ABC: Science and the law hazy on e-cigarettes
Let's discuss both sides of this argument starting with Michael Daubes opinion. Daubes states “there is very little information about the short- or long-term harms of e-cigarettes. He maintains the evidence around the efficacy of e-cigarettes, as a cessation aid is conflicting. He also has major concerns that the way e-cigarettes are promoted in countries like the USA and UK encourages children to take up e-Cigarettes.
Mr Daubes statement about the conflicting efficacy on e-cigarettes is something we have touched on in recent blog posts. There is now overwhelming support from leading professionals in the field that show how e-cigarettes are helping people to “quit” traditional cigarettes with the aid of e-cigarettes (see the blog article “e-cigarettes can help smokers to quit-new research published in the journal of addiction).
Mrs Gartner delves into how expensive and time consuming the process is to get products through medical regulations. Further how many companies who produce e-cigarettes do not have the fund or the resources to participate in such research. She later states “regulations favour tobacco companies who are buying up the e-cigarettes companies, as they have the resources to do this. So it may be a way for them to corner the market”.
Gartner suggests a way forward is to allow for users to obtain a license to use e-Cigarettes. This would mean adults apply for the license as a nicotine use. This approach would “be a quite cautious approach because it would still very strictly control things like how it was marketed, who it was sold to, monitor who was buying the nicotine and even put restrictions on how much they could purchase. We could also monitor what effect it had on smoking prevalence and so on”.
As Australia debates regulations on other countries such as the USA and UK there are virtually no regulations at present. However, in the UK there is an ongoing debate about e-cigarette legislation.
These ongoing debates can cause misinformation in the wider community and our stance is to keep the public informed about every aspect of the debate as best we can.