Smoking study committee should ‘follow the science’

It wasn’t that long ago when screaming “follow the science” was all the rage, even if the alleged science wasn’t remotely settled.

Fast forward a few years, and that phrase has largely fallen by the wayside, but plenty of people are still not following the science—although the Legislature has an opportunity to do so.

Georgia House Speaker Jon Burns announced the formation of the House Study Committee on the Costs & Effects of Smoking. It is tasked with examining “the cost of smoking, including short-term and long-term health care costs, the impact on Medicaid and Medicare, childhood health costs resulting from secondhand smoke exposure and the loss of worker productivity attributed to smoking.”

The study committee is composed of a who’s who of lawmakers with advanced medical degrees, and they are presumably very concerned about the ill-effects of tobacco use like most of those in healthcare. A May survey published by Smoke-Free Choice found, “77% of medical professionals said that smoking and tobacco use should be a ‘high priority’ for the US government to address.”

This is understandable. Smoking cigarettes is deadly, should be avoided and imposes widespread financial costs. Tobacco use claims the lives of around 11,700 Georgians per year and is responsible for around $3.2 billion of direct and indirect healthcare costs. Despite this reality, roughly 19% of Georgians use tobacco products.

As the study committee pores over data, it is important for its members to avoid widespread misinformation and keep in mind that there are already viable tools to curtail smoking rates. To begin with, there are a host of medications and cessation tools to help smokers quit. Not every method is particularly effective, but e-cigarettes show great promise. In fact, they are the number one tool smokers use to kick the habit and are more effective than other cessation therapies.

They are also far less risky than combustible cigarettes. Public Health England—the country’s version of Health and Human Services—found that they are 95% less harmful. As I wrote earlier this year, “the reason is that e-cigarettes don’t employ the combustion process that cigarettes use. That process releases over 7,000 chemicals—at least 69 of which are carcinogenic.”

Even though e-cigarettes hold great promise, there have been constant efforts to restrict and ban them, which would simply drive more adults back to smoking, and the role of nicotine has even been mired in confusion—even among experts. The aforementioned survey revealed that nearly half of medical professionals believe “Nicotine, on its own, is a carcinogen and causes cancer,” and roughly 19% didn’t have an opinion.

That’s troubling. While nicotine is the addictive element within tobacco that gets people hooked, it is not carcinogenic. Nevertheless, for years it has understandably been demonized for getting people addicted to hazardous tobacco products, but nicotine could have some redeeming qualities. A new study conducted by one of my R Street colleagues shows that nicotine might actually have health benefits.

“Short-term administration of nicotine to older adults with mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease and age-related memory impairment have yielded improved measures of cognitive performance,” reads the report. “As a larger proportion of Americans reach the stage of life in which neurocognitive disorders most commonly occur, exploring all potential treatment options becomes even more important. Despite nicotine’s role in smoking addiction, its potential for improving neurocognitive disorder symptoms may redeem its reputation.”

Does that mean you should run to the store and pick up a pack of cigarettes? Absolutely not. Please don’t do that. Smoking can be absolutely deadly, but nicotine isolated from the deadly elements in tobacco might provide some health benefits, although much more study is needed to determine its efficacy.

As the House Study Committee on the Costs & Effects of Smoking meets during the legislative interim, it will slowly but surely compose a list of recommendations based on its findings, but it is currently unclear in what direction the committee might go. There are a host of misguided ways to address the ill-effects of tobacco, which can inadvertently backfire. Banning products, instituting a burdensome tax scheme regardless of the dangers posed by nicotine products and simply parroting misinformation could ultimately harm public health.

Instead of following this path, the committee should recognize that there are many tools already in place that can help combat the dangers of smoking. How the members decide to capitalize on those tools is up to them. I just want them to follow the science.