A website about eCigs lists studies in favour of eCigs. Not exactly a surprise. But I will point out that the discrepancies between headlines and body copy of the example you listed:
Headline: "It’s Official: Big Pharma is Lobbying Against Electronic Cigarettes- Dr. Michael Siegel"
Body copy:
According to an article in the London Times, GlaxoSmithKline – a major player in the pharmaceutical smoking cessation industry – has lobbied vigorously on behalf of stringent electronic cigarette regulation in the European Union.
Against ≠ stringent regulation.
I will also mention that comparative studies (where someone uses a third party's collected data) are different control group studies (such as the original one I posted). The first is more easily prone to error, confirmation bias and manipulation. Likewise, blog posts, opinion pieces and
Second: there are also a lot of articles in the list that seem to dismiss known things like toxicity levels of chemicals, etc.
Third; scare tactics work on some people, but not me. An ingredient list isn't going to scare me, nor does it prove anything. I'm not a fear-mongering chemophobe hippie. I'm a former line cook with a deep interest in food science (and science in general). Pseudoscience is NOT science. Long chemical names does not mean they're bad. Great, eCigs have fewer carcinogens. Tobacco's bad, that's why they're controlled. Nicotine however, IS BAD in both cigarettes and eCigs.
If you'd like to have an argument based on emotion, rather than science, I can indulge:
Nicotine is rat poison. Why do eCig retailers sell liquid rat poison in kid-friendly flavours like liquorice, cotton candy and bubblegum?
See how that works? Far more moving than science, but completely irrational and appealing entirely to emotion.
The crux of my argument, and the crux of the argument of those looking to regulate eCigs is that nicotine is a toxic substance that shouldn't be a) available in uncontrolled dosages, b) aerosolized where others can be exposed to it or c) treated as anything less than a controlled toxic substance. I have seen nothing in anything you've posted to argue against that.
You don't want to have to leave a restaurant to smoke an eCig; tough. You don't have the right to expose *anyone* to known toxic chemicals out of your own convenience.
Oh, and what's to stop pharmaceutical companies from selling eCigs? That's right, nothing. And there goes your anti-Big Pharma argument with one tiny statement of sound reason.
Lack of rational thought and reason is why many of us here dislike Ford and Ford Nation; and I for one would prefer the self-interested emotional fear mongering stay with the IHTWOMRF folks.
