Trump Voices Support for Vaping, but Counterfeits Remain the Top Issue

On the evening of September 13, U.S. President Trump tweeted: "I prefer vaping e-cigarettes to replace traditional cigarettes, but we need to ensure that this alternative is safe for everyone. Let's clear the market of counterfeit products and keep our kids away from e-cigarettes!"

Over 12,800 people commented on this tweet, and it received 61,500 likes. Some users stated: "E-cigarettes successfully helped me quit smoking after 25 years, and my lungs have become cleaner because of it." Another 63-year-old man said: "I haven't smoked for three years; these low-nicotine products make me feel better."

Investor Michael Coudrey expressed, "I hope excessive regulation does not harm e-cigarette business owners or distributors. Because compared to the six deaths possibly caused by e-cigarettes, traditional tobacco causes 600,000 deaths each year."

On the White House petition website, a petition requesting Trump not to sign a ban on "flavored e-cigarettes" has also made significant progress. This action, initiated on September 11 local time, has garnered over 100,000 signatures. According to relevant regulations, the White House must respond officially within 60 days.

Somewhat embarrassing for the U.S. President, the British newspaper "Evening Standard" published a gossip that Trump wanted to ban "flavored e-cigarettes" because his wife discovered that their young son liked them. The First Lady has been concerned about children's health and drug addiction issues, and she has repeatedly expressed her worries about children's use of e-cigarettes.

Thus, the President made a high-profile statement on Twitter: leaning towards banning "flavored products"—mainly various fruit-flavored e-cigarettes—from being sold in the U.S. Previously, U.S. media reported that six people had allegedly died from lung issues related to e-cigarettes, putting this product, which has a 15% penetration rate in the U.S., in the spotlight.

Trump's sudden reversal on the e-cigarette industry may also indicate that the U.S. government is considering regulatory development from an industry-wide perspective.

Since Trump's first statement on e-cigarettes, global public opinion has been polarized. One side categorizes e-cigarettes and cigarettes together, calling for a complete ban; while the other side argues that e-cigarettes that meet standards are much less harmful than traditional tobacco and are a good alternative, needing regulated development.

"The Economist" stated that the public's division on e-cigarettes actually stems from the current chaotic development of the e-cigarette market. A core fact is that the controversial e-cigarettes reported recently in the U.S. did not come from products purchased in legitimate stores but from poor-quality goods on the streets.

Of the six complaints related to e-cigarettes, five involved users of illegally purchased e-cigarette products. In the remaining case, the e-liquid was purchased by the user from a legal cannabis store in Oregon.

The reported lung issues related to e-cigarettes are mainly due to users adding vitamin E to the e-liquid, which is not closely related to e-cigarettes themselves. Research shows that inhaling vitamin E can lead to lung damage for users.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hopes the public will eliminate blind panic regarding e-cigarettes. They state that e-cigarette users should not purchase e-liquids containing cannabis extracts and should not use poor-quality products sold on the streets.

"When you buy an unlicensed liquid from an unregulated source, you have no idea what you are facing. This is why the government does not encourage people to consume counterfeit alcohol from unregulated channels, as these could be deadly. For example, in Costa Rica, 25 people recently died from methanol poisoning. Like alcohol, regulators should clearly distinguish between illegal e-cigarettes and those that are legal but unverified," stated "The Economist."

Finally, "The Economist" concluded that regulating e-cigarettes is wiser than trying to eliminate them. "Using e-cigarettes may be a dangerous habit, but its lethality is far lower than that of traditional cigarettes." The article suggests that governments should take the EU as a reference, strictly control the nicotine content in e-cigarette e-liquids, and regulate the advertising methods of e-cigarettes, especially prohibiting marketing aimed at children.

Support for e-cigarettes also comes from the UK's Public Health Department. Martin Dockrell, head of tobacco control at the UK Public Health Department, stated: "Those who buy or make illegal e-liquids on the streets mostly contain cannabis components, such as THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). These products come from the black market and are completely different from e-cigarettes purchased through legitimate channels."
#p#分页标题#e#
Unlike the U.S., all e-cigarette products in the UK are subject to strict quality and safety regulations by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which encourages e-cigarette users to report any adverse reactions.

The UK's National Health Service stated: "So far, there is no evidence that vaping harms those around you. Existing evidence suggests that the risk of any harm from e-cigarettes is extremely low, even compared to secondhand smoke."

Regarding future tobacco control efforts, both the UK's National Health Service and the UK Public Health Department support using e-cigarettes instead of traditional cigarettes. Last year, the UK Public Health Department suggested that hospitals should sell e-cigarettes and provide e-cigarette lounges for patients to encourage people to switch from traditional tobacco to e-cigarettes.

So, how do e-cigarettes compare to traditional cigarettes? The most authoritative report should come from the World Health Organization. In July of this year, the WHO released the 2019 Global Tobacco Epidemic Report, which stated: Compared to traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes pose less harm. If regular smokers can switch to well-regulated e-cigarettes, the toxic impact may be reduced, but they are not harmless.