Persuasive

xMatt Harrison
Jessica Reyes
English 200 March 28, 2012
Better to Smoke Air Than Death Smoking has been a long term issue since cigarettes were invented. The high amount of tobacco added many dangers to the mixtures. Not only is smoking dangerous because of its physically altering diseases, it also has fatal risks. One of the most common forms of fatality caused by cigarettes is cancer, mainly in the throat and lung. Tobacco cigarettes have been taking people’s lives for quite some time now. However, a solution for helping these people stimulate their nicotine addiction has been found. That solution is electronic cigarettes. They are tubes powered by a battery that, when activated, inject a mixture of nicotine and water vapor from a cartridge into the breather’s mouth. These devices were considered revolutionary but also have generated a lot of controversy due to people fearing they are just as dangerous as regular cigarettes and the Kansas government is now considering adding them to part of the already placed No-Smoking-In-Public policy. I’m speaking to pro—health Kansas government officials who could potentially pass a ban on electronic cigarettes. I am addressing this issue because of my personal connection to smokers. My mother is a regular smoker, she smokes a pack a week and I fear it may get more frequent if she does not find a way to contain her addiction. My father was a smoker but was able to quit after a two-year attempt at smoker abstinence. This was sparked by a doctor’s diagnosis that his lungs were already showing signs of deterioration, but no cancer was found. He put down the cigarettes and he was successful. Considering the information I have put together in research of these devices, I want to address that electronic cigarettes should be allowed in public because of their lack of danger; they will be beneficial if permitted because they are not considered deadly, they can influence better and healthier smoking habits, plus passive smoking will no longer be an issue. Electronic cigarettes have been questioned for some time on how dangerous they really are; official opinions are “iffy” at most. The FDA is one group that continuously challenges the effects of electronic cigarettes. It is understandable that government officials would be in support of banning electronic cigarettes. Based on a previous article stating that the FDA targeted “violations [including] unsubstantiated claims and poor manufacturing practices” (FDA); Based on this information that the FDA disapproves based on these violations they have detected, it is quite right to assume people would think electronic cigarettes are dangerous because of malpractice with manufacturing them, but this is not the case. On the other hand, this is not a fault of makers of electronic cigarettes; it is merely mistakes from the manufacturing companies. People are quick to make assumptions based on circumstances such as these and create what I call “insta-perspectives”. But these perspectives are often flawed as they are based on one sole source or one solo mistaken act. Continuing in this FAQs article, it goes on to say the FDA “intends to regulate electronic cigarettes and related products in a manner consistent with its mission of protecting the public health” (FDA). As stated here, the FDA does not fully oppose e-cigarettes nor thinks they are severely dangerous if they are regulated in a safe manner for the general public. This being something crucially related to public relations, government officials would do well to take this into consideration when prompting their decision whether or not to ban electronic cigarettes in public. With the dangers addressed, another benefit for allowing electronic cigarettes is the influence it can generate on smokers, both chain and regulated smokers. Mass media is one of the most influential ways to get a point across and get people to steer their mind in a certain direction. Campaigns to help smokers quit have been going down since the “1970s to reduce population tobacco use” (Durkin). As you can see, campaign efforts to help people quit have been going down for many decades now. These campaigns use specific methods. For example, a visual ad from the CDC warns us about the danger of Buergers disease which causes limbs to become infected and forced to be amputated; this is an example of the dangers of smoking and its effects. Studies have shown that beliefs can vary when influencing a smoker to quit; there are various signs of it. Television adverts were most influencing with “five of nine anti-smoking beliefs and stronger desire to quit completely”. Low and medium intensity quit-smoking campaigns have also been issued, using methods such as “keep trying to quit; dangers of secondhand smoke” (Durkin). “Keep trying” is something that often relates to the phrase “don’t give up” or “don’t quit”. How ironic, saying don’t quit to someone who’s trying to quit smoking. As I was saying, these campaigns are only made to influence quitting, something that MMC groups have invested in for many years as previously stated, and the battle for smokers to quit is still on going. Maybe electronic cigarettes can be a compromise to this. Instead of adverts to quit smoking, steer the smokers to a healthier solution such as e-cigarettes. Mail Online has their own opinion and they consider e-cigarettes a “stepping stone to quitting” (Bates). When I heard this, I felt they were preaching to the choir. This brings up another point that e-cigarettes could be used as a form of suppression, or as Mail Online calls them a “stepping stone”. Investing in advertising for electronic cigarettes will not just be beneficial to adverts and MMC groups, but smokers themselves can save money. People who smoke 10 cigarettes a day can “save around 700 pounds” (Bates) which is around $1113 in U.S. currency; If the government allowed e-cigarettes and the advertising of e-cigarettes, wouldn’t adverts be better off advertising something that does not risk killing a person if they become addicted to it? Elaine Keller, according to Mail Online, has stated that “[e-cigarette] only need to be safer, the only standard is that it’s safer then smoking.” Keller, as stated, has doubt against e-cigarettes, but she lays down the standard that they are safer than actual smoking. It is true that they need to be analyzed more to confirm if they are actually safe, however, a public opinion would be more affective and also gain reputation for government officials who at the moment are against e-cigarettes. I know, as a child, I knew what my mom was up to every time she went out to “puff one”. I hated the smell from the start. For a while, things were really severe and she couldn’t be patient with going outside to smoke, she started smoking indoors. However, she began to realize the dangers of passive smoking and began doing it outside. This came on after my dad was able to quit. Passive smoking is a problem that is often everywhere. For three decades, “cigarette smoking has been established as arguably the strongest environmental risk factor for chronic periodontitis” (Walter). As Walter states here, passive smoking is a bigger issue than many consider it. It pollutes a whole lot more then we think. Periodontitis affects the teeth by inflaming the bones surrounding the teeth and the jaws. When a cigarette is breathed in, the excess smoke is exhaled back out and blends in with the surrounding atmosphere. This chemical is known as ETS (environmental tobacco smoke). ETS is the most common way for a person to engage in passive smoking. Research on epidemics has shown that ETS exposure leads to “risk factors involving several medical disorders” (Walter). Again, Walter addresses how passive smoking, or breathing in ETS is considered deadly. Children are tended to get affected more by ETS then any other population group. An example of how children are affected by ETS is shown with research made by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “Children with long-term exposure to ETS may have an elevated risk for the development of premature coronary artery disease” (Hwang). Another fatal effect on children is that if their parents smoke in the house, “parental smoking is associated with an increased incidence of both upper and lower respiratory tract infection” (Hwang). As Hwang states here, paternal smoking in the house is one of the biggest dangers related to EST. I believe this issue can be prevented with the allowing of electronic cigarettes. E-cigarettes could potentially prevent ETS from spreading, thus saving children’s’ lives from being infected with diseases caused by tobacco smoke. Those who would oppose e-cigarettes, including government officials would say the smoke from e-cigarettes would be dangerous due to the vast amounts of nicotine. However, the FDA identifies an electronic cigarette as a device containing a cartridge that “when heated, turns the contents of the cartridge into a vapor” (FDA) which can be inhaled by the user. This vapor is considered harmless and helpful as stated by former smokers who “say they have been helped by the device” (Bates). This being said, electronic cigarettes are not only useful to help smokers quit, they can reduce the risk of ETS or passive smoking. It is understandable to think of the e-cigarette as just another addictive habit, but this idea could also portray the electronic cigarette as suppression for smokers to quit. The vapor of an e-cigarette is also harmless and will not cause any form of passive smoking. Also, advertising e-cigarettes can influence a better way to quit by developing abstinence to actual cigarettes by telling people to use the electronic ones. Knowing government officials are the most decisive people with the most power in this decision, I hope they can make the right decision and not just assume because something is connected to a certain danger, doesn’t make it dangerous itself.

Works Cited
FDA. "E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers." E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm225210.htm>.
Bates, Claire. "Miracle Cure or Menace?" Mail Online. The Daily Mail, 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1350381/E-cigarette-face-ban-unregulated-quit-smoking-device.html?ITO=1490>.
Walter, Clemens, Elizabeth Kaye, and Thomas Dietrich. "Active and Passive Smoking: Assessment Issues in Periodontal Research." Wiley Online Library. John Wiley and Sons, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2011.00417.x/full
Durkin, Sarah, Emily Brennan, and Melanie Wakefield. "Mass Media Campaigns to Promote Smoking Cessation among Adults: An Integrative Review." BMJ. Tobacco Control, 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/127.full>.
Hwang, Sang-Hyun, Jong Hee Hwang, Jin Soo Moon, and Do-Hoon Lee. "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Children 's Health." National Center for Biotechnology Information. Korean Journal Of Pediatrics, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3286760/?tool=pubmed>.

Cited: FDA. "E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers." E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. &lt;http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm225210.htm&gt;. Bates, Claire. "Miracle Cure or Menace?" Mail Online. The Daily Mail, 25 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. &lt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1350381/E-cigarette-face-ban-unregulated-quit-smoking-device.html?ITO=1490&gt;. Walter, Clemens, Elizabeth Kaye, and Thomas Dietrich. "Active and Passive Smoking: Assessment Issues in Periodontal Research." Wiley Online Library. John Wiley and Sons, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2011.00417.x/full Durkin, Sarah, Emily Brennan, and Melanie Wakefield. "Mass Media Campaigns to Promote Smoking Cessation among Adults: An Integrative Review." BMJ. Tobacco Control, 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. &lt;http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/127.full&gt;. Hwang, Sang-Hyun, Jong Hee Hwang, Jin Soo Moon, and Do-Hoon Lee. "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Children 's Health." National Center for Biotechnology Information. Korean Journal Of Pediatrics, 12 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. &lt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3286760/?tool=pubmed&gt;.