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.