[In the specific case of the use of tobacco products, the imposer’s stance makes sense. Clinical observations support the imposer’s narrow focus.

However, the narrow focus fails to take into account the point of view of the subject.

The imposer cannot appreciate the motive for smoking in the first place.

Because of this, “she” bans the development of less harmful substitutes. The so-called “electronic cigarette” was not developed in the USA.

Why?

Regulators. Imposers.

How stupid is that?]