E-Cigarettes Sow Confusion—Among Anti-Smoking Activists

I've got a new piece at The National Post about irrational hostility to e-cigarettes within the anti-smoking movement. Here is how it starts:
"E-cigarettes have taken us back 50 years," according to the headline over a commentary that National Jewish Health, a medical centre in Denver, recently paid to place on the op-ed page of The New York Times. The essay — co-authored by David Tinkelman and Amy Lukowski, who are in charge of the hospital's "health initiatives," including its tobacco-cessation program — never substantiates that claim, which is typical of e-cigarette critics who see a public-health menace where they should see a way of reducing tobacco-related disease and death.
You might think people concerned about the health effects of smoking would welcome an alternative that involves neither tobacco nor combustion and is therefore much less hazardous. But with some notable exceptions, anti-smoking activists and public-health officials have been mostly hostile to electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine in a propylene glycol vapour. This puzzling resistance seems to be driven by emotion rather than science or logic.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Anti-smoking efforts are not about stopping smoking. I dont think they ever were, well, maybe some in the very beginning. They are about telling people what to do.
You might think people concerned about the health effects of smoking would welcome an alternative that involves neither tobacco nor combustion and is therefore much less hazardous
You'd think that, but it's not about health, it's about control. E-cigs mimic forbidden behavior that they want to see stamped out.
Honestly, I think it's more about money than control. These groups probably receive "donations" from makers of nicotine gum and other anti-smoking medications.
It's not about money. If it were about money the government never would have stamped down on smoking indoors.
OT: The Federal Reserve has no authority to supervise or regulate Bitcoin, chair Janet Yellen told Congress on Thursday.
Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee in the week that the controversial digital currency's largest exchange collapsed, Yellen was asked about Bitcoin's potential impact by senator Joe Manchin.
http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....te-bitcoin
Nice to hear that rare "sorry, I don't have the authority to screw with the people I serve".
Maybe we should check into the donors for these anti-smoking activist groups and see how much money they receive from the makers of nicotine gum/patches?
I confess that I would LOVE to see an audit of The American Lung Association, The American Cancer Society, and similar collection of smug arrogance. Can you imagine the squeals of outrage?
E-cigarettes have taken us back to times when people had to dig their food from the dirt and dinosaurs roamed the Earth!
And so are anti-GMO protests, caloric-content labeling, cancer scares, climate change and all sorts of government impositions designed to protect "duh childrunz"
"E-cigarettes have taken us back 50 years," according to the headline over a commentary that National Jewish Health, a medical centre in Denver, recently paid to place on the op-ed page of The New York Times.
Not bad, when you consider that hysterical, control freak proglodytes have taken us back about 900 years.
This puzzling resistance seems to be driven by emotion rather than science or logic.
It is not really puzzling, given that people who advocate these asinine things are rather incapable of ever thinking beyond their emotions.
One day they will give up the pretense of language and simply point and shriek.