Bill Godshall tipped us to this story
Chile?s Health Ministry Seeks To Prohibit Electronic Cigarettes
I wrote to the editor whose email address was given at the end of the story. The subject line read "Misplaced Public Health Concern."
Chile?s Health Ministry Seeks To Prohibit Electronic Cigarettes
I wrote to the editor whose email address was given at the end of the story. The subject line read "Misplaced Public Health Concern."
In the 24 May 2010 story, "Chile’s Health Ministry Seeks To Prohibit Electronic Cigarettes," the Chilean Health Minister is quoted: “The law will help us further control tobacco consumption and make a real impact on the health of Chileans,” said Mañalich, later affirming that the cigarettes “are actually not a healthy alternative to stop nicotine addiction."
Does Sr. Mañalich have evidence of this? Or his is simply relying on the American press for his information? Yes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it found "carcinogens" in the electronic cigarette cartridges tested. However, FDA did not tell the whole truth. The agency forgot to mention the fact that the FDA-approved nicotine replacement products contain the same carcinogens in roughly the same quantity!
So how is a ban on electronic cigarettes, which deliver only vaporized nicotine, helping to control tobacco consumption? The answer is, "it isn't". Doesn't Sr. Mañalich realize that the 18,000 electronic cigarette consumers who are are still addicted to nicotine will need to find another source if electronic cigarettes are banned? Doesn't he realize that the most likely source will be to go back to lighting up tubes of tobacco and inhaling the smoke?
So far there have been three published surveys of electronic cigarette users, asking them what effect using the products have had on their health. Here is a tyical result:
"All respondents previously smoked and 91% had attempted to stop smoking before trying ecigarettes. Most respondents resided in the USA (72%) and 21% were in Europe. About half (55%) were 31-50, while 32% were >50 years old. Most (79%) of the respondents had been using e-cigarettes for <6 months and reported using them as a complete (79%) or partial (17%) replacement for, rather than in addition to (4%), cigarettes. The majority of respondents reported that their general health (91%), smoker's cough (97%), ability to exercise (84%), and sense of smell (80%) and taste (73%) were better since using e-cigarettes and none reported that these were worse. Although people whose e-cigarette use completely replaced smoking were more likely to experience improvements in health and smoking caused symptoms, most people who substituted e-cigarettes for even some of their cigarettes experienced improvements." -- From Chapter 19 of Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 Yearbook)
http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/thr2010yearbook.htm
Why is Sr. Mañalich so concerned about the fact that electronic cigarette users are still addicted to nicotine, when nicotine does not cause the smoking-related lung, heart, and cancer diseases? These are all caused by other elements in the smoke. Why isn't Sr. Mañalich more focused in the fact that the electronic cigarette users are experiencing as much improvement in their lung health as any person who stopped inhaling tobacco smoke by becoming abstinent from nicotine?
Why is Sr. Mañalich more concerned about his moralistic addiction agenda than he is concerned about lung disease, heart disease, and cancer?
Last edited: