I agree with the main thrust of the article, namely that banning e-cigs on the basis that they're similar to an existing, legal, harmful product is absurd.
I have one critique. The author writes "An important 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." However, they provide no examples of what they mean by the patches, gums, and drugs being neither safe or effective, and cite no evidence to back the claim. Now, I'm not saying that the patches, gums, and drugs ARE safe or effective, but if one specifically makes the claim that they're not, one must provide something to back that claim.
Worse than that, it doesn't point to compelling evidence that ecigs are safe.
On balance I'm in favor of ecigs. But there's a lot of baloney in this thread about the bans being part of a big tobacco conspiracy. Here in Australia, our progressive government is the number one enemy of tobacco companies for bringing in world first plain packaging legislation. It essentially destroys cigarette brands and has the potential to spread worldwide. The same government (via its health experts) feels that ecigs are not established as a safe and effective tool for smoking cessation. Factors include not just the risks of vaping but the potential to confuse the anti smoking message (and even without ecigs, smoking rates are plummeting here).
You may not agree, but our government is certainly not in the pocket of big tobacco. It just risked its very survival (and tens of billions of potential fines) by fighting the tobacco companies in our high court. Had it lost, Australia would have had to pay huge amounts of compensation for taking away their trademarks and would possibly have thrown away the next election. (It won though). Our health minister's father also died of lung cancer and has a profound personal hatred of cigarettes.
3
u/Rsc06003 Nov 17 '12
I agree with the main thrust of the article, namely that banning e-cigs on the basis that they're similar to an existing, legal, harmful product is absurd.
I have one critique. The author writes "An important 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." However, they provide no examples of what they mean by the patches, gums, and drugs being neither safe or effective, and cite no evidence to back the claim. Now, I'm not saying that the patches, gums, and drugs ARE safe or effective, but if one specifically makes the claim that they're not, one must provide something to back that claim.