A contingent of North American society is concerned about what they consider a conspiracy against the e-cigarette industry. They firmly believe various agencies' concerns are not founded on evidence but stem from some perverted desire to crush this smoking alternative which, smokers and many doctors believe, is saving lives. Is there any truth behind these rumblings?
E-Cigarette Conspiracy
ENDS, or Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems, are often referred to as the miraculous answer to quit-smoking plans that don't work. Without any help at all, a tiny fraction of smokers quit cold turkey. That number increases with the help of nicotine patches and gum.
The rest of the smoking public is left feeling like failures, desperate to give up cigarettes but helpless to do so. They are addicted to the action of putting a cigarette to their mouths and puffing. Their reliance is not just upon a drug known as nicotine but also on a soothing behavior.
E-cigarettes provide the action and the nicotine of cigarettes without the smoke, so they are automatically safer; or are they?
No Smoke without Danger
In the eyes of e-cig advocates, smoke is the major danger of smoking. Their view is supported by science: most smokers and second-hand smokers die from smoking-related illnesses because of the smoke they inhaled.
No Danger without Smoke?
But is it true that nicotine is not a dangerous substance? Some of the rhetoric from pro-vaping societies say this has been overplayed: that there isn't any real risk from vaping nicotine or inhaling second-hand vapor.
The WHO (World Health Organization) and many other public health bodies disagree. Nicotine is a lethal toxin for many people -- a stimulant that makes the heart beat faster. Consumers have died as a result of over-stimulation.
Vapers argue that nicotine is no worse than caffeine or energy drinks which do the same thing. Since e-cigs are supposed to be sold to the 18+ crowd anyway, any risk of children vaping is the same as that of children drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes, or drinking energy drinks. They'll get a hold of prohibited items one way or another.
Caffeine, however, is not a pesticide. Nicotine is. Concern about the uncertain effects of e-cigs can sound as though it is conspiratorial when organizations fail to emphasize the positives (lives saved and health restored by vaping instead of smoking) but e-cig users risk sounding as defensive as anti e-cig proponents appear aggressive if they fail to acknowledge possible risks.
The Risk of Ignorance
The biggest risk is not having access to information and being led to believe that vapor is safe (not just safer) before tests have proved conclusive. If e-cigs are proven safe, that will be a coup for the industry and a huge relief for smokers and ex-smokers who wonder if this alternative is about to be taken away from them.
It shouldn't be: clearly, vaping is better than smoking. Just ask a few thousand vapers what they felt like before they quit smoking to try vaping.
Balanced Approach
What the whole argument needs now is some balance. So much of what people are arguing about is tied up in semantics. Non-vapers refer to vapor as "smoke" and talk about tobacco when there isn't any tobacco in most forms of e-liquid.
Some brands use NET (naturally extracted tobacco), but that's unusual. Vapers talk about the safety of vaping when they could refer to the "relative" safety.
In Conclusion
If there is a conspiracy going on, why? What does the American Cancer Society have to gain by knocking e-cigs? The American government could certainly gain something in taxation if they stepped in to regulate the business, but regulation is also a protective measure and a step towards acknowledging the vaping industry for everything that's good about it.
Suggested:
http://v2cigscoupons.typepad.com/blog/what-are-the-risks-that-electronic-cigarettes-pose.html