E-cigarettes can learn from history rather than repeat it

The innovation of electronic cigarettes prompts a new debate on how e-cigarettes should be regulated by various levels of government.

A Journal Sentinel op-ed Jan. 9 comparing the rise of electronic cigarettes in recent years to that of traditional cigarettes in the mid-20th century was off the mark.

With all due respect Ruth A. Etzel, who wrote the piece, there needs to be some balance to the often reactionary commentary against electronic cigarettes.

There are many who believe that electronic cigarettes are providing a choice, helping consumers avoid tobacco, odor and secondhand smoke while reducing nicotine levels. E-cigarettes should be fairly and reasonably regulated like other similar consumer products.

Etzel began her commentary recalling childhood stories about vintage cigarette advertising supposedly being targeted at kids. She inferred that Winston cigarettes sponsored “The Flintstones” prime-time television cartoon from 1960 to 1966 and that characters regularly smoked on the show.

However, Winston only sponsored “The Flintstones” for its first two years, when it was targeted at adults. When the show’s writers added a baby girl character (who can forget Pebbles?) and aimed it more toward kids, Winston wisely pulled its sponsorship. It was replaced by Welch’s Grape Juice, which seems more responsible than dastardly for that time.

Etzel then highlighted the fallout and backlash against cigarettes after the 1964 surgeon general’s report linking tobacco smoking to lung cancer. Most people, even many dedicated tobacco smokers, would agree that the more than 50% decrease in cigarette smoking over the last half-century is a good thing.

So, after that long public battle against traditional tobacco cigarettes, a new technology has emerged with electronic cigarettes in the past few years. E-cigarettes remove the harmful tar, secondhand smoke and other carcinogens in burning tobacco and paper, while providing a relatively odorless vapor with varying nicotine levels.

The innovation of electronic cigarettes in reaction to tobacco marketing regulations, lawsuits and public smoking bans brings a new debate on how e-cigarettes should be regulated by various levels of government.

Because they are a new product, there are also open questions on the health impact of electronic cigarettes on consumers and those around them, including children. However, at this time, there is credible evidence on both sides of that argument, depending on one’s perspective.

For example, a cancer researcher at the Roswell Park Cancer Center in Buffalo recently reported that nicotine exposure from electronic cigarettes is lower than that of tobacco smoke and that nicotine is relatively safer when compared to dangerous toxicants in tobacco smoke. While e-cigarettes produce some particulate matter, regular cigarettes produced about seven times more while e-cigarettes didn’t change the amount of carbon monoxide or other gases in the air, according to the study.

It seems that alarmists are willing to subjectively ignore these kinds of studies, as well as the countless personal stories of cigarette smokers who have used e-cigarettes to cut back on tobacco or to even quit. I would argue that the benefit of e-cigarettes helping current smokers avoid tobacco outweighs the potential that some non-smokers might try e-cigarettes in the future.

As for Etzel’s claim that electronic cigarettes are being marketed to appeal to kids, most e-cigarette brands and companies are avoiding the real or perceived marketing misstep that cigarette companies made in the past. Slick advertising and celebrity endorsements for e-cigarettes are no different than those we see regularly today for products such as alcohol, energy drinks or caffeinated soda.

The real reason electronic cigarette use is increasing with youths is that their use is dramatically up overall, with 2012 sales estimated at $12.5 billion. Energy drink use among kids and young adults is estimated to be between 30% and 50%, but commentary asking to ban their sales, ads or use don’t get much attention or traction.

We should accept the fact that some people are going to smoke regardless, so at least using e-cigarettes is a better choice than tobacco.

Moving forward, there should be balanced and reasonable regulation treating electronic cigarettes as a consumer product helping consumers avoid tobacco rather than encouraging its use.

One specific step toward that end here in Wisconsin is proposed legislation exempting electronic cigarettes from the state tobacco smoking ban in restaurants and taverns.

By Mike Morgan. Mike Morgan of Wauwatosa has covered the electronic cigarette industry on his E Cig Werks blog since 2009.

E-cigarettes can learn from history rather than repeat it