We Shouldn’t Ban Vapes
To the editor,
In the article “We Still Don’t Know How Safe Vaping Is,” the controversy of vaping is brought up again, this time, explaining the dangers of e-cigarette companies’ advertisements as they target children. There have been numerous amounts of cases popping up everywhere about adolescents becoming ill due to vaping, and it’s scaring parents everywhere. However, as much as this article is trying to show the dangers of e-cigarettes and how terrible it is for children, it’s not fair to add on to the evil stigma that e-cigarette companies already hold.
I believe that the e-cigarette companies held innocent intentions when creating the cigarette alternative. I don’t believe that they made these vapor products in order to hurt children or make a quick profit. Cigarette usage was so much more popular before the e-cigarette came along, which made most people disgusted with classic cigarettes.
Just as children and adolescents still got a hold of cigarettes back in the day, the same age range will always get a hold of the new smoking craze. I don’t believe it’s logical to punish the e-cigarette companies, but rather possibly enforce new restrictions and laws regarding who can buy the products. Without e-cigarettes around, people will most likely go back to smoking normal cigarettes, which are still horrible for someone to smoke. If we want to help people get off smoking, there needs to be alternatives, so banning these alternatives all together will never fix the issue, and will possibly make it worse.
A few quick notes, thefrontbottom.
—You don’t offer a credential to help readers understand why this topic is important enough to you to prompt your letter. Did Juul help you break the tobacco habit? Did your relatives die of lung cancer? If so, your willingness to favor ANYTHING that would curb tobacco use would be more understandable.
—Your language needs to be sharpened almost throughout. I applaud that you want to include several aspects of the conversation in a single sentence, but precision is key to guiding readers through the complications. When you say, “dangers of e-cigarette companies’ advertisements as they target children,” you leave us all to wonder whether the advertisements are dangerous, or whether the ads are benign but the cigarettes are dangerous, or perhaps a third interpretation.
—You give away a lot of ground without gaining anything. When you say, “it’s not fair to add on to the evil stigma that e-cigarette companies already hold,” a thoughtful reader might ask, “Why does the author assume the companies are evil? I thought they were in business to help nicotine addicts transition away from tobacco.”
—You need some evidence. When you say, “Cigarette usage was so much more popular before the e-cigarette came along, which made most people disgusted with classic cigarettes,” at least half of your readers will wonder where you got that 50% claim. Many others will think, “Sure, but kids that would have avoided ‘disgusting’ cigarettes are now, instead, addicted to nicotine in a new and perhaps just as dangerous way.”
I have reactions to your third paragraph too, but I’d like to see you revise your first two (and take a stab at improving the third) before I share them with you.
Please respond two ways. 1) Drop me a Reply to react to your feedback. 2) Revise and update your draft and let me know you have done so. I very quickly learn who’s eager for feedback and to ignore others.