Isn't it preferable to have people addicted to nicotine alone rather than nicotine and a potpourri of toxins? It's not particularly harmful it's the byproducts of processing and burning tobacco that causes cancer, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other health woes of smokers. Nicotine is addictive – in fact, it's what makes people addicted to cigarettes. But e-cigarettes are principally a nicotine-delivery system. Again, the reality is there is a broad range of products and no standards. So, do e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens? That is a point of much contention. The point of anti-smoking laws and by-laws is to limit exposure to second-hand smoke, but if vapours are harmless, the argument for restrictions goes up in smoke. The use of aggressive advertising using recognizable Hollywood stars is reminiscent of the old techniques of Big Tobacco. At the recent People's Choice Awards, for example, vaping was de rigeur, to the point where it looked like a product placement for the popular brand Blu. Then there is the fear that decades of effort to restrict smoking will be all for naught. It is not clear how many so-called "dual users" (people who alternate vaping and smoking) exist. Many anti-smoking activists see e-cigarettes as a Trojan horse, a gateway drug that will attract new users to tobacco and discourage current smokers from quitting.
And everyone is keeping a close eye on China – where e-cigarettes emerged in 2006 – because, as it pushes to restrict tobacco, it is touting e-cigarettes as an alternative. – and it's expected to surpass $10-billion annually by 2017. The global e-cigarette market is already worth $2-billion (U.S.) a year – with more than half of all sales in the U.S. In a world where there are one billion smokers and smoking kills almost six million people a year, this is a high-stakes debate.
In other words, the jury is still out, despite the grandiose claims of benefit from proponents and the dire warnings of opponents.
Data on long-term risks and benefits are especially lacking. Skeptics feel the arguments are eerily similar to options that have been touted in the past as being "healthier" like "light" cigarettes, cigarellos and chewing tobacco.ĭreams and fears aside, research on e-cigarettes – about their potential harms and potential benefits – is in its infancy. Devotees – who are an unusually fanatical lot – can trot out amazing anecdotal stories about the power of e-cigarettes and five-pack-a-day smokers who have become healthy vapers. There is no question that e-cigarettes pose a dilemma for regulators and anti-smoking activists. Food and Drug Administration has served notice that it intends to extend its regulatory control of tobacco to e-cigarettes in the near future. The United States has, to date, taken a hands-off approach, though the U.S. Health Canada does not allow the sale of e-cigarettes containing nicotine.It is also illegal in Canada to make any health claims about e-cigarettes, for example suggesting they are a smoking cessation tool. The act of smoking an e-cigarette is known as vaping because you inhale vapours, not smoke. Proponents of e-cigarettes see them as a means of getting what they desperately want – usually nicotine, but sometimes the tactile act of "smoking" – without the carcinogens in tobacco, and as means to gain freedom from the increasingly oppressive measures taken against smokers.Į-cigarettes are canisters used to simulate the act of smoking: Batteries heat up fluid-filled cartridges that contain water, flavouring agents and nicotine (though not always). Rarely has a single product evoked such diametrically opposed views or such passion as e-cigarettes.Īnti-smoking activists see the electronic nicotine-delivery systems (the formal name) as another evil concoction of Big Tobacco, a devilish way to create new smokers and undermine hard-fought public health measures.
0 kommentar(er)
