The electronic cigarette has been around for over 15 years but scientists cannot agree on its usefulness.
The electronic cigarette as we know it was born in 2003 with the objective of helping people to stop smoking, but following fifteen years of marketing, it always divides. If the scientific community is fairly unanimous as to its dangerousness, everyone also recognizes in the world of research that it is “a lesser evil” compared to the classic cigarette.
The electronic cigarette is indeed not composed of tar or other carbon monoxide, products at the origin of cardiovascular accidents and lung cancer common in smokers. But instead, the electronic cigarette offers the smoker doses of nicotine, the addictive substance of cigarettes. In addition to this addiction, at least as strong as for normal cigarettes, the “vapoteuse” deposits fine particles in the lungs, contained in her smoke and whose long-term effects are still unknown.
Little or no scientific consensus
And this is the heart of the debate. Indeed, the addictive side is potentially harmful of the product places it at the heart of several scientific controversies. Thus in 2019 France had defended before the WHO the benefits of the electronic cigarette which judged them “Unquestionably” harmful. A qualifier that clearly lacked nuances according to the French health authorities.
But now these same authorities have just declared that the electronic cigarette is not a solution to stop smoking. Indeed, in their last report to the question “for lack of a better solution to offer a smoker to vape to get out of his addiction”, the scientists answer a firm “no”.
This is a major change in France’s position on this issue, which still considered five years ago that the electronic cigarette might be seen “as an aid”.
Are the English ahead or in the wrong?
A position at odds with our British neighbors who use the electronic cigarette as a real medical solution to quit smokers. Her Majesty’s country might indeed become the first in the world where electronic cigarettes are medically prescribed.
But then how does science explain this divergence of point of view? Quite simply by a lack of clarity in his studies. Indeed, the scientific world today is rather cautious regarding the effects of the electronic cigarette in the short term on a smoker. If some articles praise the benefits of the latter, others proscribe it and prefer gentler methods.
From a European point of view, and since 2013, the electronic cigarette is not seen as a medicine. The latter cannot be prescribed on EU territory. The English will therefore be able to act as avant-garde and “open-air laboratory” before the European position changes, or not.