We have now had decades of (publicly beneficial) propaganda effort driving home the “frequent smoking = deadly” message. In many peoples’ minds that message has been broadened by association “frequent smoking = deadly” ⇒ “any smoking = deadly” ⇒ “breathing any second-hand smoke in any context for any amount of time = deadly” ⇒ “any use of nicotine = deadly”, so there is a natural inclination to reflexively ban the use of vaporizers as well.
But if the vaporizers are largely being used as a replacement for (orders of magnitude more dangerous) cigarettes, that seems like an unambiguously positive development which should be applauded, not restricted. Fears about second-hand smoke from vaporizers in well-ventilated spaces seem likely to be entirely baseless.
It’s a bit wearying to hear the old chestnuts trotted out here of all places. It seems like bad arguments and FUD never really change, they just finds new adherents.
It seems to me that jacobolus was not defending vaping but merely wondering if we're all being a bit over-reactive at this point.
That position is not so much comparable to your referenced four-dog-defense as it is to something like "you've got a better chance of being killed by a lightening bolt than killed in a terrorist attack".
And that is a valid point to make when discussing any issue involving risk. Humans are prone to reacting to perceived risks without considering comparative risks factors. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_ris...
