The World Health Organization (WHO) is about
to host one of the most important
meetings in the history of public health.
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
was originally a good idea. I was one
of the original architects of it
way back 15 years ago. We did not recognize
the central role of nicotine and the
possibility of the tobacco harm reduction.
Frankly you don't get people to move
and especially not 1.4 billion people to
move by giving them a sermon and
lecturing them and saying "You quit or
you die." It's just not going to happen.
So the alternative is to provide safer, not
safe, but safer alternatives.
Nicotine addicts, tar kills. That very simple
separation of what's in a product.
The World Health Organization (WHO) is at a crossroads.
Either they can follow along with what
they've been doing and become one of the
biggest threats to public health in history...
How much evidence is sufficient
for that one person sitting in front of you.
If you're the nurse or the pharmacist
or the dentist and it's your patient and
they ask you "I'd like to use an e-cigarette,
what's your view?" Then you can't say
"We need to do more research."
That's just not helpful.
It's irresponsible. Whatever World Health Organization (WHO) recommends
a lot of those countries just pass by law.
Or, the WHO can follow their mandate to reduce the
harm caused by smoking, embrace the
scientific evidence and become a leader
in the fight to help save the billion lives
that will be lost to smoking this century.
The public needs to know the truth
about these products and they
need public health people telling the
truth about the risk, at least 95%
less risky than smoking. We look at the
history of public health, the biggest
breakthroughs are associated
historically with two really really
simple things. One, you give people enough
information that they can make an
informed decision about what they're
going to do and two, you given them the ability
to act on that information.
There's clearly a big battle ahead.