You have probably seen these devices being sold in the mall. You may have even seen them being used outside of a school or grocery store. Electronic cigarettes, called “e-cigs” for short, are making their way into our daily lives for better or for worse.

Tobacco products have a long and rich history in the United States. In fact, tobacco played an important economic role in the 17^th and 18^th century colonies. Although the substance was lauded as an invaluable cash crop, chewing tobacco or snuff was far lower on the popularity scale. However, a new form of tobacco took a hold of America in the late 1800s: cigarettes. The ease of production and ease of use enabled this rolled-up and compact tobacco package to reach an unequaled popularity in the United States.

Just as the need for easy use drove the transition from chewing tobacco to cigarettes, a need for a safer and more convenient alternative is also driving the latest shift from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. What exactly are these e-cigs? E-cigarettes contain a battery-powered heating coil that heats a liquid to produce an inhalable vapor (which is why the practice is often called “vaping”). Like cigarettes, these non-traditional versions contain nicotine. However, they do not contain as many of the harmful compounds found in their traditional counterparts and they do not involve any actual burning. The e-cig activates upon taking a drag and even comes with an LED light, in order to simulate the real smoking experience (Wagstaff).

The benefits that a large-scale shift to e-cigarettes could create are quite momentous. First are the environmental benefits. E-cigs don’t involve the burning of harmful chemicals that are then released into the atmosphere; they simply produce vapor, not smoke. Secondly are the public health benefits. Without smoke production, secondhand smoke is no longer an issue. Users no longer have to worry about their loved ones inhaling the toxic chemical residues from their cigarettes. Users also no longer have to consume nicotine at the expense of consuming other harmful compounds found in cigarettes. In addition, e-cigarettes are slightly more affordable than traditional cigarettes.

Physicians belonging to Britain’s Royal Academy, an organization that is a major proponent of the devices, argue that nicotine, while addictive, is not particularly harmful by itself. They maintain that e-cigs are a major step towards “harm reduction” and towards saving thousands of lives (Rodu). Top tobacco companies are taking a similar stance towards this new window of opportunity. Altria, the largest cigarette producer in the United States, has already begun selling a new line of e-cigs. Following in Altria’s footsteps is Lorillard (the third largest American cigarette producer). The company has already begun advocating the smoke-free e-cigs as part of a harm reduction campaign to improve our quality of life (Rodu). But can we trust these companies who have financially vested interests in the success of e-cigarettes?

Many governmental and medical organizations are currently saying no. The Food and Drug Administration in particular has declared that we simply do not yet know enough about the potential drawbacks of e-cigs. Stacey Anderson, an assistant professor who specializes in tobacco marketing at the University of California, argues: “To say that it’s [e-cigarette usage] less harmful is like saying it’s better to jump out of the 40^th floor than the 100^th floor of a building” (Beck). While she acknowledges that these devices certainly sound safer, she insists that e-cigarettes are simply cigarettes with a new name and a battery instead of a flame. Anderson also points out an unanticipated but negative consequence of e-cigs; their perceived safety may lead those who avoided traditional cigarettes to experiment with this new, seemingly safe device (Beck).

Recent statistics appear to confirm Anderson’s fear about e-cigarettes. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, among youths who had never smoked before, a threefold increase has been seen from 2011 to 2013. Many e-cigarette opponents suggest that an e-cigs act as a type of gateway to a lifelong smoking (of various drugs) habit. Another blow to e-cig innocence is the fact that as of now, there are no regulations or required postings of the chemicals used in e-cigarette liquid. In a Daily Beast article titled “E-Cigarettes: The Side Effects Nobody Talks About”, Dr. Norman Edelman explains that e-cigarettes contain suspected lung irritants: a danger especially for those who have asthma, allergies, and those who exercise regularly. These irritants are responsible for lung inflammation identical to that caused by regular smoking. Completely contrary to claims made by e-cig proponents, Edelman, a Long Island professor of preventative and internal medicine, insists that “Nicotine is a poison” (Woerner).

As the opposing sides demonstrate, the e-cigarette debate is a public controversy at its core. At stake are the lives of millions of Americans smokers and non-smokers alike. Recent research suggests that bystanders are exposed to some level of nicotine from the e-cigs (Woerner). On a larger scale, taxpayers may pay the price in the future if e-cigarette users have to rely on healthcare for lung cancer or disease treatment. However, the possibility of a better, smokeless alternative to traditional cigarettes remains. Is this possibility worth the risks?

This is an issue that American citizens will have to confront sometime in the near future. However, to make such an important decision, it is clear that more information from scientists and e-cig manufacturers is required. This lack of research has been a common theme amongst the protests of e-cig opponents. Very little is known about the short-term or long-term effects of usage. This ignorance faintly resembles that surrounding traditional cigarette usage; cigarettes were widely used and even believed to have dietary benefits until mid-twentieth century scientists correlated and established a causal relationship between cigarettes and cancer. Are we willing to face this risk in the future for the potential harm reduction in the present? As a nation, we must not take such a decision lightly. Both sides must be weighed, and weighed again as we come to terms with the new technology of e-cigarettes.

Works Cited & Links

Beck, Julie. “Schrödinger’s Cigarette: Is Electronic Safer?” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media

Company, 13 June 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/schrodingers-cigarette-is-

            electronic-safer/372671/>.

Rodu, Brad. “The Electronic Future of Cigarettes.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media

Company, 20 June 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/the-electronic-future-of-

            cigarettes/277057/>.

Wagstaff, Keith. “Vaping 101: How Do E-Cigarettes Work?” NBC News. NBC News, 24

Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2015. <http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/vaping-

            101-how-do-e-cigarettes-work-n88786>.

Woerner, Amanda. “E-Cigarettes: The Side Effects Nobody Talks About.” The Daily

            Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 25 Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.

<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/25/e-cigarettes-the-side-effects-

            nobody-talks-about.html>.