In the article, Should the Government Ban E-Cigarettes?

by the Boston University

School of Public Health. The issue put forward by the author is whether the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) movement used the right approach before banning e-cigarettes and
whether it is necessary or not to outright ban e-cigarettes among youth. This can be seen
when the author’s main ideas are focused on a full-court regulatory press made by the FDA
and other researchers who disapprove of the FDA press regarding the e-cigarette ban. They
wrote this article to convince readers to be aware of the current case relating to e-cigarettes,
especially among minors, and to introduce different perspectives about the impact on some
people if a law is enacted. The article has a serious and concerned tone when the authors
reveal the effect of banning all flavored E-Cigarettes and the health of adult ex-smokers. The
author used words such as smart move, youth, threatened, jeopardizing, and traditional
cigarette.

Based on FDA action on eradicating E-Cigarettes among youth, The FDA told e-
cigarette retailers and manufacturers 60 days to find a strategy to reduce young vaping or
had a chance of having their products banned. The warning was accompanied by 131
penalties levied on dealers who provided e-cigarettes to youths unlawfully. The author
presents the argument by providing strong evidence from expert opinion that can verify
whether FDA did a smart move to cope with this issue. One is a statement from Michael
Siegel, a community health sciences professor at the School of Public Health, who believes
that the FDA should consider enforcement action against sellers that offer electronic
cigarettes to minors but not simply prohibit all flavored e-cigarettes. This would lead to the
resumption of cigarette smoking by thousands of ex-smokers. The author also elaborates
more by arguing that even though the FDA is trying to eliminate and stop the manufacturing
and illegal sales of flavored e-cigarettes, it cannot drastically change current trends among
the youth. Plus, by prohibiting the sale of flavored e-cigarette fluid, the author is concerned
that the government is endangering the health of adult ex-smokers because the possibility
for them to come back to traditional Cigarettes is high.

The epidemic of teen vaping addiction is becoming more widely known. Additionally, it
was reported that vaping is thought to contain a lot of nicotine. The claim that e-cigarettes
contain a lot of nicotine was not entirely accepted by the primary researcher. As he also
notes, one of the reasons why adults switch to vaping is because the product does not
release nicotine at a level comparable to that of real cigarettes. However, the claim is
demonstrably false given that one brand, in particular, does contain nicotine, which
undoubtedly might lead to teen vaping addiction. One of the reasons the FDA is attempting
to outlaw e-cigarettes is the idea that this Juul brand could cause the nicotine salt to be
absorbed into the bloodstream. The author wonders if there are any initiatives that
businesses may take to aid government efforts to stop the sale of e-cigarettes to children.
The researcher contends that raising taxes could deter children from purchasing products
because of the cost, and he also contends that an effective campaign could help to lessen
public awareness of e-cigarettes. However, what motivates the industry to contribute is the
fact that the campaign is funded by their profit fund. There is no other way a minor may
resist the motion, therefore these two phases are crucial. His justifications become more
obvious when he also outlines a possible fallback strategy because there are other options.
The author uses more deductive reasoning than inductive. This can be seen when the
author started the article with a generalized statement about the full-court regulatory press
made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and followed by specific details.

The issue described in the article is valid since the author provides accurate and solid
proof, and we have double-checked the facts and experts' opinions in the article, which are
completely true. The problem, on the other hand, is believable since it is objective and
comprehensive with enough evidence in the form of a news report.

In conclusion, it should be noted that banning this substance would be the worst
course of action. As the researcher has stated numerous times in the article, the researcher
continues to support the government in locating any illegal sales of this substance to minors.
We also claim that these moves are excellent. However, a lot of efforts must be made by the
government to reduce the use of e-cigarettes among youth because it’s very important to be
carried out to create a more conducive and healthy future.