Legally, an electronic cigarette is not a cigarette by itself. Also, e-cigarettes are not regulated yet and so no company selling it can really say that it is a nicotine replacement therapy to help stop smoking. It can be a great alternative to smoking though. So if it is not a cigarette, then what is it? Well, this is how my friend Tom (who claims he’s an expert in electronic cigarettes and vaping) chooses to address the issue.
According to Tom, an e-cigarette is a mere tube, a battery powered tube the looks like, feels like, shapes like, and tastes like cigarette. Unlike regular cigarettes though, an electronic cigarette doesn’t contain tobacco leaves but it does have this heating component that turns a liquid chemical (refillable) into a vapour mist which is inhaled by the lungs as if it’s a regular cigarette. The e-cigarette user however can control the nicotine intake since the liquid may or may not contain nicotine, depending on the user’s preference. So yes, according to my friend, an electronic cigarette is not really a cigarette, period.
But legally-wise though, it seems that electronic cigarettes companies found themselves in a legal limbo. There are regulation issues, minor banning issues and even full banning issues. So many so-called health advocates have at least one thing to say against electronic cigarettes and they will do everything to have it regulated and even banned completely. I cannot understand the legal issues that much though. Maybe I didn’t read much about the issues or maybe I did but I just can’t see the sense in them.
Like the full banning issue for example. I don’t understand why these politicians would completely ban something that can be a tool for other people to stop smoking. I mean, I’ve read enough testimonials and enough studies to know that some people see electronic cigarettes as a life-saving device since it helped them quit smoking gradually. If that is not enough, I even have a friend who can personally attest to the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes and the great changes that it has given him.
I mean, these politicians never fully banned regular cigarettes which have taken millions of lives already and have been very detrimental to the environment as well. Why hurt something that aims to do something good that bad? What gives? They can ban it from minors; now that is logical, but to completely ban it is not that logical at all. Maybe they should make a thorough and fair study about the bad effects of electronic cigarettes and when they do have the results (if ever they find more adverse effects that regular cigarette smoking) then maybe they’ll be logical enough to start legal issues against electronic cigarettes.
