(Added content) |
(Added content) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
='''Tobacco Control / Public Health'''= | ='''Tobacco Control / Public Health'''= | ||
===2021, Mar 29 [https://www.philanthropy.com/article/vaping-and-philanthropy-debating-strategies-that-work Letters to the Editor (see letter #2): Vaping and Philanthropy: Debating Strategies That Work]=== | |||
*Written By: Eric N. Lindblom, Senior Scholar, O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center | |||
*Lindblom was director of the Office of Policy at FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products from 2011 to 2014. | |||
*Mark Gunther’s article on Bloomberg’s funding of efforts to prevent youth e-cigarette use did a good job presenting the current conflicts in the public-health community about e-cigarettes and how best to regulate them. But it did not suggest any ways those conflicts might be resolved or, perhaps, made less important. | |||
*Given the common, overriding goal of reducing tobacco-nicotine deaths and harms as quickly as possible, there are many new tobacco-control policies that all sides of the e-cigarette conflict should be able to agree on and actively support. | |||
*Even those arguing for stronger restrictions on e-cigarettes could at a minimum agree that government tax and price measures should not make e-cigarettes more expensive than smoked tobacco products. | |||
*Another possible consensus antismoking strategy might not raise any significant conflicts, even if it were extended to e-cigarettes (or to all tobacco products). That is requiring that all tobacco products be sold only in adult-only sales outlets. | |||
*To promote switching from smoking to vaping (without any downside risks), even those opposing an e-cigarette harm-reduction approach should also be able to agree that all sales outlets that sell smoked tobacco products should be required to offer e-cigarettes, as well (but not vice versa). | |||
| Line 48: | Line 58: | ||
===2016 - [https://www.cspdailynews.com/tobacco/4-takeaways-zellers-nato-show-session Mitch Zeller (FDA/CTP) - The E-Cig Debate Has Been Detrimental to Harm Reduction]=== | |||
*Zeller went on to discuss the all-too-familiar argument about the potential pros and cons of e-cigs and vaping, wondering if tobacco-control groups and vaping advocates were “having the wrong debate.” | |||
*“The e-cig debate has been emotional, divisive and is not advancing common ground on harm reduction,” he said. “Where and how can we apply the principle of harm reduction to this debate and find common ground? It’s been horribly ineffective to date. | |||
*“Part of the challenge with tobacco-control groups and public-health advocates is a historic distrust of the tobacco industry,” he continued. “Every sector has a role to play (in finding common ground).” | |||
| Line 67: | Line 81: | ||
*"Human rights activists and health workers in Uganda have embarked on a Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) campaign aimed at reducing or minimizing harm or risks suffered by people and communities as a result of using tobacco products." | *"Human rights activists and health workers in Uganda have embarked on a Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) campaign aimed at reducing or minimizing harm or risks suffered by people and communities as a result of using tobacco products." | ||
*"He stressed that the THR advocacy is not going to fight or conflict with the on going government programs, but to raise an intellectual conversation seeking a deeper understanding of THR and nicotine." | *"He stressed that the THR advocacy is not going to fight or conflict with the on going government programs, but to raise an intellectual conversation seeking a deeper understanding of THR and nicotine." | ||
='''Tobacco Industry'''= | ='''Tobacco Industry'''= | ||
| Line 88: | Line 103: | ||
edits