First of all, there is no actual "
tobacco" in e-cigarettes. I'm assuming the reporter misspoke and meant "nicotine."
Secondly, e-cigarettes aren't meant to "kick the habit." They are meant for those who want to continue the habit, yet reduce the level of toxins and carcinogens one is exposed to by smoking actual
tobacco. It reduces exposure not only to the actual smokers, but to bystanders, as well. It's called "reduced/modified harm" and it's been a common policy of public health for other products.
Nicotine, absent the smoke, has similar low health risks to caffeine. So, even with continuing to use nicotine, eliminating the greatest danger - the actual smoke - reduces health risks 98-99%. So, by switching completely to e-cigarettes, smokers reduce the high health risks associated with tobacco smoke to the extremely low risks associated with just nicotine use. It's the same theory behind substituting low-fat foods for high-fat foods or wearing seat belts or helmets with motor vehicles. It doesn't reduce risk completely, but it reduses risk substantially.
When you listen to the hundreds of thousands of people who have switched to e-cigarettes & eliminated their smoke exposure (and the exposure of those around them) and hear their reports about how they can breathe better, to claim these don't help or aren't better than actually smoking is extremely bad public health policy. The testimonials of thousands of ex-smokers is available all over the internet and in petitions to public health groups and the FDA. When they say there is "no evidence" they are lying. Additionally, there is testimony from many other e-cigarette users who use them without even the nicotine or quit altogether.
Just Google it and you can see for yourself. Or go to CASAA.org for the truth about reduced harm, smokeless alternatives. CASAA is a non-profit organization, not affiliated with any tobacco or e-cigarette company, dedicated to educating the public about smoke-free alternatives.
