Whatever became of urban sophistication, especially on matters scientific and technological? We lifelong city folk cultivated a nasty habit of looking down on the denizens of the “flyover” regions as hayseeds, believing the sun revolved around the earth.
Not any longer, thanks to the baseless, superstitious fear running amok in the big-city linchpins of New York, Los Angeles, and now Chicago. The source of this surprising revival of the need to burn witches? Electronic cigarettes.
Given the potential public health miracle represented by electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), I was immensely pleased when last month the Chicago City Council flouted the demands of Mayor Rahm Emanuel by refusing to kowtow to his strong-arm tactics to have Chicago join in the attack against e-cigs (while their counterparts in New York and L.A. caved). But last week, the Council reversed course and went along with the Mayor’s bullying, consigning desperate ex-smokers into the cold Chicago night, to be surrounded by smokers, from whose toxic habit they had thought themselves free.
Meanwhile, a Midwestern state — Wisconsin by name — took pains to exclude e-cigarettes from its tightened tobacco control laws. Most other localities have taken similar, science-based measures, avoiding the counterproductive regulatory intrusions of our biggest cities.
How can the pervasive campaign against e-cigs be explained, much less justified? Cigarette smoking takes the lives of more Chicagoans than any other health threat. And not just Chicago, but nationwide, among the 44 million smokers, the annual, preventable loss is about 480,000 — an unbelievable tragedy.
While Americans’ smoking rate has gradually declined to about 20 percent since the groundbreaking Surgeon General’s report in 1964 (it was almost 50 percent during that “Mad Men” era), progress has stalled in recent years. Quitting cigarettes is devilishly hard (I know — it took me about twenty tries): inhaling the nicotine in smoke, along with its thousands of other chemicals, make cigarette addiction extremely hard to break. Without help (“cold turkey”), only 5 percent succeed, and the numerous products approved by the FDA — nicotine patches (NRT), gum, inhalers, drugs — raise the “success” rate only to an abysmal 15 percent. While three-quarters of smokers say they want to quit, smoking will eventually kill over half of them. Something had to be done to ameliorate this intolerable situation.
It now appears that perhaps something can be done: a recent, game-changing technology, electronic cigarettes (e-cigs), came upon the scene, appearing on our shores in 2007. The most commonly used e-cigs resemble cigarettes (“cigalikes”), and deliver an effective dose of nicotine suspended in water vapor and either propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, plus optional flavorings. Most have a glowing LED tip, to further the mimicry of the real cancer sticks — crucial to satisfying smokers’ behavioral needs for successful quitting. And studies have shown that the trace levels of chemicals in e-cig vapor are not a threat to bystanders’ health. And — this is crucially important — despite what many believe (even many doctors), nicotine from these products is not toxic, nor does it cause cancer.
Ecigs are a potential public health miracle. Yet the official response has been, perversely, a monolithic refusal to even consider the potential benefits. Instead, federal and state agencies have unleashed a relentless campaign of misinformation, arising out of alleged concern for long-term, hypothetical risks. The CDC, FDA, numerous nonprofits and academics have closed ranks to disparage e-cigs and warn smokers not to even try these potential lifesavers. They have conspired to “solve” a problem that does not exist — the “harms” of e-cigs — while ignoring the actual problem: smoking-related disease and death.
Sensing a ripe political opportunity to denounce “toxic” e-cigs, demagogues have sought to ban or restrict them. Lawmakers whose zeal exceeds their scientific insight intentionally (or ignorantly) conflate e-cigs with “cigarettes,” and vapor with smoke. When I testified at a public hearing of the New York City Council and heard Commissioner of Health Tom Farley pompously assert that he had no idea what was in e-cig vapor, I quickly corrected his misstatement. Nevertheless, our City Council proceeded to ban all public use of e-cigs except where cigarettes are allowed.
As is often the case, Chicago’s Council members alleged that their intent was to protect kids from “second-hand smoke” — although there’s no smoke involved. And despite the phony statistics manipulated by the CDC, there is no evidence that e-cigs are being taken up by teens to any degree (recent studies show that youth smoking rates are down, and e-cigs are likely a gateway away from real cigarettes, not into them). And we do know that millions of smokers have become vapers, after trying and failing with the approved products.
Agenda-driven and conflicted opponents cry, “Regulate e-cigs.” They mean to regulate them off the market and into the hands of Big Tobacco. I say, Yes, regulate them, by all means: age restrictions, ingredient labels, and good manufacturing practices all need to be mandated. But making e-cigs inaccessible for desperate smokers by inane restrictions will send this message: “Keep on smoking.” To those who say, “We just don’t know what might happen,” I respond, we sure do know what happens with the real ones: almost half a million dead American smokers every year.
Gilbert Ross, M.D. is Medical and Executive Director of the American Council on Science and Health.
From Real Time News on Forbes
Big U.S. Cities Foment Baseless, Superstitious Fear Of Electronic Cigarettes
No comments:
Post a Comment