“First Do No Harm” is Hippocratic Oath 101. Unfortunately, in the framework of the cigarette smoking argument, this provides a few physicians and medical professionals all of the leeway they need to do nothing at all helpful! Here it is only reasonable to mention there are a lot of physicians and good clinical organizations that have come out openly in support of e-cigs, frequently under the umbrella of relative ‘harm reduction’, that relieves the requirement to unconditionally establish the ‘safety’ of vaping. This is honest and commendable, since intricacy and pure expense of implementing a test strategy for vaping products is too high and (actually) counter-productive to the growth of the developing e-cigarette marketplace.
The e-cig resistance in the Medical Community falls into distinct categories, each of which have employed remarkable Public relations techniques to outline distinct and unforgettable messages which resonate with the general population:
The Gateway Theory
One argument employed, frequently with total refusal to balance it against the logic of harm-reduction, is that by not doing anything to stop the intake of nicotine (certainly and unquestionably an addictive substance, even if it does no damage on its own) that it's going to end up in individuals taking up vaping from scratch, that will then cause them to proceed to cigarettes. It’s hard to think that any rational person, smoker, vaper, or abstainer, could be illinformed sufficiently to place their good reputation at risk by openly expounding this type of ridiculous hypothesis as a serious theory. Needless to say, it might materialize, and no question it will happen, but it’s difficult to understand how the scale of such a phenomenon could ever be a serious consideration, as compared to the general harm-reduction that e-cigs provide. Throughout The european union and The United States, it’s believed that there are over 2.5 million new tobacco users each year. If even 20% of this number began vaping as a substitute, and then only 20% of those didn’t afterwards move on to tobacco cigarettes, that would still signify an possible yearly life-saving of about 100,000 lives, a quarter of the yearly smoking death-toll in the united states on it's own!
As anybody that has converted from tobacco to vaping understands, once the habit is established, transitioning back to tobacco cigarettes, at anything up to 10 times the expense, just isn't a good alternative, so there is no rationale to think that a virgin vaper will head that way, in anything other than isolated instances. By providing increased cultural acceptance and ease of access, vapers will continue to vape, investigate and acquire their connoisseur preferences, and obtain the relative health advantages with minimum enticement to progress to the killer tobacco!
A newly released study of 1300 university students led by Theodore Wagener of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center stated that just 3.3% of participants affirmed that e-cigarettes had been their initial exposure to nicotine, and in fact just one individual in the entire study actually confessed to moving on from e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking. Wagener mentioned in his address to the American Association for Cancer Research that “It didn’t appear as if it truly turned out to be a Gateway to anything at all.”
The Child Protection Hypothesis
The lobby against e-cigs with regards to young children bases its arguments mainly on the Gateway Theory. It’s fascinating to keep in mind, nevertheless, that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which a person might assume to be virulent opposers, takes a moderate tone, and instead of joining the resistance organizations, just calls upon the US FDA to bolster its regulatory position to create a realistic atmosphere that offers the highest protection to children’s entry and appeal to e-cigs, in the framework of cigarette smoking on the whole. This organisation is to be congratulated for its position.
You can find, nevertheless, a different stance taken in some areas concerning the protection of small children from ingesting the e-juice and experiencing any kind of poisoning. It’s difficult to reason that children won’t ultimately find a way to ingest the stuff, and that in large amounts it might prove troublesome. The LD (lethal dose) of nicotine for human beings is recorded to be of the order of 30-60mg, and proportionately much less for a child. Considering that high-strength e-juice can easily possess around 24mg/ml of nicotine, and the whole bottle is about 30ml, this is enough to fulfil the lethal dose requirements.
The majority of producers fit their e-juice containers with childproof lids, in the same manner that drugs are packaged. Should an inquisitive kid find a way to open up an e-cig ‘tank’ and consume the fluid, the dosage of high-strength e-juice could be of the order of 15mg which would be marginally harmful to a child. Therefore extreme care is needed, and it’s probable that e-cig equipment producers might ultimately be required to construct child-proof products into their mini-tank items.
Notwithstanding, these are regular child-safety issues, not dissimilar from the problems around domestic cleaning and decorating goods, so there is currently regulation set up that could be easily modified to cater for the e-cig market. There is definitely no reason for any over-reaction to this isolated concern, and if you've ever unintentionally tasted e-juice (inadvertently since you would not purposefully do it intentionally) it is nasty, and that would certainly dissuade any more experimenting.
One additional hazard is that of a young child unintentionally ingesting a cartomiser capsule. Obviously, children do put things in their mouths, so the risk here is of choking, which is exactly like millions of other small things to be found in the typical household.
Nonetheless there are a few virulent opposers within this area, a number of whom feed into the typical demands for e-juice to be licensed as a medication. Considering the time frame it requires to complete drug tests and obtain Food and drug administration authorization, should this lobby succeed we might see the total e-cig business delayed for a long time, and countless more tobacco related deaths occur in the meanwhile.
The Undoes All of the Good We’ve Done Hypothesis
One of the most controversial and least reasonable resistance originates from the raft of anti-smoking organizations that declare that to permit the widespread use of E-Cigs will set back their cause. The idea is that there has been considerable advancement in the ‘War on Smoking’ which could be overturned.
Like all opposite opinions in the Vaping field, this stance is unsustainable, as soon as all the other aspects are considered.
What this lobby does not admit is that Vaping isn’t Cigarette smoking. To compare E-Cig vaping to tobacco use is to compare Bungee Jumping with Committing Suicide! Of course, both entail leaping from a bridge, except that one is pretty much completely safe and the other is almost completely deadly.
The idea is that the previous 30 years of tobacco legislation have succeeded in ‘de-normalising’ using tobacco, and that allowing unhindered use of vaping, particularly inside in public areas, might reverse that impact. Once more, this displays a frantic lack of knowledge by the opponents.
Can it be that the genuine root fear of the anti-smoking lobby is that, should vaping turn into a prevalent practice, their organizations would stop being relevant, and indeed disappear completely?
The ‘We Don’t Have Sufficient Data’ Hypothesis
The ‘sit on your hands’ defense! It states that if it can’t be established that E-Cigs are 100% risk-free, they ought to be regarded as dangerous. Put simply, guilty until proven innocent!
In 2009, the Food and drug administration discovered trace amounts of diethylene glycol in one test sample and it hasn't been observed since, so was probably a one-off contamination. In the same time period, an instance of cancer causing nitrosamines discovered were at the exact same ranges as existing NRT products (like nicotine patches) and was clinically harmless to individual health at the ranges found.
Nevertheless, the existence of this archaic data, dating from the beginning of commercially made E-Cigs, provides this lobby with a stick to beat everybody with.