Treece

Treece 1 year, 6 months ago on Anti-Smoking Group Targets E-Cigarettes

Journal of Public Health Policy (2011) 32, 16–31. Published online 9 December 2010:

"Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?"

"Abstract:

The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco. We review the existing evidence on the safety and efficacy of electronic cigarettes. We then revisit the tobacco harm reduction debate, with a focus on these novel products. We conclude that electronic cigarettes show tremendous promise in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. By dramatically expanding the potential for harm reduction strategies to achieve substantial health gains, they may fundamentally alter the tobacco harm reduction debate."

The comment system won't allow me to post a direct link, but it's easy to look up.

0

Treece 1 year, 6 months ago on Anti-Smoking Group Targets E-Cigarettes

Actually, formaldehyde was detected in one study of e-cigs that I know of ... at 1% of what is considered hazardous.

Formaldehyde is also in baby shampoo and exhaled human breath. It's a great word to use if you want to scare people.

A similar tactic is used with the word "safe." Opponents of e-cigarettes go on about how e-cigarettes have not been proven to be "safe." Is riding a bicycle safe? Is inhaling the fumes from cooking safe? Is drinking water safe? No, no, and no...

Groups like the ANR make it exceedingly difficult to have a meaningful discussion, because they start off from a place of dishonesty.

0