In banning e-cigarette use in public, legislators have given into the demands of melodramatic scaremongers and ignored the mounting evidence showing that e-cigarettes are a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes.
In the shadow of last month’s budget battles, Democrat House Majority Leader Jeff McCabe slipped a bill through the Legislature that made the use of electronic cigarettes in public places illegal. The bill, LD 1108, was called An Act To Protect Children and the Public from Electronic Cigarette Vapor. Uninformed legislators’ first impression from the bill would be that e-cigarettes were dangerous and could harm innocent people.
That initial impression would have been reinforced by multiple headlines in leading publications, such as “ E-Cigarettes Not Safer Than Ordinary Cigarettes” or “ Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes.” A quick glance would lead many legislators to assume there was a consensus that e-cigarettes really were bad for people, and the government was obligated to protect people from their own choices.
Legislators often make decisions this way. With the vast topics covered by pending legislation, lawmakers are hard-pressed to find the time to research each and every issue that comes before them. Often, only the loudest and most alarmist voices can get their attention. E-cigarettes are a perfect example of this problem.
Gloom and doom headlines grab people’s attention far more easily than more reasonable ones that indicate all is well with the world. Legislators are drawn to the activist voices screaming about the alleged danger of vaping. What they don’t pay attention to is the vast amount of research that has emerged invalidating activist claims.
Case in point, when a study publicized in the New England Journal of Medicine analyzed the level of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes, anti-vaping activists were quick to claim e-cigarettes were more likely to cause cancer than traditional smoking. If formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing carcinogen, were present in higher levels in e-cigarettes than in ordinary cigarettes, it was obvious they should be treated the same.
The triumphant activists quickly were corrected by the study’s authors, who insisted the study didn’t say that at all.
“It is exceedingly frustrating to me that we are being associated with saying that e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes,” one of the authors said.
Cooler heads added context to the conversation. It turns out that users only inhaled dangerous levels of formaldehyde if they severely overheated the nicotine solution, a process that creates an acrid taste. Virtually no users heat their e-cigarettes at a rate high enough to cause ill effects.
Yet such myths continue to persist. The sensationalist headline claiming e-cigarettes caused cancer is repeated and widely cited — the author’s rebuke is barely noticed.
A document available on the state of Maine’s website is eager to warn readers that e-cigarettes contain “chemicals that are known to be harmful to humans.” The publication, of course, neglects to inform the reader what chemicals it refers to. Is it merely rehashing the debunked claims about formaldehyde? Or is it referring to cadmium, lead and nickel — three substances found within many e-cigarettes? If the latter, it is incredibly irresponsible of its authors to not mention that those substances are considered nontoxic at the levels found in e-cigarettes.
Research consistently has shown that, while not necessarily harm-free, e-cigarettes are far healthier than traditional cigarettes. A study published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology found that the levels of harmful chemicals inhaled through e-cigarettes was comparable to ambient air. Similarly, a study published in Addiction found that while e-cigarettes contained some chemicals found in traditional cigarettes, they were at significantly lower levels.
“In this case the risks are unlikely, some already proven not to exist, while the benefits are potentially enormous. It really could be a revolutionary intervention in public health if smokers switched from cigarettes to electronic cigarettes,” Peter Hajek, a professor of clinical psychology at Queen Mary University of London, said.
In Maine, the alarmists have won — at least for the moment. McCabe’s bill flew through both houses with overwhelming support from Maine lawmakers.
Traditional cigarette use is a serious problem affecting public health in our state, and it needs to be addressed in a responsible way. While complete cessation of smoking may be a noble goal, it has so far been an unachievable one for our society. In villainizing e-cigarettes, are activists making the perfect the enemy of the good? With an issue as important as smoking, lawmakers need to do their research and not base their votes on sensationalist headlines.
Nathan Strout is a development associate with The Maine Heritage Policy Center and a staff writer for The Maine Wire.