How to Generate Bogus Conclusions (E-Cig Study Edition)

[SirRevolutionary]

143. No, it's really not good enough. And I love your illogical pseudo logic

probably about as much as you love my perceived whining. Yes, smokers are forced to certain areas away from the public to smoke analog cigarettes. No one's forcing them to smoke, but yes the nannies have been passing laws to force them into corners away from the general public for many years now.

Those same nannies are apparently having shit fits over people potentially vaping in public outside the confines of smoker huts, and would like to force vapers into those very same tiny hidden recesses in our society because they're terribly afraid of losing their bully pulpit. I'll go one further, perhaps they're afraid the vapor that they see might turn them into zombies? More likely, they're pissed off that people are doing what "looks like smoking" in front of them.

The simple fact that some "cities and companies are agreeing" (I assume by that you mean passing anti-vaping laws) is not proof that ecigs are bad. It could just as easily be deduced that nannies are in control and passing laws based on their bias. The latter is more likely when you look at the actual scientific studies on ecigs without bias.

If they cause you no harm and this was scientifically proven time and time again, why, pray tell, would you give a flying shit if someone was vaping on the public beach next to you?

Also, I sincerely doubt you truly "know" any smokers except by acquaintance, based on your apparent disregard for them as a whole.

You still haven't addressed my question, why would you want me vaping my non-nicotine vape ONLY where analog cigarette smokers are allowed to smoke? If you think smoking analogs is so bad for public health, why would you want vapers to be confined to "smoking only" sections? Not concerned about our health?