March 28, 2012
Better to Smoke Air Than Death
Smoking has been a long term issue since cigarettes were invented. The high amount of tobacco added many dangers to the mixtures. Not only is smoking dangerous because of its physically altering diseases, it also has fatal risks. One of the most common forms of fatality caused by cigarettes is cancer, mainly in the throat and lung. Tobacco cigarettes have been taking people’s lives for quite some time now. However, a solution for helping these people stimulate their nicotine addiction has been found. That solution is electronic cigarettes. They are tubes powered by a battery that, when activated, inject a mixture of nicotine and water vapor from a cartridge into the breather’s mouth. These devices were considered revolutionary but also have generated a lot of controversy due to people fearing they are just as dangerous as regular cigarettes and the Kansas government is now considering adding them to part of the already placed No-Smoking-In-Public policy. I’m speaking to pro—health Kansas government officials who could potentially pass a ban on electronic cigarettes. I am addressing this issue because of my personal connection to smokers. My mother is a regular smoker, she smokes a pack a week and I fear it may get more frequent if she does not find a way to contain her addiction. My father was a smoker but was able to quit after a two-year attempt at smoker abstinence. This was sparked by a doctor’s diagnosis that his lungs were already showing signs of deterioration, but no cancer was found. He put down the cigarettes and he was successful. Considering the information I have put together in research of these devices, I want to address that electronic cigarettes should be allowed in public because of their lack of danger; they will be beneficial if permitted because they are not considered deadly, they can influence better and healthier smoking habits, plus passive smoking will no longer be an issue.
Electronic cigarettes have been questioned for some time on how dangerous they really are; official opinions are “iffy” at most. The FDA is one group that continuously challenges the effects of electronic cigarettes. It is understandable that government officials would be in support of banning electronic cigarettes. Based on a previous article stating that the FDA targeted “violations [including] unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices” (FDA); Based on this information that the FDA disapproves based on these violations they have detected, it is quite right to assume people would think electronic cigarettes are dangerous because of malpractice with manufacturing them, but this is not the case. On the other hand, this is not a fault of makers of electronic cigarettes; it is merely mistakes from the manufacturing companies. People are quick to make assumptions based on circumstances such as these and create what I call “insta-perspectives”. But these perspectives are often flawed as they are based on one sole source or one solo mistaken act. Continuing in this FAQs article, it goes on to say the FDA “intends to regulate electronic cigarettes and related products in a manner consistent with its mission of protecting the public health” (FDA). As stated here, the FDA does not fully oppose e-cigarettes nor thinks they are severely dangerous if they are regulated in a safe manner for the general public. This being something crucially related to public relations, government officials would do well to take this into consideration when prompting their decision whether or not to ban electronic cigarettes in public.
With the dangers addressed, another benefit for allowing electronic cigarettes is the influence it can generate on smokers, both chain and regulated smokers. Mass media is one of the most influential ways to get a point across and get people to steer their mind in a certain direction. Campaigns to help smokers quit...