Responses

PDF

It is time to abandon youth access tobacco programmes
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Ling, Landman, and Glantz respond
    • Stanton A. Glantz, Professor of Medicine
    • Other Contributors:
      • Pamela Ling and Anne Landman

    Fichtenberg and Glantz have responded separately to the technical issues that DiFranza raised about their paper.

    Both Tutt and DiFranza are missing the larger point of our editorial. Unlike public health forces, the tobacco industry has unlimited resources to push their agenda. We made the point that in a real world of limited public health resources, those resources are better concentrated where they have been...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Fichtenberg and Glantz respond

    Since DiFranza's criticism of the editorial by Ling et al.(1) concentrates mostly on criticism of the paper by Fichtenberg and Glantz, published in Pediatrics,(2) we are writing to respond to these criticisms separately. We recognize that this is unusual, since the standard procedure would have been for DiFranza to write Pediatrics after the paper was published there. DiFranza, however, chose to write Tobacco Control (b...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    It is time to abandon bad science

    May 8, 2002 To the editor,

    In their editorial “It is time to abandon youth access tobacco programmes,” Ling, Landman and Glantz1 base their argument on an in press meta-analysis of youth access interventions by Fichtenberg and Glantz.2 These authors conclude that there is no proof that youth access interventions work to reduce youth smoking rates. Sadly, this analysis includes ten methodological flaws, each o...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:

    I disagree totally with Stan Glantz and his view that we abandon youth access efforts.

    As usual in every argument there is truth on both sides. He is right in being concerned that this can be an easy way for tobacco companies to look good and that teens will attempt to substitute other social sources. But one of the main sources of such secondary supply is other minors purchasing and then selling on the 'black...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.