ENDS Youth & Young Adults: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use: added study on flavour availability and possible changes in intention to use, showing little difference. According to this study flavour bans do not deter youth use and may be counterproductive) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use: Adding paper on 'solving youth vaping') |
||
| Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
=Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use= <!--T:56--> | =Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use= <!--T:56--> | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37409355/ How do you solve a problem like youth vaping?] === | |||
* Gartner C. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2023 Jul;42(5):1298-1300. doi: 10.1111/dar.13666. Epub 2023 May 9. PMID: 37409355 No abstract available. | |||
* But the first step to "solve a problem like youth vaping" is to ''define'' the problem. The opening statement "concerns about youth vaping are rising globally" isn't really enough for a scientific discussion, unless it's a discussion about media/political perceptions. In my view, the problem of youth vaping is primarily an ''aesthetic or'' political problem (and I agree, no one wants to see this), rather than a public health risk that should really justify strong interventions that will likely harm adults. This is because there are really two types of youth vaping: (1) frivolous experience, faddish, transitory and of little current or lasting consequence; (2) the uptake of vaping by young people who would otherwise smoke or have a high propensity to use nicotine. For these adolescents, vaping is likely beneficial - a harm-reduction diversion from smoking. So youth vaping, in public health terms, is a mix of inconsequential and beneficial. We've already seen how that played out in the US in a [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2023/07/astounding-smoking-vaping-statistics-in.html recent blog] by Brad Rodu. So from a scientific and public health perspective, we need a clear-eyed public understanding of the (non-)problem, before we make trade-offs to solve this problem that may cause actual harm to adults. See Mendelsohn and Hall: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395923001123?via%3Dihub What are the harms of vaping in young people who have never smoked?] | |||
* "''Frequent vaping of nicotine by young people who have never smoked is uncommon and there is limited evidence so far that vaping has caused significant harms in this population. At a population level, the net benefits of vaping to adult and youth who smoke are likely to outweigh the feared harms of vaping to youth."'' | |||
** Gartner provides a good discussion of the costs and ineffectiveness of addressing non-compliance with Australia's Byzantine system for accessing vapes legally, and draws out the important point that people will often comply with laws without extensive enforcement if they think the laws are just and proportionate. Laws that allow cigarettes to be available everywhere, but greatly restrict access to far safer alternatives for people who want to use them to quit smoking using their own money ''may not meet this test''. | |||
** Gartner dismisses a 'responsible retailer' initiative (from BAT), not on its merits but because it is "unlikely to reassure public health advocates", as if public health advocate reassurance is some sort of goal of policy. In Australia, the public health community is unlikely to be satisfied by much short of outright prohibition, but governments are elected to find working proportionate solutions to actual problems. However, she immediately notes that ''irresponsible'' retailing provides illicit under-the-counter sales, including to children - but concludes that regularising the consumer trade would not reduce youth uptake. | |||
** She notes the pronounced anomaly in the availability of cigarettes and vaping products and recommends finding "new models of controlled supply for harmful products like cigarettes and NVPs" that will command enough public support to be self-enforcing. But what is the evidence that controlled supply doesn't have massive unintended consequences? Or that the use of coercive supply-side measures and enforcement are ever an effective and respectful way for the state to address demands for a substance? In this case, an almost benign and innocuous substance? | |||
** Worth noting the FOIA release of internal papers of the Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ANACAD) assessing the Australian government's quasi-prohibition policies. Like a voice of sanity. See Colin Mendelson's blog summarising: [https://colinmendelsohn.com.au/anacad/ Expert committee’s advice on vaping is dynamite to Butler’s prohibition model] | |||
* "''Further restrictions will likely only make the problem worse and we’ll end up criminalising more people. Regulation that is too severe risks making smoking more attractive"'' | |||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37364525/ An experimental evaluation of the effects of banning the sale of flavored tobacco products on adolescents' and young adults' future nicotine vaping intentions.] === | === 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37364525/ An experimental evaluation of the effects of banning the sale of flavored tobacco products on adolescents' and young adults' future nicotine vaping intentions.] === | ||