NOT PEER REVIEWED Because the authors cite just seven major tobacco-related news events
in the seven year period they reviewed (Figure 2), I question whether
their tabulation of the "volume of news media stories on tobacco" (page 6)
provides a meaningful representation of the coverage of tobacco-related
issues in the mass media. Is not a front-page article on a tobacco-
related subject in The New York Times or The Washingt...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Because the authors cite just seven major tobacco-related news events
in the seven year period they reviewed (Figure 2), I question whether
their tabulation of the "volume of news media stories on tobacco" (page 6)
provides a meaningful representation of the coverage of tobacco-related
issues in the mass media. Is not a front-page article on a tobacco-
related subject in The New York Times or The Washington Post--or a lead
story on NBC NIghtly News or The Today Show--of far greater importance, in
terms of both content and readership, than the publication of any number
of brief items? In other words, missing from this analysis is a year-by-
year list of nationally significant news stories on tobacco.
One measure that could be used to quantify the relative importance of
tobacco stories in a given year is the daily Index to Businesses in The
Wall Street Journal (WSJ). By this indicator (and by my daily reading of
the print editions of the WSJ, The New York Times, The Financial Times,
USA Today, and two local US dailies), my impression is that in recent
years there has been a relative handful of significant tobacco news
stories. This is at odds with the authors' finding of an average of 3
tobacco-related newspaper stories, 4 newswire stories, and 1 television
news story each day for seven years. Although the authors attempted to
correct for duplication, I suspect a large percentage of these stories
were variations on a theme or the same news thread.
Another measure is newspaper editorial cartoons. Even taking into
consideration the decimation in the ranks of political cartoonists at US
dailies due to the steep decline in newspaper readership, editorial
cartoons on tobacco issues are now rare. In the heady days of anti-
tobacco activism in the US in the 1980s and 1990s, I catalogued more than
700 editorial cartoons on tobacco.
I wonder if the best way to gauge the weight given to the coverage of
tobacco-related issues in a given year would be to compare it to the
attention given to other issues, both health-related (eg, AIDS, obesity,
gun control, alcohol problems) and less directly health-related (eg, the
economy, unemployment, terrorism).
Ultimately, I am unconvinced that quantity beats quality when it
comes to reports on tobacco in the mass media. What matters is the
prominence of news coverage of significant issues, not the number of
articles all counted as equal.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
I really welcome this kind of discussion.
I acknowledge your 'why and how' argument, however you may find that
things like telephone counselling and many group programs will however
then fall into your unassisted quitting category as well. This is because
they are simply being coached to enhance those natural skills they already
have.
I am aware you are conducting an interview style...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
I really welcome this kind of discussion.
I acknowledge your 'why and how' argument, however you may find that
things like telephone counselling and many group programs will however
then fall into your unassisted quitting category as well. This is because
they are simply being coached to enhance those natural skills they already
have.
I am aware you are conducting an interview style 'unassiSted attempt'
project, and I think this is really useful for workers in the field. What
I am convinced you are going to find is that people use a range of
positive self talk strategies, and challenging negative thoughts at times
of cravings to overcome them. Things such "I can do this', 'Just say no',
and/or visualising the long term consequences of smoking, to name a few.
These cognitive strategies that people naturally use are great, and it's
what telephone counsellors and group clinicians would support in any drug
and alcohol envronment, or even clincians that work solely with
psychopathologies. There is nothing wrong with this, except that in group
and individual counselling, you can practice and enhance these cognitive
processes - and add more of them. In addition, you can offer other
strategies, dare I say - NRT, in combination. This is what makes group
behaviour therapy for example so useful.
There is nothing new about congnitive restructuring techniques.
Psychologists have been assisting clients for years as part of any CBT
strategy. Your study, although I'm not aware of the details, seems to be
collection of natural cognitive processes. Again, all this is fine, but
wht not build on this as part of treatment? After all, you say you are not
against treatment.
Your have linked your statement about pharmaceutical companies in
with services like mine. i.e 'you spend a lot, with little proportional
return.' This is an apples and oranges argument. Firstly, I personally can't
see the problem in a pharmaceutucal company (or any company for that
matter) spending their own money to advertise their own products. I also
can't see any problem with them making a profit from this, as long as the
evidence supports their products' use.
Importantly, the last time I looked, almost nothing has been spent by the
government or by anyone else on our service up until recently, and yet I
receive hundreds of enquiries each year for assistance, usually from
desperate workplaces.
Your final point is a good one. There is a lack of motivation by the
majority of smokers to take up professional assistance. Yet if
interventions like group behaviour therapy, for example, doubles cessation,
and treatment really is supported by public health teams, then why aren't
public health experts continually studying and supporting ways to
effectively enhance uptake? This is where I see failure.
It would be fantastic if all smokers could quit with 'unassisted'
self talk strategies by 30-35. Yet in NSW more than 60% of smokers are
over 35 as of 2011 (Health stats data). Their unassisted quit attempts did
not work, but maybe treatment would have.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The warning of this article is important, but not limited to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. Switzerland and USA, as countries which have not ratified, are not obliged to follow
Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One of the
reasons for the largest tobacco companies to move their headquarters to
Switzerland was the location of the World Trade Organisation in this
country. Some...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The warning of this article is important, but not limited to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. Switzerland and USA, as countries which have not ratified, are not obliged to follow
Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One of the
reasons for the largest tobacco companies to move their headquarters to
Switzerland was the location of the World Trade Organisation in this
country. Some time ago I attempted to draw attention to this danger:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/exclude_tobacco_nicotine_from_free_trade_agreements/.
I hope that Fooks and Gilmore will succeed in starting a broader movement.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Smokeless Tobacco(ST) such as Gutkha-ban (and the like) in India does
not work!
There have been repercussions from sections of growers following the ban of
Gutka (and similar products) in Karnataka, a South -Western state of India with the
highest production of Areca-nut (one of the major constituents of ST, used
in commercial sachet (such as Gutka etc) and home-made/vendor-made
Tambula/Paan...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Smokeless Tobacco(ST) such as Gutkha-ban (and the like) in India does
not work!
There have been repercussions from sections of growers following the ban of
Gutka (and similar products) in Karnataka, a South -Western state of India with the
highest production of Areca-nut (one of the major constituents of ST, used
in commercial sachet (such as Gutka etc) and home-made/vendor-made
Tambula/Paan as well.
It is essential to ban Gutkha, because tobacco containing Gutkha is
highly carcinogenic, killing millions of Indian and SE- Asian
people annually. Some of the areas of India have higher incidence
rates of mouth cancer -- more than 30% of all cancers are oral cancer,
and there is no doubt that the tobacco containing Gutkha and Tambula/Paan
(usually home or vendor-made: it's a local name in Karnataka and other
states of India) is strongly associated with mouth cancer-- evidenced
by several studies conducted elsewhere. Hence banning of Gutkha is a step
forward to help prevent mouth and head-neck cancer-- provided it has been
implemented properly.
But the setback of the ban is that none of the state
governments and relevant agencies in India have so far come up with a strategic way of implementing the ban, including evaluation of its effectiveness. In this
context, I mention that the estimated growth rate of new Gutkha and similar
commercial sachets is much higher compared to the pre-ban era, and a
few expensive brands are also advertised on some of the national TV
channels.(Source:Department of Oral Biology & Genomic Studies, Nitte
University, India)
However, as one of the member-states of UN, India has signed the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control of WHO, and the country is
obliged to comply with that directive. Rightly India has got its own
parliamentary verdict to ban tobacco consumption such as smoking in
public places (although 'public place' is not clearly defined, and there
is no definite say on Gutkha-chewing habits. On this I wrote to WHO
published (
http://www.who.int/bulletin/bulletin_board/82/news06041/en/index1.html).
We understand that the police can catch and penalize a smoker violating smokefree laws,
but not a chewer.
Therefore, as one of the researchers in tobacco addictions at
Nitte University of India jointly with the Warwick University of the UK
also being a Stakeholder of smokeless tobacco (ST) control of National
Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) at the department of Health (DoH)
in the UK, I find the demand of Areca-nut growers in Karnataka needs to
be solved amicably and sensibly, because, although millions of people may depend upon
Areca-farming, we cannot reconcile their living with the expense of the rising
death toll from mouth cancer and disturbing disability from Oral Sub-mucus
Fibrosis(OSF).
However, according to classification of Gutkha (ref. Oral Cancer
Screening & Education: A Guideline Protocol: authored by Professor
Chitta Chowdhury
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v210/n9/full/sj.bdj.2011.380.html), I
need to say that "Pan-Parag" and similar products may not have tobacco in them.
So probably it will be difficult to ban all the sachets not containing
tobacco. But the commercial sachets containing Areca-nut without tobacco
are also carcinogenic. Again
the elemental copper in Areca-nut is one of the causes of oral sub-mucus
fibrosis (OSF)- a disabling disease condition mentioned, and 2-7% OSF
turns into full-blown mouth cancer--this is a public health concern too.
If we are
able to reduce the concentration of copper to a permissible limit in Areca
-nut(The minimum recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for copper is 0.9
milligrams per day for most adults, 1 milligram for pregnant women, and
1.3 milligrams for women who are breast-feeding: Source-FDA, USA) or to produce
totally copper-free Areca-nut, also removing carcinogenic compounds, this could be good news for the Areca-nut growers. Of
course, there are many beneficial effects of Copper, but continuous
consumption (by habitual chewers) of Areca-nut will exceed RDA and
cause adverse effects, such as OSF and eventually cancer.
In this context, I strongly recommend that we need to ensure that none
of the Gutkha and "Pan-Parag" sachet contains tobacco products or any
carcinogenic compounds, including Areca-nut, and in my opinion that is
absolutely impossible. Therefore, a complete ban of commercial sachets (eg. Gutkha
etc) is a must. Also how to stop vendor-made and home-made
Tabula/Paan products needs to be addressed urgently, because there are
carcinogenic products in them as well, and these are consumed by more
people compared to commercially produced Sachets. Now the question is--
how the law enforcement, health and safety regulators and policy-
administrators will effectively implement the ban of Gutkha(ST) in India.
Professor Chitta Chowdhury
NRT Services and Addiction Research Unit
Oral & Maxillofacial Cancer Services (Prevention & Control),
Department of Oral Biology & Genomic Studies,
Nitte University, Deralakatte, Mangalore-675018, India & The
University of Warwick Education & Development Medical Faculty PG
Dentistry aliened with De Monte University of Leicester, England.
The prospect of a tobacco endgame in which death and disease from
tobacco would be virtually eliminated is very exciting. We read the May
2013 issue of Tobacco Control on the Tobacco Endgame with great interest.
The issue features 20 articles by esteemed co-authors who are known
internationally for their work on tobacco control. Each individual
article is excellent; however, we were surprised and disappointed that
thi...
The prospect of a tobacco endgame in which death and disease from
tobacco would be virtually eliminated is very exciting. We read the May
2013 issue of Tobacco Control on the Tobacco Endgame with great interest.
The issue features 20 articles by esteemed co-authors who are known
internationally for their work on tobacco control. Each individual
article is excellent; however, we were surprised and disappointed that
this special issue ignored the very substantial problem of psychiatric
comorbidity among smokers. Studies increasingly demonstrate that this
group buys and uses more tobacco than any other disparity group (MMWR
2013). They are also very likely to die early from tobacco use, suffer
economic burden, and suffer unique consequences such as psychiatric
medication complications. The focus of much of the issue is on regulatory
approaches or potential changes to tobacco products that may reduce
cigarette smoking. While these empirically supported approaches are
important, data from New York
(http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/tobacco_control/reports/statshots/volume5)
indicates that many important public health policies do not adequately
influence smokers with psychiatric comorbidity. A true "end game"
strategy must acknowledge the tremendous proportion of smokers with
psychiatric comorbidity and offer strategies for addressing this
vulnerable population.
We agree with Dr Malone when she says that a tobacco endgame "addresses
tobacco as a systems issue...{that} reframes strategic debates...{and}
advances social justice (Malone 2013, p i42)." Dr. Malone's words
validate our concern that psychiatric comorbidity was rarely mentioned in
this issue. The word "mental" appears twice (Thomas p56; Chapman p 35) and
"comorbid" appears twice (Hatsukami, p 36; Benowitz p 16). A special
issue on a tobacco endgame that ignores a group that is hugely
overrepresented among current smokers makes it even more likely that this
disparate population will continue to be ignored.
In past decades the US was successful in driving down smoking rates
through public health efforts. Recently these efforts have stalled and we
need to consider a new approach. While detailing a comprehensive strategy
is beyond the scope of this letter, we are calling for focused efforts,
targeting disparate population groups like the poor and the mentally ill.
A population approach is reasonable as long as it is also mindful of the
"who" that are left smoking. These groups should be given a priority
designation for future funding, policy and research efforts because any
"endgame" that leaves them behind is no endgame at all.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Surface nicotine levels in non-smoking rooms of smoking and smoke-free hotels were found to be significantly different. However, the authors found that
"Geometric mean urine cotinine levels did not differ
between non-smoking confederates staying in non-smoking
rooms of smoke-free and smoking hotels."
Therefore surface nicotine is not important.
No significant difference was found between air nicotine levels, w...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Surface nicotine levels in non-smoking rooms of smoking and smoke-free hotels were found to be significantly different. However, the authors found that
"Geometric mean urine cotinine levels did not differ
between non-smoking confederates staying in non-smoking
rooms of smoke-free and smoking hotels."
Therefore surface nicotine is not important.
No significant difference was found between air nicotine levels, which is the major cause of concern to those who believe extremely low levels of ETS to be harmful. Also, non-smoking rooms in smoking hotels recorded nicotine levels 1/15th those of smoking rooms. The usual estimate for cigarette equivalence to spending 4 hours a day in a smoky bar is 10 cigarettes a year. The highest I have read claimed by anti tobacco campaigners is 150 cigarettes a year. Roughly, staying in a non-smoking room in a smoking hotel poses at most the same risk as smoking 10 cigarettes a year and more probably, less than one cigarette a year. Both these risks are negligible.
See also http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Sincere thanks, Dr. Borland, for your insightful comments recognizing
the inherent conflicts between harm elimination and reduction, between
policy and profits. As a nicotine cessation educator monitoring the
latest wave of irresponsible harm reduction marketing, I have grave
concerns that we are only one youth fad away from seeing adolescent
nicotine dependency rates skyrocket.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Sincere thanks, Dr. Borland, for your insightful comments recognizing
the inherent conflicts between harm elimination and reduction, between
policy and profits. As a nicotine cessation educator monitoring the
latest wave of irresponsible harm reduction marketing, I have grave
concerns that we are only one youth fad away from seeing adolescent
nicotine dependency rates skyrocket.
Nicotine addiction is every bit as permanent a disease as alcoholism.
It is a wanting disorder in which brain dopamine pathways assign the same
use priority to nicotine as they do to eating food. But instead of
desiring food 2 to 3 times daily, imagine feeling wanting, urges or craves
15, 20 or even 30 times daily. Imagine that next fix quickly being life's
new
#1 priority, no longer being able to recall the beauty of going weeks,
months and years without once wanting for nicotine.
Marketing suggesting that replenishment anxiety relief is "pleasure"
is akin to suggesting that it feels good to stop pounding your fingers
with a hammer. We are also seeing laughable harm reduction marketing
centered on the concept of "freedom," or that nicotine is as safe as
caffeine.
U.S. First Amendment commercial free speech concerns will likely
trump marketing control initiatives. In nations where non-profit control
is possible, history suggests that keen awareness as to financial
conflicts among those permitted to define policy is critical if dependency
onset avoidance and effective cessation are goals.
Your government agenda concerns are warranted, Dr. Borland. Nearly
four years since passage of the U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act and we have yet to see any meaningful change. Imagine 400,000
annual smoking related deaths and no sense of political urgency.
Imagine knowing that NRT shows efficacy against placebo in studies we
know were not blind, while totally ignoring NRT's population level
ineffectiveness evidence-base, and the prospect that three decades of
feeding replacement nicotine to nicotine addicts may have cost millions
their lives.
I am convinced that replacement nicotine has effectively destroyed
cessation. Having watched decline in adult smoking grind to near
standstill, we now watch as the frustrated harm reductionist throws
cessation under the bus.
I live in a nation where this year cold turkey is again expected to
generate more successful ex-smokers than all other methods combined. Yet,
locating any researcher curious as to the keys to successful abrupt
cessation is mission impossible. If neo-nicotine industry influence is
allowed to define government's harm reduction agenda expect more of the
same.
I submit that advancing delivery technology and declining prices are
already heralding the cigarette's demise. As the cigarette industry moves
toward enhanced smokeless, NRT and electronic nicotine delivery, the
pharmaceutical industry is moving from cessation into maintenance. Market
forces are causing it to occur without intervention.
But if heroin were legal would we allow it to be marketed in front of
children? An immediate priority should be to compel stores to choose
between marketing one of the planet's most captivating chemicals and
having adolescents as customers. How hard would it be to pass local laws
requiring that "all" nicotine products be sold inside clearly marked
nicotine sales locations, where underage youth may not enter? Anyway,
well done, Dr. Borland, in encouraging this much needed discussion.
Conflict of Interest:
Director of an abrupt nicotine cessation website and author of "Freedom from Nicotine - The Journey Home"
NOT PEER REVIEWED Jane, We of course agree that smokers who decide to quit do not make
that decision in information environments devoid of all the sorts of
influences you list. We both have spent decades contributing to those
influences. Those influences are "why" people make quit attempts, but by
assisted and unassisted, we are referring to "how" they quit. It's
unlikely that many smokers would answer a question on how t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Jane, We of course agree that smokers who decide to quit do not make
that decision in information environments devoid of all the sorts of
influences you list. We both have spent decades contributing to those
influences. Those influences are "why" people make quit attempts, but by
assisted and unassisted, we are referring to "how" they quit. It's
unlikely that many smokers would answer a question on how they quit by
talking about an anti-smoking ad they saw on TV.
Over the past 30 years literally billions of dollars has been spent
globally by pharmaceutical companies and by dedicated smoking cessation
services on advertising, marketing and salaries trying to get smokers to
use their cessation products and services. Yet despite this, very small
proportions of smokers are willing to attend services like yours, and even
smaller proportions attribute their successful cessation to their
attendance. Only 3-6% of smokers are even willing to call a quitline. So
good luck with your hopes that somehow this will turn around when there's
little evidence over these decades that such services have any significant
mass reach potential.
Thanks for the article. With respect, i'm not convinced by your
arguments here however.
Firstly, it is incorrect to broadly assume that millions upon
millions of people in the 'real world' quit smoking unassisted. Some of
them may have, but most would have been given some kind of assistance,
albeit even if very brief. It may be advice from their GP, watched
telev...
Thanks for the article. With respect, i'm not convinced by your
arguments here however.
Firstly, it is incorrect to broadly assume that millions upon
millions of people in the 'real world' quit smoking unassisted. Some of
them may have, but most would have been given some kind of assistance,
albeit even if very brief. It may be advice from their GP, watched
television health marketing messages, received cessation strategy
suggestions from friends and relatives, biofeedback on their blood
pressure or lung x-ray, advice in a book...and so on. Are you saying that
this is not cessation assistance? It's just that it's not the more intense
assistance such as NRT that you may be referring to.
Of the millions and millions of those who have quit that you refer to
without the more intensive interventions, you do not mention just how many
of these are now either a. dead from smoking or b. living a life of misery
due to not quitting soon enough. It is a simple but compelling public
health argument that we must try to reduce the risk of smoking related
disease as best we can, and as soon as we can. This means embracing
evidence based interventions such as group behaviour therapy and
medications like varenicline. We can not escape the fact that these more
intensive approaches increase the odds of quitting (see cochrane reviews)
We will never know just how many people quit 'unassiste'd yet
contracted a smoking related disease. Yet they may however have otherwise
lived a long and 'relatively' healthy life if only they had professional,
intensive support earlier.
Sure, it remains to be seen if devices like the e-cig will enhance
cessation, but if it turns out that it actually does, then there is a
solid argument to support it's use. If I can increase my odds of quitting
now by using say the e-cig, i'd rather at least try that than finally
quitting 'unassisted'years down the track only to wind up with lung
cancer.
Conflict of Interest:
Consultant conducting smoking cessation interventions and cessation skills training
NOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of "Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on
'Light' cigarette descriptors?" examined four distinct indicators to
address this research question. They found that: (1) the major cigarette
manufacturers removed the terms explicitly stated in the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2010 by switching to colour terms
(e.g., Marlboro Gold) to designate sub-brands; (2) the...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of "Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on
'Light' cigarette descriptors?" examined four distinct indicators to
address this research question. They found that: (1) the major cigarette
manufacturers removed the terms explicitly stated in the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2010 by switching to colour terms
(e.g., Marlboro Gold) to designate sub-brands; (2) the mean percent filter
ventilation did not significantly differ between 2009 Light-designated
cigarettes and the corresponding post-ban sub-brands; (3) one year after
the ban on Light designations, 88%-91% of current smokers reported that it
was 'somewhat easy' or 'very easy' to identify their usual brand of
cigarettes by the banned descriptor names, Lights, Mediums, or Ultra-
lights; and (4) sales of previously-designated Light sub-brands did not
significantly change between the first two quarters of 2010 (pre-ban) and
the second two quarters (post-ban). Based on these findings the authors
concluded that, "Tobacco manufacturers appear to have evaded a critical
element of the FSPTCA, the ban on misleading descriptors that convey
reduced health risk messages".
This overreaching conclusion is not supported by the evidence
reported in the article. Taken in turn: (1) the major tobacco companies
demonstrated 100% compliance with the law by eliminating all terms
specified in the FSPTCA--the use of colour terms to designate sub-brands
is not regulated by the FSPTCA; (2) there is nothing in the FSPTCA that
requires, or even suggests, that tobacco companies should modify filter
ventilation levels; (3) it is hardly surprising that one year after the
ban, almost all then-current smokers could remember the old Full-
flavored/Medium/Light/Ultra-light designation of their usual brand of
cigarettes--a much more telling test of the effect of these designations
on brand preference would have required surveying new initiates to the
smoking habit--and in any case, there is little discernable relevance of
these data to the question of whether or not the tobacco industry evaded
the FDA's ban on Light-type cigarette descriptors; and (4) one would not
expect habitual smokers to change brands based on the repackaging mandated
by the FSPTCA (provided they could identify the new equivalent), only that
recent smoking initiates might display different brand preferences in the
first and second two-quarter periods of 2010 due to the switch from Lights
-type descriptors to colour-based descriptors, an effect that the
published study would have had very limited power to confirm, had the
authors looked for it.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Because the authors cite just seven major tobacco-related news events in the seven year period they reviewed (Figure 2), I question whether their tabulation of the "volume of news media stories on tobacco" (page 6) provides a meaningful representation of the coverage of tobacco-related issues in the mass media. Is not a front-page article on a tobacco- related subject in The New York Times or The Washingt...
NOT PEER REVIEWED I really welcome this kind of discussion.
I acknowledge your 'why and how' argument, however you may find that things like telephone counselling and many group programs will however then fall into your unassisted quitting category as well. This is because they are simply being coached to enhance those natural skills they already have.
I am aware you are conducting an interview style...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The warning of this article is important, but not limited to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Switzerland and USA, as countries which have not ratified, are not obliged to follow Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. One of the reasons for the largest tobacco companies to move their headquarters to Switzerland was the location of the World Trade Organisation in this country. Some...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Smokeless Tobacco(ST) such as Gutkha-ban (and the like) in India does not work!
There have been repercussions from sections of growers following the ban of Gutka (and similar products) in Karnataka, a South -Western state of India with the highest production of Areca-nut (one of the major constituents of ST, used in commercial sachet (such as Gutka etc) and home-made/vendor-made Tambula/Paan...
The prospect of a tobacco endgame in which death and disease from tobacco would be virtually eliminated is very exciting. We read the May 2013 issue of Tobacco Control on the Tobacco Endgame with great interest. The issue features 20 articles by esteemed co-authors who are known internationally for their work on tobacco control. Each individual article is excellent; however, we were surprised and disappointed that thi...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Sincere thanks, Dr. Borland, for your insightful comments recognizing the inherent conflicts between harm elimination and reduction, between policy and profits. As a nicotine cessation educator monitoring the latest wave of irresponsible harm reduction marketing, I have grave concerns that we are only one youth fad away from seeing adolescent nicotine dependency rates skyrocket.
Nicotine addic...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Jane, We of course agree that smokers who decide to quit do not make that decision in information environments devoid of all the sorts of influences you list. We both have spent decades contributing to those influences. Those influences are "why" people make quit attempts, but by assisted and unassisted, we are referring to "how" they quit. It's unlikely that many smokers would answer a question on how t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Simon and Melanie,
Thanks for the article. With respect, i'm not convinced by your arguments here however.
Firstly, it is incorrect to broadly assume that millions upon millions of people in the 'real world' quit smoking unassisted. Some of them may have, but most would have been given some kind of assistance, albeit even if very brief. It may be advice from their GP, watched telev...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of "Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on 'Light' cigarette descriptors?" examined four distinct indicators to address this research question. They found that: (1) the major cigarette manufacturers removed the terms explicitly stated in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2010 by switching to colour terms (e.g., Marlboro Gold) to designate sub-brands; (2) the...
Pages