Re: Just so I understand their complete ignorance of epidemiology
So while we wait for those long term studies, how many smokers do you think should die from smoking related diseases, the risks of which they could have seriously reduced by switching to vapour tech?
Because when we get down to brass tacks, there's plenty of evidence - good evidence - that vaping is about as close to 'safe enough' as we can expect from any inhalation based nicotine delivery system (which is a popular thing that will never, ever go away) to make it a no brainer for a smoker to switch.
They have already decided that the benefits they get from smoking outweigh the well known risks - so if you massively reduce the risks, then that's an increase in the benefit.
All the enjoyment, none of the death (to the best of our current knowledge).
At this stage, with what we know about the relative risk, talking about long term testing as a reason to restrict access or to discourage peope from using these devices is utter sophistry; people are dying now from lit tobacco use.
So far, other than extreme outliers (PG allergy, battery issues) no-one who uses these devices as directed has reported a serious reaction or problem from them, period.
Are there possible long term risks from vaping? Of course there will likely be - probably an increase in COPD likelyhood and other airway issues over the long term.
But it'll be significantly less than from smoking, because smoking is unique in it's ability to destroy the body.
And as people will always 'smoke' in some form or another - it's been part of human culture for millenia - why restrict access to the safest method yet found of doing so based on what, when it comes down to it, is nothing more than mealy mouthed handwringing?