(added another topic) |
(added a topic) |
||
| Line 425: | Line 425: | ||
African American/Black participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes as a cessation aid compared to both Whites (p = 0.03) and Hispanics (p = 0.48) | African American/Black participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes as a cessation aid compared to both Whites (p = 0.03) and Hispanics (p = 0.48) | ||
White participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes to save money compared to Hispanics (p = 0.02). | White participants were more likely to use e-cigarettes to save money compared to Hispanics (p = 0.02). | ||
==Regulations== | |||
===2020: Are E-Cigarette Regulations Jeopardizing the Public Health?=== | |||
The demonization of e-cigarettes in the U.S. is counterproductive. As part of a tobacco harm reduction strategy, the potential public health benefits from e-cigarettes are substantial. Opposition to e-cigarettes, often fueled by misleading information, curbs their use as a smoking cessation aid by millions of adults. | |||
E-cigarettes are far less harmful than combustible cigarettes and constitute one of the most common -- and effective -- smoking cessation aids. Overzealous or poorly designed restrictions on vaping, combined with misleading information about e-cigarettes’ true health risks, are deterring smokers from pursuing a potentially life-saving alternative. | |||
If cigarette use were largely replaced by vaping over a 10-year period in the U.S., it would prevent as many as 6.6 million premature deaths. | |||
A report by a government agency, the Public Health of England, an agency of England’s Department of Health and Social Care, reported that most consumers who vape do so in order to stop smoking. | |||
The doses of toxins contained in e-cigarettes are typically hundreds or thousands of times lower than in regular cigarettes. While non-smokers would be ill-advised to take up vaping, smokers could reap significant health benefits from switching to e-cigarettes. | |||
Underage vaping by nonsmokers is rare, which supports the correlation that the rise in vaping has led to a decline in smoking among teens.Not only does the hysteria surrounding e-cigarettes endanger smokers and jeopardize public health, it also undermines the credibility of health authorities on other important issues like the coronavirus and vaccines. The American public should be told the truth about e-cigarettes. | |||
===2020: A rational approach to e-cigarettes -challenging ERS policy on tobacco harm reduction=== | |||
We believe that blanket opposition to e-cigarettes is misguided and will lead to a number of important consequences that are adverse to health. | |||
First, smokers who would otherwise have quit smoking by switching to a lower risk product will continue to smoke, and die prematurely from cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease. | |||
Second, people who have successfully switched to vaping may relapse to smoking if they come to believe that there is no health benefit from vaping, and thus increase their risk of avoidable morbidity and premature death. | |||
Third, the pursuit of arguments that vaping can’t help people to quit smoking, in the face of clear evidence that it does, risks undermining public trust in science. | |||
===2020: Vape shop owners/managers’ opinions about FDA regulation of e-cigarettes=== | |||
Vape shop owners/managers reported: | |||
1) entering the industry with positive intentions for their customers; | |||
2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service; and | |||
3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors. | |||
===2019 E-cigarettes: Comparing the Possible Risks of Increasing Smoking Initiation with the Potential Benefits of Increasing Smoking Cessation=== | |||
Potential life-years gained as a result of vaping-induced smoking cessation are projected to exceed potential life-years lost due to vaping-induced smoking initiation. These results hold over a wide range of plausible parameters | |||
Our analysis strongly suggests that the upside health benefit associated with e-cigarettes, in terms of their potential to increase adult smoking cessation, exceeds their downside risk to health as a result of their possibly increasing the number of youthful smoking initiators. Public messaging and policy should continue to strive to reduce young people's exposure to all nicotine and tobacco products. But, they should not do so at the expense of limiting such products' potential to help adult smokers to quit. | |||
===2019: Young adult dual combusted cigarette and e-cigarette users’ anticipated responses to hypothetical e-cigarette market restrictions=== | |||
“Conclusion: This work provides preliminary evidence that restrictive regulations regarding key EC characteristics may increase intentions to increase CC use among young adult dual EC and CC users.” (EC = E-cigarette, CC = Combustible Cigarette) | |||
===2017 Does the Regulatory Environment for E-Cigarettes Influence the Effectiveness of E-Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation?=== | |||
This study shows that in a less restrictive EC regulatory environment, use of ECs during a quit attempt facilitates, but in a more restrictive environment, it inhibits, short-term sustained abstinence. The findings underscore the need for careful consideration on how best to regulate this emerging product so that EC benefits for smoking cessation are maximized and its risks to public health are minimized. | |||
===2016: Study: A Framework for Evaluating the Public Health Impact of E-cigarettes and Other Vaporized Nicotine Products=== | |||
Article: Public health benefits of e-cigarette use tend to outweigh the harms, new study says - Article: Top tobacco control experts to FDA: Studies of e-cigs suggest more benefit than harm | |||
Comments: “...The primary aim of tobacco control policy should therefore be to discourage cigarette use while providing the means for smokers to more easily quit smoking, even if that means switching for some time to VNPs (vaporized nicotine products) rather than quitting all nicotine use. Countries whose policies discourage VNP use run the risk of neutralizing a potentially useful addition to methods of reducing tobacco use…” | |||
===2015: Ethical issues raised by a ban on the sale of electronic nicotine devices=== | |||
Respect for autonomy: prohibiting ENDS infringes on smokers’ autonomy to use a less harmful nicotine product while inconsistently allowing individuals to begin and continue smoking cigarettes. | |||
Non‐maleficence: prohibition is supposed to prevent ENDS recruiting new smokers and discouraging smokers from quitting. It also perpetuates harm by preventing addicted smokers from using a less harmful nicotine product. | |||
Beneficence: ENDS could benefit addicted smokers by reducing their health risks if they use them to quit and do not engage in dual use. | |||
Distributive justice: lack of access to ENDS disadvantages smokers who want to reduce their health risks. Different national policies create inequalities in the availability of products to smokers internationally. | |||
edits