Rarely has a single product evoked such diametrically opposed views or such passion as e cigarettes.

Anti smoking activists see the electronic nicotine delivery systems (the formal name) as another evil concoction of Big Tobacco, a devilish way to create new smokers and undermine hard fought public health measures.

Proponents of e cigarettes see them as a means of getting what they desperately want usually nicotine, but sometimes the tactile act of smoking without the carcinogens in tobacco, and as means to gain freedom from the increasingly oppressive measures taken against smokers.

E cigarettes are canisters used to simulate the act of smoking Batteries heat up fluid filled cartridges that contain water, flavouring agents and nicotine (though not always). The act of smoking an e cigarette is known as vaping because you inhale vapours, not smoke.

Health Canada does not allow the sale of e cigarettes containing is also illegal in Canada to make any health claims about e cigarettes, for example suggesting they are a smoking cessation tool.

The United States has, to date, taken a hands off approach, though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has served notice that it intends to extend its regulatory control of tobacco to e cigarettes in the near future.

There is no question that e cigarettes pose a dilemma for regulators and anti smoking activists. Devotees who are an unusually fanatical lot can trot out amazing anecdotal stories about the power of e cigarettes and five pack a day smokers who have become healthy vapers. Skeptics feel the arguments are eerily similar to options that have been touted in the past as being healthier like light cigarettes, cigarellos and chewing tobacco.

Dreams and fears aside, research on e cigarettes about their potential harms and potential benefits is in its infancy. Data on long term risks and benefits are especially lacking. In other words, the jury is still out, despite the grandiose claims of benefit from proponents and the dire warnings of opponents.

In a world where there are one billion smokers and smoking kills almost six million people a year, this is a high stakes debate.

The global e cigarette market is already worth $2 billion (U.S.) a year with more than half of all sales in the U.S. and it s expected to surpass $10 billion annually by 2017. And everyone is keeping a close eye on China where e cigarettes emerged in 2006 because, as it pushes to restrict tobacco, it is touting e cigarettes as an alternative.

Many anti smoking activists see e cigarettes as a Trojan horse, a gateway drug that will attract new users to tobacco and discourage current smokers from quitting. It is not clear how many so called dual users (people who alternate vaping and smoking) exist.

Then there is the fear that decades of effort to restrict smoking will be all for naught. At the recent People s Choice Awards, for example, vaping was de rigeur, to the point where it looked like a product placement for the popular brand Blu. The use of aggressive advertising using recognizable Hollywood stars is reminiscent of the old techniques of Big Tobacco.

The point of anti smoking laws and by laws is to limit exposure to second hand smoke, but if vapours are harmless, the argument for restrictions goes up in smoke.

So, do e cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and carcinogens? That is a point of much contention. Some research says yes, some no. Again, the reality is there is a broad range of products and no standards. But e cigarettes are principally a nicotine delivery system. Nicotine is addictive in fact, it s what makes people addicted to cigarettes. It s not particularly harmful it s the byproducts of processing and burning tobacco that causes cancer, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other health woes of smokers. Isn t it preferable to have people addicted to nicotine alone rather than nicotine and a potpourri of toxins?

The answer to that loaded question is Yes if you believe in harm reduction.

Most public health officials strongly favour harm reduction when it comes to hard drugs the supervised injection site Insite, for example, allows intravenous drug users to inject in a controlled setting with clean needles rather than in back alleys with dirty needles. But making that argument for vaping versus smoking doesn t have as much traction. When it comes to tobacco, most public health officials argue for abstinence and oppose e cigarettes.

The sands are constantly shifting. The Lung Association, for example, went from being an outspoken opponent of e cigarettes to taking the position that they might be a good smoking cessation tool, a way of weaning people off cigarettes. We don t know yet if e cigarettes are as effective or as ineffective as other forms of nicotine replacement therapy.

Probably the other persuasive argument against electronic cigarettes in 2014 is that they remain an unproven commodity we shouldn t be rushing headlong to embrace the technology. At the risk of sounding like the conclusion of every research study ever published More research is needed.

In the meantime though, it seems irrational and counterproductive to ban e cigarettes in Canada. A more sensible approach would be to regulate and allow nicotine delivery devices on the market that don t contain carcinogens.

In the war on smoking which is, after all, a battle to improve the health of individuals and the collectivity e cigarettes are not a panacea, but they are a step in the right direction.

Follow me on Twitter picardonhealth

Follow Andr Picard on Twitter picardonhealth

England to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes

Buy best electronic cigarettes online at vapesales.com

Standardised plain packaging for cigarettes is to be introduced in England, following a comprehensive review of the evidence which found unbranded packs could cut the number of children starting to smoke.

Public health minister Jane Ellison told the House of Commons that she would introduce draft regulations swiftly “so it is crystal clear what is intended” although there will be a short consultation.

Sir Cyril Chantler, who was asked to look at the potential benefits, particularly to children, of plain packaging after the government postponed a decision last summer, made “a compelling case that if standardised packaging were introduced, it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health,” Ellison said.

The government’s decision to delay last year provoked a political storm, because of revelations that a lobbying company owned by David Cameron’s election adviser, Lynton Crosby, had helped the tobacco industry fight the introduction of plain packaging in Australia.

The Chantler review found that standardised packaging which in Australia involves the entire packet being taken up by graphic health warnings is likely to contribute to a modest but important reduction in smoking, including a drop in the number of children who start.

“There is very strong evidence that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotion increases the likelihood of children taking up smoking,” says the report.

“Industry documents show that tobacco packaging has for decades been designed, in the light of market research, with regard to what appeals to target groups. Branded cigarettes are ‘badge’ products, frequently on display, which therefore act as a ‘silent salesman’.

“Tobacco packages appear to be especially important as a means of communicating brand imagery in countries like Australia and the UK which have comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion. It is notable that Japan Tobacco International responded to the decision to introduce tobacco plain packaging in Australia by attempting to sue the Australian government for taking possession of its mobile ‘billboard’.”

Chantler, who was once himself a smoker and found it hard to quit, said that “given the suffering that smoking causes, and the fact that most people start when they are children, even a small effect is very important”.

More than 600 children aged 11 to 15 start to smoke every day more than 200,000 a year. If that number could be cut even by 2%, said the review, 4,000 fewer would take up the habit.

“It is now for government to make its decision on whether or not to go ahead,” said Chantler. “I recognise that there is a democratic process to go through, but for my own view I hope they do introduce it, and I hope they do it quickly.”

The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, supported plans to introduce plain packs within England’s devolved health administration. “This review only reinforces my beliefs of the public health gains to be achieved from standardised packaging,” she said.

Public health campaigners were delighted by the findings . “The Chantler review has backed a significant step towards a healthier future for the UK’s children,” said Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive. “We’re very pleased the government will now move forward and lay out draft regulations on standardised packs. This should happen as quickly as possible.

“Every day hundreds of children are lured into smoking an addiction that kills and causes at least 14 different types of cancer. Children find the brightly coloured and slick designs of today’s packs appealing.”

Professor John Wass, academic vice president of the Royal College of Physicians, said it was delighted by the news, although he added “It is disappointing that we will have to wait for the results of yet another consultation, but we hope this will be swift and not impede the introduction of regulations in this parliament. We are one step further towards a tobacco free UK.”

The tobacco industry contested the Chantler report’s findings. Daniel Torras, managing director of Japan Tobacco International UK, said “Nothing has changed since last summer when the prime minister said ‘There isn’t yet sufficient evidence for it and there is considerable legal uncertainty about it.’ The Chantler report explicitly references the ‘limitations’ of the evidence presented by a small group of tobacco control lobbyists.”