Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public places

[jimbob]

It took 20 years, but what they're doing just proves my assertion anti-smoking laws in public places aren't really about health but rather taking political advantage of "icky, icky smoke" sybdrome.

The health is the cover story meme while hurting and getting rid of those smokers, stinky guys, is the emotionally-motivating factor.

Nicotine is the addictive part. The cancer part is something else. Neither is really why these laws are here.

Cancer is not a major health effect of passive smoking. COPD, heart disease, and asthma are though.

 

[jimbob]

Other sources say that smokers die early and quickly, they cost the economy less. This uncertainty is why I didn't press the point and wanted instead only to focus on tax revenue rather than health or pension expenditure.

My understanding is that the early death is preceded by increased morbidity, so that the cost is higher.

At school in the 1980's I was taught that 90% of leg amputations in the UK were due to smoking-related blood clots. Those could have a very significant long-term increase in costs.

 

[The Don]

My understanding is that the early death is preceded by increased morbidity, so that the cost is higher.

At school in the 1980's I was taught that 90% of leg amputations in the UK were due to smoking-related blood clots. Those could have a very significant long-term increase in costs.

The economic case for/against smoking is not conclusive in either way. On the "credit" side for smokers are the tax revenue from tobacco taxes, them dying more quickly and them claiming pensions for much less time. On the "debit" side are the costs associated with their poorer health throughout their shortened lives.

As the relative costs and revenue change, so will the economic case. If tax revenue was to double or if their unclaimed pensions were to rise substantially then the economic case would move substantially in favour of smokers, if there was suddenly an expensive treatment which could significantly prolong the life of smokers then the economic case would move substantially against smokers.

 

[catsmate]

Bump.
Some more recent information and discussion on the status of e-cigarettes.

Lancet article.
E-cigarettes: closing regulatory gaps

Many questions about the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes remain unanswered. However, evidence of the aggressive tactics being used by e-cigarette manufacturers to market their products, especially to young people, is increasing.

It shows that companies are substantially boosting their advertising budgets, with some doubling expenditure between 2012 and 2013. Six companies sponsored or provided free e-cigarettes at 348 public events in 2012 and 2013, many of them geared towards young people. Most companies manufacture and market a wide variety of flavours such as Cherry Crush, Peach Pit, and Vanilla Dreams that could appeal to youth. Seven companies have television and radio advertisements for their products, some featuring celebrity spokespeople, and some aired during youth-orientated programmes. Companies also use social media to promote their products. And, although none of the companies reported using health benefit or harm reduction claims to market e-cigarettes, the investigation found that some are making misleading claims. Marketing for one brand states: “You get the feeling of smoking real cigarettes without all of their negative side effects.”

In the USA the Food and Drug Administration have proposed new rules which will require manufacturers

• make clear that their products contain nicotine and are addictive
• refrain from claims that their products are safer than tobacco cigarettes unless they can show the FDA some science that proves this
• to register all of their ingredients with the FDA
• prohibit sales to minors online

The NY Times itself has produced a report (link) about the neurotoxins contained in the liquids "for sale by the vial, the gallon and even the barrel".

The Centers for Disease Control have also concluded the "number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014".
Link.

E-cigarettes are just as addictive as the tobacco kind (each hit contains ~90% of the nicotine) and there's evidence that nicotine has even more deleterious consequences than previously thought (link) including causing developmental and mood problems.

Furthermore e-cigarettes have been shown to be a "gateway" drug encouraging teenagers especially to switch to conventional tobacco products e.g. this UCSF study.
There's also Gateway to Addiction though as this was released by the US Democrats it'll be ignored or rubbished unread by the Usual Suspects.

Finally the idea that e-cigarettes are a useful tool to eliminate conventional cigarette addiction has also been rubbished; less than 10% of users benefit and it doesn't appear to help long term elimination of the addiction at all.

 

[fnarrr]

The above post contains just about all recent ecig missinformation in one place so here's the latest, credible ecig information to balance things up.


UCSF study by Professor Stanton Glantz and Dr Lauren Dutra on teenage smoking and ecig use has been thoroughly debunked by Clive Bates, who called the document "false, misleading and damaging". Mr. Bates was previously director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH-UK). Published March 2014.

Use Of Electronic Cigarettes In Great Britain (PDF)
An ASH survey shows electronic cigarette use among adults in Britain has tripled over the past two years and according to the associated study's lead authour, there is no evidence to suggest ecigarettes are renormalizing smoking. Published April 2014.

Trends In Ecig Use In England (PPT)
A study by researchers from University College London has found the use of ecigarettes by those who have never smoked is negligible. Evidence also indicates ecigs are not ‘renormalizing’ smoking - and they may be contributing to a reduction in smoking prevalence. Published April 2014.


Ecigs Among The Least Harmful Nicotine Delivery Products
A study that sought to estimate the harm level of various forms of nicotine delivery products rated cigarettes as the most harmful (overall weighted score of 100) and ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems) were rated among the least harmful. Published in European Addiction Research, April 2014.

MHRA Ecigarette Research
The UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) carried out extensive research on ecigarettes, arriving at the conclusion there was little concern that e-cigarettes can harm users by delivering toxic nicotine levels and little evidence of non-smokers taking up electronic cigarettes.

Eliquids: No Health Concerns
A study by Professor Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health based on a review available data has confirmed chemicals generally found in ecig eliquids pose no health concerns. Published August 2013 (PDF)

"There's also Gateway to Addiction though as this was released by the US Democrats it'll be ignored or rubbished unread by the Usual Suspects." is indeed rubbished by Clive Bates amongst others including Michael Siegel: "Conclusion of New Glantz Study on Electronic Cigarettes is Junk Science", Carl Phillips: "Stanton Glantz is such a liar that even the ACS balks" and Brad Rodu: "UCSF Study Falsely Links E-Cigarettes to Smoking".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You should use quotes and cite (though you don't have enough posts to link yet): http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm

Many of those are not very credible (blog posts, presentations, reports of so seeming peer review value, etc.). I see two published studies, and neither of them are novel research, but meta-analyses. One published study is just scoring different things on a scale of harm based on previous research. Cigarettes come out way in the lead. Shocking? The other published one (Eliquids: No Health Concerns) was funded by CASAA (The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association). In it they note what search terms they put into pubmed to gather studies for their meta-analysis, and then they explicitly say they sent the list to CASAA to get any (pro-e-cig) studies they may have missed. But CASAA absolutely had no influence on their hilarious methodology. No sir.

The MHRA report clearly states that long term health effects are unknown, that the safety and health claims made by marketers are unverified, that there is wide variation in what the products contain, etc. From their website (because their pdf doesn't like copying text):

The government accepted the advice of the CHM and its expert group, which concluded that NCPs currently on the market do not meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Testing data confirm that nicotine levels can vary considerably from the labelled content and the amount of nicotine per product can differ from batch to batch. In terms of how well NCPs work, there can be widely differing amounts of nicotine from the same format with one form delivering what could be an effective therapeutic dose, another a 'placebo' dose. With regards to safety, toxic elements may be included at unexpectedly high doses which could produce adverse effects, particularly in vulnerable patient groups.

The consistent evidence from a variety of sources is that most electronic cigarettes use is to support stop smoking attempts or for partial replacement to reduce harm associated with smoking. This is comparable to other nicotine replacement products (eg gums, patches, inhalator), which are licensed as medicines. The current evidence is that electronic cigarettes have shown promise in helping smokers quit tobacco but the quality of existing NCPs is such that they cannot be recommended for use.

The public health priority of reducing the harms of smoking is not supported by the current regulatory framework, under the general product safety regulations. To manage the risk of poor and ineffective products and to maximise the potential for public health gain, NCPs should be regulated as medicines to ensure that:

• standards of quality, safety and efficacy are met
• monitoring safety in use, including over the long term, is provided for
• advertising of NCPs is controlled through medicines provisions
• and any emerging risks, eg of NCPs acting as a gateway to smoking tobacco, can be effectively managed.

Linky.

Sure you want to cite that?

 

[fnarrr]

I'll cite what I want. If catsmate1 can post random stuff so can I, as I said just balancing things up. Why your picking on my post I cannot say.
Take a look at "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" in the Harm Reduction Journal if you want, they answer most of the questions normally asked but I'm sure you won't like their stuff either.

 

[3point14]

I'll cite what I want. If catsmate1 can post random stuff so can I,

Absolutely! Well said.

The rest of us can read his (her?) links and your links, follow the money and lend appropriate weight to each piece. Thank you.

 

[catsmate]

I'll cite what I want. If catsmate1 can post random stuff so can I, as I said just balancing things up. Why your picking on my post I cannot say.
Take a look at "A fresh look at tobacco harm reduction: the case for the electronic cigarette" in the Harm Reduction Journal if you want, they answer most of the questions normally asked but I'm sure you won't like their stuff either.

You'd (perhaps) notice if you acually read the material I linked to that they're actual research from independent groups, not unverified blog posts, or industry propaganda.

 

[Cuddles]

Furthermore e-cigarettes have been shown to be a "gateway" drug encouraging teenagers especially to switch to conventional tobacco products e.g. this UCSF study.
There's also Gateway to Addiction though as this was released by the US Democrats it'll be ignored or rubbished unread by the Usual Suspects.

Finally the idea that e-cigarettes are a useful tool to eliminate conventional cigarette addiction has also been rubbished; less than 10% of users benefit and it doesn't appear to help long term elimination of the addiction at all.

On the other hand, there are also studies showing the exact opposite:

A separate study found that most e-cigarette users were using them to reduce smoking.

Use of e-cigarettes among people who have never smoked remains small at 1%, Ash said...

When ex-smokers were asked why they used electronic cigarettes, 71% said they wanted help giving up smoking...

"The dramatic rise in use of electronic cigarettes over the past four years suggests that smokers are increasingly turning to these devices to help them cut down or quit smoking. Significantly, usage among non-smokers remains negligible." ...

Study leader Prof Robert West said: "Despite claims that use of electronic cigarettes risks renormalising smoking, we found no evidence to support this view.

"On the contrary, electronic cigarettes may be helping to reduce smoking as more people use them as an aid to quitting."

Ms Arnott added: "While it is important to control the advertising of electronic cigarettes to make sure children and non-smokers are not being targeted, there is no evidence from our research that e-cigarettes are acting as a gateway into smoking."

That said, I don't disagree at all with this part:

In the USA the Food and Drug Administration have proposed new rules which will require manufacturers

make clear that their products contain nicotine and are addictive
refrain from claims that their products are safer than tobacco cigarettes unless they can show the FDA some science that proves this
to register all of their ingredients with the FDA
prohibit sales to minors online

I am not at all convinced that e-cigarettes* are anywhere near as harmful as real cigarettes or that they act as a gateway drug. It all seems far more like a witch hunt against anything at all associated with smoking rather than based on actual evidence of the risks. However, there can be no question whatsoever that tobacco is an addictive, and potentially dangerous (it's been shown to be carcinogenic in vitro, but not in humans as far as I'm aware), drug. It shouldn't be vilified the way some people are currently doing, but neither should it be a free for all. We heavily regulate alcohol and other addictive substances (with caffeine as the glaring exception). I think it's important to separate out the cries of "E-cigarettes are going to kill all our babies unless we ban them now!" from the more sensible "It's not as bad as smoking but probably needs more regulation than it currently has.".

 

[The Don]

I agree that the contents of and sale of e-cigarettes should be properly regulated.

I'm still unclear as to the risks they present to third parties who don't use them which should preclude them from being used in public places.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In this study I searched Google Images using the terms "e-cig" and "vaping". By measuring the level of "cool" with bayesian statistics, I have determined that vaping in public makes one look 20% less cool, as opposed to smoking which has the established increase in "cool" of 40%. Further study is needed to determine if vaping fits into the categories of douches or dorks.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I agree that the contents of and sale of e-cigarettes should be properly regulated.

I'm still unclear as to the risks they present to third parties who don't use them which should preclude them from being used in public places.

I honestly would not care if the tobacco revenue addicts restrict e-cigs from public places, or restrict advertising and marketing, or any of that. They want to minimize how much e-cigs cut into tobacco sales, which is not in the public interest, but doesn't really affect me.

What does affect me is the other prong of their strategy, which is to tax e-cigs the same as tobacco, so they will become phenomenally expensive. I object to that.

 

[angrysoba]

I honestly would not care if the tobacco revenue addicts restrict e-cigs from public places, or restrict advertising and marketing, or any of that. They want to minimize how much e-cigs cut into tobacco sales, which is not in the public interest, but doesn't really affect me.

What does affect me is the other prong of their strategy, which is to tax e-cigs the same as tobacco, so they will become phenomenally expensive. I object to that.

Who is "they" and "their" strategy? The Welsh Assembly?

Do you think the Welsh Assembly collects tax on e-cigarettes?

 

[ABC10]

I don't know why people even bother with these things when the real thing is available and much more satisfying.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know why people even bother with these things when the real thing is available and much more satisfying.

I know! I know!

Is it because "the real thing" causes lung cancer among many, many other fatal and debilitating illnesses?

 

[ABC10]

I know! I know!

Is it because "the real thing" causes lung cancer among many, many other fatal and debilitating illnesses?

Not so much, but as we are living longer cancer has become more and more a reality for Seniors. Personally when I go sliding into my grave, I will have a cigarette between my lips as opposed to food, pot, illegal drugs, whiskey, beer or any other "sins" of choice.

 

[angrysoba]

Not so much, but as we are living longer cancer has become more and more a reality for Seniors. Personally when I go sliding into my grave, I will have a cigarette between my lips as opposed to food, pot, illegal drugs or any other "sins" of choice.

No, I think that cancer and other illnesses such as emphysema, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes have pretty conclusively been linked to smoking cigarettes. I'm saying this as an answer to your original question as to why people are turning to alternatives. That's the reason, whether or not you see it as fine to smoke yourself to an early grave.

 

[ABC10]

No, I think that cancer and other illnesses such as emphysema, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes have pretty conclusively been linked to smoking cigarettes. I'm saying this as an answer to your original question as to why people are turning to alternatives. That's the reason, whether or not you see it as fine to smoke yourself to an early grave.

Nope, no early grave here already made the cut. Escaping death is not in our future.

 

[Aepervius]

The Welsh assembly is proposing to introduce legislation to curb the use of e-cigarettes in public spaces:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26837682

Personally I think e-cigarettes are an excellent idea. I'm an occasional smoker (when drunk) which can quickly develop into a habit. If I buy a pack it's usually 17 more cigarettes than I need or want and I'm reluctant to be a mooch. E-cigarettes have the advantage of not going stale and so far a single one has lasted a year.

I can appreciate the position of those who want the use of e-cigarettes banned in public spaces, children will think that it's "normal" to smoke and may not be able to discriminate between real and e cigarettes. On the other hand, how many children are in offices and is it a good idea to send e-smokers outside ?

I would prefer that this legislation was not passed and that e-smokers can smoke indoors (real smokers should continue to be sent outdoors IMO).

The only question I have is "are they emitting either 1) unhealthy chemical or 2) smells which would disturb works (like the normal cig smells)". If either 1 or 2 is true, then ban them from the same place normal cigs are banned.