FDA Unsure Whether Smoking is Worse Than Not Smoking
Referring to smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes, FDA spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey tells a St. Louis paper, "We don't know if this is any better for them." If the FDA really doesn't know whether inhaling water vapor containing nicotine is less dangerous than inhaling smoke containing myriad toxins and carcinogens, it cannot be trusted to make scientific judgments about the safety of anything it regulates. But since the FDA has approved various nicotine replacement products (including inhalers!) as safe and effective smoking cessation aids, we have to assume/hope DeLancey is lying, just as FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle presumably was lying when she told NPR "some people may mistakenly perceive [e-cigarettes] to be safer alternatives to conventional tobacco use," thereby asserting that they are not, in fact, safer, even though they do not contain tobacco and do not generate combustion products.
These lies are of a piece with the tendency of anti-smoking activists and public health officials to obscure or deny the differences in risk between tobacco products. To judge from their comments, someone who enjoys an occasional cigar or uses snus might as well smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. And now they are suggesting that e-cigarettes, which are not even tobacco products but superficially resemble them, might be just as hazardous as conventional cigarettes. The peristent refusal to admit that differences in risk matter, or that they even exist, does not make sense even from a paternalistic "public health" perspective, which would suggest it's a good thing for people to use snus or e-cigarettes instead of smoking, since the substitution reduces total morbidity and mortality. This black-and-white attitude seems to be driven by a combination of pharmacological puritanism and bureaucratic stubborness that does not bode well for the FDA's ability to rationally regulate tobacco products.
More on e-cigarettes here.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Anti- tobacco fundamentalists are willing to lie about the data to get laws passed which ban indoor smoking (Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is now pushing to restrict it outdoors, in public parks). We are not fans of tobacco and strongly urge others not to smoke; however, this is a matter of freedom. No matter how well intentioned, allowing government officials to pass laws restricting behavior based on misrepresented scientific data sets a dangerous precedent.
http://3healthymonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/smoking-bans-reduce-heart-attacks-lying-by-omission /
A follow to that post addressing critiques is here: http://3healthymonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire /
The data supporting the risks of second-hand smoke inhalation are sufficient to warrant protecting the general public from the dangerous habits of those who continue to choose to smoke cigarettes . They certainly have the right to compromise their own health , but that does not extend to having the right to risk compromising the health of innocent bystanders. It is very much like the manner in which we allow individuals in society to drink themselves to death by continuing alcoholic behavior, but we do not allow them to operate motor vehicles while under the influence and put the lives of others at risk.
Any associated health risks putting in danger the lives of innocent bystanders?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090805110741.htm
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I would expect there is, although, from what little I know on the subject, while marijuana smoke does have some of the same risks of smoking cigarettes , the risk with cigarettes is greater because of all the additives the tobacco companies have put into them.
But, yeah, I don't want anyone sitting around blowing ANY kind of smoke in the air I have to breathe. I'm not even as fond of fireplace fires and campfires as I used to be. Any kind of smoke in your lungs is bad for them. I have a friend whose father is currently fighting esophageal cancer from eating too much smoked meats. Smoke's not good for the body as a general rule.
They do make cigarettes more harmful... But why are they in cigarettes? And why so many? Are companies using tobacco to soak up chemical spills and then selling it to Philliop Morris et al?
Smoke isn't good for the body, I agree. I never thought about smoked meat , but it makes sense.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I think probably most of the additives are there as things like "flavor enhancers," or to "make the smoke smoother." Some are probably just blatantly for the purpose of making the cigarettes more addictive more quickly.
Yeah, the smoked meat thing is a real bummer. This man had actually set up his own smokehouse and smoked all his meat because he had a strong family history of heart disease, and had heard that smoked meat was lower in fat and less likely to promote heart disease. So, instead of heart disease, he ends up with esophageal cancer .
The title of this article is rather disingenuous... implying that the FDA is unsure if smoking is worse then not smoking... not if smoking cigarettes is worse then an e-cigarette.
They also provide no context for the conversation... was she referring to the risk of cancer or nicotine addiction?
You addressed my concerns, right on the nose.
I agree that the argument assumes one is more familiar with the subject matter. The FDA is on record that it found e-cigs dangerous and has banned imports of certain brands of the product.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
It is a technical exaggeration to say that the FDA does not know the difference, however the results of the decision is identical: Bans are happening. The testing was flawed in that the FDA did not remove the nicotine-juice from the absorbent 'wick' in the device before testing the nicotine-free juice in the device; thus ruling that the nicotine-free was not nicotine-free. The FDA pretends that this product is dangerous to children by ignoring the laws in place preventing children from acquiring these. A few companies have been banned from selling the product in the U.S. because the advertisement claims that they are safer than regular cigarettes ... But the claim is true.
E-cig liquid contains: Water, Propylene Glycol, flavor, and nicotine. There is no smoke produced, just steam. Steam which dissipates in about 1.5 seconds.
There is quite a controversy surrounding this product. Like all controversies, there are (at least) two sides.
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/risky-business/2009/4/16/possible-e-cigarette-ban.html
We know that the FDA has not approved any regular cigarette, yet does not ban them in the U.$. We can $peculate why thi$ i$, but we all know the rea$on.
As for your question, e-cigs do not cure addiction. They also have no carcinogens.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I like the idea of the e-cigarettes , and hope that they will continue to be available for those who wish to use them. If someone is addicted to smoking , and simply cannot quit, it would be far better if s/he could make use of a product such as this, not put others at risk with exhaled smoke, and reduce his/her own physical risks from smoke consumption. Perhaps making them readily available from behind the pharmacy counter, but without prescription would be a good compromise.