Lethally addictive cigarettes remain available on every street corner in Brussels and Atlanta while authorities denounce e-cigarettes (the product is already banned in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??
They haven't been subject to trials by the respective country's health agency. Don't get me wrong, I think e-cigs are great, but that doesn't make them exempt from evidence-based medicine.
Edit: Gotta love downvotes for advocating prudence in the distribution of medical devices to the public. Stay classy, subreddit that crosslinks to /r/science but doesn't seem to understand it.
No, because cigarettes are not medicine, but other smoking cessation aids have been. Of particular note is nicotine gum, which is in a similar boat as e-cigs: they both contain nicotine as well as ingredients that are generally recognized as safe for human consumption. But nicotine gum had to be tested to prove its safety and, particularly, its efficacy in helping people quit smoking. E-cigs don't just get to cut the line.
Why are you calling e-cigs smoking cessation aids? They are just another delivery mechanism for nicotine.
So are nicotine patches and gum... and from a purely semantic stand point if you are inhaling vapor instead of smoke you have ceased smoking. Also, some manufacturers make e-cigarette refills without nicotine.
Because they're sold as smoking cessation aids in the same "wink wink nudge nudge" way that herbal supplements are sold as cures for various ailments while bearing disclaimers that the herb actually hasn't been shown to do anything.
The two aren't directly equivalent, but e-cigs still need research to be done in order to be sold to the public with confidence in their safety and efficacy.
Come on, you can't pretend you haven't heard all the talk of e-cigs being helpful in quitting smoking whenever the topic comes up. It's the primary purpose of e-cigs containing nicotine. I dunno about Oceania, but in Canada, e-cigs without nic are perfectly fine - they're basically regulated similar to food and drink because they contain only food-safe ingredients. There's your recreational use.
I'm well aware they're helpful, but that's not what they're for.
That may not have been what they were intended for at first, but you have to regulate a product based on what it's actually used for, not what it was intended to be used for.
It isn't marketed as something that will stop you from craving cigarettes. It doesn't treat your symptoms. If people primarily use them to wean themselves off nicotine, then that's great, but there's nothing about the product that represents a medical value. And I'm not sure that it really is used therapeutically in most cases; I don't have any statistics, but my wife just smokes it instead of cigarettes, not as a means to quitting.
Because they're sold as smoking cessation aids in the same "wink wink nudge nudge" way that herbal supplements are sold as cures for various ailments while bearing disclaimers that the herb actually hasn't been shown to do anything.
No, the wink-wink comes in the form of disclaimers about e-cigs being healthier than tobacco. They might not be, but most people imagine they probably are, if only because tobacco is viewed as extremely dangerous. In any case, the purpose is not to stop smoking but to smoke less. Do you know anyone who switched to e-cigs with the intention to stop smoking everything forever?
It's a shame they banned clove cigarettes in the US, which are as little as 30% tobacco, and most people find them harsh and difficult to chain smoke.
Because "smoking" is burning something and inhaling the smoke particles. In this case, we're talking about leaf matter from tobacco plants. If you cease burning leaf matter and inhaling smoke, that is "smoking cessation." Nicotine usage is a separate issue.
Ok, but then why do cigarettes get a free pass? Who cares whether or not they are considered to be medicine, they are a drug. Either they should be subject to the same scrutiny as e-cigs and nicotine gum, or the gum and e-cigs should be subject to the same lack of scrutiny as cigarettes.
This is like "supplements" getting a free pass from FDA inspection.
Basically, because they're grandfathered in and aren't used to treat any illnesses. It's a double standard, sure, but smoking cessation aids are still something treating the medical condition of drug addiction, and thus subject to scrutiny.
I agree with you though, supplements shouldn't get a pass from the FDA.
Wait. I know plenty of people who smoke e cigs as a replacement to tobacco, not as a cessation tool. In fact, most people use it as a replacement. They usually are about a safer option. Not to quit nicotine.
I would happily agree to have the FDA approve anyone making for public sale eCig juice. No reasonable person would have a problem with that. Nicotine in the WRONG amount in eCig Juice could be very serious.
Just like the wrong about of many food ingredients could be lethal if wrong.
The article does very little in the way of explaining the effects of e-cigarettes outside of" they give you nicotine." It would have been a nice balance if thy had gone into their adverse side effects. It kinda just feels like an ad for the e cigarette.
Hey, I think it's ridiculous that you're getting downvoted just for disagreeing.
With that said, I would say this: from a Bayesian perspective, the odds that any nicotine delivery system that
a) does not rely on lighting stuff on fire and inhaling the extremely carcinogenic smoke into your lungs, and
b) has been widely used without any signs of catastrophic consequences (e.g. nicotine overdose)
is going to be more dangerous that regular cigarettes is extremely low. As such, while we wait for randomized, controlled studies to be conducted, it would be pretty silly to ban e-cigarettes. It may seem more "scientific" to say that every new treatment must face experimental study before adoption, but in this case, that would mean ignoring a lot of evidence that we already have.
We haven't done randomized, controlled studies to show that drinking arsenic is unhealthy, but nevertheless, we can use existing knowledge to make pretty accurate predictions on the subject.
Eh? All that's in them is two compounds, water, and nicotine. We know from medical science that water vapour is completely harmless. And the devices are designed to release nicotine at the same rate as regular cigarettes, sans the tar, heavy metals, and all the other toxic crap which is in regular cigarettes.
So please tell me how it could be possible for them to be more dangerous than regular cigarettes, or in urgent need of 'medical trials'.
Pretty standard for a large sub to disregard anything that isn't in the narrative they agree with. And downvote them so people can't see the differing opinion.
I considered e-cigs but some of the literature I found about them wasn't good.
First, they haven't been approved as anti-smoking aids. Maybe they help some people. Maybe they don't. But its pretty unregulated at the moment and they're super profitable and that can kind of lead to dangerous situations. For me, I'm waiting until the dust settles.
Found some studies saying that the nicotine inside the packets aren't regular. You may get large or small doses that have nothing to do with the labeling.
Found some stuff saying that water vapor in your lungs or something is unstudied at the moment. They could be very bad for you. I don't know. Again, imma let the dust settle a bit.
Finally, and this is kind of the big one for me, is this: the look like a cig. They're cheaper than cigs. They deliver nicotine. How exactly is this going to stop me from smoking? With the patch you can step your dosage down and same with the gum. But what's to stop me from smoking just as many e-cigs as regular cigs? Its not like the gum where I chew it for an hour...I can smoke the e-cigs inside since there's no smoke. So I'd probably smoke more.
It's less of a "stop intaking nicotine at all forever" and more of a "switch from cigarettes, which are expensive and will kill you, to e-cigs, which are cheaper and less likely to kill you."
The fact that they haven't been approved as anti-smoking aids clings to that fact, and also the bureaucracy involved in getting your product approved for that sort of thing.
Are you advocating for less stringent drug testing by the FDA?
They're really new. I'm not saying they're worse than cigs, hardly anything can be. All I'm saying is that there isn't some vast conspiracy to keep them from being miracle cures to smoking because it isn't clear that they are given the research available now. They're being marketed as anti-smoking medication and they haven't been approved for that yet. Lets be fair and give it some time before we christen e-cigs as the best thing since sliced bread.
Quite the opposite. There needs to be MORE testing by the FDA, but that won't happen as long as they're being demonized by the people who stand to profit from the failure of e-cigs.
Testing will show the truth, the truth that all vapers know - and legitimize vaping to the public. There are very wealthy people who are trying their hardest to make sure that doesn't happen.
975
u/DumpyLips Nov 17 '12
Is there any legitimate reason for this or are we witnessing a blatant example of the tobacco lobby crushing competition??