Another Article on Booming Electronic Cigarettes, and yet…

An article in iOLscitech focuses on the booming electronic cigarette market and it’s possible health effects.  Now, it doesn’t really give any “booming” sales figures, or even a percentage of growth.  It’s more focused on the “But…”

So the article begins by normal means, what are electronic cigarettes and such.  And then:

“Consumers should be able to rely on a product that is safe from a health viewpoint and that is by no means certain in the case of the e-cigarette,” Martina Poetschke-Langer of the DKFZ German cancer research centre says. She cautions that lessons should be drawn from the mistakes of the past when promoting a new product.

“The standard cigarette caused millions of deaths over the course of the last century and would never have been allowed if we had known a hundred years ago what we know now,” she says.

Very good point.  We didn’t know how dangerous regular cigarettes were, but now we have more knowledge on chemical composition and what “tar” does to the body.

And then it mentions how they are banned in certain countries:

The product is banned in Norway, Turkey, Switzerland and even in China, where it was invented some 10 years ago. There are strict controls in Denmark, Canada and Austria, and the European Commission is probing the health effects.

Also good points.  But, here is my question:  Let’s say the anti-electronic cigarette movement works.  Then what?

They must know regular cigarettes are not banned and don’t seemed to be in the process of being banned any time soon.  And the only option people who don’t “Grow a pair”, as one person commented, and quit… everyone is OK with electronic cigarette users going right back to regular cigarettes and facing the high KNOWN death rate associated with them?  We are going to ban a product with “possible” health issues and not ban the product with “known, high death rate” health issues?  Hmm… Smoke cessation products, and for those that they have used them and they have worked for them I’m very glad for you and please I’m not belittling your success, for the majority do not work for the average smoker just based on facts.

What is the statement that isn’t being mentioned?  What is the implied message?  “No, this product may, possibly, in the far future, kind of, be a health issue, even though no scientist or doctor can find one at the moment but even if it is, it’s a lot smaller than what regular cigarettes do now, so if you can’t ‘Man up’ and ‘Grow a pair’ and quit, then we are OK, legally, with you going back to smoke death sticks, I mean regular cigarettes, that our scientist and doctors have PROVEN to cause death year after year not just to the smoker but possibly to everyone around them.”  Or am I just missing something?

Then why are they really being banned?  The equation just doesn’t make since.  I just want to know where the real concern is.

Forgive my cynicism, it’s early and I need my cup of coffee.