“Who Do We Blame For The New York Decision”
I’ve not got a lot to say on this one other than keep fighting to our NYC members. Sad times indeed when something that can save millions from a deadly habit is treated the same as a product that kills half of its users. The mind boggles at how this decision was made.
This past week the New York City Council made the decision to ban electronic cigarette use in all places where smoking to is prohibited in the city. This means pretty much all public space, shops, restaurants, bars, government buildings, parks, and more. The decision puts forward the idea that electronic cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke are similar enough to treat the same.
In the corner of electronic cigarettes are a lot of public health advocates, researchers, smoking cessation experts, members of the general public (mostly current or ex-smokers), and more. Pretty much all of them agree that electronic cigarettes should not be treated the same as traditional tobacco cigarettes. To do so sends a message that the two are comparable in risk to the individual and the public. There’s plenty of reasons this isn’t true — most experts believe e-cigs only represent around 1% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes.
So how did this happen? How did one product that is being called the most promising device to hit public health in decades become the same as another that ultimately kills half its users? There’s several possibilities. The logical assumption is that they all played some part in the eventual political loss that the e-cig community got from the decision in New York. But the least we can do is consider the factors at play.Ecig Advanced
Read the full story here