It didn’t seem too long ago that the “Vaping Congressman” placed an e-cig bill before the American Government. It was submitted in April, but the process of legislation runs at a snails pace. For now though, is it possible to show a change in attitudes and beliefs towards the regulation of electronic cigarettes?
The answer may come from a quick scroll through a copy of Psychology Today, particularly from Dr Judith Wurtman, who asks : “Can E-Cigarettes reduce smoking among the mentally ill?”
In her article, Wurtman shows something quite unseen in media coverage in that she gets the naming clarity correct my stating :”As they walked past, I realised that they were smoking, or rather vaping, e-cigarettes.”
Its impossible to say this all came from The Hunter Bill, but great success does come from small wins here and there. It has been a pretty standard conception for both the British and American media to class smoking with vaping and vice-versa, but all of the legislation from the USA is set on the mistaken belief that e-cigs are some from if tobacco product. So for for an article published in a well known magazine to define the correct term of “Vaping” instead of “smoking” in the first paragraph? I would call that a result.
All in all, her saying this casts a positive image to the electronic alternative to tobacco-related diseases, even if it was a quick way to catch on to a trending product to fill her fad diet book. Although, as Eric Boehm states in his article, any hope for things looking up needs to be put on hold.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) specific regulation still has not been revoked. After the Hunter Bill’s tabling, many attempts to contact the FDA and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ask them to change there approach to E-cigs. To date there have still been no changes.
As Boehm indicates,having such solid rules doesn’t create an issue for old products. Things that have no room for development does not need a flexible plan to progress and boom. Or as Boehm says: “Because lawmakers didn’t understand that the future might bring new, better products, we’ll soon be stuck with only the old, dirty options.”
This isn’t a definite statement, nobody is saying current devices are dirty options but, by placing a massive financial barrier on new products entering the market,working towards making the products that are potentially as technologically advanced as possible has been all but ruled out.
Then there is places like Austin, Texas, where even vape store managers are siding with those who want to see vaping banned from public places. One Store manager, who wishes to remain anonymous states: “I agree with what they are doing. I agree with having respect for people’s ares and businesses, I know better than not to use my vaporiser just because of the amount of respect you have to give other people in a closed environment.”
But of course… it is all about the health of the public though, isn’t it??