There should be sanctions like those little blood sugar testing devices but for carbon monoxide . If its tested you get billed!
Don't get me wrong, I've vaped for 4yrs, its never aided me in wanting to quit, but I can for example go into hospital for 48hrs and not crave for it, I only vape at home 99% of the time, I go out I can take it or leave it.
What I can say is, before when I smoked I certainly wouldn't have played 5 a side 3 times a week (being as fit as I was at 19), or coached my football lads, and no doubt a Dr will tell you my recovery from a double knee op would be much slower.
Add to that, I never drink, apart from the 6 or 7 home games I get to and once or twice a year jaunt with the footy lads. Its not hard to see the benefits of these things - I would argue though that the tax payer shouldn't fund it - people should do it themselves. My wife still smokes because she enjoys it, people like that you will never ever get them to stop
Indeed Kempo. Its in part due to her more teenage like persona, she's had a lot of things taken away from her due to the 'event', who am I to argue to take something she enjoys away from her. She knows the risks, but she's her own person and its her body! I also attributed her event to a stupidly unusual salt intake over many years, although nothing was ever deciphered as a cause, I'll bet a good wager on it being those 2 things.
Besides she quickly about turned when she said if I play football again I'm getting divorced, when I quickly reminded her of my stance above! At least football ain't smoking!
I don't think there is clear cut evidence Ian but it seems likely at least over the shorter term..long term abstinence, we don't know.
It's clear, as it stands anyway, that it's safer to be addicted to ecigs than cigs but even so, should the tax payer finance a trendy habit such as vaping?...I vote not
The best way has already been proven with lots of evidence...stop mollycoddling and legislate against it....It's always the best way to 'educate'