The popularity of electronic cigarettes began in 2006 as a mere trend at an ordinary stand you could find at your local mall, only to progress into a brilliant world wide health conscious success product.
Despite the fact that this success has unfortunately met the opposition of government officials, such as the FDA, manufacturers and businesses continue to intelligently support and confidently stand by their product. And it must be asked, why wouldn’t they?
Every package of “e-cigarettes,” as they have been admirably dubbed by satisfied consumers, provides literature along with your purchase, very much like a nicotine patch or any other nicotine based product would. Unless of course, you are referring the ordinary cigarette. Well, maybe you consider the 12 point bolded font on the side of the cigarette box with the Surgeon General’s Warning, literature. If that’s the case, then I guess you do get some sort of “literature” with your purchase of ordinary cigarettes.
E-cigarettes offer a healthier alternative to traditional smoking. For example, the very favorable detail of minus 43 carcinogens that are known to be in traditional cigarettes. In other words, you are able to receive the satisfaction and stimulation that nicotine offers without all of the harmful chemicals, risks, and smoke smell, and the ease of mind that won’t leave you wondering how many other unknown chemicals could be found in the small stick of pleasure. Since e-cigarettes create a vapor rather than a smoke, they are universally accepted. Similar to the consumption of coffee, as caffeine is also known to be an addictive product, e-cigarettes offer different levels of nicotine solutions, giving the consumer the freedom and control over their consumption, much like deciding not to have that extra cup of coffee. So, shall we now refresh on why exactly the FDA would be against such a positive oral fixation product?
The FDA has mentioned some of their oppositions, such as e-cigarettes being offered in different flavors like chocolate and mint. They argue that this will appeal too much to the youth. To further analyze these concerns, one must wonder, other than their opposition to the cigarettes appealing to youth, what other concrete or factual opposition have they provided? Better yet, what kind of opposition have they provided that can compare to the safety risks that traditional cigarettes are burdened with? That’s not to say that traditional cigarettes should be banned, but they certainly should be banned BEFORE electronic cigarettes.
There have been no advertisements geared to the younger than 18 years old community, whereas there have been multitudes of advertisements of traditional cigarettes designed specifically to appeal to a younger age group. Creating different flavors to offer adults variety in a product cannot compare to the years of advertisements that have shown teenagers that traditional cigarettes can magically make you beautiful, popular, desired, and socially accepted. If e-cigarettes were to be banned for offering unique flavors, perhaps condoms, massage oils, and other intimacy related items should not be offered in different flavors or bright colors that can appeal to youth. Or how about banning chocolate wines? Scrutinizing a company on the basis of a product being available in different flavors is as ridiculous as tobacco companies trying to convince the public that the tar in their cigarettes is different from the tar that is heated onto our roads and roofs. Who are they trying to convince here?
It is fairly obvious, despite the FDA’s measures to convince the public otherwise, that a main reason this feud has begun is that e-cigarettes cannot be taxed. Traditional cigarettes are taxed very heavily, and with so many people switching from the taxed traditional cigarettes to the un-taxed e-cigarettes, the government is losing buckets of money. Put very simply, since e-cigarettes are not currently taxable the government cannot profit from them and therefore loses more money than they are willing to lose, even if this loss is at the gain of healthier consumers and happier lives of the governed.
Most recently, New York is one of the first states to try to ban e-cigarettes. According to a New York official, they accused the technologically advanced e-cigarette of supporting a nicotine addiction someplace where they can’t usually smoke, and this cannot be good for public health. If we are considering the health of the public, why haven’t cigarettes been banned? Simply because there are now certain designated areas that allow smokers to fill their lungs with inevitable cancer, does not mean that they are limiting the supporting of an addiction. Smokers will smoke, regardless of whether or not they are forced to go outside to do so. Rather than supporting a positive motive to help consumers control their vice and health at the same time, officials have seemingly decided that cigarette tax money is much more important than their lung cancer death rates. Of course this tax money is important, so why not tax nicotine products in general? The reason they’re able to tax traditional cigarettes so steeply is because users NEED them and will pay whatever they have to to get them. What the users NEED is the nicotine, and e-cigarettes have plenty of that, so users will still need to buy this product. I see a way to a healthier public with zero net change in tax revenue with this option.