Insert Title Here
To the editor:
Re: “We Still Don’t Know How Safe Vaping Is” published Sept. 5, 2019
New York Times’ Editorial Board’s recent post on vaping reaches an understandable argument against the dangers on e-cigarettes. The editorial spoke of the amount of vape-related illnesses that were found and of teenagers that hold a threat to falling ill because of the increasing number of teenagers vaping on a daily bases. Despite this, they reasonably do not agree that all e-cigarettes should not be band due to other harmful repercussions.
However, may we possibly be overreacting? 400+ known cases of the illness due to vaping are known, and 3 deaths were claimed, so how can this possibly be an overreaction? It’s not. As a teenager who worries about her fellow peers who could be at risk, I find it extremely important that we should look into it further and test the long term effects of e-cigs, but it should be noted that what the editorial failed to mention was the kind of vapes that were being used by those who fell ill. The editorial gives a fair point on not getting rid of all vapes due to the possible rise of a black market. Although this was mentioned, they did not realize that many who have gotten sick were due to vapes bought in places similar to that of a black market. Homemade vapes can be made, and these products can be extremely dangerous. Less is known, and there are more risks.
Many have considered the sudden news of the dangers of vaping, spread by news outlets, to be fear mongering. As more states legalize marijuana, striking fear on vapes that can also be used with marijuana can be used as an attempt to keep marijuana illegal. Although we still have much to learn about the potential risks of e-cigarettes, we know that these electronic devices used to stop chain smoking, have been around for much longer.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Hey, Migz. You certainly may.
I intended to read your full post before saying a word of yea or nay. It’s a good policy that I often have to discard if something catches my eye too early. Let’s take a look at your first paragraph, which, if it confuses or frustrates readers, will prevent them from reading your second and third paragraphs and thwart your chances of convincing them.
—What would be a reasonable argument against danger? It seems like an unfair question, but you’ll keep readers playing along if you are clear with them from the start, Migz. Do the editors make the case that the products ARE dangerous where others claim they’re not? Or do they recommend banning the products because everyone agrees they ARE dangerous? Or is their reasonable argument that we trust adults to make their own decisions when buying lots of dangerous products?
—Again, here, what does it mean to speak of the illnesses? Editorial boards don’t write news; they express opinions. When the news reports sick and dying teenagers, the editors do more than “speak of” those deaths. What did these editors suggest?
—Who are they “agreeing” or “not agreeing” with here, Migz? And what does it mean to NOT AGREE that a product SHOULD NOT BE BANNED? Your claim would be much clearer if you removed both negatives. Do they reject the ban? Do they argue against a ban? Both are ways to positively express their position without confusion.
—My next observation will seem very picky, but give it a moment of consideration. If we’re clear that the editors reject the ban on e-cigarettes, you can’t afford to undermine that clear claim with your added note that they reject it “due to OTHER harmful repercussions,” whatever those are. Your statement seems to suggest that they might have supported a ban for other reasons. That’s confusing, but compare these statements:
1. I didn’t vote for Miller because of his fiscal irresponsibility.
2. I voted for Miller, but not because of his fiscal responsibility.
In the first statement, we’re not sure whether Miller got your vote or not. In the second, we know he did, but not why. In your sentence, we don’t know whether the editors favor a ban or not. And we can’t tell whether they want the product banned because of repercussions, or whether they would have chosen a ban if the repercussions had been different.
I know. That’s a lot of critique for just three sentences. I hope it doesn’t frustrate you but instead makes you aware just how carefully we have to phrase our arguments to be well understood and keep our readers informed and interested.
Please let me know how you feel about this overload of constructive criticism. Much as I like to give advice, I very quickly start to ignore students who don’t keep the conversation going.
1. Respond to this feedback with a Reply.
2. Open your post in Edit and make revisions.
3. Update your post without creating a new one and without changing its title.
4. Leave me another Reply to alert me that you’ve made changes.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that my wording has come off as confusing. The editors argue against the use of e-cigarettes and I had not made this completely clear in my first paragraph, and as I continue to read my original draft, I had made this mistake several times throughout my writing. Also, thank you for pointing out the double negative on the last sentence of the paragraph. I sincerely apologize for my overall lateness. I have been revising my entire draft
LikeLike
May I have feedback?
LikeLike