Everywhere in the world, including in your country, pressure has been put on vapers to quit their habit and return to smoking. We can only guess why.
Putting concpiracy theories aside about Big Tobacco(which, along with their products, we will call marlboro, from now on just for the heck of it) trying to kill of the competition, let us bring up some of the points critics of vaping have raised.
Believe it or not, a very few critics, unfortunately some of which are in high positions of society, claim that vaping is identical in every way to smoking. Their reasoning? Because smoking and vaping looks the same - they produce white smoke.
But the smoke you see in a puff of marlboro is very different from the vapor that you see in vaporizers.
The entire composition of a stick of marlboro is in fact as different to the composition of the e-juice in a vaporizer as you can get.
Many vaporizers have absolutely nothing to do with a cigarette. And those that do just share one ingredient.
Marlboros have around 4,000 chemicals in them and the only thing that a stick of marlboro have in common with a vaporizer is the nicotine. And many vaporizers do not even contain nicotine.
The vapor in a cigarrete is also as different as the smoke in your marlboros simply because a vaporizer's vapor is basically steam and marlboro's smoke is the actual residue of burnning matter. They look the same but they are totally different.
Take this two photos for instance:
"A PC mouse looks like a real mouse but does that make it a rodent?"
To say that the vapor you see coming out of a vaporizer is the same as the smoke from a stick of marlboro is as silly as saying a mouse(the rodent) is the same as a PC mouse just because they look alike.
Other than nicotine content which all tomatoes have, all marlboros have and some vaporizers have, what does a stick of marlboro have in common with some vaporizers? Nothing really. And some vaporizers, I must repeat, don't even have nicotine.
Critics claim that vaping is untested in the long term and therefore should be banned because it may or may not be good for one's health.
What they are saying is that they are simply not sure of the effects of vaping (despite the fact that the main and often times only ingredients, of a vape can be found in nebulizers, food, and vaccines all of which are exactly the same chemicals some of the critics themselves have approved for more invasive uses).
Instead of vaping, some will say if you really want to quit try this patch, or this program, or hypnosis, or whatnot.
All of these suggestions are good, and if they will work for you(and they worked for some) go for it. But none of these addresses the elephant in the room.
So lets bring in the elephant - and that is, what most critics do not get is that smokers feel that these programs, patches, and mind seduction sessions will do nothing for them for a variety of reasons. What reasons you may ask?
Lets go into some of the reasons.
People convert to vaping because the programs mentioned above either did not work for them or they simply do not want to quit the habit.
It is that simple, isn't it?
It's either these did not work or they dont want to quit! Because if these worked on them and they wanted to quit they will not be vaping!
Now, for those who do not want to quit the habit, they either want thier nicotine or they simply like the sensation of puffing cloudy stuff. Or both.
Basically they want to continue their habit the way they see fit.
And since many vapers are smart people, they have decided that it is better to continue their habit with something that may or may not be bad for them in the long term, than to continue smoking marlboros which they know will surely kill them in the end.
So basically, it is about choosing the lesser evil when utopia is impossible.
But what will happen to these people who do not want to quit or can not quit the habbit if vaping is banned by the powers that be?
They will revert back to smoking marlboros. Again, very simple, right?
Some people are just so resigned to keeping their lifestyle that rehabilitation is simply resisted. In the end, its an illusion of choice really. To many, choosing their poison is out of the question, but at least leave them the option to choose the cup.
If they would ban vaporizers then they should be banning marlboros first, because 1) it has been proven for decades that marlboros are bad for you, and 2) to prevent vapers going back to cigarrettes if they do ban vaporizers. We will go into that later.
If this is the case, then they should ban normal cigarettes first as this seems to be the real concern of those that propose this critique, isn't it? If you really think about it, nicotine is just like caffeine, that both of them are addictive but we don't hear people talking of banning coffee, and the reason for all this banning talk is because traditional tobacco is much much more dangerous to health than a cup of coffee. Remove the dangers of traditional tobacco and you will have no problem.
So why not ban cigarettes and let vaping be a gateway to nothing? If it is really a gateway to anything, that is. Well, conspiracy theories aside, we simply do not know why.
But critics will continue to complain about vaping being a gateway to marlboros, and to their mind the solution is to get rid of the alternative than to remove the problem (marlboros) at its core.
They often miss the details that thier marlboros has more in common with already banned substances such as marijuana in the fact that they are both plant matter and neither produces vapor but real smoke. (Oh and souces say ;) that some cigarettes taste more like marijuana and both taste nothing like good old banana flavored e-cigs) And yet no one claims that cigarettes will lead to drugs, at least not too much these days.
So by their logic, could we really say that all traditional smokers are one step away from using illegal drugs? That's a stronger argument to ban tobacco right now than vaping isn't it?
Then they will argue that a joint of marijuana contains THT and a stick of cigarette contains nicotine and therefore normal cigarettes can not be a gateway drug to marijuana.
They would also argue that vaporizers can be a gateway to cigarettes, because, well some vaporizers have nicotine. But unfortunately for critics, not all e-liquids have nicotine (in fact our sales of zero nicotine e-liquids alone has soared up compared to the ones with nicotine among existing customers).
And those who prefer to add some nicotine in their vape, they want nicotine because they are already addicted to nicotine. These are the smokers who just want to keep their nicotine without the proven carcinogens in marlboros which used to be the only viable source of their craving.
Besides, nicotine tastes very bad even for some smokers and unless you are addicted to it already, there is really no reason why anyone wants to add nicotine to their vape. Non-smokers would not even take up vaping zero nicotine, let alone add nicotine to their vape.
If a person wants to smoke pot he will smoke pot. If a person really wants to start the habit of smoking, he will light a cigarette. You did it, someone you know did it, and someone you know who died becuase of doing this did it. But if given the choice, would you rather he vaped?
Besides that is hardly the case, as vapers vape because they no longer want to smoke, not the other way around.
And smokers smoke because they get something out of it, for some, it's the nicotine, for others it's the sensation, for others still, something else.
The problem is really about smoking and not vaping, no matter how you look at this criticisim. As long as smoking exists, a problem exists. What the vaping community is doing is taking on a problem and trying to solve it the best way the community can.
Will smoking be eliminated if we remove vaping from our culture? No it will not.
What I know, you know, and everyone knows for sure is this - vaping did not exist ten years ago, and smoking was a problem.
And vaping exists now, and lot of smokers have converted to vaping. (Just go to ECF if you need to make a survey.)
We also know for sure is that If you remove vaping, smoking will still be a problem as it was ten years ago.
You do not need vaping as a gateway because, based on our history, smoking needs no gateway.
Must point out again, smoking does not need a gateway drug. But smoking needs a buffer, and that's where vaping comes in.
And as long as marlboros are sold in groceries and gas stations, just like ten years ago, many smokers will continue to smoke, and a new generation of smokers will start to smoke, and the problem will continue to exist.
But with vaping, smokers now have a choice. And given a choice, people will tend to pick what for them is the better choice.
Critics do not know how the whole culture of vaping was born. They do not know that the culture was born because people from around the world have seen the problem( marlboro), lived the problem, and worked together towards a solution (vaping) to alleviate a burden not only for smokers but for non-smokers as well. The community was born partially because the people who should be running the world can not flush marlboro out of the system.
The vaping community, and vaping in general would not need to exist if marboro does not exist or at least not permitted to exist in the first place.