Wales to ban e-cigarettes in public places

[The Don]

E-cigs are "an insidious strategy to addict our children to nicotine."

I don't buy that either but IMO Gummi Bear flavour does raise an eyebrow:

http://www.wetflameecigs.com/electronic-cigarette-gummi-bear-eliquid.html

In the UK eCigarettes are seen as a key tool in getting people to stop smoking and the opinion (in the link I provided upthread) is that although eCigarettes are damaging to health they are much less damaging than standard cigarettes.

 

[NearlySane]

The Mash take on this

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...rmined-by-people-sucking-things-2014040285323

 

[Ambrosia]

Do you have any evidence to support the highlighted claim or are you just spitballing ?

There isn't any.

There is growing evidence that e-cig vapour is basically harmless, to date there's not a single paper that shows any harm to the user from first hand, or to nearby people from second hand vapour.

The Welsh Assembly proposal is bit daft.

e-cigarettes are potentially one of the best things to happen to public health in a generation and some 'Public Health' proponents want to ban it because it bears a passing resemblance to smoking tobacco. There's an interesting corollary in snus in Sweden. That's banned in the EU outside Sweden. Sweden has far and away the lowest rates of smoking related disease and also of smoking prevalence of any EU country.

the opinion (in the link I provided upthread) is that although eCigarettes are damaging to health they are much less damaging than standard cigarettes.

It's not known whether or not e-cigarettes are damaging to health in the long term. In the short term the harms caused are so slight they get lost in the statistical noise.

There are 4 ingredients in e-liquid. Propylene Glycol, Glycerol, Nicotine and Flavourings. It's only the act of inhaling flavour compounds that is not understood all that well, and potentially there might be some issues as the liquid is heated to produce the vapour and there might be some stuff leaching from the wick/coil because of the heating that it'd be better not to inhale.

There's also the risk of fire as e-cigs use lithium batteries, but those risks are dwarfed by the fire risk of lit cigarettes/lighters and other gadgets that use lithium cells are already everywhere anyway.

Noone will know the long term health effects from vapour inhalation for at least another decade, but ex-smokers who use e-cigarettes, of which I am one, report very similar effects to those that quit smoking entirely.

There's a good paper that summarises the existing e-cig research here.

and a good paper on nicotine and health here.

 

[The Don]

Thank you, very helpful.

 

[Ambrosia]

And whats with these e-cigs that are starting to look like a bong?
My friend, whose computer i used to use from like 2003 to 2010 to post here at JREF...he quit and got a cig-looking e-type cig when they first came out, and it looked like a cig and glowed red at the tip, and made nice fake smoke.
You could fit the cig with filters at different nicotine levels to ween you down, if so desired, and filters to alter taste, like menthol, and other flavors.
He went back to smoking real cigarettes though.

The batteries that power the ones that look like cigarettes are small, low powered and go flat quickly. (Generation 1 devices)

The ones that 'look like bongs' (Generation 3) have larger batteries and can use coil assemblies that provide much better nicotine delivery and vapour production.

There's also an intermediate Generation 2 that look a bit like pens. The first ones typically have sealed cartridges and 2 and 3 typically have tanks that you refill with liquid.

And i decided to add another idea; that if these were fitted with real, cottony/paper filter replacements, so that they`d feel like you had a real cig in your mouth, that TOO would be a real winner.

Been done already.

In practice you can't beat getting good nicotine delivery. It's estimated that for a user to get an equivalent amount of nicotine absorption that you'd get from smoking 1 tobacco cigarette for 5 mins you need to use a typical Gen 1 for over an hour.

nicotine absorption from e-cigarettes was significantly lower compared to tobacco cigarettes. In reality, 5 minutes of use led to 1/3rd to 1/4th plasma nicotine levels compared to smoking 1 tobacco cigarette.

[link]

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

And yet public health bodies (in the UK at least) are working hard to get these people to quit. If it was just about money then taxes would be raised and nothing would be done to support people while they quit.

As Angrysoba points out, the measures you are deriding have had a significant impact on the rates of people quitting and far more importantly on the rates of people taking up smoking in the first place.

Their mission is to get people to quit smoking. That is how they justify all the money they get from tobacco taxes, so they have to do something and trust that enough die-hards will keep buying cigarettes anyway.

But what if half the market goes away for reasons that have nothing to do with their scare tactics?

What do you think accounts for the fanatical hostility of bureaucrats and politicians to e-cigs?

 

[The Don]

What do you think accounts for the fanatical hostility of bureaucrats and politicians to e-cigs?

I have yet to see the "fanatical hostility" you mention in the UK unless I use different definitions of fanatical and hostility to those generally accepted.

eCigarettes are promoted by the NHS as a means to stop smoking while supporting a nicotine habit. eCigarettes are less highly taxed than cigarettes, are not subject to the same restrictions on advertising and are (currently) legally available to sale to minors. As yet there are no formalised restrictions on their use (the Welsh assembly is just a proposal) and these restrictions would not exceed the restrictions already placed on cigarettes.

I understand that bureaucrats and politicians are concerned that eCigarettes are an alternative to not smoking at all but they are actively promoted as a safer alternative to smoking. I was under the impression that nicotine itself is harmful but I'm grateful for the paper provided by Ambrosia which puts the risks into perspective.

Maybe in the U.S. there is a fanatical opposition to eCigarettes (I don't, maybe someone else in the U.S. can confirm or deny your assertion), but I don't see it here in the UK. I do see some apparently ill-informed concerns over the risks of passive exposure to eCigarettes and a wider, as yet baseless, concern that use of eCigarettes may renormalise smoking and reverse the success of the efforts to stop smoking here in the UK.

 

[Ambrosia]

What do you think accounts for the fanatical hostility of bureaucrats and politicians to e-cigs?

Brown envelopes.

Or lobbying incentives from pharma companies/<insert preferred type of company here>.

There's not actually that many fanatical bureaucrats, they just shout very loudly, and for reasons unknown, seem to be taken notice of by regulators and policy makers

Opinion is split and it seems to be dividing between the people that read and understand the science and people who are ideologically driven.

People conflate nicotine with smoking. And generally speaking nicotine is harmless, (at the doses used in smoking/e-cigs) whereas smoking is harmful, because of the other stuff in the smoke.

There is upcoming age restriction for e-cig sales (long overdue) which will be in the autumn and in the EU the recently passed TPD has a raft of new regulations outlined in it that have until 2016 to be implemented in member states. (Some of which are likely to be successfully challenged in court as soon as they are implemented as they are bad)

 

[Darat]

And yet public health bodies (in the UK at least) are working hard to get these people to quit. If it was just about money then taxes would be raised and nothing would be done to support people while they quit.

As Angrysoba points out, the measures you are deriding have had a significant impact on the rates of people quitting and far more importantly on the rates of people taking up smoking in the first place.

From the Wikipedia article:

...snip... As recently as 1979, some 45% of the British population smoked, but this was down to 30% by the early 1990s,^[1] 21% by 2010, and 19.3% by 2013, the lowest level for 80 years.^[2] An annual "No Smoking Day" has occurred since 1984.^[3] ...snip...

 

[Darat]

My only concern is that there could be long-term effects from the myriad of chemicals being used. I don't think it is out of order for manufacturers to be regulated so folk will know what they are getting.

I have a personal dislike for the smell of some of them but I'm assuming there is no health risk to me - indeed we still allow Brut to be sold so it is clear that noxious smells are not enough to get something banned.

 

[Darat]

My only concern is that there could be long-term effects from the myriad of chemicals being used. I don't think it is out of order for manufacturers to be regulated so folk will know what they are getting.

I have a personal dislike for the smell of some of them but I'm assuming there is no health risk to me - indeed we still allow Brut to be sold so it is clear that noxious smells are not enough to get something banned.

 

[Ambrosia]

My only concern is that there could be long-term effects from the myriad of chemicals being used. I don't think it is out of order for manufacturers to be regulated so folk will know what they are getting.

There are going to be some flavour chemicals used that turn out to be harmful for as yet completely unknown reasons.

In early flavours Diacetyl was used which is linked to popcorn lung, that's no longer used by anyone responsible (although the juries still out on other diketones and those are used often) and an 2009 FDA study found traces of contaminants like di-ethylene glycol.

Inhalation of oil can also lead to Lipoid Pneumonia, and while e-liquids are sometimes called 'oils' there's no oil in most of them, though some flavours use small amounts of essential oils.

That 2009 study is often cited by opponents saying "e-cigs contain dangerous chemicals" when in fact the e-cig market is evolving at roughly the same pace as the mobile phone market, so 5 years is a long time.

There does need to be regulation for these products, but outside of quality control/purity standards for liquids and devices, and outside of age restrictions to prevent sales to under 18's, there doesn't need to be more than that.

 

[Francesca R]

A couple of important points to bear in mind:
1) The NHS does not get money from tobacco sales;

Really? I thought excise tax went to central government and was not hypothecated, and the NHS grant came from central government. Which would mean it does.

 

[Francesca R]

If politicians wanted to radically reduce smoking they'd ban tobacco.

Unless that did not have voter support, because of being perceived as an infringement of freedom (by non-smokers as well as smokers)

 

[Francesca R]

The Welsh Assembly proposal is bit daft.

e-cigarettes are potentially one of the best things to happen to public health in a generation and some 'Public Health' proponents want to ban it because it bears a passing resemblance to smoking tobacco.

I agree with both of these. The objection to alloweing e-cigarettes almost everywhere appears to be a too-hard-to-swallow knee-jerk response of "It will look like we are encouraging smoking" even though it is the reverse.

 

[Ambrosia]

I agree with both of these. The objection to alloweing e-cigarettes almost everywhere appears to be a too-hard-to-swallow knee-jerk response of "It will look like we are encouraging smoking" even though it is the reverse.

Yeah the "re-normalising smoking" argument is just a pile of canard.

Vaping isn't smoking, I don't understand how you can "normalise" smoking by encouraging something that isn't smoking.

There's also the "Gateway" argument that Glantz is fond of. (I do wonder what the reviewers at JAMA were smoking to let this pass peer review, but that's another topic)

Which is essentially that people will start using e-cigs and then move on to smoking real tobacco, people that would have never picked up smoking in the first place, and because of this e-cigs are evil and should be banned.
Which is also a pile of tosh.

(comprehensive demolition of the "Gateway Argument" here and same author tears the JAMA paper to shreds here)

 

[Cuddles]

Really? I thought excise tax went to central government and was not hypothecated, and the NHS grant came from central government. Which would mean it does.

It can be helpful to actually read posts before replying to them:

Obviously if the UK as a whole collects less tax revenue the NHS and Welsh assembly may have their budgets reduced simply because there is less money to split between everyone who wants it, but there is no direct connection between the two.

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.

Firstly, this is very obviously total bollocks, and it's rather telling that you don't even pretend to support your claim and just blindly assert that your previous assertion was true. But secondly, even if you were absolutely correct, so what? Many places have laws about plenty of things that don't carry any health risk but are merely "icky". Spitting, chewing gum, dog crap, littering, and so on are often regulated in some way. No-one is going to get cancer from stepping on some old chewing gum, but people can still be fined for dumping it all over the pavement because society generally considers having towns covered in spit and gum to be rather icky.

Constantly having to wash the cigarette smoke out of your clothes every time you want to go to a pub or restaurant is significantly worse than occasionally stepping on a bit of gum, so even if that was the only reason to stop people smoking all over everyone else why wouldn't that be a good enough reason?

 

[angrysoba]

Western countries have substantially reduced tobacco consumption over the past 50 years, but a rump population of smokers remains. They pay exorbitant taxes. In the US, under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco companies further contribute to public coffers in line with sales. The more cigarettes they sell, the more they pay.
E-cigs became a billion dollar industry last year, and growth is expected to continue to the point where sales will eventually surpass those of traditional tobacco products.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/natalie...es-surpass-1-billion-as-big-tobacco-moves-in/

Policy makers are alarmed by this trend. I see an overall strategy with two components:

One is to reduce the incentive for people to choose e-cigs over regular cigarettes, through public bans and similar measures.

Two is to demonize e-cigs so as to justify taxation at the same levels as tobacco products.

I have looked into this more or less carefully. I started a thread about this months ago, with quite a few links, and it is buried in the archives.

Money, taxation, money.

For the nth time, this policy is not about taxation.

But let's assume it is.

Who gets money from taxes on tobacco?

 

[Information Analyst]

These are showy initiatives that won't really cut into tobacco revenues by very much if at all. Smokers already know the product is deadly, but they are addicted. Now the push is on to keep these addicts from moving to less deadly e-cigs, or, failing that, impose the same punitive tax on e-cigs.

Except, of course, that smoking rates in the UK have been steadily falling for years.

 

[The Don]

w.r.t. tobacco funding for healthcareand IMO ....

Is the NHS funded by tobacco duty ?

Yes, not directly but because tobacco duty goes into the general revenue pot and NHS funding comes from that pot it is funded from tobacco duty

Will a reduction in tobacco duty revenue result in a drop in NHS finding ?

I don't know. The current government has pledged to protect NHS funding so in the short term a drop in tobacco duty revenue will either result in increased borrowing to fund the NHS and/or spending cuts in other departments

Will a switch to eCigarettes result in a significant drop in tax revenues ?

Maybe, I don't know. Tobacco duty is increasing in real terms so a modest reduction in the number of smokers will maintain tax revenues. A large reduction in the number of smokers will result in a drop in tax revenues. If some or all of these non-smokers are instead eCigarette users then some but not all of these revenues may be recovered through VAT and whatever additional taxes may be placed on eCigarattes in the future.

Are current measures to ban the use of eCigarettes in public driven by a desire to maintain tobacco duty tax revenues ?

I haven't seen evidence of this in the UK. The people seeking to ban the use of eCigarettes in public places are more like the "do-gooders" seeking to protect the public from real and imagined threats the those who are absolutely against smoking rather than deficit hawks.

The money and effort being invested in getting people to stop smoking indicates to me that the current and previous UK governments really are/were interested in reducing smoking levels with no regard for the impact this may have on tax revenues.


To repeat, all IMO