The emergence of electronic cigarettes has had a drastic effect on all cultures today. Starting in a Chinese pharmaceutical lab in year 2000 to growing into over a billion-dollar industry today the e-cig market has grown expontionally in a very short amount of time. With such booming growth some call for regulations on the goods while others may argue it is too early for the FDA to get involved, again. Many articles have been written on the subject but “Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulation” by Gilbert Ross and “Electronic Cigarettes at a Regulatory Crossroads” by Thomas A. Hemphill are what this paper will be examining. Both Ross and Hemphill examined the topic of FDA regulations on electronic cigarettes thoroughly during 2015
…show more content…
For instance, Ross first uses the point that 45 million smokers could be in danger to the over-regulation of e-cigs. This is a claim on how many traditional cigarette smokers there are not how many current e-cig users were active at the time. Hemphill gives clear evidence on who invented the product, where it happened and what chemicals went into doing so plus how the process works. This is immediately followed with economical numbers stated from the Wall Street Journal as well as industry growth expectations. I believe this is a far better use of evidence to create an argument as Hemphill clear states in his opener what is happening rather than Ross who is claiming what could …show more content…
Hemphill says, “…it is premature for the FDA to move forward with a regulatory agenda, if such regulatory policies discourage tobacco smokers from switching to potentially "less harmful to their health" e-cigarettes.” This is very pinpoint and explanatory of his positioning. Ross on the other hand concludes with, “Effectively excluding e-cigarettes from the market via stringent regulation would have the effect of killing smokers and protecting cigarette and pharmaceutical markets. E-cigarettes, a far safer form of nicotine delivery, should not be submitted to tougher regulation than cigarettes. Americans should not have to die from misguided regulation.”. This is a very round-about way of getting his point across and does not fully address the FDA regulation like Hemphill does in his concluding paragraph. It is these firm position taking stances that are the cornerstone of any argument and with simple structure and excellent evidence Hemphill makes his stance much stronger.
Thomas A. Hemphill proved to be the better arguer for less FDA e-cig regulation in his article “Electronic Cigarettes at a Regulatory Crossroads” than Gilbert Ross did in his piece “Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulation”. By providing a clearer structure to paint a better picture, more relevant evidence and taking a firmer stance on the subject Thomas Hemphill
For instance, Ross first uses the point that 45 million smokers could be in danger to the over-regulation of e-cigs. This is a claim on how many traditional cigarette smokers there are not how many current e-cig users were active at the time. Hemphill gives clear evidence on who invented the product, where it happened and what chemicals went into doing so plus how the process works. This is immediately followed with economical numbers stated from the Wall Street Journal as well as industry growth expectations. I believe this is a far better use of evidence to create an argument as Hemphill clear states in his opener what is happening rather than Ross who is claiming what could …show more content…
Hemphill says, “…it is premature for the FDA to move forward with a regulatory agenda, if such regulatory policies discourage tobacco smokers from switching to potentially "less harmful to their health" e-cigarettes.” This is very pinpoint and explanatory of his positioning. Ross on the other hand concludes with, “Effectively excluding e-cigarettes from the market via stringent regulation would have the effect of killing smokers and protecting cigarette and pharmaceutical markets. E-cigarettes, a far safer form of nicotine delivery, should not be submitted to tougher regulation than cigarettes. Americans should not have to die from misguided regulation.”. This is a very round-about way of getting his point across and does not fully address the FDA regulation like Hemphill does in his concluding paragraph. It is these firm position taking stances that are the cornerstone of any argument and with simple structure and excellent evidence Hemphill makes his stance much stronger.
Thomas A. Hemphill proved to be the better arguer for less FDA e-cig regulation in his article “Electronic Cigarettes at a Regulatory Crossroads” than Gilbert Ross did in his piece “Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cigarette Regulation”. By providing a clearer structure to paint a better picture, more relevant evidence and taking a firmer stance on the subject Thomas Hemphill