HuffPost Live Debate - No E-Cigarettes Allowed

[lindsayfox]

There was an interesting debate on HuffPost on March 27, 2013. If you haven't watched it yet, check out the video here

Participants: Dr. Michael Siegel (The Rest of the Story), Dr. David Abrams (Legacy For Health), Cynthia Hallett, Dan Henry, Gregory Conley (CASAA), and Katherine Mangu-Ward.

Both sides made some interesting points. Dr. Siegel came on top with his strong points, no surprise there.

The host made a pretty good point: the "burden of proof" lies with the people claiming that e-cigarettes are dangerous. Do you agree or disagree?

[ninjabatgirl]

Thanks for sharing!

[mischi3vous]

Thanks for sharing! I agree it's like our legal system innocent until proven guilty. There is more than enough proof that cigarettes are bad for you, and yet they don't ban them so why ban e-cigs? They can't be nearly as hazardous to our health as cigarettes are.

[lindsayfox]

Yes, but in this case "guilty until proven innocent". The media pretty much throws anything they can at e-cigs and expect us to prove them wrong. Is that fair?

I've used an analogy known as the "Russell's Teapot" - sound familiar? Well, basically it says that the anti-e-cig crowd should be the ones providing solid evidence to support their claims against e-cigs. It's a bit long but I think it calls for a great debate: *Link removed by admin*

I wrote a summary and rebuttal on the debate, in case anyone doesn't want to sit through the whole thing: *Link Removed by Admin*

And if you really want to get to the bottom of the story, listen to the VP Live segment here: http://soundcloud.com/vp-live/the-fda-and-rj-reynolds-are