Who's Killing The Electronic Cigarette - The Ümlaut

6/25/13
Whos Killing the Electronic Cigarette? | The mlaut
THE MLAUT
0
Enter your search...
PROHIBITION
Whos Killing the Electronic Cigarette?

by Jacob Grier June 25, 2013
The Umlaut is a daily journal of ideas and commentary about innovation, society, economics, and public policy.
RECENT + POPULAR
n April of this year, two members of
Whos Killing the Electronic Cigarette?

June 25, 2013
the Washington, DC city council introduced a bill to forbid the use of electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver nicotine via vapor, in all the places covered by the Districts existing smoking ban. It is smoking, is an inhalant, and its similar to smoking, council member Yvette Alexander told the Washington Post. We dont know what the ill effects of this are, and its still a bother to some people. Similar to smoking and a bother. Time
theumlaut.com/2013/06/25/whos-killing-the-electronic-cigarette/
The Academic Schools

June 24, 2013
Two White Pillars, Yankee Style

June 23, 2013
1/8
6/25/13
was public officials and anti-smoking activists offered evidence of harm before imposing new restrictions on personal behavior. Advocates for bans on actual smoking in bars and restaurants made their case with studies indicating that longterm exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke was harmful to the health of hospitality workers. They sometimes went overboard with the alleged dangers, but at least they were trying. Todays effort to extend bans to e-cigarettes is based on little more than the fact that they sort of look like the real thing. This is no ordinary product because it encourages mimicking and could promote taking up smoking, Frances Health Minister Marisol Touraine said at a press conference last month announcing her intention to apply the countrys ban to ecigarettes. Scott Neal, manager of the tobacco prevention program for Public Health in King County, Washington, offered a similar reason for implementing the same policy in Seattle. By returning smoking to the public eye, public e-cigarette use threatens to undermine the social norming impact of the ban, he told the PostIntelligencer. As if in proof of Marxs dictum that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce, it appears inevitable that the fight over smoking bans will be re-argued. Italy may soon follow Frances lead. New Jersey became the first US state to extend its ban to e-cigs in 2010. Bills in California and Connecticut would do the same. Boston, Seattle, and several other American cities have already done so. If e-cigarettes are to be included in smoking bans, then the vapor they produce should
3 Things to Know About Dudes on Machines in France

June 20, 2013
To Grow the Welfare State, Keep it Small

June 19, 2013
TOPICS
antifragility
Caplan Clay Shirky climate change culture drones economics euthanasia feminism
Friedrich Hayek gender Google health Hurricane Sandy ideology
art bitcoin Bryan
immigration innovation James C.

Scott Jonathan Zuk media
Haidt Lance Armstrong libertarianism Marlene
paleo diet politics power law distributions privacy

open government
morality Nassim Taleb NSA
rational ignorance rational irrationality resilience risk

2/8
6/25/13
be demonstrably harmful to bystanders. So far there is little reason to think it is. A study published in May evaluated the toxicity of twenty-one brands of ecigarettes. Twenty of them showed no signs of causing cell damage, and the only one that did so was nonetheless far less toxic than cigarette smoke. Opponents of e-cigarettes seize on trace amounts of metals or carcinogenic nitrosamines that have been detected in the products. They neglect to mention that similarly trace amounts have been detected in smoking cessation devices like nicotine gums, patches, and inhalers already approved by the FDA. The level of carcinogens in cigarettes is a thousand times higher. Greater transparency and consistency in the production of e-cigarettes is desirable, but they are demonized far out of proportion to any reasonable expectation of harm. Perhaps the nadir of this fear-mongering came from Dr. Lowell Dale, medical director of the Mayo Clinics Tobacco Quitline, who warned journalist Eli Lake that the propylene glycol used in many brands of e-cigarettes is similar to antifreeze. Actually the FDA classifies the chemical as generally recognized as safe and its in common use in food and drug products. It may cause irritation in some people, and the long-term consequences of repeated inhalation by e-cigarette users is certainly worthy of study. But irritation is a far cry from the lung cancer and heart disease that supposedly justified banning smoking in private businesses, and not remotely comparable to the result of consuming antifreeze intended for cars. The smoking ban battle is just the
preferences Roy Baumeister Sarah Skwire sports surveillance transparency

willpower
Tyler Cowen Virginia Postrel

SUBSCRIBE
Enter your email address to subscribe to the Umlaut by email. Email Address Subscribe
3/8
6/25/13
beginning, however. The bigger question is whether e-cigarettes will remain on the market at all. The Food and Drug Administration has already tried and failed to ban them once. Though the products are currently free of FDA regulation so long as they do not make therapeutic claims, the agency has indicated that it plans to extend its authority to additional tobacco products, with e-cigarettes considered by many to be a likely candidate for inclusion. Since no one seriously disputes that using ecigarettes is far safer than habitually inhaling cigarette smoke, allowing them to compete should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the law allows the FDA to ban new tobacco products even when they are irrefutably safer than what is already for sale. The agency evaluates applications based not only on the risk to individual users, but also on how they impact smoking cessation and initiation in the population as a whole. If the FDA decides that these effects outweigh the health benefits, it could ban e-cigarettes not because they are dangerous, but rather in spite of their safety. Its worth considering who would benefit from taking e-cigarettes off the market. The first answer is big tobacco companies; an analyst for Morgan Stanley projects that ecigarettes may displace 1.5 billion cigarettes in 2013. Recognizing the trend, the large tobacco companies are finally joining more than 100 smaller firms in the marketing of e-cigarettes. Also facing competition are pharmaceutical companies that produce smoking cessation products. While helpful to some, these therapies are an inadequate solution for most smokers. A growing body of evidence
theumlaut.com/2013/06/25/whos-killing-the-electronic-cigarette/ 4/8
6/25/13
and anecdotal success suggests that ecigarettes may be a more effective alternative. There is reason to be concerned about the influence these companies have on the ecigarette debate. As reported by Michael Siegel, a professor in the Department of Health Sciences at Boston University and advocate for harm reduction strategies, groups that have opposed e-cigarettes these include the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kidsaccepted contributions of nearly $3 million in 2011 and 2012 from Pfizer, producer of the smoking cessation drug Chantix. The recently appointed director of the FDAs Center for Tobacco Products, Mitch Zeller, comes to the job directly from consulting for GlaxoSmithKline on its nicotine replacement productsthe same pharmaceuticals threatened by potentially more effective e-cigarettes. This conflict of interest at the highest level of leadership calls into question the agencys ability to regulate e-cigarettes impartially. Not long before assuming his new post, Zeller contributed an essay to a special issue of the academic journal Tobacco Control devoted to endgame strategies that could finally eliminate tobacco use. Though details are scarce in Zellers proposal, what comes through is a technocratic belief that benign regulators hold enormous promise advancing that objective by manipulating nicotine levels across the product spectrum. Nicotine could be sharply reduced in combustible tobacco, forcing smokers to take up safer forms of delivery regardless of their own preferences.
6/25/13
Smoking is, in this view, a purely medical problem. Practically mechanical. Simply a matter of having the right people pulling the right levers. The e-cigarette may find a home in this approach, but it also threatens it at a fundamental level. This, more than the interest of pharmaceutical companies, is why the device receives so much opposition despite so little evidence of danger: The ecigarette is an unwelcome reminder that nicotine can be enjoyable and that consenting adults can consume it without undue risk. For an anti-smoking movement that has been taken over by a rigid abstinence-only ideology, that simply will not do. Those who take seriously the prospect of an endgame should remind themselves of just how resilient the demand for tobacco truly is. Historically, smokers and tobacconists have faced enormous import duties and kingly scorn in England, imprisonment in Switzerland and Japan, the death penalty in China, nostril-slitting, flogging, castration, and Siberian exile in Russia, beheading in the Ottoman Empire, and the pouring of molten lead down ones throat in Persia. In the early twentieth century, American prohibitionists succeeded in banning the sale of cigarettes in fifteen states. And in the past decade, despite all the tax hikes, smoking bans, and stigmatization, the smoking rate in the US has budged merely a few points. Talk of an endgame won by regulation is a little premature. There is a better way. Innovations in manufacturing, distribution, and advertising are what brought about the cigarettes domination, and innovation is what can finally end it. In a competitive
6/25/13
market many users will choose mostly harmless vapor, some will continue to use patches and gums, others will stick to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and still others will prefer more flavorful cigars and pipes. Though falling short of the smokefree America desired by many, this would result in massive improvements in health and happiness. But only if consumers have the choicea choice that todays anti-smoking movement is determined to take away.
Tags:
e-cigarette pharmaceutical
health
Healthcare
Prohibition somking
public choice
smoking ban
Jacob Grier is a writer, bartender, and spirits industry consultant based in Portland, Oregon. He left the world of Washington, DC think tanks for the vibrant food and drink scene in Portland, Oregon in 2008. He writes the weblog Liquidity Preference, now in its tenth year, and his work has appeared at The Atlantic, Reason, and The Washington Post.
Follow @jacobgrier
Tw eet 2
12
Like
PREVIOUS STORY The Academic

6/25/13
Schools
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Big Fat Lies: Public Choice, Cultural Bias, and the Obesity Epidemic
W hat Has MarketBased Become?
Paleofantastical Thinking
HOME
ARCHIVES
TOPICS
MASTHEAD
Copyright 2013 The Umlaut.
8/8

Who's Killing The Electronic Cigarette - The Ümlaut

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Who's Killing The Electronic Cigarette - The Ümlaut

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

6/25/13

Whos Killing the Electronic Cigarette? | The mlaut

Enter your search...