In an article published in the journal Preventing Chronic Disease, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report the results of a national survey of U.S. adults to assess their opinion regarding the harmfulness of exposure to "secondhand" vaping (i.e., exposure to the air in a place where vaping is taking place).
The results of the study were as follows: "Overall, 5.3% of adults responded that secondhand EVP exposure caused
“no harm” to children, 39.9% responded “little harm” or “some harm,”
21.5% responded “a lot of harm,” and 33.3% responded “don’t know.”"
The article concludes: "Current cigarette smokers and EVP users had greater odds of reporting
that exposure to secondhand EVP aerosol causes “no harm” or “little
harm” or “some harm” to children compared with never cigarette smokers
and never EVP users. However, scientific evidence indicates that EVP
aerosol exhaled into the air potentially exposes nonusers to aerosolized
nicotine and other harmful and potentially harmful substances,
including heavy metals, ultrafine particulates, and volatile organic
compounds."
It appears that CDC has concluded that the correct answer to the question is "a lot of harm" and that answers of "no harm," "little harm," or even "some harm" are incorrect. Therefore, more education is needed to inform the public of the "harms" (apparently, the substantial harms) of secondhand vaping.
The basis of the CDC's contention that secondhand vaping is very harmful is that "this aerosol is not as safe as clean air" and that it "is not harmless and that it can contain harmful and potentially harmful chemicals, including nicotine."
The Rest of the Story
Apparently, the CDC has forgotten one of the major principles of environmental health, which is that the dose of exposure to a chemical is critical in assessing its health impact. Just because e-cigarette aerosol has been found to contain nicotine and some other chemicals does not mean that it is substantially harmful. What matters is the actual exposure, which is dependent upon the levels of these chemicals in ambient air under actual (real-life) conditions and the duration of exposure. To date, there is no evidence that there is any substantial exposure to harmful chemicals in real-life situations that most adults and children encounter. On the contrary, there is evidence that secondhand "vapor" dissipates rapidly and that exposure to nicotine and other chemicals is very low.
While I agree that public education about the risks of vaping is needed, I believe that "public education" implies giving people the actual facts, not making things up or exaggerating harms that are not known to exist.
Here, the CDC is clearly suggesting that we mislead the public by trying to convince them that secondhand vaping is a significant public health hazard when in fact the evidence suggests the opposite.
The worst that the CDC can document about secondhand "EVP" is that it is "not as safe as clean air" and that it is "not harmless." That is hardly a ringing endorsement of EVP representing a substantial public health problem or of EVP being very harmful.
Moreover, people who state that they "do not know" the hazards cannot be viewed as being ignorant, as the CDC would have us believe, because there is not a huge body of literature on this topic and the exact risks have not yet been quantified. But there is certainly no evidence at present that secondhand vaping is harmful. Therefore, we cannot say that people who believe that EVP is "not harmful" are wrong.
Clearly, the CDC is not interested in the actual scientific facts. They are simply interested in scaring people about the harms of secondhand vapor - harms that have not been shown to exist. The CDC is engaging in an unwarranted scare campaign against e-cigarettes and apparently is trying to demonize these products because, for some reason, it doesn't like them.
The unfortunate part of this is not merely that the CDC is violating principles of public health by deceiving the public and by making claims that are not substantiated by scientific evidence. The CDC's statements are also a tangible threat to the public's health. By deceiving people about the risks of e-cigarettes, CDC is actually undermining the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking and the tremendous difference in risk between the use of combustible tobacco products and the use of tobacco-free, smoke-free, non-combusted products. This could lead to smokers deciding not to quit because there is no point to vaping if it is just as harmful as smoking. It could also lead to former smokers returning to smoking for the same reason.
In this era of the government relying upon and disseminating "alternative facts," it is especially inappropriate for the CDC to be waging a campaign of deception about the health effects of vaping and secondhand vaping.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Why is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Congratulating a Political Leader Accused of the Murder of Thousands of Innocent Civilians?
In a press release issued this past Tuesday, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids congratulated Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on his election as the new Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Dr. Ghebreyesus' CV notes that he "facilitated critical health investments and reforms that helped expand health care access to tens of millions of Ethiopians," which sounds like a strong qualification for his election to this position as leader of WHO. However, the CV is only telling part of the story.
The Rest of the Story
The rest of the story is that Dr. Ghebreyesus, as one of the nine executive members of the politburo of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) - according to the Ethiopian Advocacy Network, has been accused of leading a campaign of repression and murder that some have even called a genocide.
According to multiple sources, the TPLF has allegedly engaged in severe repression of civilian protests in Oromia and Amhara, including a military response in which more than 1,000 innocent civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and millions displaced.
The repression of dissent in Oromia is documented by a 2014 Amnesty International report, which confirms the TPLF's role in arbitrary arrest of civilians based purely on dissent or suspected dissent, the arrest of peaceful protestors and students, violations of free speech and assembly rights, violation of the right to education, and even "arbitrary detention," "enforced disappearance," "extra-judicial executions," and "torture," including rape, psychological torture, torture in and out of detention, and forced labor.
A 2016 report at Genocide Watch outlines numerous human rights violations by the TPLF and concludes that TPLF orchestrated a "genocidal plan systematically designed by the TPLF regime using the unfair land use policy as a tool in Oromia and Southern Ethiopia to achieve the political goal of complete ownership of the land through silent eradication of the indigenous communities in the long-term. “Genocide Watch considers Ethiopia to have already reached Stage 7, genocidal massacres, against many of its peoples, including the Anuak, Ogadeni, Oromo, and Omo tribes.” The people of Oromia in particular, and all oppressed peoples of Ethiopia in general, are struggling to reverse this policy of systematic genocide waged on them by successive regimes of Ethiopia."
While some of this alleged genocidal campaign occurred prior to Dr. Ghebreyesus' tenure, it has been estimated that "more than 1000 civilians have been killed by the regime in last 10 months (November 2015 to September 2016)."
The Oramian Economist describes the TPLF's rule as a system of social and economic "apartheid."
Dr. Ghebreyesus' campaign for the WHO directorship is widely characterized as a political campaign funded by the TPLF for political gain. His election was opposed by massive numbers of Ethiopians, apparently on the basis of his alleged "involvement in the killings hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestants. Last year alone, more than well over 1000 civilians were killed by the regime that Tedros Adhanom is fiercely and passionately supporting – the ethnic TPLF government."
Under these circumstances, I find it shameful that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids offered its congratulations to Dr. Ghebreyesus and is supporting his election to the Director-General position of the World Health Organization. It appears that Dr. Ghebreyesus is someone who should be investigated by the World Health Organization for public health atrocities, not someone who should be leading the organization.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' support for Dr. Ghebreyesus casts a dark cloud on the entire tobacco control movement.
I call on the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to retract its statement and apologize for its support of a political leader who is accused of being involved in the murder of thousands, participation in human rights violations, and supporting a policy of systematic genocide.
I expect an immediate response, given the grave nature of the alleged human rights violations.
Dr. Ghebreyesus' CV notes that he "facilitated critical health investments and reforms that helped expand health care access to tens of millions of Ethiopians," which sounds like a strong qualification for his election to this position as leader of WHO. However, the CV is only telling part of the story.
The Rest of the Story
The rest of the story is that Dr. Ghebreyesus, as one of the nine executive members of the politburo of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) - according to the Ethiopian Advocacy Network, has been accused of leading a campaign of repression and murder that some have even called a genocide.
According to multiple sources, the TPLF has allegedly engaged in severe repression of civilian protests in Oromia and Amhara, including a military response in which more than 1,000 innocent civilians were killed, hundreds of thousands imprisoned, and millions displaced.
The repression of dissent in Oromia is documented by a 2014 Amnesty International report, which confirms the TPLF's role in arbitrary arrest of civilians based purely on dissent or suspected dissent, the arrest of peaceful protestors and students, violations of free speech and assembly rights, violation of the right to education, and even "arbitrary detention," "enforced disappearance," "extra-judicial executions," and "torture," including rape, psychological torture, torture in and out of detention, and forced labor.
A 2016 report at Genocide Watch outlines numerous human rights violations by the TPLF and concludes that TPLF orchestrated a "genocidal plan systematically designed by the TPLF regime using the unfair land use policy as a tool in Oromia and Southern Ethiopia to achieve the political goal of complete ownership of the land through silent eradication of the indigenous communities in the long-term. “Genocide Watch considers Ethiopia to have already reached Stage 7, genocidal massacres, against many of its peoples, including the Anuak, Ogadeni, Oromo, and Omo tribes.” The people of Oromia in particular, and all oppressed peoples of Ethiopia in general, are struggling to reverse this policy of systematic genocide waged on them by successive regimes of Ethiopia."
While some of this alleged genocidal campaign occurred prior to Dr. Ghebreyesus' tenure, it has been estimated that "more than 1000 civilians have been killed by the regime in last 10 months (November 2015 to September 2016)."
The Oramian Economist describes the TPLF's rule as a system of social and economic "apartheid."
Dr. Ghebreyesus' campaign for the WHO directorship is widely characterized as a political campaign funded by the TPLF for political gain. His election was opposed by massive numbers of Ethiopians, apparently on the basis of his alleged "involvement in the killings hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestants. Last year alone, more than well over 1000 civilians were killed by the regime that Tedros Adhanom is fiercely and passionately supporting – the ethnic TPLF government."
Under these circumstances, I find it shameful that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids offered its congratulations to Dr. Ghebreyesus and is supporting his election to the Director-General position of the World Health Organization. It appears that Dr. Ghebreyesus is someone who should be investigated by the World Health Organization for public health atrocities, not someone who should be leading the organization.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' support for Dr. Ghebreyesus casts a dark cloud on the entire tobacco control movement.
I call on the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to retract its statement and apologize for its support of a political leader who is accused of being involved in the murder of thousands, participation in human rights violations, and supporting a policy of systematic genocide.
I expect an immediate response, given the grave nature of the alleged human rights violations.
Tuesday, May 09, 2017
Government Testing of Another Vape Shop Reveals No Cause for Concern about Secondhand Vaping
Government officials have now completed an investigation of a second vape shop, finding that levels of chemicals of concern are minimal in the ambient air of the vape shop, thus not posing any significant risk to customers.
The evaluation was performed by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH). Breathing zone air samples were tested for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and three chemicaals associated with "popcorn lung."
Results showed that all of these chemicals were well within the NIOSH recommended exposure levels. The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were similar to those observed in typical U.S. homes. The "popcorn" lung associated-chemicals were not detected in most samples and detected only at very low levels in the remaining samples.
The Rest of the Story
This is now the second study conducted under the extreme conditions inside a vape shop, and like the first study, it finds that there is no evidence of significant exposure to hazardous chemicals among bystanders in this setting.
This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were either not detected or detected at very low concentrations.
This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks.
Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of "secondhand vaping" appear to be minimal. Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. There must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.
The evaluation was performed by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH). Breathing zone air samples were tested for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and three chemicaals associated with "popcorn lung."
Results showed that all of these chemicals were well within the NIOSH recommended exposure levels. The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were similar to those observed in typical U.S. homes. The "popcorn" lung associated-chemicals were not detected in most samples and detected only at very low levels in the remaining samples.
The Rest of the Story
This is now the second study conducted under the extreme conditions inside a vape shop, and like the first study, it finds that there is no evidence of significant exposure to hazardous chemicals among bystanders in this setting.
This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were either not detected or detected at very low concentrations.
This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks.
Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of "secondhand vaping" appear to be minimal. Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. There must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Smokeless Tobacco Company Admits that Its Products Cause Oral Cancer
In its defense of a lawsuit brought by the family of former San Diego Padres great Tony Gwynn who died of oral cancer in 2014, the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company has admitted that its products cause oral cancer and that the public was widely aware of it, to the extent that it was "obvious."
As reported by USA Today: "The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company has filed a response to the family of deceased baseball legend Tony Gwynn, saying that Gwynn was warned about the alleged risks of using smokeless tobacco and that such risks are “commonly known” but Gwynn accepted them anyway. ... “Plaintiffs (the Gwynns) are barred from recovering any damages because the dangers claimed by Plaintiffs, if any, are and were open and obvious,” says the company’s response, filed by attorneys at the firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon."
Furthermore, the company argued that: "Gwynn “had the means of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth of alleged statements concerning smokeless tobacco use and health.”"
The company's primary defenses are two-fold:
First, the company argues that the oral cancer risks of smokeless tobacco were widely known, to the point that they should have been obvious to everyone. Second, the company argues that Gwynn's oral cancer was not due to smokeless tobacco, but to some unspecified "pre-existing condition."
The Rest of the Story
This is about the weakest defense imaginable. On the one hand, the company argues that the link between smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer is so clear, so obvious, and so obviously true, that anyone with ordinary intelligence knows that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer. On the other hand, the company is arguing that despite such an obvious link, Tony Gwynn's oral cancer -- which occurred in the exact spot where he used smokeless tobacco -- was not related to his smokeless tobacco use.
This duo of conflicting arguments should not deceive any jury member with "ordinary intelligence."
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer is so obvious that anyone should have known that if you put smokeless tobacco into one area in your oral cavity for years, you are likely to develop cancer in that area, but that for some reason, this individual who did exactly that and got cancer at that site got cancer for some other reason. That reasoning should fool exactly no one.
I also agree with Northeastern Law School professor Richard Daynard's comment: "Tobacco companies "do what they can to blame the victim,” said Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University and tobacco industry critic who is not involved in the case. “Their basic defense is, `Only a very weak-willed person would use this product, and it’s his fault and not ours.’ My understanding is that ain’t going to work with Tony Gwynn, with what people know about him. It’s working less and less with people who are not celebrities.”"
The company is also going to have a hard time convincing a jury that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer was obvious to anyone with any intelligence, but that the company itself denied such a link, or downplayed and undermined it.
Gwynn's death is widely recognized as having helped changed the culture in baseball regarding smokeless tobacco use and has led to an increasing number of bans on the use of smokeless tobacco during professional baseball games.
As reported by USA Today: "The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company has filed a response to the family of deceased baseball legend Tony Gwynn, saying that Gwynn was warned about the alleged risks of using smokeless tobacco and that such risks are “commonly known” but Gwynn accepted them anyway. ... “Plaintiffs (the Gwynns) are barred from recovering any damages because the dangers claimed by Plaintiffs, if any, are and were open and obvious,” says the company’s response, filed by attorneys at the firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon."
Furthermore, the company argued that: "Gwynn “had the means of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth of alleged statements concerning smokeless tobacco use and health.”"
The company's primary defenses are two-fold:
First, the company argues that the oral cancer risks of smokeless tobacco were widely known, to the point that they should have been obvious to everyone. Second, the company argues that Gwynn's oral cancer was not due to smokeless tobacco, but to some unspecified "pre-existing condition."
The Rest of the Story
This is about the weakest defense imaginable. On the one hand, the company argues that the link between smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer is so clear, so obvious, and so obviously true, that anyone with ordinary intelligence knows that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer. On the other hand, the company is arguing that despite such an obvious link, Tony Gwynn's oral cancer -- which occurred in the exact spot where he used smokeless tobacco -- was not related to his smokeless tobacco use.
This duo of conflicting arguments should not deceive any jury member with "ordinary intelligence."
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer is so obvious that anyone should have known that if you put smokeless tobacco into one area in your oral cavity for years, you are likely to develop cancer in that area, but that for some reason, this individual who did exactly that and got cancer at that site got cancer for some other reason. That reasoning should fool exactly no one.
I also agree with Northeastern Law School professor Richard Daynard's comment: "Tobacco companies "do what they can to blame the victim,” said Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University and tobacco industry critic who is not involved in the case. “Their basic defense is, `Only a very weak-willed person would use this product, and it’s his fault and not ours.’ My understanding is that ain’t going to work with Tony Gwynn, with what people know about him. It’s working less and less with people who are not celebrities.”"
The company is also going to have a hard time convincing a jury that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer was obvious to anyone with any intelligence, but that the company itself denied such a link, or downplayed and undermined it.
Gwynn's death is widely recognized as having helped changed the culture in baseball regarding smokeless tobacco use and has led to an increasing number of bans on the use of smokeless tobacco during professional baseball games.
Tuesday, May 02, 2017
Op-Ed: Don't Let Alternative Facts Deter Congress from Fixing E-Cigarette Regulations
Here is a link to my op-ed, published today in the Washington Examiner, and entitled: "Don't Let Alternative Facts Deter Congress from Fixing E-Cigarette Regulations."
OP-ED
OP-ED
Monday, May 01, 2017
Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Secondhand Vape Exposure is Minimal
As part of its investigation into the potential health effects of electronic cigarettes, the California Department of Public Health has been conducting air sampling and personal exposure monitoring in vape shops throughout the state. The results of sampling in one of these vape shops, obtained by The Rest of the Story, reveal that "secondhand vaping" appears to result in minimal exposure of bystanders to hazardous chemicals.
In this particular vape shop, sampling was conducted under quite adverse conditions. Many of the employees vaped throughout the sampling and 13 customers vaped while in the shop. There was no active ventilation system, and visible clouds of vapor were visible at times. So this seems to represent a high level of exposure compared to what one might expect in a public place outside a vape shop (e.g., a restaurant, bar, or office workplace).
Here are the major results of the air sampling:
Nicotine: Not detected
Glycidol: Not detected
Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb
Diacetyl: Not detected using standard method
2,3-Pentanedione: Not detected using standard method
Acetyl butyryl: Not detected using standard method
Acetoin: Not detected using standard method
Acetone: Not detected
Ethyl benzene: Not detected
m,p-Xylene: Not detected
o-Xylene: Not detected
Toluene: Not detected
Acetaldehyde: Not detected
Acetonitrile: Not detected
alpha-pinene: Not detected
Benzene: Not detected
Chloroform: Not detected
d-Limonene: Not detected
Methylene chloride: Not detected
Methyl methacrylate: Not detected
n-Hexane: Not detected
Styrene: Not detected
The level of formaldehyde detected is consistent with normal indoor and outdoor air levels of formaldehyde under baseline conditions.
Other than the small concentration of formaldehyde, the only other chemicals that were quantified were ethanol (alcohol) and isopropyl alcohol.
The Rest of the Story
This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method.
This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks.
Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of "secondhand vaping" appear to be minimal. And this is in an environment with relatively extreme conditions -- there was a visible cloud of vapor at times.
Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. And remember, this is coming from a guy who has devoted virtually his entire career to banning smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and every other indoor workplace (and even outdoor seating areas of restaurants). So I'm certainly not one to minimize the health risks of preventable environmental exposures.
However, I believe that there must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.
In this particular vape shop, sampling was conducted under quite adverse conditions. Many of the employees vaped throughout the sampling and 13 customers vaped while in the shop. There was no active ventilation system, and visible clouds of vapor were visible at times. So this seems to represent a high level of exposure compared to what one might expect in a public place outside a vape shop (e.g., a restaurant, bar, or office workplace).
Here are the major results of the air sampling:
Nicotine: Not detected
Glycidol: Not detected
Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb
Diacetyl: Not detected using standard method
2,3-Pentanedione: Not detected using standard method
Acetyl butyryl: Not detected using standard method
Acetoin: Not detected using standard method
Acetone: Not detected
Ethyl benzene: Not detected
m,p-Xylene: Not detected
o-Xylene: Not detected
Toluene: Not detected
Acetaldehyde: Not detected
Acetonitrile: Not detected
alpha-pinene: Not detected
Benzene: Not detected
Chloroform: Not detected
d-Limonene: Not detected
Methylene chloride: Not detected
Methyl methacrylate: Not detected
n-Hexane: Not detected
Styrene: Not detected
The level of formaldehyde detected is consistent with normal indoor and outdoor air levels of formaldehyde under baseline conditions.
Other than the small concentration of formaldehyde, the only other chemicals that were quantified were ethanol (alcohol) and isopropyl alcohol.
The Rest of the Story
This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method.
This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks.
Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of "secondhand vaping" appear to be minimal. And this is in an environment with relatively extreme conditions -- there was a visible cloud of vapor at times.
Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. And remember, this is coming from a guy who has devoted virtually his entire career to banning smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and every other indoor workplace (and even outdoor seating areas of restaurants). So I'm certainly not one to minimize the health risks of preventable environmental exposures.
However, I believe that there must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)