Groups like Campaign for
tobacco-free Kids and the American Lung Association are misleading the public.
Nancy Brown claims that there is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are "effective smoking cessation devices," which is completely ignoring the fact that they aren't even meant to be cessation devices. It's like trying to ban smokeless
tobacco because it's not an effective smoking cessation device. That is not its intended use and they know it. Additionally, they only consider something "effective" if it is actually a NICOTINE cessation product. E-cigarettes are largely used as a way to continue to use nicotine without smoking, so they would probably be no better as a treatment for nicotine addiction than the current patches and gums are.
Ms. Brown also has to know that smokers who fully switch to ANY smokeless product have actually "quit smoking," even though they haven't quit using nicotine. So while there are no "published" scientific reports on e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation product, several surveys of thousands of e-cigarette users are showing that up to 80% of smokers who switch completely find e-cigarettes as an acceptable substitute. If thousands of real smokers are reporting that they are staying off cigarettes and have no desire to go back - many of whom weren't even trying to quit - what more can lab studies of a few smokers really tell us? The point is not to get off nicotine, the point is to avoid SMOKING.
Matt Myers alarmingly claims that because of this ruling, e-cigarettes will now be sold to children and will have no oversight. That is a lie. First of all, the vast majority of e-cigarette merchants already refuse to sell to minors. Second, the blame for the current situation falls squarely on groups like his and the FDA. If the FDA would have acknowledged months ago that these were not meant to treat nicotine addiction, the FDA could already have standards and rules in place that are specific to this product. However, even without those specific criteria, the Family Smoking Prevention and
tobacco Control Act already gives the FDA oversight and the power to regulate. Instead of asking the FDA to delay regulation and standards even longer, by insisting they appeal this case, public health groups should be encouraging the FDA to fast-track standards and policies and get to testing these products to try and prove their irrational claims that e-cigarettes pose a public health hazard.
As a tobacco product, the laws that are in place to regulate other tobacco products prevail. This means that sales of e-cigarettes, as tobacco products, would automatically be legally prohibited to minors. Only should the FDA continue to fight this in court will it keep e-cigarette sales to minors up in the air and the "wild west" e-cigarette market running.
As a cigarette substitute, e-cigarettes have the potential to save the lives of millions of adult smokers by reducing or eliminating their exposure to the thousands of toxic chemicals and dozens of carcinogens found in cigarette smoke. Public health groups need to acknowledge that insisting upon nicotine abstinence is failing miserably and encouraging harm reduction through the use of lower-risk products is the only answer to saving the lives of millions of committed, adult smokers who cannot or will not quit.
Of course, should these groups spread the message of harm reduction and should smokers listen, they would be eliminating the need for those same groups and the billions of dollars made from the quit-relapse-quit cycle would disappear. Quite a conflict of interest, don't you think?
