NICOTINE-INGESTION DEATH A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
Some people are trying to stir up anti-vaping fears, with arrant disregard for both logic and public welfare.
The current fear-mongering theme is the horrific possibility that children will be poisoned by drinking nicotine liquid. The facts do not support this fear, and the logic used to support the idea has more holes than Swiss cheese.The immediate pretext for this line of thinking is the fact that some children have had vomiting incidents when they have drunk e-liquid left lying around their households by careless adults who vape. Such incidents, if any other kind of liquid were involved, would prompt action to instruct parents in proper child-proofing techniques for their households. But since the dangerous liquid is one used in vaping, the reports result in attacks on the product that has been misused in this way, rather than on the consumers who have misused it. Only an animus against vaping itself could produce this illogical reaction.
The second hole in the logic is bigger. It is physically impossible to kill anyone, of any age, by the ingestion of liquid nicotine because INGESTED NICOTINE MAKES YOU VOMIT! Right away! Profusely! So you can't die from it, no matter how hard you might hypothetically try! The recent scare statistics about"child poisonings" did not result in a single serious possibility of death, much less any actual death of a child.
Three quarters of the incidents were handled at home, with a sponge to wipe up the puke. In a quarter of the incidents, parents took the youngsters to the emergency room, where attendants wiped up the puke with a sponge, performed a routine stomach pump just to make sure, and sent the little tyke home with a pat on the head. And apparently informed journalists of the horrific event for urgent publication by anti-vaping activists.
The death toll for liquid nicotine stands at 1, an adult, who injected it with a hypodermic needle, in a successful suicide effort. Yet many journalists writing on the "child-poisoning danger" cite this death in support of the fears, about children drinking nicotine, that they want the public to embrace. Didn't anybody make these guys take "Critical Thinking" classes in university?
The California online news source PublicCEO, which reports on issues affecting California's municipalities, has given a balanced overview of the controversy in the article:"New Fears Push More California e-Cigarette Bans". In addition to presenting both sides on the points mentioned above, the article repeats a well-known quote from Centers for Disease Control Director Tim McAfee: “I think the precautionary principle — better safe than sorry — rules here.” McAfee's "precautions" embody an odd definition of both "safe" and "sorry". It is true that the long-term effects of vaping are uncertain at this point, since there hasn't yet been a long term in which to study them. Everyone is certain, however, that they will prove to lie between "slight" and "negligible" – probably even McAfee, whether he will admit it or not. By contrast, the dangers of the product some people are likely to use in lieu of the banned ones are very well known – they lie between "dangerous" and "deadly" – meaning that McAfee's precautions are certain to kill a predictable percentage of them.
But they're only smokers, an unsavory group apparently not included in McAfee's concept of the public's "safety". One is reminded of a famous racist line in one of the old "pre-political-correctness" Tarzan movies. White explorers in Africa are moving along a precarious mountain ledge, accompanied by native bearers with all the supplies in bundles on their heads. A slight rock slide makes a few of them stumble, and one of the natives hurtles, screaming, to his death on the rocks below. The white men look at each other, and one of them says: "Whew, that was a close one!" Some people just aren't worthy of being kept "safe" according to the prohibitionists. "Sorry!"