Over the past few decades, the practice of buying and smoking cigarettes has been increasingly regulated across the western world. The value of such regulation is today beyond any doubt.

近几十年来，整个西方世界对买烟和抽烟的监管日趋严厉。这种监管的作用如今看来已经是毋庸置疑的了。

Smoking kills 100,000 people a year in Britain – and five million worldwide. Tobacco smoke contains 70 carcinogens that cause 90 per cent of lung cancer deaths and a third of other cancers. It induces heart disease, strokes, premature births, cataracts and a host of other avoidable complications. Exhaling affects non-smokers, especially children, who often cannot escape their parents’ habit.

英国每年因吸烟而死亡的人数高达10万人，全世界的这个数字是500万人。烟草烟雾中含有70种致癌物，肺癌导致的死亡病例有90%由这些致癌物所引发，其他癌症也有三分之一是这些致癌物引发的。吸烟导致心脏病、中风、早产、白内障以及其他一系列可预防的并发症。二手烟会影响非吸烟者，特别是通常无力摆脱父母吸烟习惯影响的儿童。

However, the debate on cigarette regulation is now moving into a new arena, focused on so-called “e-cigarettes”. Advances in technology have made it possible to produce cheaply a battery-powered device that heats a liquid containing nicotine into a vapour that can then be smoked, or “vaped” much like a cigarette. E-cigarettes contain none of the carcinogens, such as tar and arsenic, involved in ordinary cigarettes.

然而，有关烟草监管的辩论如今开辟了一块新阵地，其中的焦点问题就是所谓的“电子烟”。科技进步让我们能够以较低成本制造由电池供电的电子烟，这种器具能将含有尼古丁的液体加热，转化为能够吸食、或像抽烟那样“抽”的蒸汽。电子烟不含有普通香烟中含有的任何致癌物，比如焦油和砷。

Given the potential of e-cigarettes to reduce harm to committed smokers, it is reasonable to assume that their rapid uptake would be welcomed by health regulators. Regrettably, the opposite is happening.

鉴于电子烟有可能降低有烟瘾者所受到的健康损害，我们理所当然会认为，它的迅速崛起肯定会受到卫生监管机构的欢迎。遗憾的是，眼下的情况恰恰相反。

Both the World Health Organization and the US Federal Drug Administration are likely to classify e-cigarettes as a “tobacco product”. This is troubling. The WHO wants to reduce tobacco use by 30 per cent by 2025. Given that target, its determination to restrict e-cigarettes is inexplicable.

世界卫生组织(WHO)和美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)很可能都将把电子烟划为“烟草产品”。这让人不安。WHO提出了到2025年将烟草使用量降低30%的目标。有鉴于此，它限制电子烟的决定让人无法理解。

The WHO is guardian of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which sets the global regulatory standard. A decision by the WHO to treat e-cigarettes no differently from their more harmful rivals will therefore have wide implications. The 168 signatory states, including the UK, would be obliged to reduce e-cigarettes use. It would also make e-cigarettes more expensive to buy and harder to advertise.

WHO是《烟草控制框架公约》(Framework Convention on Tobacco Control，简称FCTC)的守护者，该公约确定了全球烟草监管标准。因此，WHO将电子烟视同对健康危害更大的普通香烟的决定，将产生广泛影响。包括英国在内的168个缔约国将被迫减少电子烟使用，消费者购买电子烟时将支付更高费用，生产商为电子烟做广告时也将面临更多障碍。

The critical flaw in the position taken by the WHO and FDA is that science has not informed their thinking. Evidence of nicotine’s harm to humans is minimal. True, more research is needed, but so far no reputable scientist has concluded e-cigarettes cause cancer. This leaves only two reasons why regulators would consider classifying them as tobacco products.

WHO和FDA对电子烟的态度有一个关键缺陷，那就是没有考虑科学。尼古丁损害人体健康的证据少之又少。诚然，在这方面我们需要做更多研究，但迄今为止还没有哪位声誉卓著的科学家得出过电子烟致癌的结论。那么，监管机构会想到把电子烟划为烟草产品的理由就只剩下两条了。

The first argument is that smoking e-cigarettes is a first step on the slippery slope to using conventional cigarettes. No credible surveys have shown this to be the case. Indeed, the reverse is more likely: e-cigarettes now outsell nicotine patches. Given nicotine is the stimulant so craved by smokers, it is not clear why they would move on to more expensive and more socially unacceptable alternatives.

第一条是，抽电子烟很容易发展为抽普通香烟。这一说法的真实性没有可信的研究能证明。事实上，情况很可能恰恰相反，因为如今电子烟销量已超过尼古丁贴片。鉴于让吸烟者欲罢不能的是尼古丁，改吸更贵、更不为社会所接受的普通香烟不合常理。

A second argument is that the regulators object in principle to consumers taking addictive stimulants. But governments cannot regulate every addictive substance. For example, coffee and sugar are harmful taken in large quantities over time. The question of how they are consumed is best left to individuals.

第二条理由是，监管机构原则上反对消费者摄入可致人上瘾的刺激物。但政府不可能监管每一种可致人上瘾的物质。例如，长期大量摄入咖啡和糖也有损于健康。但该如何摄入的问题最好由个人自己把握。

Governments have other options if they feel that e-cigarettes require regulation. One avenue – favoured by the UK – is to classify e-cigarettes as medicines. But this too has risks. Medicinal classification brings exacting production and quality standards that many small firms are unlikely to meet. This might stymie a nascent industry that is innovating rapidly.

如果政府觉得有必要监管电子烟，那么它们还有其他选择。其中一种是将电子烟划为药物，英国就偏向于这种方法。但这种方法同样存在风险。将电子烟划为药物，意味着要实行严格的生产和质量标准，许多小企业很可能达不到。这可能会阻碍一个正在迅速创新的新生行业的发展。

The aim of health regulation must always be to reduce harm. E-cigarettes should therefore be embraced as part of the solution to the growth of cancer worldwide. Regulators should not take narrow-minded decisions to occupy an invented moral high ground. Instead, they should follow the science. This provides overwhelming evidence that electronic cigarettes are a benefit.

卫生监管应始终以降低健康损害为目标。因此，电子烟应被视为解决全球癌症发病率日益增高的方法之一。监管机构不应该用狭隘的决定，来占领自创的道德制高点。相反，他们应该遵循科学。科学提供了非常可信的证据，证明电子烟是有益处的。