Financial Times editorial criticizes policy makers for e-cig bans/regs based on emotion and entrenched political views instead of evidence

[Bill Godshall]

This excellent editorial is behind a paywall, but pertinent excerpts are below.


Financial Times 2 December 2013
Science must win when setting rules
New health regulations are too often driven by emotion
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/634bb7d4-6813-11e3-8ada-00144feabdc0.html

Governments across the world always come under political pressure to impose regulations on business to combat new health hazards, whether those dangers happen to be real or imaginary. Lawmakers rarely manage to reconcile completely the interests of groups that are lobbying for and against any proposed new rule.

Yet as 2014 begins, senior government officials in many states might consider a new year’s resolution to assess the evidence of health risks in a more coldly scientific manner than they currently do. Too often, emotions and entrenched political views trump scientific objectivity when it comes to the setting of rules.

The rapid growth in popularity of e-cigarettes provides another recent example of the need for science to guide regulation. The evidence suggests that “vaping” offers an excellent option for stopping people smoking and therefore tackling the catastrophic pandemic of tobacco-related disease. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine without the far more toxic mixture of other chemicals generated by smouldering tobacco.

Even so, many regulators are banning e-cigarettes or encumbering them with so many restrictions that they are unlikely to be taken up on the scale required to cut significantly the number of smokers. Some seem to feel, in an almost puritanical way, that smokers must stop inhaling completely rather than being offered a safer alternative to cigarettes. Others are put off by the fact that big bad tobacco companies are selling e-cigarettes. A more scientific solution would be to regulate e-cigarettes in a way that ensures quality control and monitors their health effects, but enables manufacturers to compete with tobacco on price and availability.

Emphasising a scientific rather than a crudely political approach to regulation does not necessarily imply less rulemaking. But in any evaluation, the first step should always be to determine whether a proposed rule really does benefit public health. At the same time, authorities should take a long hard look before adding another thread of regulation that would be difficult to remove once woven into the ever-thickening fabric of commercial law.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

You can sign up for 8 free articles a month, mine runs out about the 20th of the month.

 

[Anjaffm]

great find, Bill!
And thank you for all the work that you do!

 

[Technohydra]

As a rationalist, this is totally in line with my thinking. emotions have no place in a logical determination if you wish to arrive at the true root answer, and this is one reason why I dislike the current political soup. Too much spice, not enough meat. People are making decisions based on nothing but what they feel about the issue, and refusing to think about it instead.

When will people learn that they don't have to like reality, but they do have to accept it as it is? Refusing to accept reality as it exists is the first step to the slavery of your reasoning and individual thought. First, you get convinced emotionally to see a different view point as possibly valid, then you get convinced that it has some merit, then you listen to more viewpoints on it and begin to believe it, and before you know it, you are the idea's newest champion. Look at the Affordable Care Act; love it or hate it, it is definitely not what anyone thought it was from the beginning.

I wish I could talk to congress about this issue directly, be in the big chair for my 10 or so minutes. I would love the opportunity to speak out against 'feel-mongering' and remind the elected body that their obligation is to what is, not what they want things to be or what they feel about the things that are. For the love of the light, we have GONE TO WAR recently based on emotional decisions...we have killed people, ruined families, towns, economies, and governments because we 'feel it is right' (mostly ended up being for a good reason, but what if we had been wrong in our 'feelings'?). I am the last one to criticize the military, and I believe we have the right to defend ourselves as a nation, but the 'rational' used for committing to these acts has been less than perfect. I'd like to see some new light shed on our governing body.

 

[soba1]

great find, Bill!
And thank you for all the work that you do!

Plus ten charachters

 

[DaveP]

Thanks, Bill. I'm still mad at the New York mayor who brought us the ban on the large soft drink. Now, he has signed in the ban on indoor vaping. I'm waiting for a ban on caffeine in New York ... probably won't happen. His coffee loving constituents would ride him out on a rail.

We need more vapers in NY to vote the guy out.

 

[skoony]

i can see where technohydra is coming from.
this is the fault of liberal education which teachs children that what they fell about
something is more important than anything.
attaching emotional garbage to things when it is unecassary.
you dont have to love putting your socks on.
you dont have to hate it either.
put your socks on and lets go.

regards
mike

 

[Moedog]

i can see where technohydra is coming from.
this is the fault of liberal education which teachs children that what they fell about
something is more important than anything.
attaching emotional garbage to things when it is unecassary.
you dont have to love putting your socks on.
you dont have to hate it either.
put your socks on and lets go.

regards
mike

Mike, this has absolutely nothing to do with so called "liberal education." No it is a result of intolerance, disregard for the facts, and yielding to big money. In fact, the totally far right-wing Republican county commission in my suburban SC county recently enacted a draconian ordinance which effectively bans outdoor smoking and vaping, as well as indoor use in any building accessable to the public. I don't think they were influenced by "liberal education."

 

[Rossum]

When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it's a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.

 

[Jman8]

If we let the science guide the debate and legalities, and that science shows that secondhand vapor is of negligible consequence to children (of any age), do we as a vaping community stick to the science, or concede on that politically correct point and support the position that no vaper should ever vape around minors? Cause in that scientific study that some of us cite as evidence of relative harmlessness from secondhand vapor, it does make this point.

I, as a rationalist, believe science (application) can be manipulated and believe it will be manipulated to someday establish 'undue harm' to persons who inhale secondhand vapor. While other studies will maintain relative harmless and evidence that supports that conclusion.