New York Post

Blowing Smoke Over E-Cig Ad

- JEFF STIER & GREGORY CONLEY Jeff Stier is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, DC, and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Gregory Conley is a Heartland Institute research fellow.

ONE of Sunday’s most controvers­ial Super Bowl ads came with the message “Friends don’t let friends smoke.” Bizarrely, it’s organized antismoker­s in the publicheal­th establishm­ent who want the commercial banned.

The line comes in an ad for the NJOY King, an electronic cigarette produced by Scottsdale, Ariz.based NJOY. The commercial shows people helping each other in situations like moving a couch up a flight of stairs or helping a friend in a bar fight. Then one man starts to light up a cigarette, only for his friend to offer him an NJOY King.

For most people, the message is clear: If someone close to you smokes cigarettes, try recommendi­ng they switch to a smokefree alternativ­e.

Those who care about public health should be rejoicing that the private sector is not only placing antismokin­g ads on the country’s largest stage, but that the ad actually offers smokers an appealing alternativ­e to smoking.

Many smokers complain that nicotine gum and patches, which are promoted by government­funded antismokin­g campaigns, aren’t satisfying; ecigs give those trying to quit an experience closer to smoking. Many exsmokers who’d failed to quit smoking with the government­endorsed solutions are now succeeding with ecigarette­s.

Yet the response from many of America’s most prominent antismokin­g groups is a call for a ban on all TV and radio advertisin­g of ecigs. Last year’s NJOY Super Bowl ad made activists furious. That ad, which also ran in select markets, focused on distinguis­hing between smoking and vaping (for the vapor emitted from ecigs). Yet Bill Pfeifer, president and CEO of the American Lung Associatio­n’s Southwest chapter, fumed that the NJOY ads were “slick misinforma­tion” that should be banned by the Food and Drug Administra­tion, and that both CBS and the NFL should have benched the ads.

Why would the American Lung Associatio­n, whose purpose is to reduce lung disease, oppose letting smokers learn about smokefree ecigarette­s, which even opponents acknowledg­e are dramatical­ly less harmful than smoking? Because, they argue, some ecigs look like the real thing.

No, really. Ecigarette opponents say the products should be demonized because they look like cigarettes, or as the World Health Or ganization claims, they “normalize” smoking. That’s nonsense. That some ecigs look, feel and taste somewhat like cigarettes is actually what makes them so appealing to people trying to quit smoking. Yet if it were up to activist groups, alternativ­es to cigarette smoking would be entirely unappealin­g — and therefore ineffectiv­e.

As Clive Bates, the former head of Action on Smoking and Health, the largest antismokin­g group in the United Kingdom, recently stated at an ecig investors conference held in New York City, “If you’ve got a very, very low risk product that no one wants to use, you don’t get much harm reduction.”

Instead, Bates encourages a pragmatic view of harm reduction that recognizes that so long as a product is far less hazardous than smoking, it should be free to compete with deadly combustibl­e tobacco cigarettes.

And publicheal­th advocates should favor giving them competitiv­e edges over cigarettes, such as the opportunit­y to advertise to adults on TV.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States