Evidence supports e-cigarettes as a harm-reduction tool
Bans and other policies restricting e-cigarette sales could do more public harm than good, according to a group of public-health, tobacco-policy and ethics experts.
In a piece published online today (Dec. 12, 2019) in the journal Science, the authors, including three public health deans, caution that blanket policies developed in a rush to address two different concerns come with dangerous downsides – most notably the risk of taking away a powerful tool to help smokers quit.
“Illnesses and deaths, which appear to be related to vaping illicit THC oils, have caused justifiable alarm as has the rise of young people who are vaping nicotine. But in our response we must not lump together these troubling developments and fail to consider the powerful evidence supporting the availability of legal nicotine products,” said lead author Amy Fairchild, dean of The Ohio State University College of Public Health.
In Science, she and her co-authors write that “Restricting access and appeal among less harmful vaping products out of an abundance of caution while leaving deadly combustible products on the market does not protect public health. It threatens to derail a trend that could hasten the demise of cigarettes, poised to take a billion lives this century.”
The paper comes after the emergence this year of vaping-related lung injuries and deaths throughout the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported 2,291 cases of serious lung injury and 48 deaths as of last week. Authorities have identified vitamin E acetate, a THC-product additive, as a “chemical of concern” and said that many of the products appear to have been acquired through informal sources – not from retail establishments selling products directly from known manufacturers. THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol, is the primary psychoactive component of marijuana.
Many policymakers and organizations including the American Medical Association have called for an across-the-board ban on vaping, and some municipalities and states have moved to ban either all vaping products or those with flavors other than tobacco flavoring, including menthol.
Fairchild said that vaping policy discussions and debates should include an examination of the immediate crisis in the context of all of the scientific evidence regarding the risks and benefits.
“There are important distinctions to be made between nicotine and THC products, between products manufactured by reputable companies and those sold on the black market, and between the potential risks and benefits to adolescents and to adults,” she said.
Drawing comparisons to initial reluctance to offer needle exchange programs that promote safety by preventing life-threatening infections for people who aren’t ready to quit heroin, the authors write that evidence about harm reduction should outweigh emotional responses.
“We should be careful to remain aware of the unintended consequences of extreme measures and the important lessons that harm reduction has provided us in areas such a heroin use, HIV prevention and alcohol control,” said co-author Cheryl G. Healton, dean of New York University’s College of Global Public Health.
The authors point to research showing that not only vaping – but flavored products, in particular – can help adult smokers quit and provide a more effective and appealing option than nicotine replacement therapy.
(This piece, written by Misti Crane, originally appeared on the Ohio State News website.)
The post Knee-jerk vaping bans will fail public health, experts argue appeared first on American Vaping Association.