Friday, February 24, 2012

Utah Health Official Touts Benefit of Tobacco Cigarettes Over E-Cigarettes:


At Least You Know How Much Nicotine You're Getting?
By Dr. Michael Siegel
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com

According to an article in the Deseret News, a Utah health official has touted as a benefit of regular cigarettes the fact that at least consumers know how much nicotine they are getting, in contrast with electronic cigarettes which the official contends will lead to ex-smokers just vaping away because they don't know how much nicotine to take in. The remarks were apparently made in the context of supporting a proposed state law that would ban the use of electronic cigarettes in public places.

According to the article: "Last summer, the Utah Department of Health adopted a rule banning the use of hookah and e-cigarettes in public places but has not enforced the rule awaiting legislative action on the issue. Manufacturers of electronic cigarettes claim the battery-powered device is safer than cigarettes, which use tobacco. However, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, e-cigarettes contain harmful levels of nicotine, a substance the agency classifies as a stimulant drug. "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke," said David Neville, spokesman for the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program at the Utah Department of Health. With tobacco cigarettes a user generally knows how much nicotine is being consumed. "They know if they are a half-a-pack-a-day smoker. When it comes to an electronic cigarette, you just don't know. You just keep on smoking," Neville said. The measure, which passed on a 45-31 vote, now moves to the Senate."

The bill would add electronic cigarettes to the state's existing ban on smoking in public places.


The Rest of the Story
This story demonstrates how ridiculous the arguments of anti-smoking advocates have become in trying to attack electronic cigarettes. They are now actually defending the real ones in an effort to cast dispersions on the much safer electronic ones....
 [
Read More...]

1 comment:

Legal Junkie said...

I can't believe they're advocating a known carcinogen over something which hasn't provided conclusive proof to a single death. I mean, surely this verges on the irresponsible and reckless!