F E AT U R E
Through the eyes of the vaping community
as well as many other non-vapers who
are in-favor of vaping, the differences in
smoking and vaping appear entirely lucid,
s e e n c l e a r a s d a y. S o c l e a r l y i n f a c t t h a t
many vapers, vaping enthusiasts, vapor
hobbyists, vaping advocates, which are
typically all one in the same, have decided
to map out just how clear the benefits
of vaping truly are.
Cigarettes, also known as M.O.V.E.,
declare that, “ The characteristics of
electronic cigarettes should always
be compared to those of conventional
cigarettes, and discussion about the
absolute long-term safety of electronic
cigarettes must be contrasted ethically
and scientifically with the absolute
certainty of the harmfulness of smoked
tobacco (M.O.V.E. Organization).” All in
all, I completely agree with this excerpt
from the M.O.V.E. homepage, we must
continue the dialogue further as well as
compare and contrast the similarities
and differences, but it all has a cost now
that the Internet debate surrounding
vaping is so night and day, or black and
white, there is no middle ground and the
Internet is so full of such information, that
it is literally becoming slightly overflowing
with great bias.
If the vaping community wants to
convince the “unsure” crowd or the
people whose minds are yet to be made
up on why vaping is harmless, we must
ease up on the preaching, including
myself, maintaining the discourse
primarily centering the argument
around the opposition. Those who are
“undecided” about vaping will
eventually become numb from all the
constant information being shoveled in
their direction that it will only produce
apathetic attitudes. Regardless, M.O.V.E.
goes on to clearly mark their medical
position based on assessing the validity
of research studies and their personal
experiences as health professionals, by
sharing, “People smoke for the nicotine
but die from the chemicals produced
when tobacco is burned. It is the
combustion of tobacco and the 4000
chemical substances that are produced
when smoking cigarettes that are
harmful to health of smokers, not the
nicotine (M.O.V.E. Organization).”
Many suggest this anti-Vaping
propaganda attempts to inform, but only
tarnishes citizens by misleading the
public opinion into a state of mind that
94 ISSUE 03 VAPOUROUND MAGAZINE
can only be described as misguided
and indecisive. For example, applying
a watered-down version of research by
consulting the world wide web simply by
typing keywords in the little box provided
by the Google Search Engine, you can
easily come across information on these
particular issues. Such as, VaporVanity
co-founder J.R. Reynoldson writing, “It
seems like a no-brainer that these Big
Tobacco companies are behind a lot of
the latest anti-vaping propaganda and
efforts to regulate vapes into oblivion.
It would be amazing if our government
could let the free market continue
to innovate and help millions to quit
smoking, but I’m not holding my breath.
The trend seems to be towards kneejerk banning of vapes and excessive
taxes that would drive small shops out
of business. It would be a shame if Big
Tobacco is successful in using their
lobbying power to destroy the health
of former smokers by banning the only
thing that has actually helped them
to quit.” Without much researching
effort, this info was easily found on
VaporVanity.com in an article titled “Big
Tobacco Wants to Shut Down Smaller
Competitors.” Therefore, conduct a few
basic searches on these issues and
bare witness to how much the antiVaping movement as well as the Vaping
community love to convey their opinions
on Vaping related topics through
communicating on the Internet. For
example, most of my colleagues