Why e-Cigarettes must be made Legal

Some of the reasons cited for banning the use of e-cigarettes include,

That it does not wean a person off nicotine but maintains the addiction.

That it is not a legitimate smoking-cessation device.

That it can serve as an introduction to smoking cigarettes.

That it is not as healthy as claimed by its manufacturers.

Well, i have to agree with all of the above reasons.

How do you wean a person of nicotine by exposing the person to it? It is possible only if a person progresses to taking lower and lower levels of nicotine.

The same logic would apply when it comes to claims that it helps one to stop smoking.

Yes. It can serve as an introduction to smoking cigarettes if you consider the possibility that people tend to move on to that which might give a greater ‘kick’.

And yes. It is certainly not ‘healthy’ if it contains nicotine.


All of that said, now let’s look at the issue a bit further than it takes to maintain healthy profitable levels of traditional-cigarette sales and taxation, related fines, medical costs, insurance, et cetera.

Now, with regards e-cigs maintaining nicotine addiction, that is true. ONLY if it contains nicotine. If people move on from t-cigs to e-cigs that do NOT contain nicotine, than it certainly is an effective nicotine-replacement AND smoking-cessation device. One has to keep in mind that quitting smoking by reducing the experience would be more effective than quitting it altogether as one gives up too many aspects of an experience at one go. For instance, the experience of holding the cigarette, chewing on sucking on it, the feeling of the smoke ‘going down’ through inhalation, exhalation, seeing the wafts of smoke meandering skyward, and so on. These come together to promote an addiction that, i dare say, could be far greater than that supplied by nicotine. In fact, these sensations themselves can be a nicotine-replacement therapy as it can serve as a compensation for not receiving the chemically-induced ‘kick’ of nicotine.

(in this case, the Australian and New Zealand government is sensible in banning the sale of e-cigs that CONTAIN nicotine. That enables the e-cig to truly be a safe alternative to smoking t-cigs.)

If one chooses the option of smoking nicotine-free e-cigs, then it could very well be a healthy alternative to smoking t-cigs that renders ‘smoking’ as nothing other than a pastime that enables on to experience a more pronounced act of breathing.
So, when one moves on to e-cigs, one is able to get all these experiences without the tobacco, tar, and host of other hazardous chemicals put into t-cigs by manufacturers. One is able to, say, smoke without smoking. It is the difference between the content of both cigs that serves to add a dual meaning to the term 'smoking'. And if one chooses the option of smoking nicotine-free e-cigs, then it could very well be a healthy alternative to smoking t-cigs that renders ‘smoking’ as nothing other than a pastime that enables on to experience a more pronounced act of breathing. In fact, it would be more accurate to call 'smoking' e-cigs 'vapouring' as one is basically inhaling water vapours as opposed to smoke produced from the burning of tobacco.

As for justifying the inclusion of nicotine in e-cigs, this is argued for by the existence and officially approved sale of nicotine patches and inhalators. They are distinguishable from e-cigs ONLY in terms of the way it is delivered. Nicotine levels for e-cigs could be kept at the same levels as nicotine patches and inhalators.

As for the claim that it can serve as an introduction to smoking, so do low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes. The same age-restrictions that apply in the purchase of t-cigs can apply to e-cigs as well. And as ‘smoking’ nicotine-free e-cigs is a safe alternative to t-cigs, it shouldn’t matter if it promotes it or not. The promotion of smoking is a bad thing only if it comes with health hazards. Not if it doesn’t. One could say that a can of Coca Cola a day, or a MSG-laden dish is far more harmful to a teen than a nicotine-free e-cig a day. Besides, even though people might move on from e-cigs to t-cigs, the same reason why people might move from t-cigs to e-cigs would apply in their case as well. And if governments do not want to encourage smoking, and hence make the ‘introductory’ e-cig illegal, than why do they continue to make t-cigs available? The freedom of choice? So people have the right to either choose not to smoke or to smoke dangerously, but not to smoke safely or relatively safely? I’d rather the tax accrued from t-cig smokers be used to fund further research and improvement of the e-cig as a prelude to banning the sale of t-cigs altogether.

If governments ban the sale of e-cigs, whilst having no problem allowing the sale of high-tar and high-nicotine cigarettes, nicotine patches and inhalators, than it would be plausible to surmise that they appreciate e-cigs as being too viable a form of t-cig smoking-cessation devices.
If governments ban the sale of e-cigs, whilst having no problem allowing the sale of high-tar and high-nicotine cigarettes, nicotine patches and inhalators, than it would be plausible to surmise that they appreciate e-cigs as being too viable a form of t-cig smoking-cessation devices. One can certainly expect a huge drop in the amount derived from taxing t-cig smokers; a huge drop in the profits accrued from treating t-cig related ailments; insurance premiums; fines; et cetera. When governments make efforts to imprint warning labels and images on t-cig packs, whilst banning safer or safe alternatives because it ‘resembles too much a t-cig’, than we can surmise that to such governments, profits as opposed the interests of the people, is paramount.

To tax e-cigs as one would tax t-cigs is tantamount to taxing one for breathing as the former is vapour-based as opposed to smoke-based. As taxes are increasingly levied on the basis of the weight of tobacco and not on the amount of smoke it expels, or the nicotine it contains, how are e-cigs going to be taxed and ensure that they deliver the same amount of tax given that they closely resemble t-cigs. Is it that governments, rather than lose the tax applicable to t-cigs and be forced to apply the same tax on e-cigs as they would apply to a sliced bread or tea-bag, choose to ban it altogether and maintain tax-levels that comes with t-cig addiction?

What ought to be made illegal is any government’s right to implement irrational laws unless it can be justified to the furthermost reaches of reason. When a government is allowed to implement irrational laws, it becomes nothing but an effort to circumscribe the furthermost reaches of reason within its definitional auspices. This will, with the passage of time, train the people to identify as reasonable that which is accompanied with the coercive force to back it up as opposed to the force of reason. One can be sure that all or most other laws will be product of profits and self-interest being paramount over all things, including the interests of the people.

My main concern now, is, how many more people are going to be dying of cancer and being burdened with related medical costs because of governments who ban the sale of e-cigs. Such governments are guilty of nothing short of murder for the sake of profit. If e-cigs ought to be made legal, in the least, it should be to enable governments to remain blameless in the death of another brought about by their consumption of t-cigs.





['legalise it' logo design by a2ed]

ed