http://www.clivebates.com/
I’ve had enough of the one-sided conversation about the risks associated with e-cigarettes… poisons, gateways, renormalisation, fires, explosions, MRSA, pneumonia, dual use, undermining tobacco control, nitrosamines, anti-freeze, particulates, heavy metals, dead dog, dead cat…. blah blah blah.
ENOUGH! The public health establishment is conspicuously failing to recognise the risks associated with its preferred policy responses to e-cigarettes: with not having e-cigarettes, with banning snus, with prohibiting vaping in public places, with confusing people about risks, with controlling everything. They carry on as if these risks are zero or somehow not their responsibility – but they are all plausible and all end in more smoking and more cigarette sales.
We need to press them much more assertively:
“do you accept these risks are plausible and can you see how and why they might arise?”
“what evidence do you have regarding these risks?”
“what make you so confident your policy ideas will not cause more harm than good?”
“at what level of risk would you stop advocating these policies, or at least call for more evidence?”
.......read the rest here
I’ve had enough of the one-sided conversation about the risks associated with e-cigarettes… poisons, gateways, renormalisation, fires, explosions, MRSA, pneumonia, dual use, undermining tobacco control, nitrosamines, anti-freeze, particulates, heavy metals, dead dog, dead cat…. blah blah blah.
ENOUGH! The public health establishment is conspicuously failing to recognise the risks associated with its preferred policy responses to e-cigarettes: with not having e-cigarettes, with banning snus, with prohibiting vaping in public places, with confusing people about risks, with controlling everything. They carry on as if these risks are zero or somehow not their responsibility – but they are all plausible and all end in more smoking and more cigarette sales.
We need to press them much more assertively:
“do you accept these risks are plausible and can you see how and why they might arise?”
“what evidence do you have regarding these risks?”
“what make you so confident your policy ideas will not cause more harm than good?”
“at what level of risk would you stop advocating these policies, or at least call for more evidence?”
.......read the rest here
