CA officials move to vaporize e-cigs

by James Poulos | March 25, 2015 12:07 pm

big tobaccoWith public opinion in flux and anti-tobacco activists on edge, the California Department of Public Health has rolled out[1] “Wake Up,” a slick new ad campaign[2] to discourage the use of e-cigarettes, or “vapes.” Recently, CDPH pronounced e-cigs a threat to public health.

In a statement explaining the campaign, CDPH described[3] two new TV ads emphasizing “the e-cigarette industry’s use of candy flavored ‘e-juice'” and “exposing the fact that big tobacco companies are in the e-cigarette business.”

The move bolstered momentum for broad crackdowns on vapes, which have been targeted by policymakers and activists who see them as just as bad as tobacco cigarettes — if not worse.

Playing politics

Political considerations have played into CDPH’s adverse judgment against vapes. New data recently showed that, last year, the use of e-cigs outpaced the use of tobacco cigarettes among teenagers and young adults.

Defenders of the freedom to vape argued this is good news. Vaping companies have claimed e-cigs help smokers abandon far more dangerous tobacco products, especially those, like traditional cigarettes, that emit high numbers of carcinogens.

But for prohibitionists, e-cigs presented a special hazard because of their accessibility and appeal to children. As the Los Angeles Daily News detailed[4], those drawbacks appeared to be the product of unregulated marketing, a more pleasurable use experience and apparent carelessness among adult consumers with children:

“Most startling to health officials was the spike in calls to California Poison Control centers related to exposures to accidental e-cigarette poisonings, including drinking the liquid inside. There were seven calls in 2012 to poison control. In 2014, those calls jumped to 243. More than 60 percent of all those e-cigarette related calls involved children 5 years and under.”

As NBC News reported[5], “bottles and cartridges that contain the liquid for e-cigs have been known to leak and tend not to be equipped with child-resistant caps, creating a potential source of poisoning through ingestion or just through skin contact.”

Although legislation and regulation could be tailored narrowly to focus on the threat of poisoning, public health officials issued a broad warning that comports with the prevailing view among prohibitionists.

Dr. Ron Chapman, State Health Officer and director of the California Department of Public Health, said[6] that “many people do not know that they pose many of the same health risks as traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products.” In January, he called[7] for a “bold public education campaign” to roll back e-cig gains in market share. Anti-smoking advocates working in the policy arena have been all but unanimous in treating e-cigs like an integral part of the same problem as tobacco products.

Safety over freedom

Despite the unfolding research concerning the differences between e-cig effects and those of tobacco cigarettes, prohibitionists in the political arena have used heightened rhetoric of their own to advance vape bans.

Earlier this year, state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, underscored how far many officials have been willing to go in departing from the scientific record. In January, he introduced[8] Senate Bill 140[9], a bill that would ban e-cigs at hospitals, restaurants, schools and workplaces.

“No tobacco product should be exempt from California’s smoke-free laws simply because it’s sold in a modern or trendy disguise,” he warned. Yet, as Reason’s Jacob Sullum observed[10], e-cigs neither emit smoke nor burn tobacco. Instead, they heat a device which allows the user to exhale a vapor.

SB140 will go into committee hearings this spring, behind a full-steam-ahead approach to cracking down on vapes. As CalWatchdog.com reported[11] previously, the so-called “precautionary principle” — better safe than sorry — has inspired a spate of municipal regulations that treat e-cigs the same way as tobacco cigarettes, despite widespread ignorance and uncertainty as to how the products differ.

Endnotes:
  1. rolled out: http://time.com/3754051/california-e-cigarette-ads/
  2. ad campaign: http://stillblowingsmoke.org/
  3. described: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR15-024.aspx
  4. detailed: http://www.dailynews.com/health/20150128/why-california-declared-vaping-e-cigarettes-a-public-health-threat
  5. reported: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/e-cig-stigma-california-declares-vaping-public-health-risk-n295766
  6. said: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/e-cig-stigma-california-declares-vaping-public-health-risk-n295766
  7. called: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article8496602.html
  8. introduced: http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/2015-01-26-new-leno-bill-protects-public-against-exposure-e-cigarettes
  9. Senate Bill 140: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_140_bill_20150126_introduced.html
  10. observed: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/27/claiming-e-cigarettes-are-deadly-califor
  11. reported: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/31/new-fears-push-more-california-e-cig-bans/

Source URL: https://calwatchdog.com/2015/03/25/ca-officials-move-to-vaporize-e-cigs/