If you believe in these products, don't forget to sign the petition: EcigsSavelives.info
I would like to see someone from the FDA, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Tobacco-free Kids and the American Cancer Society, sit in from of several million Americans and defend their opposition to e-cigarettes with facts and science, rather than conjecture, misconceptions and assumptions. The American Association of Public Health Physicians, Health New Zealand, American Council on Science and Health, Smokefree Pennsylvania, Drs. Michael Siegel, Joel Nitzkin, Brad Rodu, Carl Philips; and other tobacco harm reduction experts on such a panel would tear their inane arguments to pieces with the FACTS.
There is simply no valid argument - other than financial - that a product which contains just a few FDA-approved ingredients would be a greater danger or even a fraction of the danger to public health than traditional cigarettes, with over 4,000 chemicals and 50+ carcinogens. There is no compelling argument to remove a product from public access that has not had any reports of causing injury or illness in the 6 years it has been on the market worldwide and has had tens of thousands of former smokers claiming improved health and well-being. There is no reason to believe that a product that was shown in several tests, including the one highly publicized by the FDA, not to contain any tar, carbon monoxide, toxic levels of chemicals nor significant levels of carcinogens, should be considered more dangerous than FDA-approved pharmaceutical products. There is absolutely no evidence that children would be at risk from product which appeals primarily to middle-aged adult smokers (as a healthier option) and has expensive start-up costs compared to traditional cigarettes, simply because they are available in flavors which adults equally enjoy.
Let these groups go on television and try to convince the American public that their actions against a much safer alternative to traditional cigarettes make any sense whatsoever. Let them try and convince that their funding from pharmaceutical companies and tax revenue from cigarette sales have no bearing whatsoever on their opposition to these product.
I, for one, would like to see them try.