[ernie]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Study commissioned by the health departmenteven if it is commissioned by the government does not mean you'll hear about it being ok. Look at the Schafer report Nixon commissioned.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteD...0e603/ms08.pdf

The study you linked was funded by the an e-cig and smokeless tobacco promotion organization (CAASA) specifically set up to counter the anti-tobacco harm reduction groups. As was very recently shown in pharmaceutical studies, researchers are far more likely to recommend the drug from the funding party even if there is no actual scientific basis for the recommendation.

But more to the point it is not a scientifically refereed or vetted paper. It's a technical report written, in all likelihood, for the CAASA. It is is also, IMHO, a report that is an example of some pretty bad technical writing. It is intentionally being "dumbed" down with colloquial langauge and phrasing that you will not see in scientific papers concerned with simply presenting data. It is written with an agenda.

I can sum up this paper in one sentence: We were funded by this group CAASA and we don't agree with any studies that don't prove what CAASA wants because of...hmmm...well just reasons.

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

If your suggestions are based on Nicotine is harmful then we also need to ban caffeine and Alcohol. Caffeine is the same schedule of drug with many of the exact same side effects. Both Nicotine and Caffeine can kill you in excess.

water can kill you in excess.

Nicotine in REGULAR, NORMAL doses can lead to several issues that can kill you which is different than having to take something in excess.

Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death yet it is socially acceptable.

Alcohol abuse is a leading cause of death and I've yet to hear anyone say alcohol abuse is socially acceptable.