It has been pretty well established that, (even though you are not able to find it in your heart to consider that E-Cigs are completely safe), vaping is vastly less dangerous and more healthy than smoking cigarettes. So why is there a wall of high-profile resistance ranged against the E-Cig trade? Surely if the case for harm-reduction is confirmed (which it obviously is) you might realistically imagine that the entire anti-smoking and health lobby would agree!
Now we go into the murky arena of vested interests. And you might be blown away at a few of the findings!
In modern day democracies, a central plank of the unspoken agreement in between government and the citizens is the formers’ obligation of security over the latter. Who would elect an administration that publicly proclaimed that their policy is to do nothing at all about a clear mass-killer like tobacco, or anything else for instance?
The United States Government, as an example, invested more than $600 Billion in 2012 on Defence. Do the calculations: that’s about $2000 for each man, woman and child in the united states, even though the genuine probability of a significant massed-military strike on the mainland United states of america stands at a little more than zero! Even if one factors in such reasons as energy security, and protective benevolence to the people of oppressive regimes (the so called “World’s Policeman” function), it’s still a massive figure to pay for a defensive shield that, even were it cut in half, would be extremely unlikely to cost anything like the 440,000 (CDC official statistics) cigarette smoking related deaths in the country each year. To set that in perspective, it’s equal to the complete population of Atlanta being destroyed, not merely once, but annually!
Unlike The european union, where government financed health-care is widespread, the immediate cost of smoking-related disease on the medical system in the united states doesn’t fall directly on the federal government, but primarily on the Health Care Insurance business. It is believed that more than 8 million Us citizens presently are afflicted by a smoking-related illness. Once more, to put it into perspective, that’s equal to the combined populations of LA, Chicago, and Houston, all ill due to cigarette smoking. All this (totally avoidable) disease costs, according to the CDC’s statistics dating back to 2005, nearly $100billion in medical costs, with an equal figure in indirect expenses associated with lost output and tax-take. In 2013, The united states will collect more than $25 billion from cigarettes taxes and legal pay outs, but will invest less than 2% on prevention and smoking-cessation solutions.
May we deduce that, considering the huge discrepancy involving the financial gain and the (unloaded) health-care expenses, that there is a secret disincentive to significantly attack cigarette use amongst the American public? It might also indicate that the Healthcare Industry in the united states has built this expense into their business plan, because a theoretical elimination of smoking-related illness would bring about substantial shrinkage of the marketplace in general; $100 billion as a percentage of $2.7 trillion, the approximated U.S. yearly National Health Expenditure, is tiny but still substantial.
Therefore we notice an axis composed of federal government, tobacco and medical care, an iniquitous ring that conspires against and falls flat in any kind of responsibility of care or defense of its people, or as it might better be described, it’s client base.
It consequently isn't surprising that any significant threat to the continuing sustenance of this mini economy will be strenuously opposed. Needless to say, not one of the guilty parties could ever come out and acknowledge the credibility of this type of idea without getting slammed in the media. Never fear, there’s a big back-stop set up meaning they don’t have to.