If I saw someone smoking in an area, I might think it would be okay to smoke there too.