Mark
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 13,961
Dick Puddlecote posted this on FB. I asked him if he minded if I posted it on here. 'Please do' was the response though its not 'his' so to speak. Like he told me, this should be shared as widely as possible.
Letter to The Times on Friday:
Sir, Hugo Rifkind (Jan 21) feels ambivalent about using electronic cigarettes and
believes that there is no information available on whether they damage health.
Several studies have analysed e-cigarettes. The most dangerous toxins present in
conventional cigarettes are absent altogether, and the levels of suspect chemicals e
-cigarettes do contain are an order of magnitude lower. Nicotine itself is probably
safer than caffeine (smokers are killed by other chemicals they inhale with the
smoke).
E-cigarettes are not a very good competitor to the conventional cigarettes yet, but
if left to develop, they are likely to replace them within a few years and end the
tobacco epidemic. Alarmingly, there is an effort under way to stop it. The UK
wants to regulate e-cigarettes as a medicinal device. Medicinal licensing is an
expensive process likely to be accessible only to big tobacco and pharmaceutical
companies, and it is likely to fossilise e-cigarettes in their current “not-yet-verygood”
state for two reasons: any changes to the product would trigger expensive
licensing renewals, and neither the tobacco nor pharmaceutical industry will have
much interest in allowing e-cigarettes to push conventional cigarettes and stopsmoking
medications off the market. The case for regulating e-cigarettes as a
pharmaceutical product is on a par with regulating coffee. It is even more absurd
given that conventional cigarettes face no such hurdle. Legislation which cripples e
-cigarettes will protect the market monopoly of the deadly conventional cigarettes
and represent a serious disservice to public health.
Professor Peter Hajek
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of
Medicine and Dentistry
Letter to The Times on Friday:
Sir, Hugo Rifkind (Jan 21) feels ambivalent about using electronic cigarettes and
believes that there is no information available on whether they damage health.
Several studies have analysed e-cigarettes. The most dangerous toxins present in
conventional cigarettes are absent altogether, and the levels of suspect chemicals e
-cigarettes do contain are an order of magnitude lower. Nicotine itself is probably
safer than caffeine (smokers are killed by other chemicals they inhale with the
smoke).
E-cigarettes are not a very good competitor to the conventional cigarettes yet, but
if left to develop, they are likely to replace them within a few years and end the
tobacco epidemic. Alarmingly, there is an effort under way to stop it. The UK
wants to regulate e-cigarettes as a medicinal device. Medicinal licensing is an
expensive process likely to be accessible only to big tobacco and pharmaceutical
companies, and it is likely to fossilise e-cigarettes in their current “not-yet-verygood”
state for two reasons: any changes to the product would trigger expensive
licensing renewals, and neither the tobacco nor pharmaceutical industry will have
much interest in allowing e-cigarettes to push conventional cigarettes and stopsmoking
medications off the market. The case for regulating e-cigarettes as a
pharmaceutical product is on a par with regulating coffee. It is even more absurd
given that conventional cigarettes face no such hurdle. Legislation which cripples e
-cigarettes will protect the market monopoly of the deadly conventional cigarettes
and represent a serious disservice to public health.
Professor Peter Hajek
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of
Medicine and Dentistry
