Stop Banning and Start Helping
By Alyson Valdez
Back in the 1950s cigarettes were the thing; it seems that history is repeating itself with a modified version of these nicotine providers: electronic cigarettes. With the increasing amount of e-cig users, teenagers are a prime target in this health crisis. As more and more people are negatively affected, the government is attempting to take action in ridding of these effects by banning flavored e-cigarettes.
In “Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More Harm Than Good,” The New York Times Editorial Board expresses their understanding of the ban, considering we have a miniscule amount of information over the risks/benefits of the products. However, they believe removing the cigarettes is not an effective solution for a few reasons. For example, this ban would force the estimated 11 million adults who currently use vaping products to switch to regular cigarettes, which are more dangerous than the e-cigs themselves, or to the black market for vaping products. Think about it, it doesn’t matter if something is illegal if someone wants it badly enough. With that being said, if there were an increase in black market use, the health crisis might just be amplified rather than saved, as black market products result in more lung-injury outbreaks. At least with these products being legal, they can be more safely regulated and sold - the black market is a dangerous place; furthermore, it seems a bit hypocritical to ban e-cigarettes when traditional cigarettes are said to be more harmful.
Further into the editorial, The New York Times Editorial Board provides a few solutions to this health crisis. For instance, smoking rates could be lowered by treating e-cigs like cigarettes and applying the same rules and laws to both (such as age restrictions, age verification for online purchases, etc). Additionally, if packaging and labeling of these products were more restricted, then they won’t appeal to the younger generations as much. For example, in Britain there are no colorful labels or child-friendly media campaigns. Another way to aid this health crisis is investment in public health; nicotine addiction risks should be well advertised to the public, and pinpointing the causes of these health outbreaks. Also, research should be another priority for an effective solution, as we simply don’t have much information at all.
It makes sense why the government is choosing the banning route to help fix our current nicotine crisis. However, I agree completely with the NYTE Board when they say that banning these products will create a bigger health crisis. Get with the program @ the United States - strengthen our public health system before running away from the country’s nicotine addiction!
Your editorial was very interesting and thought provoking (As I will admit, I am addicted to nicotine). I agree with your statement that the bigger issue in the field of government action in health is our public healthcare system. However, the positive outcomes of banning flavored vapes can't be discounted. Since the ban recently placed on flavored Juul Pods, I've had to either go without nicotine or buy the nasty tobacco flavor. This has made me progressively start to quit my Juuling, and I'm sure it's had a similar positive effect on many young nicotine addicted Juulers. I think that government action in this situation was necessary, however I do agree with you government does have bigger things to do such as building a better public health system.
ReplyDelete