NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users
report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour
and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the
devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that
vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which...
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users
report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour
and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the
devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that
vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which was a surprise to most
vapers, until they spotted the affiliate link to where they could purchase
electrolytes and a lotion to 'cure' them (1).
(1) 'Rip Trippers exposed as a sellout' Jh Reviews
https://youtu.be/F1EJkbM0m7g (contains profanity)
Conflict of Interest:
I am a trustee of NNA(UK) which is a consumer driven charity which aims to improve health by increasing awareness and understanding of reduced risk alternatives to smoked tobacco.
NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.
Since the health variable is binary, the authors apply "Wagstaff's correction" to the Concentration Index. This is a perfectly legitimate decision, but the authors mistakenly suggest that this correction can be applied to both the relative and the absolute version of the index, yielding two normalized indices. In fact,...
NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.
Since the health variable is binary, the authors apply "Wagstaff's correction" to the Concentration Index. This is a perfectly legitimate decision, but the authors mistakenly suggest that this correction can be applied to both the relative and the absolute version of the index, yielding two normalized indices. In fact, there is only one Wagstaff index, which can be expressed as W = RC/(1-m) = AC/[m(1-m)], with m = prevalence. All the results which are presented under the heading "Absolute concentration index" in Table 2 and as "AC" in Table 3 are therefore irrelevant. These results refer to the index mW which nobody has ever used in the literature. It follows that the decomposition formula (6) of the paper is redundant.
Similar remarks hold for the application of the alternative "Erreygers correction". The correction leads to one index, not two as suggested by the authors. The index can be written as E = 4mRC = 4AC. As a consequence, the results presented under the heading "Absolute concentration index" in Table A.1 of the supplementary online material are irrelevant. They refer to the index mE, which is not the one defined by Erreygers.
After a brief comparison of the Wagstaff and Erreygers indices the authors conclude that "the calculated RC and AC informed qualitatively similar inference" (p. 9). Since E = 4m(1-m)W, the values of E and W clearly will be positively correlated, and the more strongly so if the variation in prevalence is limited. For the whole population, the (unweighted) average of m is 0.28, and the standard deviation 0.19. As expected, the correlation of E and W is high, but not perfect: the coefficient of correlation is 0.8815, and the rank correlation coefficient 0.8726. Nevertheless, countries such as Liberia, Bangladesh and Benin, make large jumps in the rankings if inequality is measured by one index rather than the other. At least for these countries, it may be doubted whether the results are "qualitatively similar".
When it comes to the calculation of the between-group and within-group shares, it makes no difference whether the Wagstaff or Erreygers index is used. The main problem here is that any rank-dependent index is not subgroup decomposable. There is always a residual term, which may be quite large. Because of this, the decomposition results presented in the paper are unreliable.
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the
hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and
beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired
quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is
referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the
hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and
beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired
quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is
referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact that has on quitting
successfully is quite dramatic.
I have this one flavor I make that I absolutely love, it's Caramel
Apple Crumble with a bit of Creamy Custard, but like many other vapes it's
just too decadent for anyone to vape all day much like chocolate flavors
generally are. Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean you can tolerate it
all day and that can determine your chances at a successful quit attempt.
The flavors used in the study appear to be much generic to yield
results that would reflect the current market as most of it is filled with
much more complex mixes and many variations of each flavor..
There are many variations of flavors that taste like different brands
of cigarettes or candy and fruits, if a smoker were to try a tobacco blend
that tasted like their brand of cigarette their chances at a successful
quit attempt would be much higher than if they tried another variation.
Flavor is by far the most important aspect of a successful quit
attempt when it comes to vaping, once a person finds 1 or 2 flavors they
can enjoy all day they then need to find a device with the vapor
production they are looking for and the appropriate nicotine level to suit
it.
Personally when I first decided to give vaping a shot I tried over
twenty flavors many of which I thought I would enjoy but didn't, I ended
up with two flavors Strawberry Creme and Skittles, SBC all day and Sk
when I felt like something a little more sweet...
The ability to allow people to sample flavors is very much the key to
their success, if I were not allowed and went with what I thought sounded
good I would still be smoking today.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Incense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Incense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of any such calls by the authors of this article).
Does this mean that they would support the use of fog machines or incense stick in crèches and neonatal wards?
Somehow, I strongly doubt it.
Does this mean that they would support a ban on fog machines in smoke free public places? It doesn't seem particularly likely.
Logic does not easily allow us to conclude that because we feel something is not appropriate for places occupied by the most vulnerable of populations it should be more universally prohibited, nor that something we do not feel should be so prohibited is suitable for such populations.
Nor is it the case that any rational advocate for electronic cigarettes would claim that they are "benign". Every exposure has a risk attached to it. Some, like smoking, are massive risks while others, like a bacon sandwich, are not. Yet, in a debate as facile as this one, both can be stated to be carcinogenic. While this is indeed true in an absolute sense, equating the two would not be responsible risk communication, nor should it be an acceptable message to communicate to the public. It is not sufficient to identify a risk - some indication of the magnitude of it is also required.
So it is with the use of electronic cigarettes. Are they entirely, absolutely, risk free? Of course not. Do they have a good evidence base for positive risk/benefit? Yes.
One of the key benefits of electronic cigarettes is that vaping has been embraced and promoted by former smokers to their peers. No comparable culture exists for NRT products or unassisted quitting. Yet far from being encouraged, or even merely ignored, scorn is poured on these evangelical ex-smokers, notably by one of the authors of this article.
Some perspective is much needed, but this article will not provide it. It is, perhaps, telling that I feel my pre-existing view on harm reduction is an ideological COI, which it certainly is, and have listed it as such. The authors did not feel similarly inclined to declare theirs.
Positions are becoming increasingly entrenched, but a bastion of ideology makes it hard to change position when the evidence indicates a change is justified. There is much common ground between the two sides, yet increasingly it is a shell scarred no-mans land where people are afraid to stick their head above the parapet for fear of being attacked. Bitterness and mistrust is being generated by, and on, both sides of the debate, but who benefits from this hostility? It's not current or former smokers, it is neither Public Health or the health of the public. The only winners are likely to be the equally entrenched and embattled tobacco industry. Nobody wants that.
We need to move beyond facile arguments and veiled hostility to a sensible and rational debate. We all want less people to smoke, and less lives to be lost or marred. Articles like this do not - cannot - help.
NOT PEER REVIEWED The American Indoor Hygiene Association (AIHA) i.e. Experts in in
this particular field on passive exposure, have, previously, concluded
conversely to Bauld et al (1). As they state:
"If the only individual affected by using e-cigarettes were the
vaper, the discussion could end here. That is not, however, the case.
Similar to secondhand smoke, the ingredients exhaled by the vaper include
nicot...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The American Indoor Hygiene Association (AIHA) i.e. Experts in in
this particular field on passive exposure, have, previously, concluded
conversely to Bauld et al (1). As they state:
"If the only individual affected by using e-cigarettes were the
vaper, the discussion could end here. That is not, however, the case.
Similar to secondhand smoke, the ingredients exhaled by the vaper include
nicotine, metals, flavorings, and glycol that accumulate in the ambient
air. Recipients of secondhand vapor have not chosen to - many, in fact,
have explicitly chosen not to - use e-cigarettes. The exposure to
secondhand vapor, just like secondhand smoke, raises issues of involuntary
exposure and competing rights. This is even more critical for groups that
may be, and probably are, more susceptible to adverse effects of
secondhand vapor, including children, pregnant women, and people with
already compromised health, some of whom may have limited ability to leave
the spaces in which vaping occurs or has occurred."
This scientific postulation of second-hand inhalation of e-cigarette
aerosol and subsequent adverse health effects has been further
substantiated: via users of e-cigarettes, in their own personal, real-
world experiences (2). They subsequently, and eloquently argue, that the
devices should not be utilised in enclosed public spaces, due to these
events occurring.
Linda Bauld has previously argued in an extended article that:
". . . there is no good evidence that [second hand] exposure is
harmful to bystanders . . . To argue otherwise is just factually
incorrect." (3)
However, the phrase "harmful to bystanders" provides a hyperlink to a
review paper (4) of the potential for second hand exposures that,
incongruently to Professor Bauld's claim, concludes that e-cigarettes:
". . . impart a LOWER potential disease burden than conventional TCs"
(my emphasis)
I.E. therefore, NOT zero potential disease burden.
It is to be commended that Bauld et al wish to enhance the potential
for adult smoking cessation maximally, however, in this case, there IS
evidence that such a policy of non-restricted use potentially infringes
the rights of non-users to avoid passive inhalation and subsequent adverse
health effects, as the AIHA postulate, and as users of e-cigarettes have
confirmed in real-world conditions.
1) American Industrial Hygiene Association:
https://www.aiha.org/government-
affairs/Documents/Electronc%20Cig%20Document_Final.pdf
2) "Vaping e-cigs in public" Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c5Ln69hWUc
3) Linda Bauld (2015). Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-
evidence/2015/feb/23/theres-no-evidence-e-cigarettes-are-as-harmful-as-
smoking
4) Oh, A. & Kacker, A. 2014 Do electronic cigarettes impart a
lower potential disease burden than conventional tobacco cigarettes?
Review on E-cigarette vapor versus tobacco smoke. Laryngoscope
124(12):2702-6. doi: 10.1002/lary.24750. Epub 2014 Oct 9.
David Bareham
"All views are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer"
Conflict of Interest:
I have 3 presentations to local clinicians in Lincolnshire within the last 18 months entitled:
"E-cigarettes: update on evidence", organised by GlaxoSmithKline. No payment was requested nor provided for this work.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Bauld et al [1] draw an analogy between indoor vaping and the use of
bronchodilators for asthma ("if and when vapour products with a medicinal
license become available, it will be important to allow their use indoors,
just as asthma inhalers, which dispense a drug and propellants into the
atmosphere, can be used indoors.")
NOT PEER REVIEWED Bauld et al [1] draw an analogy between indoor vaping and the use of
bronchodilators for asthma ("if and when vapour products with a medicinal
license become available, it will be important to allow their use indoors,
just as asthma inhalers, which dispense a drug and propellants into the
atmosphere, can be used indoors.")
Surely, they cannot be serious here?
Newman et al showed the amount of dosed drug exhaled by asthmatics
ranged from just 0.2%-1.7% across different puffing behaviours [2]. A
typical person who uses an asthma puffer would be unwise to use it more
than 4-6 times a day [3] whereas vapers can take up to 610 puffs a day,
with an average of around 200 [4].
Conversely, the objective of many ENDS users is the absolute
opposite. As this article puts it "At the end of the day, Sub Ohm vaping
comes down to three words: big ass clouds" [5] Etter [6] notes that
"These newer devices deliver more power, more cloud density, [my emphasis]
more intense flavors and a better 'throat hit' than older models."
With this generation of ENDS becoming more popular, we would expect
to see clouding increase. As we know [7], many vapers in a room can send
particle counts above those recorded in room where smoking is allowed.
There is simply no comparison between the asthma medication and
propellant a few asthmatics might exhale into (for example) a crowded bar
over a few hours and what potentially dozens of vapers could generate in
the sort of exuberant clouding sessions that vaping in bars can entail.
And unlike vapers, asthmatics do not participate in asthma puffer social
events.
This vaper puts things plainly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c5Ln69hWUc
References
1. Bauld L, McNeill A, Hajek P, Britton J, Dockrell M. E-cigarette
use in public places: striking the right balance. Tob Control 2016;
doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053357
2. Newman SP, Weisz AWB, Talaee N, Clarke SW. Improvement of drug
delivery with a breath actuated pressurised aerosol for patients with poor
inhaler technique. Thorax 1991; 46:712-16.
3. Partners Healthcare. Asthma Center. Chapter 33: How many times a
day can I safely use my bronchodilator inhaler?
http://www.asthma.partners.org/NewFiles/BoFAChapter33.html
4. Martin E, Clapp PW, Rebuli ME et al . E-cigarette use results in
suppression of immune and inflammatory-response genes in nasal epithelial
cells similar to cigarette smoke. merican Journal of Physiology - Lung
Cellular and Molecular Physiology Published 10 June 2016 Vol. no. , DOI:
10.1152/ajplung.00170.2016
5. Kriegel D. What is sub ohm vaping? Our sub ohm vaping guide &
tips http://vaping360.com/what-is-sub-ohm-vaping-and-the-dangers-of-sub-
ohm-vapes/ 2015;May 26.
6. Etter J-F. A longitudinal study of cotinine in long-term users of
e-cigarettes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2016;160:218-221.
7. Soule EK, Maloney SF, Spindle TR, et al. Electronic cigarette use
and indoor air quality in a natural setting. Tob Control 2016;???.
doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052772
NOT PEER REVIEWED The Internet is widely used source for purchasing and selling products.
However,purchasing tobacco products online is a new trend. The internet
vendors are often exempted from taxes leading to lowering the cost of cigarettes
in certain countries.This is a really alarming situation as it would lead to
increase in sales of tobacco products due to lower prices. Countries need
to check this trend otherwise al...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The Internet is widely used source for purchasing and selling products.
However,purchasing tobacco products online is a new trend. The internet
vendors are often exempted from taxes leading to lowering the cost of cigarettes
in certain countries.This is a really alarming situation as it would lead to
increase in sales of tobacco products due to lower prices. Countries need
to check this trend otherwise all the gain achieved till now through
legislation and commitments to reduce tobacco consumption could be lost.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
In the last decade, electronic cigarettes (EC) have become
increasingly popular in particular among smokers. Most EC users choose to
use nicotine containing liquids (electronic nicotine delivery system,
ENDS); these ENDS can be considered as similar to nicotine replacement
therapies. Among the several questions EC use raises, one is of major
importance: Are EC a smoking cessation aid and if yes to...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
In the last decade, electronic cigarettes (EC) have become
increasingly popular in particular among smokers. Most EC users choose to
use nicotine containing liquids (electronic nicotine delivery system,
ENDS); these ENDS can be considered as similar to nicotine replacement
therapies. Among the several questions EC use raises, one is of major
importance: Are EC a smoking cessation aid and if yes to what extent
compared to existing pharmacotherapies such as nicotine replacement
therapies, varenicline or bupropion?
Several systematic reviews tried to approach the role of EC as a smoking
cessation aid. As of today, only two randomized trials assessed the
efficacy of EC with controversial results (1,2). As an editorial (3) and
the last systematic review (4) concluded, because of the absence of well-
designed and sufficiently powered randomized, controlled, head-to-head
therapeutic trials the current accumulation of data originating
essentially from observational studies does not allow us to make any
conclusion as to EC's therapeutic efficacy in smoking cessation.
Manzoli et al. (5, 6) assessed abstinence from tobacco cigarettes or
tobacco and electronic cigarettes ('any product') in a prospective
cohort study. They included at baseline EC only users, individuals using
tobacco cigarettes and EC (dual use) and those using only tobacco
cigarettes. They reported the 12-month (5) and 24-month (6) results in
two separate papers the latter published online in the June 2016 issue of
Tobacco Control. For both papers, the analyses were restricted to
individuals whose data were available at 12 or 24 months (completers).
This study raises the question whether observational studies assessing
efficacy should be analyzed similarly to randomized efficacy trials for
which the gold standard approach is the intent-to treat-analysis (ITT)
(7) which defines the population submitted to the main data analysis.
Table 1.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RM5mvK1s85N1iZZ_kKiHkKiMsS1SVl4YMPTj6ALHvS8/edit?usp=sharing
compares Manzoli et al. results for the 12-month and 24-month abstinence
outcomes (5,6). For all baseline categories, completers' abstinence rates
are higher than abstinence rates of the baseline population that we can
call here as the "ITT" population i.e. of all individuals included. Of
particular interest is that EC only users had higher tobacco cigarettes
but not 'any product' abstinence rates both at 12 and 24 months than the
two other groups. The (unadjusted) "ITT" tobacco cigarettes abstinence
rates are 42% and 40.8 % versus the completers abstinence rates of
61.9% and 61.1 % at 12 and 24 months, respectively; all higher than among
dual users or tobacco cigarette only users suggesting that EC can be an
aid to quit smoking. Unfortunately, both papers report only confounder
adjusted odds ratios for completers and not for the "ITT" population.
Observational studies looking for treatment efficacy could be analyzed
like randomized efficacy trials (8,9) to narrow the gap between randomized
clinical trials and observational data (8). Non-ITT, usually completer
analyses, aim to estimate the effect of treatments received as opposed
to treatments assigned under the ITT approach and by this exclude all
factors contributing to non-completion of the trial (lost to follow up,
adverse events, discontinuation for any reasons). The advantage of the ITT
analysis is that it evaluates the true treatment effect which is the sum
of the biological effects, positive or negative such as adverse events,
and study adherence. The limitation of the ITT analysis of randomized
efficacy trials is the underestimation of efficacy because of non-
treatment related confounders (e.g. lost to follow-up for moving to
another city). On the other hand, completer analysis overestimates
efficacy by ignoring e.g. discontinuation because of adverse events and
cannot, therefore, help to assess the benefit/risk ratio of a given
intervention.
Until results of high-quality, large-scale, comparative, randomized trials
of EC' efficacy will be available, data of well conducted prospective
observational studies as that of Manzoli at al. (5,6) could estimate EC's
efficacy by analyzing "ITT" data and not completers' data while adjusting
for all available and potential confounders. Thus, in the Manzoli et
al. study (5,6) adjusted "ITT" population abstinence rates would have
provided more convincing results about EC's efficacy as an aid for
smoking cessation than completers' adjusted abstinence rates.
REFERENCES
1. Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, et al. EffiCiency and Safety of an
eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a
prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS One. 2013 Jun
24;8(6):e66317. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066317. Print 2013.
2. Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking
cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013 Nov
16;382(9905):1629-37. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61842-5. Epub 2013 Sep 9.
3. Bernstein SL. Electronic cigarettes: more light, less heat needed.
Lancet Respir Med. 2016; Feb;4(2):85-7. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)00010-
2. Epub 2016 Jan 14
4. Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, et al. Electronic Cigarettes for
Smoking Cessation: A Systematic Review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Apr 25.
pii: ntw119. [Epub ahead of print] Review.
5. Manzoli L, Flacco ME, Fiore M, et al. , Electronic cigarettes efficacy
and safety at 12 months: Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2015 Jun
10;10(6):e0129443. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129443. eCollection 2015.
6. Manzoli L, Flacco ME, Ferrante M, et al. Cohort study of electronic
cigarette use: effectiveness and safety at 24 months. Tob Control. 2016
Jun 6. pii: tobaccocontrol-2015-052822. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-
052822. [Epub ahead of print]
7. Detry MA, Lewis RJ. The Intention-to Treat principle. How to assess the
true effect of choosing a medical treatment. JAMA 2014; 312:85-86.
8.Wilcox A, Wacholder S. Observational data and clinical trials. Narrowing
the gap? Editorial. Epidemiology 2008;19: 765.
9. Herna?n MA, Alonso A, Logan R, et al. Observational studies analyzed
like randomized experiments: an application to postmenopausal hormone
therapy and coronary heart disease. Epidemiology. 2008;19:766-779.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The study conducted in England by Petrescu and colleagues [1]
concludes that there is a "potential for e-cigarette adverts to
undermine tobacco control efforts by reducing a potential barrier (i.e.
beliefs about harm) to occasional smoking".
Clearly it is important to keep monitoring the impact of advertising,
particularly on children, and this research paper is a welcome
contribution. However, i...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The study conducted in England by Petrescu and colleagues [1]
concludes that there is a "potential for e-cigarette adverts to
undermine tobacco control efforts by reducing a potential barrier (i.e.
beliefs about harm) to occasional smoking".
Clearly it is important to keep monitoring the impact of advertising,
particularly on children, and this research paper is a welcome
contribution. However, it is important to put this in context.
The most recent survey of smoking among children in England found the
lowest recorded smoking rates among youth aged 11-15 since records began
in 1982.[2] It's worth noting that rates have continued to fall since e-
cigarette use and marketing of products began to take off in Great Britain
after 2010.[3][4] In 2010, 5% of 11-15 year olds were regular smokers
falling to 3% in 2014. Also, in 2010 27% had ever tried smoking, falling
to 18% in 2014.
So it doesn't appear that e-cigarette advertising in England has had
an impact so far on the number of children trying smoking, or becoming
regular smokers. Furthermore from May 2016 all cross border advertising
including TV, radio, internet and newspaper advertising has been banned
throughout the European Union, thereby limiting advertising to that with
local impact.
It should also be noted that in the UK e-cigarette manufacturers are
required to adhere to strict rules on advertising content.[5] These rules
specify in particular that advertisers must ensure ads do not target,
feature or appeal to children; that they do not confuse e-cigarettes with
tobacco products; that they do not mislead with regard to product
ingredients.
In jurisdictions where e-cigarette ads are unregulated and resemble
tobacco promotion, it's reasonable to assume that they could affect
children's perceptions of both e-cigarettes and smoking. This study
underlines the need to monitor e-cigarette marketing but the potential
risks that e-cigarette advertisements are undermining tobacco control
efforts in England are likely to be over-stated.
[1] D C Petrescu, M Vasiljevic, J K Pepper, K M Ribisl, T M Marteau.
What is the impact of adverts on children's perceptions of tobacco
smoking? Tobacco Control published online 6 Sept. 2016. Doi:
10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052940
[2] Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in
2014. Health & Social Care Information Centre, 2015.
[3] ASH Fact sheet. Use of electronic cigarettes (vapourisers) among
adults in Great Britain. ASH, 2016
[4] De Andrade M et al. The marketing of e-cigarettes in the UK.
Cancer Research UK, 2013.
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_marketing_of_electronic_cigs_nov_2013.pdf
[5] Committee on Advertising Practice.
https://www.cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-
Database/Electronic-cigarettes.aspx#.V86Snf_6uvE
NOT PEER REVIEWED.
The authors rightly point out that loopholes exist in some smoke-free air laws, exempting smoking of ???tobacco-free or herbal hookah products??? in public places.
In New York City, where this study took place, the governing laws are: (1) New York State Clean Indoor Air Act, and (2) New York City Smoke Free Air Act.[1] Between 2002-2003, both laws were amended to "prohibit smoking in virtually all in...
NOT PEER REVIEWED.
The authors rightly point out that loopholes exist in some smoke-free air laws, exempting smoking of ???tobacco-free or herbal hookah products??? in public places.
In New York City, where this study took place, the governing laws are: (1) New York State Clean Indoor Air Act, and (2) New York City Smoke Free Air Act.[1] Between 2002-2003, both laws were amended to "prohibit smoking in virtually all indoor places in New York State where people work or socialize.???[2] The changes were made "in response to mounting scientific evidence that links exposure to the airborne smoke that is a by-product of smoking . . . to serious health risks to non-smokers.???[3] Unfortunately, smoking was narrowly defined as "the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco.???[4] Thus, giving rise to New York???s loophole allowing non-tobacco hookah smoking.
By comparison, the situation is different in neighboring New Jersey. In 2006, the state legislature enacted the New Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act prohibiting smoking in public places.[5] In the Act, smoking is defined as "the burning of, inhaling from, exhaling the smoke from, or the possession of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked.???[6] New Jersey courts have interpreted the Act to include regulation of hookah bars???even when non-tobacco products are used in these devices. [7] Constitutional challenges to overturn this statute have failed underscoring its strength.
Weakly worded "smoking" definitions are a chief source of statutory loopholes allowing public use of hookahs, as well as electronic cigarettes. Advocates for stronger clean indoor air laws should consider developing a model rule with commentary containing explanations and examples. This lays a foundation to assist legislators in statutory creation and helps judges with interpretation. Such model rules exist for many other areas of the law. States are free to adopt model rules in whole or in part.
Smoking in the "new age" encompasses modalities not in existence when many smoking prohibitions were enacted. Vigilance is needed to ensure anti-smoking laws keep pace with the times.
References
[1] New York City C.L.A.S.H. v. City of New York, 315 F. Supp. 2d 461, 465 (2004).
[2] Id. at 466.
[3] Id. at 466-67.
[4] N.Y. Pub Health Law ?? 1399n(8) (Consol. 2003) (emphasis added).
[5] N.J. Stat. ???? 26:3D-55-64.
[6] N.J.S.A. 26:3D-57
[7] See State v. Badr, 415 N.J. Super 455 (2009).
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which...
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Show MoreIncense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The American Indoor Hygiene Association (AIHA) i.e. Experts in in this particular field on passive exposure, have, previously, concluded conversely to Bauld et al (1). As they state:
"If the only individual affected by using e-cigarettes were the vaper, the discussion could end here. That is not, however, the case. Similar to secondhand smoke, the ingredients exhaled by the vaper include nicot...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Bauld et al [1] draw an analogy between indoor vaping and the use of bronchodilators for asthma ("if and when vapour products with a medicinal license become available, it will be important to allow their use indoors, just as asthma inhalers, which dispense a drug and propellants into the atmosphere, can be used indoors.")
Surely, they cannot be serious here?
Newman et al showed the a...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The Internet is widely used source for purchasing and selling products. However,purchasing tobacco products online is a new trend. The internet vendors are often exempted from taxes leading to lowering the cost of cigarettes in certain countries.This is a really alarming situation as it would lead to increase in sales of tobacco products due to lower prices. Countries need to check this trend otherwise al...
NOT PEER REVIEWED In the last decade, electronic cigarettes (EC) have become increasingly popular in particular among smokers. Most EC users choose to use nicotine containing liquids (electronic nicotine delivery system, ENDS); these ENDS can be considered as similar to nicotine replacement therapies. Among the several questions EC use raises, one is of major importance: Are EC a smoking cessation aid and if yes to...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The study conducted in England by Petrescu and colleagues [1] concludes that there is a "potential for e-cigarette adverts to undermine tobacco control efforts by reducing a potential barrier (i.e. beliefs about harm) to occasional smoking". Clearly it is important to keep monitoring the impact of advertising, particularly on children, and this research paper is a welcome contribution. However, i...
The authors rightly point out that loopholes exist in some smoke-free air laws, exempting smoking of ???tobacco-free or herbal hookah products??? in public places.
In New York City, where this study took place, the governing laws are: (1) New York State Clean Indoor Air Act, and (2) New York City Smoke Free Air Act.[1] Between 2002-2003, both laws were amended to "prohibit smoking in virtually all in...
Pages