Qivaros

 

E-Cigarettes are the magic bullet against second hand smoke

The government should look past the dollars and consider the E-Cigarette for legal sale in Canada

By Natalie Nathanson

0 you like cancer? I don’t. Have
D you ever wondered what it would

be like to live in a world without
cancer caused by second-hand smoke? A
new technology has surfaced that appears
to eliminate cancer-causing second-hand
smoke to all those exposed to it. The
amazing thing is that it may also eliminate
cancer-causing agents to those who smoke
it. It’s called the electronic cigarette, and it’s
making headway amongst smokers—and
non-smokers alike.

The electronic cigarette is a battery
operated device that is an alternative
to other smoked tobacco products like
cigarettes, cigars and pipes. This cigarette
basically delivers liquid nicotine in a
vaporized form that requires no burning
and no tobacco in its delivery and therefore
creates none of the pervasive smoke
associated with traditional cigarettes. But on
top of a truly clean delivery system, it also
can come in a variety of different flavours
and provides the same sort of physical
sensation as smoking tobacco. The nicotine
also comes in different doses from low to
high. It’s like quitting smoking yet still
being able to smoke—you’re still getting
the nicotine as you would if you were on
the patch or chewing the gum, but you also
get the oral “pleasure” of placing a cigarette
in your mouth, breathing in and exhaling
something.

Some of the other benefits of this
marvel include no carcinogens, tar,
formaldehyde or any other cancer causing
chemicals. This greatly reduces the risk of
any cancer and other health issues to both
smoker and those inhaling second-hand
smoke. With the electronic cigarette, there’s
no need to select where you can smoke,
you’re able to do it anywhere, including
restricted areas. However, smoking
electronic cigarettes in places where there

is a public ban is currently under review
by Health Canada, you can still get away
with it. You can probably even smoke it
inside a movie theatre—no one will notice.
That’s because it produces no second-hand
smoke. And because there’s no second-
hand smoke, there’s no yucky smell that’s
associated with smoking, and there’s no
lingering smell either that’s difficult to get
rid of. There’s no smell at all. Best of all,
the majority of these cigarettes are reusable
and only need to be charged once in awhile,
with the nicotine solution needing to be
refilled as well. This means you save money
on cigarettes but it also means there’s no
cigarette butts littering our streets and
leaking harmful chemicals into our oceans
and water systems and killing marine life.
So why is it that not many people
have heard about this and why is it not
the hottest selling item in North America?
With electronic cigarette starter kits starting
around $50 and potentially saving you
about 75 per cent of the money you would
be spending on cigarettes over the course of
year, why aren’t people switching over?
Here’s the thing —the FDA and Health
Canada don’t want you to smoke it. Both
organizations are against the import and sale
of this product due to the “lack of long-term
effects research” on humans. What I'd like
to know is what effects it can possibly have
that cigarettes already don’t.

   

In March 2009, Health Canada put an
immediate cessation on the importation,
sales and advertising of electronic
cigarettes, and issued a warning to
Canadians not to purchase or use any of
these products. They warned Canadians
that although it may be a safer alternative to
smoking tobacco and can be used as an aide
to quit, there’s a potential that you can die
from nicotine poisoning or become addicted
to nicotine.

Seriously?

Is that really what they’re worried
about? While there are cigarette cartons on
the shelves with pictures of blackened lungs
with warnings that cigarettes can cause very
cancerous death?

The sad thing is it’s all most likely an
issue over money. Governments around
the world make an enormous amount of
money off the sale and taxation of tobacco
products, and sadly, an electronic reusable
cigarette just wouldn’t cut it. From 2007—
2008 the total revenue of Canadian federal
and provincial taxation on tobacco yielded a
hefty sum of almost $7 billion. One statistic
that they should pay attention to is that each
year over 45,000 people in Canada alone
die from tobacco use. I can’t even begin to
think about what the medical costs of trying
to keep each of those 45,000 individuals
alive are, and how much is taken away from
that pretty little $7 billion just to cover it.

Whatever the statistic is, it can’t be worth
it if more than the population of a small
town is dying every year because of the
sale of cigarettes and the fact that Health
Canada refuses to provide easy access to
what, on the surface at least, is a much safer
alternative.

Although the sale of electronic
cigarettes are banned in Canada, there’s
nothing illegal or stopping anyone from
purchasing them online. I myself, a huge
hater of second-hand smoke, have had the
chance to try one of these and I must say
they are most delightful. I flipped when I
came home to find my roommate smoking
one in the living room with a friend who
had brought it over. Then I realized that
there was absolutely no smell or smoke
within the living room, and when I tried
it, it had a pleasant taste and didn’t leave
a burning coughing sensation in the throat
like other cigarettes. It also looked way
cooler with a funky blue LED light where
the lit end would be that glowed every time
someone inhaled. It was pretty cool, and
my roommate, an avid smoker, absolutely
loved it.

It’s sad to think that there’s a product
out there that looks much safer for people
to smoke yet is refused regulation by the
Canadian government over the issue of
money. It doesn’t need years of study to
prove that it’s safer—it feels like common
sense that inhaling and exhaling tar and
formaldehyde is incredibly vile compared
to inhaling vaporized nicotine and exhaling
what amounts to theatrical fog.

I encourage anyone who smokes to try
it. Who knows, you might love it and save
yourself some money, as well as some years
of your life as well as mine.

Fuming? Nodding? Sound off and let

us hear about it. Email your comments
about this or any other story to opinions@
theotherpress.ca

 

Built to kill: blame it on our genes

Nikalas T next

Kryzanowski time
~ opinions editor | you
, | come across a

| sordid story of
eae __| gang slayings
or random violence while thumbing
through The Province, you might want to
consider that in a 2009 study, researchers
at Florida State University found a direct
link between genetics, violent behaviour
and weapons use. It explored why some
young men took a turn down the wrong path
while other young men, living in the same
neighbourhood, turned out fine. According
to the researchers doing a similar study in
2008, “these results, which are among the
first that link molecular genetic variants
to delinquency, significantly expand our
understanding of delinquent and violent
behaviour, and they highlight the need to
simultaneously consider their social and
genetic origins.”

If violence has genetic origins then

   
  

how do social laws—which are based on
concepts of right, wrong and personal
choice, apply?

To punish someone with an active
“warrior gene” seems a little bit like
punishing a fish for swimming, or to use
a more controversial, yet probably more
apt analogy—demonizing homosexuality,
which has been linked to genetics in
numerous studies and is often rightly used
as a point to combat homophobia. If it’s
genetic and follows a natural order, then
how can it truly be immoral?

The difference between the two
though is victimhood. There are no victims
of homosexuality, but there certainly are
victims of violence. We all belong to the
great Social Contract that we signed by
being born, that we are to sacrifice certain
freedoms in favour of personal security.

However, it seems that a can of
worms have been opened here that could
allow those who commit acts of violence
to simply blame away their actions on bad

genes. You could argue that someone with
violent tendencies could punch a pillow to
dissipate their anger. But the genetic link
goes much deeper than simple bursts of
anger. It covers aggressive behaviour. That
means a thirst for confrontation. Boys who
carry this variation in their genes are more
likely to join gangs and carry weapons.

And at least one attorney in Australia
has been successful in obtaining an
acquittal for a violent crime based on a
genetic variation. This was decades ago, for
something called XY Y syndrome whereby
men have an extra Y chromosome which
is supposedly linked to violence. Interest
in the link has since dropped off due to
negative findings, but to an extent, the
precedent remains.

Fuming? Nodding? Sound off and let

us hear about it. Email your comments
about this or any other story to opinions@
theotherpress.ca