Angryoldgit
Initiate
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 44
All things are relative according to Albert Einstein
"Are e-cigs safer than tobacco cigarettes? Maybe. But if you had to choose between fighting a tiger or fighting a lion, or fighting neither, which would you choose? Just because vaping might — and I meanmight*— be a little safer than smoking does not make it safe."
Let's try to make this simple. Water, per se, is vital to life, and relatively innocuous. But I do not drink sea-water. There are millions of chemicals in it. There are radioactive elements in it. There are microbes in it. I've been told since I was a child that I should not drink it. So I don't. But I happily swim in it Occasionally I accidentally swallow a little, but it never harmed me. And, rightly, no-one has ever passed a law prohibiting me from drinking it.
Fresh water contains far fewer impurities, but it still contains a large number of unpleasant substances, many of animal origin (from animals that I am happy to eat), and microbes. I was told as a child not to drink it, and I don't. I happily swim in it. No one ever passed a law prohibiting me from drinking it.
Out of my tap flows drinking water. I was taught as a child that it was safe to drink. It contains many chemicals, and many microbes, trace minerals including some that originated in nuclear explosions, and are known to be carcinogenic. If someone wanted to pass a law that said, "You may not drink this, because it is not safe!", my answer would be, "Can it not be made safe, but still drinkable?"
When a law is proposed that says, in effect, "You may not drink this because we cannot be sure whether it is safe or not, and we do not think your children could tell the difference between this and sea water!", I think I would just question the sanity of the law-maker.
E-cigs are are to tobacco what tap-water is to sea water. They are probably not 100% safe, but the alternatives are far, far worse!