Organization's Efforts to Ban Devices Will Do More Harm Than Good
The
American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending
lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic
cigarette.1 While on the surface this seems like a reasonable effort, a lack of ;understanding the
motivations of the electronic cigarette user has placed the ALA
squarely on the wrong side of the fight for public health.
A
source at the ALA, an organization which claims to be dedicated to
"save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease,"
acknowledged in response to a recent email inquiry that "yes there are
fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that
should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so
yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a
person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can
completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an
alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm
them and have no intention of quitting, just switching."
So,
while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer
chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the
obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides
to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue
here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies
show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless
and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges
that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or
gum.2
Research has also shown that many of the of
smokers who successfully quit using nicotine gum never actually "wean
down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it." The
success rate of NRTs (nicotine replacement therapy) has dropped to
7.2%, resulting in chronic use of the products.3
Furthermore, according to a 2004 report, over 36% of gum users continue
to use the products as a smoking replacement indefinitely.4
So nicotine itself is not what is killing people. The ALA's insistence
on complete nicotine abstinence is admirable yet unrealistic and their
claims about the dangers of nicotine, as compared to smoking, are
clearly misleading.
The ALA email also acknowledged a fact
already known to many e-cigarette insiders - that the majority of
smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes had no intention of
quitting smoking. So, why remove the only safer option available to
those who would otherwise smoke the obviously deadlier tobacco
cigarettes?
The only explanation is that the American Lung Association assumes that every smoker and electronic cigarette user wants to quit smoking and uses the devices as an NRT. That is an erroneous and very dangerous assumption.
In
surveys of electronic cigarette owners conducted by CASAA (Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), respondents
overwhelmingly stated that they did not use electronic cigarettes to quit smoking and would go back to smoking if denied access to electronic cigarettes.
An
internet questionnaire of a self-selected sample of 783 daily users of
electronic cigarettes asked, "Why did you start vaping?" ("Vaping" is a
term for the vapor inhaled vs. smoke.) A staggering 92% chose to switch
for reasons other than quitting smoking i.e. saving money or reducing
the risks associated with smoking. Less than 8% stated they were using
e-cigarettes to quit smoking.5
So, the ALA wishes to
remove the safer alternative used by several hundred thousand
electronic cigarettes users and force them back to smoking tobacco
cigarettes, in order to "protect" the less than 8% who would otherwise
be using an NRT?
Additionally, the ALA's belief that e-cigarette
users will switch to traditional NRTs or quit altogether is disproved
in yet another e-cigarette user questionnaire conducted by CASAA. This
survey explored the habits and motivations of almost 1,000 electronic
cigarette users. The poll indicates that, not only is the typical
e-cigarette user a former smoker over the age of 26, but that they have
overwhelmingly cut back or quit the use of tobacco cigarettes and have
noticed improved health effects - indicating they provide the "improved
lung health" the ALA is seeking to promote. Most importantly, the
results indisputably contradict the assertion that electronic cigarette
users will quit using tobacco should the devices be removed from the
market. Over 80% of the respondents indicated they would most likely
return to smoking tobacco cigarettes or use another smokeless tobacco
alternative, such as snus. Less than 20% stated they would attempt to
quit nicotine use altogether. 6
While the nicotine
abstinence approach may be the ideal, it simply does not reflect the
reality that 80% of smokers do not even wish to quit in the immediate
future. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage those smokers to switch to
a less harmful alternative in the meantime?
In their
single-minded drive to ban e-cigarettes, focusing solely on the small
minority of electronic cigarette users who use the devices to quit
nicotine, the ALA will do more harm than good to the majority of
e-cigarette users who will inevitably return to smoking the more toxic
tobacco cigarettes.
The American Lung Association needs to
re-read their own mission statement and determine if their opposition
to electronic cigarettes would be saving lives - their stated goal - or
putting those lives right back into harm's way.
Organization's Efforts to Ban Devices Will Do More Harm Than Good
The
American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending
lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic
cigarette.1 While on the surface this seems like a reasonable effort, a lack of ;understanding the
motivations of the electronic cigarette user has placed the ALA
squarely on the wrong side of the fight for public health.
A
source at the ALA, an organization which claims to be dedicated to
"save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease,"
acknowledged in response to a recent email inquiry that "yes there are
fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that
should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so
yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a
person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can
completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an
alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm
them and have no intention of quitting, just switching."
So,
while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer
chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the
obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides
to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue
here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies
show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless
and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges
that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or
gum.2
Research has also shown that many of the of
smokers who successfully quit using nicotine gum never actually "wean
down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it." The
success rate of NRTs (nicotine replacement therapy) has dropped to
7.2%, resulting in chronic use of the products.3
Furthermore, according to a 2004 report, over 36% of gum users continue
to use the products as a smoking replacement indefinitely.4
So nicotine itself is not what is killing people. The ALA's insistence
on complete nicotine abstinence is admirable yet unrealistic and their
claims about the dangers of nicotine, as compared to smoking, are
clearly misleading.
The ALA email also acknowledged a fact
already known to many e-cigarette insiders - that the majority of
smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes had no intention of
quitting smoking. So, why remove the only safer option available to
those who would otherwise smoke the obviously deadlier tobacco
cigarettes?
The only explanation is that the American Lung Association assumes that every smoker and electronic cigarette user wants to quit smoking and uses the devices as an NRT. That is an erroneous and very dangerous assumption.
In
surveys of electronic cigarette owners conducted by CASAA (Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), respondents
overwhelmingly stated that they did not use electronic cigarettes to quit smoking and would go back to smoking if denied access to electronic cigarettes.
An
internet questionnaire of a self-selected sample of 783 daily users of
electronic cigarettes asked, "Why did you start vaping?" ("Vaping" is a
term for the vapor inhaled vs. smoke.) A staggering 92% chose to switch
for reasons other than quitting smoking i.e. saving money or reducing
the risks associated with smoking. Less than 8% stated they were using
e-cigarettes to quit smoking.5
So, the ALA wishes to
remove the safer alternative used by several hundred thousand
electronic cigarettes users and force them back to smoking tobacco
cigarettes, in order to "protect" the less than 8% who would otherwise
be using an NRT?
Additionally, the ALA's belief that e-cigarette
users will switch to traditional NRTs or quit altogether is disproved
in yet another e-cigarette user questionnaire conducted by CASAA. This
survey explored the habits and motivations of almost 1,000 electronic
cigarette users. The poll indicates that, not only is the typical
e-cigarette user a former smoker over the age of 26, but that they have
overwhelmingly cut back or quit the use of tobacco cigarettes and have
noticed improved health effects - indicating they provide the "improved
lung health" the ALA is seeking to promote. Most importantly, the
results indisputably contradict the assertion that electronic cigarette
users will quit using tobacco should the devices be removed from the
market. Over 80% of the respondents indicated they would most likely
return to smoking tobacco cigarettes or use another smokeless tobacco
alternative, such as snus. Less than 20% stated they would attempt to
quit nicotine use altogether. 6
While the nicotine
abstinence approach may be the ideal, it simply does not reflect the
reality that 80% of smokers do not even wish to quit in the immediate
future. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage those smokers to switch to
a less harmful alternative in the meantime?
In their
single-minded drive to ban e-cigarettes, focusing solely on the small
minority of electronic cigarette users who use the devices to quit
nicotine, the ALA will do more harm than good to the majority of
e-cigarette users who will inevitably return to smoking the more toxic
tobacco cigarettes.
The American Lung Association needs to
re-read their own mission statement and determine if their opposition
to electronic cigarettes would be saving lives - their stated goal - or
putting those lives right back into harm's way.
After smoking since a teen I never thought I could quit tobacco cigarettes. Family members including my mother had quit their 30+ year habits. Electronic Cigarettes are the best choice in my opinion of easing your-self off of tobacco cigarettes.
Organization's Efforts to Ban Devices Will Do More Harm Than Good
The
American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending
lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic
cigarette.1 While on the surface this seems like a reasonable effort, a lack of ;understanding the
motivations of the electronic cigarette user has placed the ALA
squarely on the wrong side of the fight for public health.
A
source at the ALA, an organization which claims to be dedicated to
"save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease,"
acknowledged in response to a recent email inquiry that "yes there are
fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that
should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so
yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a
person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can
completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an
alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm
them and have no intention of quitting, just switching."
So,
while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer
chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the
obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides
to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue
here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies
show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless
and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges
that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or
gum.2
Research has also shown that many of the of
smokers who successfully quit using nicotine gum never actually "wean
down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it." The
success rate of NRTs (nicotine replacement therapy) has dropped to
7.2%, resulting in chronic use of the products.3
Furthermore, according to a 2004 report, over 36% of gum users continue
to use the products as a smoking replacement indefinitely.4
So nicotine itself is not what is killing people. The ALA's insistence
on complete nicotine abstinence is admirable yet unrealistic and their
claims about the dangers of nicotine, as compared to smoking, are
clearly misleading.
The ALA email also acknowledged a fact
already known to many e-cigarette insiders - that the majority of
smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes had no intention of
quitting smoking. So, why remove the only safer option available to
those who would otherwise smoke the obviously deadlier tobacco
cigarettes?
The only explanation is that the American Lung Association assumes that every smoker and electronic cigarette user wants to quit smoking and uses the devices as an NRT. That is an erroneous and very dangerous assumption.
In
surveys of electronic cigarette owners conducted by CASAA (Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), respondents
overwhelmingly stated that they did not use electronic cigarettes to quit smoking and would go back to smoking if denied access to electronic cigarettes.
An
internet questionnaire of a self-selected sample of 783 daily users of
electronic cigarettes asked, "Why did you start vaping?" ("Vaping" is a
term for the vapor inhaled vs. smoke.) A staggering 92% chose to switch
for reasons other than quitting smoking i.e. saving money or reducing
the risks associated with smoking. Less than 8% stated they were using
e-cigarettes to quit smoking.5
So, the ALA wishes to
remove the safer alternative used by several hundred thousand
electronic cigarettes users and force them back to smoking tobacco
cigarettes, in order to "protect" the less than 8% who would otherwise
be using an NRT?
Additionally, the ALA's belief that e-cigarette
users will switch to traditional NRTs or quit altogether is disproved
in yet another e-cigarette user questionnaire conducted by CASAA. This
survey explored the habits and motivations of almost 1,000 electronic
cigarette users. The poll indicates that, not only is the typical
e-cigarette user a former smoker over the age of 26, but that they have
overwhelmingly cut back or quit the use of tobacco cigarettes and have
noticed improved health effects - indicating they provide the "improved
lung health" the ALA is seeking to promote. Most importantly, the
results indisputably contradict the assertion that electronic cigarette
users will quit using tobacco should the devices be removed from the
market. Over 80% of the respondents indicated they would most likely
return to smoking tobacco cigarettes or use another smokeless tobacco
alternative, such as snus. Less than 20% stated they would attempt to
quit nicotine use altogether. 6
While the nicotine
abstinence approach may be the ideal, it simply does not reflect the
reality that 80% of smokers do not even wish to quit in the immediate
future. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage those smokers to switch to
a less harmful alternative in the meantime?
In their
single-minded drive to ban e-cigarettes, focusing solely on the small
minority of electronic cigarette users who use the devices to quit
nicotine, the ALA will do more harm than good to the majority of
e-cigarette users who will inevitably return to smoking the more toxic
tobacco cigarettes.
The American Lung Association needs to
re-read their own mission statement and determine if their opposition
to electronic cigarettes would be saving lives - their stated goal - or
putting those lives right back into harm's way.
Organization's Efforts to Ban Devices Will Do More Harm Than Good
The
American Lung Association has come out in full force by sending
lobbyists to various state legislators to argue against the electronic
cigarette.1 While on the surface this seems like a reasonable effort, a lack of ;understanding the
motivations of the electronic cigarette user has placed the ALA
squarely on the wrong side of the fight for public health.
A
source at the ALA, an organization which claims to be dedicated to
"save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease,"
acknowledged in response to a recent email inquiry that "yes there are
fewer chemicals but your body is still being exposed to chemicals that
should not be in your system. Nicotine can also cause the body harm, so
yes many of the products do contain nicotine, but used correctly a
person uses the products to wean down their nicotine level so they can
completely get rid of it. Many people are using the e-cigs as an
alternative to smoking the regular cigs thinking that it will not harm
them and have no intention of quitting, just switching."
So,
while the ALA admitted that electronic cigarettes contain fewer
chemicals than tobacco cigarettes, they refuse to acknowledge the
obvious health benefit that lack of the most toxic chemicals provides
to the smokers who switch. Are lives and lung health the real issue
here or is nicotine addiction? The ALA must know that numerous studies
show that, absent the tobacco smoke, nicotine is relatively harmless
and comparable to caffeine. The American Heart Association acknowledges
that nicotine is "safe" in other smoke-free forms such as patches or
gum.2
Research has also shown that many of the of
smokers who successfully quit using nicotine gum never actually "wean
down their nicotine level so they can completely get rid of it." The
success rate of NRTs (nicotine replacement therapy) has dropped to
7.2%, resulting in chronic use of the products.3
Furthermore, according to a 2004 report, over 36% of gum users continue
to use the products as a smoking replacement indefinitely.4
So nicotine itself is not what is killing people. The ALA's insistence
on complete nicotine abstinence is admirable yet unrealistic and their
claims about the dangers of nicotine, as compared to smoking, are
clearly misleading.
The ALA email also acknowledged a fact
already known to many e-cigarette insiders - that the majority of
smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes had no intention of
quitting smoking. So, why remove the only safer option available to
those who would otherwise smoke the obviously deadlier tobacco
cigarettes?
The only explanation is that the American Lung Association assumes that every smoker and electronic cigarette user wants to quit smoking and uses the devices as an NRT. That is an erroneous and very dangerous assumption.
In
surveys of electronic cigarette owners conducted by CASAA (Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), respondents
overwhelmingly stated that they did not use electronic cigarettes to quit smoking and would go back to smoking if denied access to electronic cigarettes.
An
internet questionnaire of a self-selected sample of 783 daily users of
electronic cigarettes asked, "Why did you start vaping?" ("Vaping" is a
term for the vapor inhaled vs. smoke.) A staggering 92% chose to switch
for reasons other than quitting smoking i.e. saving money or reducing
the risks associated with smoking. Less than 8% stated they were using
e-cigarettes to quit smoking.5
So, the ALA wishes to
remove the safer alternative used by several hundred thousand
electronic cigarettes users and force them back to smoking tobacco
cigarettes, in order to "protect" the less than 8% who would otherwise
be using an NRT?
Additionally, the ALA's belief that e-cigarette
users will switch to traditional NRTs or quit altogether is disproved
in yet another e-cigarette user questionnaire conducted by CASAA. This
survey explored the habits and motivations of almost 1,000 electronic
cigarette users. The poll indicates that, not only is the typical
e-cigarette user a former smoker over the age of 26, but that they have
overwhelmingly cut back or quit the use of tobacco cigarettes and have
noticed improved health effects - indicating they provide the "improved
lung health" the ALA is seeking to promote. Most importantly, the
results indisputably contradict the assertion that electronic cigarette
users will quit using tobacco should the devices be removed from the
market. Over 80% of the respondents indicated they would most likely
return to smoking tobacco cigarettes or use another smokeless tobacco
alternative, such as snus. Less than 20% stated they would attempt to
quit nicotine use altogether. 6
While the nicotine
abstinence approach may be the ideal, it simply does not reflect the
reality that 80% of smokers do not even wish to quit in the immediate
future. Wouldn't it make sense to encourage those smokers to switch to
a less harmful alternative in the meantime?
In their
single-minded drive to ban e-cigarettes, focusing solely on the small
minority of electronic cigarette users who use the devices to quit
nicotine, the ALA will do more harm than good to the majority of
e-cigarette users who will inevitably return to smoking the more toxic
tobacco cigarettes.
The American Lung Association needs to
re-read their own mission statement and determine if their opposition
to electronic cigarettes would be saving lives - their stated goal - or
putting those lives right back into harm's way.
