Last October, a bill targeting vaping products was reintroduced in the Senate. The purpose was to increase the tax on e-cigarettes to be on par with the taxes implemented on combustible cigarettes, all for the safety of the youth.
The proposal was made by four Democratic members of Senate, namely Dick Durbin (D-IL) along with Democratic colleagues Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Minority Leader, together with his chief deputy Durbin has previously launched several attacks on such vapor products. The government figure went as far as reaching out to Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner, as he pushed for approval of FDA regulations that was previously put on hold.
There's definitely a reason why, for it was:
E-Cig or Tobacco Products Should be Taxed According to Relative Risks Schumer and Durbin claimed they only have their children in mind and are out to protect them, as they always do. Though meant to justify their motion, it seems the two aren't merely trying to use a crisis just to implement bans and new taxes. What's worse is that they're creating a crisis that simply does not exist. There is no youth e-cigarette crisis Public Health experts recognize that appropriate measures must be in place to prohibit access to children, but have never ceased to point out that regulations and product taxes should be relative to each its own risks. The proposal can potentially do more harm than good, both in health and society, young or old alike. In doing so, Schumer and Durbin both choose to ignore countless studies showing the safety of vaping products compared to traditional cigarettes.It's no surprise they referred to the shoddy report used ad nauseam by the government and mainstream press. In December 2016, recently-discredited former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy published that e-cigarette use is becoming major public concern among the American youth and young adults. Overlooking its flaws, the conclusion ratified lawmakers to formulate harsher regulations on vaping amongst American minors.
Re-Analysis of An Apparently Flawed Report A study was released by Public Health experts Dr. Christopher Russell, Dr. Riccardo Polosa, Dr. Konstantinos E. Farsalinos, and Dr. Joel Nitzkin re-analysing the data where Murthy's report founded its information. The 2017 critique cited a number of reasons why the Surgeon General’s conclusion was flawed. As published in the Harm Reduction Journal, the experts stated that the evidence presented in the discussion on nicotine harm were mostly unapplicable to vaping. The report almost exclusively relied on nicotine exposure linked to cigarette smoke, and not nicotine in aerosol emissions from an e-cigarette. Murthy, Schumer and Durbin, apparently fail to comprehend that there's no combustion and no smoke involved when vaping. Scientists and researchers have found decades ago that toxicants in tobacco smoke is what kills, and not nicotine. Further re-analysis revealed that the literature utilized in the Surgeon General's report only described effects in adults and animal models, and not on youth. It was irrelevant to e-cigarette use by youth in the real world. Moreover, the report exaggerates PG (propylene glycol) and VG (vegetable glycerin) toxicity in experimental laboratory conditions, which similarly didn't reflect real-life situations. Overall, the Surgeon General provided little discussion on how significant e-cigarettes can be in reducing harm to smokers who switch to vaping, despite emerging evidence to back it up. Basing upon the same data Murthy used, the Harm Reduction experts determined that e-cig use among youth in the US is either experimental or infrequent, and negligible for those who never smoked. Majority of the relatively small proportion of American youth who are regular e-cigarette users basically consume nicotine-free vapor products. Even more noteworthy is that the sharpest declines in smoking rates by the US youth occurred in line with the increasing availability of e-cigarettes.
There's definitely a reason why, for it was:
- A bill that would ban approximately 3 million e-cig products and shut down small businesses in the US by the thousands.
- A bill that would send the public a very wrong message- that e-cigarettes aren't any different from regular cigarettes and tobacco.
- A message that could make smokers think twice before switching to a better, safer, even healthier alternative. In short, the bill proposal was likely to lead vapers back to their old smoking habit, until they die in the end.
E-Cig or Tobacco Products Should be Taxed According to Relative Risks Schumer and Durbin claimed they only have their children in mind and are out to protect them, as they always do. Though meant to justify their motion, it seems the two aren't merely trying to use a crisis just to implement bans and new taxes. What's worse is that they're creating a crisis that simply does not exist. There is no youth e-cigarette crisis Public Health experts recognize that appropriate measures must be in place to prohibit access to children, but have never ceased to point out that regulations and product taxes should be relative to each its own risks. The proposal can potentially do more harm than good, both in health and society, young or old alike. In doing so, Schumer and Durbin both choose to ignore countless studies showing the safety of vaping products compared to traditional cigarettes.It's no surprise they referred to the shoddy report used ad nauseam by the government and mainstream press. In December 2016, recently-discredited former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy published that e-cigarette use is becoming major public concern among the American youth and young adults. Overlooking its flaws, the conclusion ratified lawmakers to formulate harsher regulations on vaping amongst American minors.
Re-Analysis of An Apparently Flawed Report A study was released by Public Health experts Dr. Christopher Russell, Dr. Riccardo Polosa, Dr. Konstantinos E. Farsalinos, and Dr. Joel Nitzkin re-analysing the data where Murthy's report founded its information. The 2017 critique cited a number of reasons why the Surgeon General’s conclusion was flawed. As published in the Harm Reduction Journal, the experts stated that the evidence presented in the discussion on nicotine harm were mostly unapplicable to vaping. The report almost exclusively relied on nicotine exposure linked to cigarette smoke, and not nicotine in aerosol emissions from an e-cigarette. Murthy, Schumer and Durbin, apparently fail to comprehend that there's no combustion and no smoke involved when vaping. Scientists and researchers have found decades ago that toxicants in tobacco smoke is what kills, and not nicotine. Further re-analysis revealed that the literature utilized in the Surgeon General's report only described effects in adults and animal models, and not on youth. It was irrelevant to e-cigarette use by youth in the real world. Moreover, the report exaggerates PG (propylene glycol) and VG (vegetable glycerin) toxicity in experimental laboratory conditions, which similarly didn't reflect real-life situations. Overall, the Surgeon General provided little discussion on how significant e-cigarettes can be in reducing harm to smokers who switch to vaping, despite emerging evidence to back it up. Basing upon the same data Murthy used, the Harm Reduction experts determined that e-cig use among youth in the US is either experimental or infrequent, and negligible for those who never smoked. Majority of the relatively small proportion of American youth who are regular e-cigarette users basically consume nicotine-free vapor products. Even more noteworthy is that the sharpest declines in smoking rates by the US youth occurred in line with the increasing availability of e-cigarettes.
