A new press release published by Princeton University claims that raising the legal purchasing age on e-cigs actually increases the rates of teen smoking, particularly among pregnant teens. According to experts from the institution’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public Health and International Affairs in collaboration with researchers from Cornell University, they found a 19.2 percent increase in cigarette smoking in states that had recently increased their legal vaping age to 21.
The paper entitled “Age Limits on E-Cigarettes Cause Uptick in Cigarette Smoking Among Pregnant Teens” also notes a 13.8 percent increase in teen smoking among underage pregnant teens.
Most vaping advocates agree that these statistics are simply basic, common sense. If pregnant teens are restricted from purchasing e-cigs and vaping products as a smoking cessation tool during pregnancy, then they will be far more likely to go back to conventional tobacco cigarettes which are always infinitely easier to buy.
Does the average American really need a professor from an ivy league university to tell them this little tidbit of information? Apparently so, because the American Lung Association (ALA) is spouting a new surge of anti-vaping rhetoric that directly contradicts these world-class Princeton professors.
American Lung Association vs. Princeton University
In the recently released 2016 version of the annual State of Tobacco Control report issued by the ALA, agency officials are still clinging to the same, tired lies about e-cigarettes that have been promoted by the FDA and the CDC for years. According to the ALA, e-cigs are still considered a gateway to smoking – especially among teenagers.
Yes, the ALA is actually citing the most controversial, anti-vaping, public announcement ever issued by a U.S. Surgeon General, one that has been largely rebuked by the top scientific and medical professionals around the world.
But why would a charitable organization like the American Lung Association, an institution whose sole purpose is to rid the world of lung disease, consistently and vehemently demonize electronic cigarettes? Doesn’t basic common sense indicate that e-cigs are substantially healthier than the tar-infused, toxin-riddle alternatives of conventional tobacco cigarettes? And why does the ALA find “the patch” and nicotine gum acceptable, but vaping is not?
Follow the money.
American Lung Association and Big Pharma
If you want a direct connection between the ALA and Big Pharma, all you have to do is travel to the ALA website. Located in the very last paragraph of the organization’s “Smoking Facts” page is the following information.
“While it may seem counterintuitive, nicotine replacement therapies such as gum, patches, inhalers, nasal spray and lozenges can help tobacco users quit. These products provide a lower level of nicotine than tobacco products and can help reduce withdrawal symptoms while the person transitions to his or her new smokefree life. The various nicotine replacement products each work differently so it’s important to talk to your doctor or pharmacist to figure out which one(s) might be right for you.”
So, there you have it. The ALA is perfectly fine with promoting nicotine replacement therapies that are manufactured and mass-marketed by Big Pharma – perhaps because Big Pharma is paying them in the form of charitable contributions and political influence on Capitol Hill. But e-cigs and vaping technology that have even less nicotine than those more conventional Big Pharma products? Fagettaboutit!
Luckily, Princeton University does not have this unseemly and rather corrupt connection to Big Pharma, which is why their research directly opposes the opinions of the ALA.
Funny how that works.
Article Credit: Matt Rowland