John Stossel: War on vaping has deadly consequences |
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: War on vaping has deadly consequences


E-cigarettes let people get a hit of nicotine without burning tobacco.

Avoiding burning tobacco is the single greatest preventative health measure human beings can take, given the diseases conventional cigarettes cause.

Unfortunately, our government and media now act as if vaping e-cigarettes is the health crisis.

“Your kids are not an experiment! Protect them from e-cigarettes,” warns former Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy in a CDC PSA.

My former employer, ABC News, which never finds a risk it doesn’t hype, has run more than a dozen scare stores on vaping. A “Nightline” reporter warned about kids “addicted to nicotine before they even graduate from middle school!”

Yet compared to regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes are “extraordinarily less harmful,” says Michelle Minton of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “We should really be encouraging people to use vaping.”

Calling vaping safer than smoking doesn’t mean the risks are zero. Vapor contains harmful chemicals, too. But scientists say it’s far less harmful than smoking. If smokers switched to e-cigarettes, that would save millions of lives.

Nicotine is what makes both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes addictive. But nicotine itself isn’t that bad. Like caffeine, it’s a stimulant.

“On the spectrum of drugs that you can become addicted to,” says Minton, “nicotine and caffeine are very similar.”

The big health risks come from the 7,000 other chemicals generated by burning tobacco leaves. By contrast, e-cigarette smoke is mostly just flavored vapor , which is less likely to harm anyone .

Full disclosure: Minton’s think tank received some money from companies that make e-cigarettes. Nevertheless, she’s right. Vaping is a much safer alternative.

“While there are a few lunatics who say e-cigarettes are more harmful — based on zero evidence — every legitimate scientist who’s investigated this issue has said, ‘We don’t know all the risks, but we can say they are less harmful than smoking.’”

Nonetheless, America’s health police have gone to war against vaping. Some cities want to ban vaping. The CDC funds ads that say, “Young people should never use these kinds of products!”

But kids will. Kids experiment with all sorts of things. Far better that they vape than smoke.

“The CDC telling children you shouldn’t do this is not necessarily going to make many of them say no. Maybe it makes it more attractive to them,” Minton says.

Minton acknowledges that it’s bad if kids become addicted to nicotine but says that’s a risk worth taking.

“Do we want children to become addicted to anything? No. But keeping a small percent of teenagers from trying e-cigarettes is not worth sacrificing adults whose lives could be saved.”

About half of teens who take up regular cigarettes will never quit. About a third of those users will die from smoking-related illneses. Smoking is America’s leading preventable cause of death.

So banning alternatives is not a wise move for public health. Minton points to the example of snus, a moist tobacco chew popular in Sweden. Snus is not completely harmless, so the rest of Europe banned it. But “Sweden currently has the lowest smoking and lung cancer rates of any EU country.”

Minton says that in “states that enacted (age restrictions) on e-cigarettes, teenage smoking rates go up because when teens who want to do something like smoking can’t get ahold of e-cigarettes, they just go to smoking.”

Thanks to government’s paranoid warnings and media hype, Americans who might make the rational choice to pick e-cigarettes over burning tobacco are now more likely to be killed by conventional cigarettes.

John Stossel is author of “No They
Can’t! Why Government Fails —
But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.