NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.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NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.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 Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway
frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more
butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many
simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit
for the manufacturer.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway
frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more
butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many
simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit
for the manufacturer.
Why not mandate a special plastic baggy inserted in every pack for
returning the butts directly back to the manufacturer?
The smoker must return a bag of 25 butts for every pack of 20
cigarettes purchased.
Sized to specifically hold 25 butts with a zip seal end.
The retailer does not have to handle the butts, but at a mere glance can
see that it holds 25 butts when full. The retailer can reject any pack
that is not filled correctly.
The retailer can just toss the collected bags in a container picked
up by the wholesaler.
The wholesaler must collect a butt pack for every pack they sell to
the retailer.
The wholesaler must return a butt pack to the manufacturer for every
pack they buy to distribute.
There is no added profit to leave behind for those uncollected
deposits.
The manufacturer is held directly responsible for disposing of the
butts.
The smoker is forced to go out and collect 5 more butts than they get
in a pack.
This means the smokers clean up their own mess and the manufacturer
is forced to pay for the disposals.
Any cooperation of municipalities with the tobacco industry is problematic. In Vienna, the capital of Austria, the department responsible for waste made a deal with the tobacco industry. This resulted in the installation of metal tubes for cigarette butts at every tram station, resembling huge cigarettes. Now there are still butts on the floor (usually extinguished by foot), but in addition, smoke is escaping from many of these as...
Any cooperation of municipalities with the tobacco industry is problematic. In Vienna, the capital of Austria, the department responsible for waste made a deal with the tobacco industry. This resulted in the installation of metal tubes for cigarette butts at every tram station, resembling huge cigarettes. Now there are still butts on the floor (usually extinguished by foot), but in addition, smoke is escaping from many of these ash cylinders, contaminating sheltered waiting space for passengers. Because the ash tubes look like an oversize cigarette, they remind smokers waiting for a tram or bus to light up. So the main benefit of this deal was for the tobacco industry an additional form of advertising without warnings.
Conflict of Interest:
unpaid board member of www.aerzteinitiative.at, www.gamed.at, www.oeaw.ac.at/krl/ and www.oeghmp.at
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 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.
It is enormously helpful when researchers consider new, not-yet-tried
tobacco control interventions (such as this study's consideration of
warning messages on cigarette sticks), especially when researchers figure
out effective ways to evaluate the not-yet-tried interventions.
Some additional possibilities related to new warnings or pack changes
that might be considered:
It is enormously helpful when researchers consider new, not-yet-tried
tobacco control interventions (such as this study's consideration of
warning messages on cigarette sticks), especially when researchers figure
out effective ways to evaluate the not-yet-tried interventions.
Some additional possibilities related to new warnings or pack changes
that might be considered:
(1) Put instructions for use in all cigarette packs that instruct
smokers (with explanations) about how they can minimize the harms and
risks to themselves and to others from their consumption of the
cigarettes, such as:
-- Do not smoke the cigarettes
-- Do not smoke near anyone else
-- Do not smoke in enclosed spaces
-- Do not smoke by inhaling
-- If inhaled, inhale as shallowly as possible
-- Do not smoke more than a few puffs of each cigarette (or do not
smoke more than halfway)
-- Do not smoke in bed or when tired
-- Make sure all smoked cigarettes are fully extinguished before
discarding
-- Discard of all cigarettes carefully (do not litter, do not discard
in waterways, do not leave where children or pets might consume).
(2) Make one cigarette in each pack a rolled-up scroll of information
or instructions for use for smokers (which would also reduce the number of
cigarettes that could be smoked in each pack, perhaps reducing
consumption).
(3) Audio warnings that play each time a pack is opened or a
cigarette is extracted (now possible with available technologies).
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
The recent endgame review by McDaniel et al1 demonstrates a major
flaw in thinking within the tobacco control community. The industry is
seen as dominated by the "big tobacco" cigarette companies. The real life
industry is intensely competitive and highly fragmented. There are, within
the industry, many who could effectively partner with the public health
community, if given the opportunity to do so. Bec...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The recent endgame review by McDaniel et al1 demonstrates a major
flaw in thinking within the tobacco control community. The industry is
seen as dominated by the "big tobacco" cigarette companies. The real life
industry is intensely competitive and highly fragmented. There are, within
the industry, many who could effectively partner with the public health
community, if given the opportunity to do so. Because of this flaw in
thinking, the tobacco control community has been unwilling to consider any
role for tobacco harm reduction or electronic cigarettes in any public
health initiative. E-cigarettes have the potential to substantially reduce
smoking-related illness and death and do so without recruiting significant
numbers teens or other non-smokers to nicotine use. .2-5
The McDaniel paper1 lists sixteen end-game proposals, fourteen of
which consist of partial or total bans on aspects of the manufacture or
sale of non-pharmaceutical nicotine delivery products. Only two, one
referencing e-cigarettes and another "advantage cleaner nicotine products
over combustibles" make any reference to tobacco industry participation in
pursuit of tobacco control objectives. Both are discouraged as unproven
and impractical despite substantial scientific evidence to the contrary.
The time has come for the public health community to engage in
dialogue with those stakeholders in tobacco-related industries who are
ready, willing and able to partner with public health in pursuit of shared
public health objectives. The purpose of this dialogue would be to help
secure reductions in tobacco-related illness and death not likely
achievable by other means.
Experience to date with e-cigarettes gives us grounds for optimism
that this could easily be done without recruitment of teens and other non-
users to nicotine use. .2-4
A world in which tobacco-related addiction, illness and death have
been reduced to trivial public health problems could be achieved within our
lifetimes. Achieving this goal will require re-orienting tobacco control
from a crusade against all things "tobacco," to a public health initiative
considering all options for the prevention of addiction, illness and
death. This is a goal not likely achievable by any other means. A
seemingly small change in the wording of our tobacco control goal from "a
tobacco-free society" to "a smoke-free society" would get us most of the
way there.
References
1. McDaniel PA, Smith EA, Malone RE. The tobacco endgame: A
qualitative review and synthesis. Tob Control 2015 28 August; Special
Communication Published On Line:1-11.
2. Nitzkin JL. The case in favor of e-cigarettes for tobacco harm
reduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 2014;11:6459-71.
3. Nitzkin JL. E-cigarettes: A life-saving technology or a way for tobacco
companies to re-normalize smoking in American society? FDLI's Food and
Drug Policy Forum 2014 30 June;4(6):1-17.
4. McNeill A, Brose L, Calder R, Hitchman S. E-cigarettes: An evidence
update. A report commissioned by Public Health England
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-
update]. A an Evidence Update Plus Policy Implications. London, England,
August, 2015. 19 August 2015.
5. Farsalinos K, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of
electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: A systematic
review. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2014;5(20):67-86
Conflict of Interest:
I currently serve as Senior Fellow for Tobacco Policy for the R Street Insitute
NOT PEER REVIEWED In June 2015 we published our paper "The smoking population in the
USA and EU is softening not hardening" in the journal Tobacco Control. We
showed that as smoking prevalence has declined over time, quit attempts
increased in the USA and remained stable in Europe, US quit ratios
increased (no data for EU), and consumption dropped in the USA and Europe.
These results contradict the hardening hypothesis whi...
NOT PEER REVIEWED In June 2015 we published our paper "The smoking population in the
USA and EU is softening not hardening" in the journal Tobacco Control. We
showed that as smoking prevalence has declined over time, quit attempts
increased in the USA and remained stable in Europe, US quit ratios
increased (no data for EU), and consumption dropped in the USA and Europe.
These results contradict the hardening hypothesis which is often used as
part of the tobacco industry's strategy to avoid meaningful regulation and
protect its political agenda and markets, claiming that there is a need
for harm reduction among those smokers who "cannot or will not quit."
Indeed, rather than "hardening" the remaining smoking population is
"softening."
In February 2016 we received an email from Robert West, editor of the
journal Addiction, informing us that Addiction was about to publish an
article by Plurphanswat and Rodu entitled "A Critique of Kulik and Glantz:
Is the smoking population in the US really softening?" whose sole purpose
was to critique our Tobacco Control paper, and offered to let us respond to
the criticism. (The full collection of emails is available at
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/addiction-refuses-allow-discussion-industry-ties-
criticism-our-%E2%80%9Csoftening-paper%E2%80%9D)
The fact that Plurphanswat and Rodu sent their paper to Addiction was
unusual because normal scientific procedure would have had them sending a
letter to the editor of the journal that originally published the work
(Tobacco Control).
As detailed below, we did respond, noting that Plurphanswat and
Rodu's paper fits into a well-established pattern of tobacco industry-
funded researchers trying, without any proper scientific justification, to
create controversy about research inconsistent with industry interests,
the fact that Rodu had understated his financial ties to the industry,
and, of course, showing how their criticism was based on statistical error
that they made.
Addiction rejected our response because we would not delete the first
two points and limit our response only to the statistical issue. Here is
our full response:
THE REJECTED RESPONSE
Consider the Source
"Harm reduction" is a key part of the tobacco industry's strategy to
avoid meaningful regulation and protect its political agenda and
markets.[1] This agenda is premised on the existence of "hard core"
smokers who "cannot or will not" quit.[2-4] Our paper, "The smoking
population in the USA and EU is softening not hardening",[5] undermined
this agenda because it showed that, contrary to the hardening hypothesis,
as smoking prevalence has declined over time, quit attempts increased in
the USA and remained stable in Europe, US quit ratios increased (no data
for EU), and consumption dropped in the USA and Europe.
There is a longstanding pattern of tobacco industry-funded experts
writing letters criticizing work that threatens the industry's position,
first described in 1993 by then-JAMA Deputy Editor Drummond Rennie.[6]
Rodu and various co-authors have written several such letters.[7-10]
Another similarity to past efforts is industry-linked experts submitting
critiques of a paper published in one journal to another,[11-15] which is
also the case here, with this critique of our paper published in Tobacco
Control being published in Addiction. One would have expected any
criticism to have been published as a letter in Tobacco Control.
Addiction requires "full disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest, including any fees, expenses, funding or other benefits received
from any interested party or organisation connected with that party,
whether or not connected with the letter or the article that is the
subject of discussion." As with another investigator supported by the
tobacco industry,[16] the conflict of interest statement Plurphanswat and
Rodu provide may not truly reflect the extent of Rodu's involvement with
the tobacco industry. For example:
* Rodu's Endowed Chair in Tobacco Harm Reduction Research at the
University of Louisville is funded by the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company
(US Tobacco) and Swedish Match North America, Inc.[17]
* Rodu is a Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute, which has
received tobacco industry funding.[18-20]
* Rodu is a Member and Contributor to the R Street Institute, which
has received tobacco industry funding.[19,21]
* Before moving to Louisville, Dr. Rodu was supported in part by an
unrestricted gift from the United States Smokeless Tobacco Company to the
Tobacco Research Fund of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.[8]
* Rodu was a keynote speaker at the 2013 Tobacco Plus Expo
International, a tobacco industry trade fair to discuss "How has the
tobacco retail business evolved; where was it fifteen years ago, where is
it today and where is it going".[22]
* Rodu has worked with RJ Reynolds executives between at least 2000
and 2009 to help promote industry positions on harm reduction, including
specific products.[23-26]
The substance of Plurphanswat and Rodu's criticism is that the
statistically significant negative association between smoking prevalence
and quit attempts and the positive association between prevalence and
cigarettes smoked per day both become non-significant when more tobacco
control variables are included in the model (state fixed effects,
cigarette excise taxes, workplace smoking bans and home smoking bans). The
problem with including all these variables is that it results in a
seriously overspecified model, which splits any actual effects between so
many variables that all the results become nonsignificant. The regression
diagnostic for this multicollinearity is the Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF); values of the VIF above 4 indicate serious multicollinearity. For
the United States, adding all the other variables increases the VIF for
the effect of changes in smoking prevalence from 1.8 in our model for quit
attempts to 16.7, and from 1.8 in our model to 17.9 for cigarettes per
day, respectively. Plurphanswat and Rodu's model is a textbook case of why
one has to be careful not to put too many variables in a multiple
regression.
The Plurphanswat and Rodu criticism misrepresents our conclusions. We
did not argue that drops in prevalence caused increased quit attempts and
reduced consumption; we simply present the observation that, as prevalence
falls, quit attempts increase or remain constant and consumption falls,
which is the exact opposite of what the hardening hypothesis predicts.
Funding
This work was supported by National Cancer Institute Grants CA-61021
and CA-113710. The sponsor played no role in the conduct of the research
or preparation of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Peeters S, Gilmore AB (2015) Understanding the emergence of the
tobacco industry's use of the term tobacco harm reduction in order to
inform public health policy. Tob Control 24: 182-189.
2. Abrams DB (2014) Promise and peril of e-cigarettes: can disruptive
technology make cigarettes obsolete? JAMA 311: 135-136.
3. Polosa R, Rodu B, Caponnetto P, Maglia M, Raciti C (2013) A fresh
look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette.
Harm Reduct J 10: 19.
4. Nitzkin JL (2014) The case in favor of E-cigarettes for tobacco
harm reduction. Int J Environ Res Public Health 11: 6459-6471.
5. Kulik MC, Glantz SA (2015) The smoking population in the USA and
EU is softening not hardening. Tob Control doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015
-052329 Published online 24 June 2015.
6. Rennie D (1993) Smoke and letters. JAMA 270: 1742-1743.
7. Rodu B, Phillips CV (2015) Letter by Rodu and Phillips regarding
article, "Discontinuation of smokeless tobacco and mortality risk after
myocardial infarction". Circulation 131: e422.
8. Rodu B, Cole P (2006) A deficient study of smokeless tobacco use
and cancer. Int J Cancer 118: 1585; author reply 1586-1587.
9. Rodu B, Plurphanswat N, Phillips CV (2015) Discrepant results for
smoking and cessation among electronic cigarette users. Cancer.
121(13):2286-7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29307. Epub 2015 Mar 4.
10. Rodu B, Heavner KK (2009) Errors and omissions in the study of
snuff use and hypertension. J Intern Med 265: 507-508; author reply 509-
510.
11. Glantz SA, Parmley WW (1992) Passive smoking causes heart disease
and lung cancer. J Clin
Epidemiol 45: 815-819.
12. Mantel N (1992) Dubious evidence of heart and cancer deaths due
to passive smoking. J Clin
Epidemiol 45: 809-813.
13. Glantz SA, Parmley WW (1991) Passive smoking and heart disease.
Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation 83: 1-12.
14. Jensen RP, Luo W, Pankow JF, Strongin RM, Peyton DH (2015) Hidden
formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. N Engl J Med 372: 392-394.
15. Bates CD, Farsalinos KE (2015) Research letter on e-cigarette
cancer risk was so misleading it should be retracted. Addiction 110: 1686-
1687.
16. Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong MK (2005) The limits of competing
interest disclosures. Tob Control 14: 118-126.
17. University of Louisville. Available at
http://louisville.edu/bucksforbrains/descriptions/tobaccoharmreduction/,
accessed February
2016.
18. The Heartland Institute. Available at
https://www.heartland.org/dr-brad-rodu, accessed February 2016.
19. Nitzkin email string "Dialogue with Tobacco Industry re 3d Party
Research". Available at
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/sites/tobacco.ucsf.edu/files/u9/Nitzkin-email-
s..., accessed
February 2016.
20. The Center for Media and Democracy. Available at
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/07/11671/tobacco-can-cure-smoking-and-
o...
alecs-annual-meeting-salt-lake, accessed February 2016.
21. The R Street Institute. Avaliable at
http://www.rstreet.org/people/brad-rodu/, accessed February 2016.
22. Tobacco Plus Expo 2013. Available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20121219001140/http://tobaccoplusexpo.com/tp...,
accessed February 2016.
23. University of Alabama, Debethizy JD, Doolittle DJ, Rodu B.
Followup from Brad Rodu. 2000 April 26. RJ
Reynolds.https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/hklw0187.
24. RJR, University of Alabama, Burger GT, Lyalls TM, Doolittle D,
Moskowitz SW, Rodu B, Smith C, Williard S. ECLIPSE and Dr. Brad Rodu. 2000
April 20; 2000 April 26. RJ Reynolds.
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/lklw0187.
25. Hawkins SC. TTM - Brad Rodu for 122006 (20061200).PPT. 2008
December 01. RJ Reynolds.
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/xrvm0222.
26. Reynolds American, Payne TJ, Rodu B. Thanks. The following
studies (attached) provide almost identical evidence that appropriate
marketing of smokeless products would result in a 10% drop in smoking
prevalence. 2009 February 27; 2009 March 02. RJ Reynolds.
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/yjpl0222.
I thank you for this editorial letter. For me it makes sense to still
expose the criminal acts of the tobacco industry. Our use of metaphors
and symbols should be contextualized on how message are to be sent. Thus
one message may be distateful to another, while to others it will not be
the case.
The article is well written and it gives me more spirit to move on and
expose the dangers of tobacco use.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit for the manufacturer.
Why not mandate a special plas...
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 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...
It is enormously helpful when researchers consider new, not-yet-tried tobacco control interventions (such as this study's consideration of warning messages on cigarette sticks), especially when researchers figure out effective ways to evaluate the not-yet-tried interventions.
Some additional possibilities related to new warnings or pack changes that might be considered:
(1) Put instructions for use in...
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 recent endgame review by McDaniel et al1 demonstrates a major flaw in thinking within the tobacco control community. The industry is seen as dominated by the "big tobacco" cigarette companies. The real life industry is intensely competitive and highly fragmented. There are, within the industry, many who could effectively partner with the public health community, if given the opportunity to do so. Bec...
NOT PEER REVIEWED In June 2015 we published our paper "The smoking population in the USA and EU is softening not hardening" in the journal Tobacco Control. We showed that as smoking prevalence has declined over time, quit attempts increased in the USA and remained stable in Europe, US quit ratios increased (no data for EU), and consumption dropped in the USA and Europe. These results contradict the hardening hypothesis whi...
I thank you for this editorial letter. For me it makes sense to still expose the criminal acts of the tobacco industry. Our use of metaphors and symbols should be contextualized on how message are to be sent. Thus one message may be distateful to another, while to others it will not be the case. The article is well written and it gives me more spirit to move on and expose the dangers of tobacco use.
Pages