Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

It’s quite possible that the only people out there fighting legislation against electronic cigarettes are those few individuals with both the political stamina for advocacy and a personal interest in the products as users. But the defense of electronic cigarettes against unreasonable legislation and regulation should matter to more than just the niche group of vapers out there with the time and patience to advocate for the cause.

First, anyone that has benefited from electronic cigarettes has something to lose if city, state, and national level politicians who don’t know the facts are deciding on the policies that will potentially strangle or destroy the market. But this goes further than that. Non-smoking Americans should be worried about what’s happening politically with electronic cigarettes too.

Non-smokers may find it very easy to hate e-cigs because they look and act like conventional cigarettes. We’ve been conditioned to hate smoking for decades now. But e-cigs aren’t the same. For one, they’re far less harmful to both users and bystanders. If you need some convincing, here’s two items you should check out: some simple facts about e-cigs and e-cigs don’t cause secondhand vaping.

But why should electronic cigarette legislation matter to individuals that don’t smoke and probably won’t use electronic cigarettes in their lifetime?

First, most of us knows somebody that does smoke. Electronic cigarettes are shaping up to be the most successful cessation method on the market, assisting 25% of smokers with quitting completely within 6 months of use (other method are far more expensive and only boast 9-12% success rates). Another 50% of users cut their smoking down by at least half in the same time. Research suggests that as technology advances and people become more adept at using e-cigs, these percentages will go up. For individuals that don’t want to watch their smoking family and friends lose out on a promising alternative, the political goings on should matter.

People that want to stop smoking in all its forms should have a very real problem with what’s happening. Those that hate the idea of being exposed or their kids being exposed to secondhand smoke should want as many people (who wouldn’t or couldn’t quit otherwise) as possible to start using electronic cigarettes. The vapor from e-cigs evaporates in about 11 seconds. Conventional cigarette smoke takes about 20 to 30 minutes. By needlessly restricting, taxing, or banning electronic cigarettes, government groups don’t do anything to combat smoking. Instead, they only prevent more members of the smoking population from quitting.

People that hope to fight Big Tobacco are misplacing their efforts when they fight the electronic cigarette industry. Yes, the big three (Philip Morris, Reynolds, and Lorillard) have all stepped into the electronic cigarette ring in the last year and a half. However, aggressive regulation and bans will only do one of two things to the industry. The worst outcome is that they will make electronic cigarettes so prohibitively expensive or difficult to obtain most smokers will just still with smoking the conventional thing. Less bad, but essential against the anti-Big Tobacco efforts of individuals is that heavy restrictions will adversely affect smaller e-cig companies and hand the entire industry to Big Tobacco. With no serious competitors, the big three will be free to produce mediocre quality e-cigs for high prices or simply decided to let the industry die with no support.

Even individuals that have no strong feelings on smoking (a to each his own attitude), the movements of government organizations to control what should otherwise be an adult decision for an individual is worrisome. Without any evidence, the FDA attempted to ban e-cigs entirely in 2009. Even a preliminary investigation could have been knocked out in a matter of days. Even now, politicians seem content to use hazy math and a lack of information to support their efforts to tax and control the industry. The biggest argument is that e-cigs will provide a gateway to smoking for teens (even though thus far that’s proven totally wrong).

One tends to avoid tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Skepticism is at a relative high these days. But it doesn’t seem too far fetched that massive pharmaceutical or tobacco companies might be swaying the tides in their favor when looking at an industry that could be breaking well over $50 billion a year in revenue come 2020. This isn’t to suggest that smaller companies should be absent all controls or that large companies should be punished for the fact that they are large. It only means that an even playing field should be established that doesn’t immediately choke would be competitors just because the larger companies can establish a landscape that only they can survive in.

In short, the electronic cigarette debate is one that should matter to more than just e-cig users and e-cig sellers. It is a debate indicative of the political landscape for public health and evidence-based science. Electronic cigarettes got into the market practically by accident. They’ve turned out to be a very promising opportunity for smokers even if the FDA doesn’t allow companies to say as much. What other great opportunities are missed because we let only those in the closest proximity to the debate have a hand in it.

It’s important we take at least some role in the development of the laws and regulations that affect us. This is why organizations like CASAA and SFATA are so important. Even the simple act of letting your story be heard can be a powerful tool. One hopes that other organizations like the American Lung Association, the FDA, and so on might soon find reason to support electronic cigarettes not as a product in and of themselves, but as an acceptable alternative to smoking. That only happens with advocacy.