The Wikipedia entry for Saudi Arabia contains the following sentences “Alcoholic beverages are prohibited, for example, and there is no theatre or public exhibition of films”.
What has that to do with e-cigarettes? Nothing really but it might put the following couple of sentences from the Ilya Pozin article Electronic Cigarettes: Booming Industry or Health Fiasco? at Forbes into perspective.
“While e-cigs aren’t considered to be real cigarettes, why do both Facebook and Google forbid their manufacturers to advertise on their sites? This leads us to question both the effects and components of this product”.
So using that logic, the fact that Saudi Arabia bans alcohol and the public exhibition of films should be an argument for considering abolishing both alcohol and films in our country.
I have not seen this argument pop up for some time but I always found it amusing that just because one group bans or restricts something is supposed to indicate more about the essential worth of the substance or behaviour than about the group doing the banning. We should interpret Facebook and Google’s restricting e-cigarette advertising while allowing other commercial advertising more as evidence of their capricious tyranny.
Anti-snus campaigners used to argue that the European ban on snus said something about snus itself. Oddly enough, they never thought that snus being allowed in Sweden meant that it was a good product.
The point is that Swedes allowing snus is not an argument for snus being legal in other countries; the argument is and has always been the low risk of using the product, and in Sweden’s case, the evidence of dropping smoking-related disease rates due to the shifting of much of the population to smokeless tobacco.