Article from Forbes Sept 2011 - original article found here
E-Cigarettes Should Be Promoted, Not Banned
Thats the news out of the UK today, that e-cigarettes should be promoted by the government rather than banned as in many places.
I also get the point about passive smoking: if it really were seriously dangerous then there would be good reason to ban it. As it isnt seriously dangerous then its really a matter of politeness, of manners. Dont smoke where it will annoy people sounds like a good enough rule along with a clear social understanding that there are some places you shouldnt go if smoke does annoy you: like the smoking section of a pub or bar for example.
But then the entire anti-smoking crusade descends into farce for me. Nicotine isnt all that dangerous a drug: no more so than the caffeine in your coffee for example. Its the delivery method which is the killer, not the drug itself. So I simply dont understand why the European Union has banned snus outside Sweden (its a variant of chewing tobacco essentially). People getting nicotine without smoking tobacco sounds like a pretty good idea to me really.
And the various bans on e-cigarettes make just as little sense to me as that. Some countries have banned them altogether. I think Im right in saying that the FDA in the US wants to regulate them as a drug delivery device which is tantamount to banning them. But surely, surely, people ingesting nicotine in a manner that doesnt kill them is a good idea? Better than their continuing to get the drug from a method that may well kill them?
Can anyone actually explain to me why there is this campaign against e-cigarettes?
E-Cigarettes Should Be Promoted, Not Banned
Thats the news out of the UK today, that e-cigarettes should be promoted by the government rather than banned as in many places.
The governments nudge unit wants to encourage the use of smokeless nicotine cigarettes, banned in many countries around the world, in an attempt to reduce the numbers killed in the UK by smoking diseases each year.
The Cabinet Offices behavioural insight team better known as the nudge unit wants to adopt the new technology because policy officials believe the rigid quit or die approach to smoking advice no longer works. Rather, they want nicotine addiction to be managed to help smokers who otherwise wont quit an approach the unit believes could prevent millions of smoking deaths. Ten million people in the UK smoke, and smoking claims 80,000 lives a year.
I do have to admit that Ive never really understood the venom with which some of the anti-smoking activists pursue tobacco and nicotine. Smoking, as smoking, yes, OK, I do get that. It kills people and I know that not everyone shares my classically liberal beliefs that if you want to please yourself but risk killing yourself in the process well, thats just up to you.The Cabinet Offices behavioural insight team better known as the nudge unit wants to adopt the new technology because policy officials believe the rigid quit or die approach to smoking advice no longer works. Rather, they want nicotine addiction to be managed to help smokers who otherwise wont quit an approach the unit believes could prevent millions of smoking deaths. Ten million people in the UK smoke, and smoking claims 80,000 lives a year.
I also get the point about passive smoking: if it really were seriously dangerous then there would be good reason to ban it. As it isnt seriously dangerous then its really a matter of politeness, of manners. Dont smoke where it will annoy people sounds like a good enough rule along with a clear social understanding that there are some places you shouldnt go if smoke does annoy you: like the smoking section of a pub or bar for example.
But then the entire anti-smoking crusade descends into farce for me. Nicotine isnt all that dangerous a drug: no more so than the caffeine in your coffee for example. Its the delivery method which is the killer, not the drug itself. So I simply dont understand why the European Union has banned snus outside Sweden (its a variant of chewing tobacco essentially). People getting nicotine without smoking tobacco sounds like a pretty good idea to me really.
And the various bans on e-cigarettes make just as little sense to me as that. Some countries have banned them altogether. I think Im right in saying that the FDA in the US wants to regulate them as a drug delivery device which is tantamount to banning them. But surely, surely, people ingesting nicotine in a manner that doesnt kill them is a good idea? Better than their continuing to get the drug from a method that may well kill them?
Can anyone actually explain to me why there is this campaign against e-cigarettes?
