Harm reduction should be encouraged,,,,
Posted 07-23-2009 at 09:33 PM by harmony gardens
If cigarette smoking adds so much to the cost of health care,,, why is such a promising technology as the electronic cigarette, being pushed down by the FDA?? This is an incredible opportunity, and the FDA's response is to discredit the technology and threaten to ban it, rather than to insure a safer product that consumers will embrace.
When catalytic converters were found to be helpful in reducing the dangerous effects of auto emissions, the EPA required them to be installed on all new cars at a cost of $400 per unit, and cars were adapted to burn a "safer" lead free formula. We didn't hear the FDA say at that time, that because it didn't eliminate ALL potentially dangerous emmissions, catalytic converters should be banned. What the FDA is doing in this case, would be the equivalent to saying that since Catalytic converters allowed some dangerous components, that they should be banned. It would be like saying people should either quit driving, or pay a tax and continue to drive thier highly polluting cars.
If electronic cigarettes are found to be even 50% safer than conventional cigarettes, they should be encouraged,,,, and we have the New Zealand study that shows that they are 99.9% to 99.999% safer. Nevermind implies the FDA, they aren't 100% safe.
The FDA can serve a useful function if they regulate the ingredients, labeling, marketing, and packaging to ensure that ecigs are indeed safer for everyone. Instead, they are saying that harm reduction is not on the table. Quit or smoke cigarettes is the FDA's stance, even while they say smoking is the largest preventable cause of death.
Nothing in this report shows ecigs aren't safer,,, it just proves it's not 100% safe, a threshold virtually nothing could pass. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
With so many former smokers willing to use a safer alternative, it only makes sence to encourage them to do so.
When catalytic converters were found to be helpful in reducing the dangerous effects of auto emissions, the EPA required them to be installed on all new cars at a cost of $400 per unit, and cars were adapted to burn a "safer" lead free formula. We didn't hear the FDA say at that time, that because it didn't eliminate ALL potentially dangerous emmissions, catalytic converters should be banned. What the FDA is doing in this case, would be the equivalent to saying that since Catalytic converters allowed some dangerous components, that they should be banned. It would be like saying people should either quit driving, or pay a tax and continue to drive thier highly polluting cars.
If electronic cigarettes are found to be even 50% safer than conventional cigarettes, they should be encouraged,,,, and we have the New Zealand study that shows that they are 99.9% to 99.999% safer. Nevermind implies the FDA, they aren't 100% safe.
The FDA can serve a useful function if they regulate the ingredients, labeling, marketing, and packaging to ensure that ecigs are indeed safer for everyone. Instead, they are saying that harm reduction is not on the table. Quit or smoke cigarettes is the FDA's stance, even while they say smoking is the largest preventable cause of death.
Nothing in this report shows ecigs aren't safer,,, it just proves it's not 100% safe, a threshold virtually nothing could pass. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
With so many former smokers willing to use a safer alternative, it only makes sence to encourage them to do so.
Total Comments 0
