E-cigarettes could cut smoking related deaths by 21 percent

[Roodt]

http://ewn.co.za/2016/07/15/E-cigarettes-could-cut-smoking-related-deaths-by-21-percent

Some good news I suppose?

 

[Kalashnikov]

AM i the only one that thinks it should not be called a ecig. Maybe a e-hookah. I mean it makes so much more clouds you cant compare it to e cigarette. Maybe to hookah

 

[RichJB]

We need to be so careful about research.

Multiple studies have sought to assess the impact of e-cigarettes on public health, with conflicting results. Earlier this year a University of California study of high school students found that those who used e-cigarettes were more than twice as likely to also smoke traditional cigarettes.

Is that because e-cigs planted the desire to smoke in them, or is that because they have a natural curiosity to experiment? In other words, if e-cigs weren't available, can we be sure that they wouldn't have gone straight to cigs anyway due to their natural curiosity? One has to differentiate between correlation and causation, between cause and effect.

If you employ disingenuous means, you can use statistics to prove anything. No doubt, 'research' can also prove that youths who use e-cigs are also more likely to try heroin or abuse alcohol. Is it because they have a cautious nature and would never have tried heroin or alcohol, but vaping somehow changes their entire character? Or is it because they have a nature that wants to experiment with substances, and vaping is just on the list along with heroin and alcohol?

What about if they turn to vaping after heroin and alcohol? Was it heroin and/or alcohol that got them into vaping? Or is it again just their natural curiosity to try different substances? Research is meaningless and can even be harmful if it draws illogical, agenda-driven conclusions. And I apply that to pro-vaping research too. Getting to the truth is more important than winning the political argument.

 

[Roodt]

We need to be so careful about research.



Is that because e-cigs planted the desire to smoke in them, or is that because they have a natural curiosity to experiment? In other words, if e-cigs weren't available, can we be sure that they wouldn't have gone straight to cigs anyway due to their natural curiosity? One has to differentiate between correlation and causation, between cause and effect.

If you employ disingenuous means, you can use statistics to prove anything. No doubt, 'research' can also prove that youths who use e-cigs are also more likely to try heroin or abuse alcohol. Is it because they have a cautious nature and would never have tried heroin or alcohol, but vaping somehow changes their entire character? Or is it because they have a nature that wants to experiment with substances, and vaping is just on the list along with heroin and alcohol?

What about if they turn to vaping after heroin and alcohol? Was it heroin and/or alcohol that got them into vaping? Or is it again just their natural curiosity to try different substances? Research is meaningless and can even be harmful if it draws illogical, agenda-driven conclusions. And I apply that to pro-vaping research too. Getting to the truth is more important than winning the political argument.

I fully agree with your reasoning and sound logic in this regard. What annoys me though is that we allow ourselves to be told what is and isn't good for us by governments who clearly only have their own pockets in mind and not general public health. one only has to look at the history of the tobacco industry to see how this works in both the government and tobacco industries favor.
In this regard I tend towards the Anarchist notion that every human being is held accountable for their own actions, choices and the consequence thereof. If I want to set myself on fire and jump in a drum of gasoline, then I should have the human freedom to do so, and not have a government regulate my means to do so...