...I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around not being able to state my own opinion on a subject. Thanks!
Not a problem - say what you like.
I was just trying to clarify where we stood on this, so people understand our actions, and so they are clear about what we think. In the past, we did not approve of people starting out with an e-cig, mainly because this would cause us problems in the politics and the media. Now things have changed substantially: we have a solid legal classification that means the FDA cannot ban e-cigs, and our media image has taken a U-turn for the better.
My personal opinion is that sea change in the media happened because so many news staffers smoke, and therefore many of them have become e-cig users. Connected e-cig users realise they'd better fight for their rights as everyone out there is losing money on the deal, and the losers have the power to hurt us, one way or another. There is no better person in your corner than a media employee, because they have a huge influence on what people think about any issue.
So the time is about right (actually I think we're 3 months ahead of the curve, but anyway...) for us to come straight out and say, "If someone is going to smoke, then it's better if they start with an e-cig instead, or Snus". That way they have a greatly reduced chance of harm. If everyone who intended to start smoking, instead chose to use an e-cigarette, it would be a good thing. The death rate would go down from the claimed 440,000 a year in the US to [
insert your preferred figure here] per year. If the risk is 100th the risk of smoking, the eventual death rate (after about 30 years) would be 44,000 a year. If the risk is 1,000th that of smoking, the death rate will drop to 4,400 a year. If the risk is 10,000th that of smoking, the death rate would drop to 440 a year, if all smokers instead started with an e-cig. Any of those figures, even the highest, is such a huge improvement that the sickness, cost to the state, cost to health services, cost to the economy, and cost to the country would fall through the floor. So although it's almost certainly true that e-cigs will kill somebody somewhere, that needs to be compared with the ongoing ~440,000 deaths per year that will only shrink very slowly indeed by conventional means of reduction.
In fact, the fall in the deathrate (and the preliminary sickness rate) has already started to be put in motion, with 2 - 4 million e-cig users or 4%+ of the smoking population of the US having converted. In 15 - 30 years time, even if that user number stays constant, we will see a drop in the mortality. But as user numbers will rise to 6% of smokers at some time in 2012, then 10%, then at some stage 25%, we can expect the sickness and death rate to start dropping rapidly in about 20 years.
Look at it another way: it really doesn't matter how many people use an e-cigarette, it is unlikely to produce any significant mortality rate. It wouldn't even matter if everyone used one. All it can do is reduce the smoking-related death rate.
Take the Snus example. They have some fascinating stats for Sweden now. Look:
- 12% of adults smoke (the lowest in Europe).
- 20% of adults use Snus (there are some dual users, but even so it appears that more people are Snus users than smokers now).
- It looks as if the total number of tobacco users is somewhere between 25% and 30% of the population. This is quite high for highly-developed Western countries.
- Even so, they have the lowest smoking-related death rate in the developed world by a wide margin.
- They reduced their smoking death rate by 40%.
It seems that it doesn't matter how many people use a harm reduction product, the death rate falls as more people switch. In Sweden it fell through the floor, which is why it's called the Swedish Miracle. E-cigarettes have the same or better potential.
So, basically, ECF thinks the time is right to abandon the rather disingenuous and false attitude that we were forced to support before, that non-smokers should not start by using an e-cigarette. It's a simple fact that if they start with an e-cig, and are properly mentored so they stay with it, they are very likely to suffer less disease and live longer. You can cut it any way you like but you can't change that. And from the Swedish example it seems that you can't cut the number of tobacco users, only change the way they consume it. It seems a pointless exercise to try and get much below 20% for all/any users as it just won't go lower.
[
edit- addition]
In fact, to be truthful, the Swedish example seems to indicate that instead of falling, tobacco use goes up. But this doesn't result in any increase in the death rate, as the alternative form of tobacco has a very low associated mortality rate. Instead, no matter how many more people use the product, the death rate still falls, as less people smoke.
Better to give people reduced-harm options so they don't die. They are going to start with it anyway, so why not point them in the right direction at the beginning.
But if you, personally, don't agree - that's what this forum is for. Say so.
