4
TOBACCO BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL
MAY/JUNE 2014
Risk Versus Reward:
the Many Dimensions
PUBLISHER’S LETTER
BY ed o’connor
S
itting on an Aruban beach allows for sun, surf, an oc-
casional martini, and the opportunity for reflection. My
recent March “shake and bake” outing to sunny Aruba
provided just such opportunity. Thinking back, my thoughts
tend to focus on pro and con, yes and no, risk and reward, and
the dynamics of arriving at conclusions and decisions. Conclu-
sions take us to a final point. Decisions require the fortitude
to act. Decisions take us to where the so-called rubber meets
the road. Each day we face conclusions. Each day we make,
defer or change our decisions based upon new information or
altered conclusions.
I’m sure that you’re all thinking,
He’s on a beach in beauti-
ful Aruba with the warm sun beating down, the omnipresent
azure-gray sky, and the cool turquoise surf lapping at the soft
sand…and this guy is going on abstractly about risk versus
reward and the arcane nature of conclusion and decision?!
All right, so let’s move the discussion to productive consider-
ations: challenges facing electronic products.
As knowledgeable representatives in the public health com-
munity, Brad Rodu, Mike Siegel, Carl Phillips, Bill Godshall and
Joel Nitzkin speak on behalf of the harm-reduction potential
offered by vapor products, not one among these medical doc-
tors and health professionals advocates smoking or taking
nicotine. Their conclusions are based upon available evidence
suggesting that within the harm-reduction spectrum, use of
nicotine taken without smoke offers a infinitely safer means
of using tobacco; it’s not the nicotine that hazards health, it’s
the smoke.
From the other side of the debate, there are equally high-
profile, respected public and private institutions and individu-
als decrying the safety of electronic cigarettes. Their position
calls for elimination of all tobacco within society at large—a
position that at this time is inconsistent with federal law.
The third group of opinion leaders are those individu-
als and companies who stand to lose economic power and
status from the electronic products’ assault on traditional
cigarettes—a $100 billion business—with already $2 billion of
electronic cigarette penetration in evidence in the U.S. fore-
casted to achieve traditional cigarette parity in approximately
10 years. We include nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) pro-
viders in this group.
The fourth concerned group is represented by our elected
officials working to understand the interests of the populations
they represent. Keep in mind that based upon a recent study,
an average of two percent of all state revenues is derived from
tobacco taxation.
And finally, the FDA is charged with the responsibility of
sorting it all out through reliance on objective science while
possessing the legal mandate to regulate, but not ban, any
category of tobacco. This is akin to unraveling a Gordian knot
wrapped in a conundrum and colored by special interests of
well-meaning and less-than-well-meaning agents and institu-
tions.
In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was punished by the gods
and condemned to push a rock up a steep hill, only to have it
roll back down and make him start again. Isn’t the FDA in the
position of a modern-day Sisyphus? Like it or not, the
“Great
Unraveling”
must come via the gates of the FDA.
Here’s the question: do we want an industry protected by
federal law from extinction but replete with all of its codicils,
commercial requirements, and often unpopular determina-
tions? Or do we wish to allow every municipality and state to
make its own rules in the absence of FDA guidelines (so-called
deeming regulations), which are subject to public comment
and FDA adoption over perhaps as long as a two-year pe-
riod? Without these regulatory guidelines, benignly intended
lawlessness may be brought upon the fledging e-cigarette in-
dustry. Constituent pressure may force legislators to act in the
belief that they guard the health of their voters, and economic
pressure based on the loss of revenue provided by the ciga-
rette golden-egg goose could play a role. The city of Chicago
leads the ban against e-cigs in public places. Is this preliminary
to an attempted outright ban of usage? If so, other municipali-
ties will probably follow suit. As a court-adjudicated tobacco
product, electronic cigarettes are protected from extinction.
The intended or unintended consequences of regulation will
be to allow the electronic cigarette industry to develop and
prosper, but not likely to the benefit of every stakeholder. Con-
clusions and decisions remain to be made by each of us as
risks are assessed and rewards are considered.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln, it seems that “you can
please some of the people all of the time and all of the people
some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of
the time.”
Ahhhh, the beach.
Good selling!
