by Carl V Phillips
This analysis, of this blog post, might seem a little more brutal than usual. That is because the author, Cheryl Healton (the former head of the leading anti-tobacco organization, American Legacy Foundation — a fact that is omitted in the introduction of her in the blog in question — and now head of the public health program at NYC), knows the truth. This is not a case of someone who is too innumerate to not know she is lying, or a useful idiot that is being used by the anti-tobacco extremists. Healton is one of the puppet masters who manipulates her useful idiots (like New York Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal), which she is doing in this post. Notice in particular the many times that she lies by using literally true but highly misleading statements, the mark of someone who knows she is lying but wants to be able to pretend otherwise.
The post appears in the blog of the “NYC Coalition for a Smoke-Free City”, an obviously misnamed group since they are campaigning not against smoke, but against e-cigarette use. The thesis is that NYC should go ahead with its proposal to prohibit e-cigarette use anywhere that smoking is prohibited. It is remarkable how close Healton comes to lying in every single sentence. The first few about the fact that NYC is about to act on this are true, but most everything that follows is a lie:
Who is the e-cigarette industry? Increasingly the e-cigarette industry is owned by the tobacco industry, an industry that would not be permitted to exist were it invented tomorrow because it would violate the consumer protection laws of all states and virtually every country in the world.
As I have pointed out, this “would not be allowed to exist” claim is at best pure speculation, and probably wrong. But apart from that, it refers to a product (cigarettes), not an industry. If the industry came into being right now selling low-risk products like smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, and NRT (all of which are sold by “the tobacco industry”), it would be allowed to exist. But, of course, this soup of words is not meant to analyze the actual claim, but to lie about e-cigarettes, suggesting they are some industry plot. In case the innuendo is lost on the reader, she goes on to lie,
For this reason, a healthy degree of skepticism about the industry’s ultimate goal in buying up e-cigarette manufacturers and creating more “efficient” e-cigarettes should prevail as policy makers establish regulations governing them. It is quite possible that the net effect of e-cigarettes will be to induce greater youth initiation of smoking and reduce the adult cessation rate, but the jury is still out.
I cannot imagine that Healton is stupid enough to actually believe that. It is impossible to come up with a story to explain why the existence of e-cigarettes (let alone the acquisition of a few companies that she led into that with) could cause smoking at all, let alone to cause a net increase in smoking initiation. E-cigarettes, like any popular low-risk alternative, will replace smoking initiation, not cause it.
Both youth and adult smoking rates are at their lowest levels in decades, so much is a stake for the health of the public.
Setting aside the fact that the “so” is a non sequitur, is what she is saying is that having almost 20% of the population smoking is such a success that harm reduction should be avoided? It appears so.
There is also much at stake for the tobacco industry as it seeks to apply its considerable marketing acumen and seemingly endless resources to maximize profit by increasing the number who start smoking by enticing youth worldwide to smoke and by trying to retain current smokers.
Complaining about “endless resources” is pretty funny coming from someone who is at the apex of the billions-per-year tobacco control industry. But the real question is what this passage has to do with e-cigarettes at all, let alone restricting where you can use them. It is typical tobacco control misdirection: “Cigarette manufacturers profit from more people smoking and remaining smokers, and therefore we should restrict where people can use e-cigarettes.” Huh??!
Who might be hurt by e-cigarettes? The tobacco products the industry has historically manufactured and promoted as “reduced harm” are not benign products created to meet the broad range of consumer preferences in the United States, rather they are deadly products that when used as directed kill over 400,000 Americans each year and are predicted by the World Health Organization to kill a billion people worldwide this century, 10 fold more than they killed in the 20th century. To put the scope of the current tobacco-related epidemic in perspective, in a few years, global lung cancer deaths will surpass AIDS deaths as the steady march of tobacco industry marketing continues to engulf the world’s poorest nations.
Again, huh??! Does anyone see any connection between that question and what follows? (Yes, I realize that the reader might now be questioning my assertion that Healton is too smart to not know she is lying.) Her allusion to historical products is the usual tobacco control canard about the introduction of “light” cigarettes four decades ago, products where there was no evidence to suggest they would be lower risk. And yet they were actively endorsed by the public health community, not just the manufacturers.
However, a mistake by everyone a couple of generations ago about what might be lower risk tells us nothing about the present world of products that are known to be lower risk. It is an utterly absurd and blatant lie to suggest otherwise.
None of what she says in this paragraph is true about the actual reduced harm products that have been introduced by the tobacco industry and by others. Smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other low-risk products do not cause the harms she is citing; cigarettes do. (Well, cigarettes cause and will cause a lot of harm, though not as much as she claims. But that is another story). She seems to be trying to invoke the conjunction lie, that cigarettes plus low-risk alternatives do that much harm (which implies the harm is shared, even though it is basically all caused by cigarettes), but she screws up doing even that. She actually is claiming that the low-risk products alone cause all the harm from smoking.
Nicotine addiction is in and of itself a gateway to tobacco product use because once addicted many will broaden the products they use and included among these will be the most dangerous products like cigars, cigarettes and hookah.
It is true that people who like to use one tobacco/nicotine product often try other products. But what she is trying to imply (carefully avoiding actually saying it) is that using e-cigarettes will cause people who would not have otherwise smoked to do so. There is no reason to believe this would be the case, and certainly no evidence of it occurring.
And it is worth pausing to remember that the title of this post says that NYC should include e-cigarettes in its smoking place restrictions. I have skipped a few sentences but have not left out anything that addresses that. There has been nothing yet. Even if the previous quote were not a lie, it would still only be an argument against letting kids use e-cigarettes, not about forbidding adults from using them at their desks or in bars.
Most tobacco-related deaths are the culmination of substantial suffering and societal cost from heart disease, emphysema or various cancers and are the direct result of nicotine addiction. Moreover, nicotine addiction is considered by many scientists as the most intractable of all addictions as measured by the percent of ever users who become addicted and the percent who remain addicted until death. Half of lifelong smokers lose their lives to tobacco addiction and among these people nearly half die before retirement age.
A pretty good argument in favor of encouraging e-cigarette use. The bit about “most intractable” is nonsense, of course. The reason users have more incentive to quit, say, meth than to quit smoking is the high level of short-term damage it is doing them. And the “half” is a made-up number that is higher than what the evidence suggests. Most important is that claims about the “addictiveness” of smoking tells us little about e-cigarettes, given the evidence that e-cigarettes are much easier to quit.
And, once again, this has nothing to do with whether there should be a place ban on e-cigarettes.
E-cigarettes are a complex product and their availability and the regulatory framework for governing them may have different implications and considerations for youth non-smokers compared to adult smokers. E-cigarette policy could produce sharply differing results by population sub-group. Data demonstrate that a significant swath of adolescents already are using e-cigarettes. Time will soon tell whether e-cigarettes function as one more point of entry to cigarette, cigar and hookah consumption among those using e-cigarettes initially. One thing is clear however, since cessation efforts have thus far not worked with teens, e-cigarettes will likely not do anything good for kids and may well entice many to start smoking in view of the broad array of sweet, candy flavors and slick e-cigarette marketing already blanketing the internet, mall kiosks, TV and radio, which have to date eluded regulation.
Blatant lies and clueless nonsense. (Ok, I will admit I am starting to doubt my previous assertion that Healton really understands what she is saying.) Skipping past the distractions that the first few sentences comprise, we have the lie that many adolescents are using e-cigarettes, a repeat of the lie that there is any reason they would cause smoking, the lie that because other cessation efforts do not work for kids that harm reduction will not work for them (it might be true, but probably is not, and it is nothing more than speculation asserted as fact), and of course the usual canard about marketing. Once again, the biggest lie here is that this has anything to do with restricting where adults can use e-cigarettes, or anything else about adult use.
Whether e-cigarettes will offer an incremental boost to cessation rates nationally also remains to be seen.
No, it doesn’t. Close to every e-cigarette user is either a former smoker or a current smoker who has replaced some smoking with e-cigarettes and could be persuaded to complete the transition. Many of those who quit smoking report that they had not been able to succeed at cessation until they tried e-cigarettes, and only then did they quit. Therefore e-cigarettes have increased cessation. This is not really a difficult concept to understand. (She goes on in that paragraph to lie about what the research shows, but I will stop at debunking her thesis claim.)
This is the epitome of the ANTZ tactic of declaring every negative they can concoct to be a real concern, even if there is zero evidence and even if the evidence clearly shows it is a non-issue, while denying every positive by pretending that the evidence does not exist.
We should also remain open to another highly plausible effect of e-cigarettes-that they will function in the same manner “light” cigarettes did when they were introduced in the 70′s, promoted by the tobacco industry as a step smokers could take to feel safer without actually quitting smoking. As many subsequent studies showed, in fact they were not safer and millions who would have quit had they not been introduced failed to do so costing innumerable lives.
And (setting aside the lies about “light” cigarettes themselves) there is that lie about the situations being similar again. The obvious difference is that e-cigarette users are “actually quitting smoking”, unlike light cigarette users, and they are using a product that genuinely is low risk. What does a public health failure of the 1970s have to do with e-cigarettes? Absolutely nothing. It is basically the same as saying leeches turned out to be harmful rather than helpful in treating infectious diseases, and therefore we should avoid antibiotics.
Do we really want everyone vaping where they once could smoke?
Oh, look, she is finally addressing the question she claims to be addressing.
The proposed extension of the SFAA to e-cigarettes, which will be voted on tomorrow, also will reduce the “walking billboard” effect of thousands of New Yorkers once again lighting up in bars, subways, parks, office buildings and restaurants throughout the city. But banning e-cigarettes in some locations solely for this reason is un-American in a country that prides itself on maximizing the freedom of its adult citizens to choose to engage in a range of risky and frisky behaviors.
Interesting. It is not a very risky behavior, of course, but it is nice to see that New York is still part of America.
The “billboard” claim is utter nonsense, of course. How is someone vaping in their office, rather than outside the front door, a billboard? E-cigarettes could still be restricted on the subway and restaurants could make their own choices about what is best for their patrons and vibe. The proposed ban would eliminate all discretion, reasonableness and common sense, going beyond a few specific restrictions that some might argue are reasonable and imposing rules that are clearly absurd and harmful.
Take a step back and see what she is doing with all of this. She is appealing to people who are worried about kids using e-cigarettes and do not like people vaping on the subway, and trying to trick them into supporting a rule that bars cannot choose to allow their patrons to vape. If she actually cared about kids and subways, she would propose something that affects kids (this rule would not) and would endorse a rule that just applies to the subways (which could probably be done by administrative fiat). Notice she never once offers any reason why banning vaping in bars, private offices, and many outdoor spaces would do any good for anyone, and indeed tries to hide the fact that this regulation would impose such restrictions. Classic tobacco control bait-and-switch.
It should be noted, however, that while we in general embrace this ethos, when it comes to public drinking we often do not. We do not embrace wandering down the street drinking a cocktail, hopping into the elevator rum and coke [sic] in hand or whipping out a flask of whiskey on a plane.
Ok, so no vaping on elevators and planes. I suspect that even most dedicated vapers would not find those to be terribly unreasonable restrictions. As for walking down that street, the street would be one of the few places vaping was still allowed under the restrictions. The anti-THR people cannot even keep their own stories straight.
Do we know enough to allow vaping in public spaces? So what are the real risks of public vaping? Is it as its promoters would like us to believe a benign, reduced harm practice that is at worst a passing fancy?
Um, no. Its promoters think it is here to stay. Also, the ban is mostly about private spaces, not public spaces.
Or is it a potentially toxic practice that places those in its immediate vicinity at risk. The answer is we do not completely know yet, although already studies have shown elevated nicotine levels among those exposed to secondhand vaping, and this in and of itself is ominous. Not definitively measured as yet among second hand vapers [sic] are the myriad other toxic substances which are contained in e-cigarettes.
Cute, huh, that use of “completely” and “definitively”. Of course we know, from ample evidence, with a very high degree of certainty that the risk to bystanders is zero or utterly trivial. But we never know anything completely or definitively. Someone can always use weasel words like that to intentionally trick the reader into thinking she made a statement about what we really know, rather than merely a statement about the fact that there is never proof or complete information in the real world.
And if anyone is aware of any study that shows elevated nicotine levels from people exposed to “secondhand vapor”, I would be quite interested in hearing about it.
Under these circumstances, the prudent course is to extend the SFAA to encompass e-cigarettes until, if ever, sufficient evidence exists demonstrating their safety.
Right. And what might that be? Oh, you say, no evidence would ever be sufficient for that. Thought so.
And why exactly would this be prudent? I do not think that word means what she thinks that word means. Is it prudent to restrict a very personal freedom when there appears to be no reason to do so, just because such a reason might be found later? (Sounds like an argument for banning, say, the building of mosques in America — there are many who would make the same “we just don’t know if this will hurt the children” arguments about that.) Is it prudent to ensure that cigarettes remain as attractive as possible as compared to low-risk alternatives?
The only conceivable downside of not extending the SFAA to e-cigarette use is the loss of any incremental harm reduction for smokers associated with being permitted to smoke e-cigarettes in locations where smoking is now banned.
TrANTZlation: The harm it would inflict on those not able to vape at their desk, in bars, etc. is of absolutely no consequence. We are tobacco control. We don’t actually care if tobacco users suffer. In fact, we prefer it.
And, of course, making e-cigarette use less attractive creates the public health harm of encouraging smokers to keep smoking.
It is highly unlikely that such a benefit, if it in fact exists, would outweigh the harms to youth, to non-smokers exposed to vaping nicotine laden vapors and potentially other toxins, and to recovering smokers who now stay quit in part because smoking has become less ubiquitous than it was 50 years ago when the Surgeon General released the first report on Smoking and Health.
Huh? It is highly unlikely? Care to quantify? I would love to hear about the harms to youth from people vaping at their desks. What harms are caused by (barely) “nicotine laden vapors”? What possible impact is there on “recovering smokers”?
Sadly e-cigarettes may lead to four negative outcomes: the initiation of more youth to nicotine dependence and subsequent conventional smoking; the use of e-cigarettes by current cigarette smokers who would otherwise have quit but instead use both conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes in combination and therefore delay quitting or never quit and; the relapse to smoking by those who have already quit, first to smoking “benign” e-cigarettes and then to conventional cigarettes; and the exposure of people to e-cigarettes’ emissions unknown risks.
And how does all of this other than the last bit (a lie that has already been addressed) relate to the question at hand?
Who loses, if anyone, by extending the SFAA to e-cigarette use? Virtually no one loses. Vapers can still smoke everywhere current smokers now do. Let’s do what NYC has become known for and enact a policy that saves lives, not costs them.
Just in case the above trANTZlated passage was not clear enough, here she comes right out and says that the hardships suffered by vapers as a result of the rule do not matter. Smoking place restrictions are designed to make smokers less happy — tobacco control advocates generally admit that these days — so obviously imposing the same restrictions on vapers will make them less happy too. I wonder if it is a Freudian slip when she says that “vapers can still smoke” — because that is exactly what will happen: Some would-be vapers, upon having to go out to the smoking areas anyway, will indeed smoke. As a result, some of them will die from smoking and their blood will be on the hands of liars like Healton.
Tobacco harm reduction, anti-THR lies, and related topics 