Electronic cigarettes have the potential to save hundreds of millions of lives. For those who are not familiar, electronic cigarettes, or e-cigs, are battery-powered devices that vaporize a liquid nicotine solution typically using a propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin base as a solvent. Although they look similar to a traditional cigarette, the similarities stop there. E-cigs do not contain the over 4000 chemicals regular cigarettes do, and the exhaled “smoke” is comprised of water vapor. From a former smoker’s perspective, e-cigs are excellent devices. They produce no second-hand cigarette smoke or ashes. Most importantly, there are enormous health benefits in quitting the inhalation of the hundreds of cancerous substances contained in traditional cigarettes.
Recently, cities across the country have reacted harshly
towards e-cigs and have begun classifying them as regular tobacco
products. Some Texas towns, including Georgetown,
have already banned their usage in public places. Texas values personal freedom and individuals
rights to choose, and I believe it is important to keep e-cigs from being
ostracized in the same way regular cigarettes have been. Allowing their usage in bars and outdoor
sections of restaurants should never be restricted. Currently, regular tobacco smoke causes
cancer in thousands of non-smokers and therefore their restriction is
understandable. E-cigs, however, produce
no such smoke, and their affluent is benign and harmless to bystanders. Allowing e-cigs usage in bars and outdoor
areas of restaurants will encourage current smokers to give up their habit and
switch to electronic cigarettes, thereby reducing lung disease and the accompanying
public health expenses.
These new devices are an incredibly significant
breakthrough. There are numerous anecdotal accounts of 20 and 30-year smokers quitting the habit completely
after switching to using vapor. Critics
assume minors will use e-cigs as a gateway to traditional tobacco products, but
there are already restrictions in place to prevent their sale to those under the age of eighteen. The State of Texas and its municipalities should
understand the benefits of keeping e-cigs acceptable for use in certain public places
and not restrict them to the same extent as regular tobacco products. As the 53 scientists who recently wrote to
the WHO stated, “These products could be among the most significant health
innovations of the 21st century — perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives.
The urge to control and suppress them as tobacco products should be resisted.”
My classmate S. Singh posted a commentary titled, Keep e-cigs from being villianized inTexas, on his blog, lonestartxgov.blogspot.com. In this commentary he talks about how electronic cigarettes are being heavily criticized here in Texas. I strongly agree with Singh because I have family members who have quit smoking using this device.
ReplyDeleteThe concept is heavily criticized mainly because of lack of knowledge. Many people don’t understand how these devices work, and jump to conclusions because of the name. Singh mentions that regular cigarettes have over 4000 harmful, cancer causing chemicals that e-cigs do not. Electronic cigarettes work by vaporizing nicotine, the product that satisfies a smokers craving for cigarettes. It works similarly to nicotine patches, or gum, but gives the user the feeling of smoking an actual cigarette by inhaling and exhaling the vapor. According to Medical News Today, people who use electronic cigarettes are 60% more likely to succeed, compared to people who use willpower or nicotine replacement therapies.
Many critics are against e-cigs because they assume that minors will use them as a gateway to traditional tobacco products. Singh states that there are already restrictions in place to prevent their sale to people under the age of 18. Electronic cigarettes are specifically made to be a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes. Any reputable brand of e-cig will advertise this, and does not target a younger audience like cigarette companies used to do back in the day.
Singh also talks about an article by the New York Post titled, “E-cigs could save hundredsof millions of lives: scientists.” In this article, they say that 53 leading scientists have warned the World Health Organization to not classify e-cigs as tobacco product “as it could jeopardize a major opportunity to slash disease and deaths caused by smoking.” They also state that e-cigs are “among the most significant health innovations of the 21st century.”
I personally have never smoked a cigarette, but I completely agree with S. Singh. I believe that electronic cigarettes are something that will revolutionize the industry, and save millions of lives in the process.
I agree with S. Singh's article, but only to some extent. Smoking has always been a big health issue in our recent history, causing companies to stop sponsoring cigarettes' companies and causing the government to publicly discourage the public to consume such products because of their negative impacts on health. There's many proven cases of cancers and diseases caused by the sole reason of smoking, but I will not go into details because Singh's article is about e-cigs and their impacts.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the main point of promoting electronic cigarettes in states and allowing Texas to fully benefit from e-cigs, Singh argues that e-cigs should not be banned in bars which I don't agree with. Although e-cigs aren't dangerous to the health and don't produce the smoke and smell that comes with regular cigarettes, it's still an action; the action of smoking. Smoking in public institutions has been ruled against, and that's how it should be. E-cigs were put in the market to allow people to slowly step away from their smoking habits and of course not having to deal with the harm that regular cigarettes cause. Allowing e-cigs in public institutions only promotes the idea of smoking. It doesn't matter that e-cigs are not dangerous, they are still promoting the idea of smoking in public institutions which I don't agree with.
However, I agree with Singh's idea of promoting e-cigs. As the author stated, e-cigs don't have the 4000 chemicals that the regular cigarettes have, and that's definitely great for e-cigs. However, Texas should aim to reach out to smokers about e-cigs, give special deals on them, promote the idea of using e-cigs instead of regular cigarettes. However, I refuse with Singh that they must go out of their way and allow them in bars and such; places that smoking in general is banned. E-cigs can and will save hundreds of millions of lives, and that can easily happen; but smoking in general should be disallowed in public institutions that has already banned regular cigarettes. Our goal as a society is to eliminate regular cigarettes, and by keeping smoking in general restricted in certain places will help to do that.
I disagree with the de-vilification of e-cigs. Regardless if it's not killing you anymore, nicotine is still a very addictive drug that has had many problems through the years with teens getting a hold of it. With the state of de-vilification, vapor companies can begin targeting youth once again, also; with numerous people walking around vaping their e-cigs, it would only make it easier for the young to believe trying e-cigs isn't all that bad. From a young age if children become desensitized to the thought of nicotine, we could be dooming some youth from the start to a addictive, dependent life. I think that e-cigs should still be vilified in the public setting, but I will agree that it doesn't seem terrible to have at a bar, where everyone is of age and can make decisions for themselves.
ReplyDelete