Well, allow me to introduce you to another. I began smoking at 20 because I was dating a girl that smoked... I did it for her, 'cause I'm just that kind of guy.
I'll let you tell us the maturation level of the typical male brain even by 20. But I think yours is yet another case of starting smoking for all the wrong reasons and just doing so slightly later than most others do.
It is kind of interesting that with all we've learned about brain development in the last few years we can then look to the constitution and in a day when there was no such thing as "adolescence", when a person was either a child in the care of a parent or trainer (such as to an apprentice), or a man of his own right, and when being man in your own right often happened much younger than it does today, we see the age limits on service in Congress and the Presidency set at 25, 30, and 35. It is to me testament as to the wisdom, inspiration, and/or just powers of observation of the founding fathers.
UnderratedF00l wrote:Should the government continue to discourage it even if that campaign includes lying about the effects and legislating those lies based on fabricated empirical evidence and a fear of the unknown?
Logical fallacy of false dichotomy (or something close). The government should discourage young people from picking up a needless addiction. They should do so with honesty and using accurate information. Not only should they do this because having the government lie is dangerous and wrong, but I believe young people (like the rest of us) tend to respond better to honest, accurate information. The reason I know some of the benefits of various drugs is precisely because those benefits were covered in my High School health class some 25 years ago. Covered with equal honesty were the problems caused. For most of us, the trade was pretty easy. And for the few who did decide to use drugs, beer was far more common than smoking.
That said, let's be clear that acting on or even passing along incorrect information without knowing it is incorrect is not lying. I doubt very many legislators have the same information you do. And, even if they had it, they are likely to arrive at at least slightly different conclusions. We all have our biases, and yours are probably directly opposite most legislators on this issue.
Furthermore, there are very few if any political issues that get decided entirely on unemotional facts. Personal values come in. Given current levels of public education, reasoning skills, and attention spans, sound bites replace detailed discussion in the public arena on almost every issue.
Vaping looks like smoking. It acts like smoking. It often smells like smoking. Expect that it is going to be treated like smoking.
The key, I think, is to start educating legislators. I don't care to see it allowed in offices or restaurants. But it probably makes sense to make clear that a vaper who doesn't smoke gets to mark "no" to smoking question on insurance or other similar applications. That would provide an incentive to move to the lower risk vaping and away from the higher risk smoking. Maybe vaping should be allowed in hooka bars or similar places.
Anyway, fun discussion. And good reading from some of the other discussions in this thread.