The Deadly Crusade Against E-Cigarettes- The American Spectator

[Orb Skewer]

"As for the innovative new devices, known as e-cigarettes to their users, WHO director-general Dr. Margaret Chan told the delegates, "ndustry is seeping through the cracks." But it's not that e-cigarettes are actually harmful, mind you -- they're not. It's just that they resemble actual cigarettes, so public health officials fear that the use of e-cigarettes may impede their efforts to "de-normalize" smoking."The Deadly Crusade Against E-Cigarettes | The American Spectator

 

[AgentAnia]

Two more quotable quotes. From Gilbert Ross himself:

The irrationality of these "public health" arguments puts into stark relief the blind-spot of the prohibitionist zealots: They fail to acknowledge the inconvenient fact that the millions of smokers in Europe and America (not to mention the billion or so worldwide) are not going to suddenly accept being regulated off their nicotine. The millions who have succeeded in quitting thanks to e-cigarettes and reduced risk tobacco products will not kick their habit and become nicotine-abstinent if these products are prohibited. No -- they will revert to the widely available, deadliest source: cigarettes.

And a comment by "slim":

In response to a recent enquiry on this matter, a senior UK government official replied :-

"The current lack of effective regulation is inhibiting the market and fails to provide the right environment for investment and promotion of new products. Those with experience in developing innovative drug delivery devices have been hesitant to invest in innovation in the absence of a level playing field and a framework in which to market products. This in turn leads to a failure to capitalise on the increasing interest in electronic cigarettes."

Confirmation (if needed) that the regulation of e-cigarettes is not about public health at all - but the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Anjaffm]

wow great find, thank you!

"Industry is seeping through the cracks." But it's not that e-cigarettes are actually harmful, mind you -- they're not. It's just that they resemble actual cigarettes, so public health officials fear that the use of e-cigarettes may impede their efforts to "de-normalize" smoking."

It's worth a moment to understand what we're talking about here. Electronic cigarettes work by giving addicted smokers the nicotine they crave, without the toxic smoke. They supply "vapers" a variable amount of nicotine in a watery vapor and produce a red glow at the tip when puffed upon. That similarity -- especially the nicotine, the highly addictive substance smokers crave -- is what is best about e-cigarettes. The nicotine "hit" they supply matches, more or less, that of inhaling cigarette smoke, as do the behavioral mannerisms of holding the thing as though it was their familiar "friend," and killer: the lethal cigarette.

But that's where the similarity ends. There are no products of combustion to be inhaled hundreds of times a day, and hence no tobacco toxins. Nicotine is not a health threat, per se: its danger lies in its potent addictive power. "Vapers" get the satisfying drug but none of the tarry smoke. That's why many smokers who switch to e-cigarettes succeed in staying smoke-free, while those who try to quit using the FDA-approved methods so often fail. (The little-known fact, rarely discussed by "public health" gurus, is that the patches, gums and drugs they recommend as "safe and effective" are all-too-often neither).

E-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products should be seen as two variants of a method called harm reduction -- providing smokers with nicotine but without the toxic smoke. The message to desperate addicted smokers from the neo-prohibitionists who are gathered in Korea to try to ban these reduced-harm products can roughly be translated as "quit, or die."

Wow!
While I do not agree with every word of the article (little things mainly), it is a great article in the right direction.

 

[Kent C]

I too liked the:

""Vapers" get the satisfying drug but none of the tarry smoke. That's why many smokers who switch to e-cigarettes succeed in staying smoke-free, while those who try to quit using the FDA-approved methods so often fail. (The little-known fact, rarely discussed by "public health" gurus, is that the patches, gums and drugs they recommend as "safe and effective" are all-too-often neither)."

 

[Uma]

Wonderfully insightful article!
My pc wouldn't open the page, but google found it at another place The Deadly Crusade Against E-cigarettes — The American Magazine

(The little-known fact, rarely discussed by "public health" gurus, is that the patches, gums and drugs they recommend as "safe and effective" are all-too-often neither)."

 

[EddardinWinter]

Yes, a succinct and neatly painted portrait. While I have minor quibbles with the wording, it is a genuine look at the issues that do not get discussed in most stories about e-cigarettes these days.

Gilbert Ross M.D.

I will remember the name.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that Gil Ross wrote that article a year ago (almost to the day), as that's when the FCTC met in Seoul and the article mentions the EU's Tobacco Product Directive may ban e-cigs (it did and was defeated by the EU Parliament).

 

[Katya]

Nice. Thanks for posting it.

My favorite quotable from the article:

"Prohibiting the safest form of nicotine delivery will increase, not stem, the calamity of cigarette-related death."

 

[Steamix]

We should pass more legislation :

Certain politicians and the sycophants surrounding them should only drive or be driven in cars without roof. Then, should the maker decide to toss brain down from the heavens - it won't bounce off the car roofs but could hit someone who is in dire need of it....