Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Studies: Added study on illicit purchasing and ecig potentially diverting users to a safer product) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Studies == | == Studies == | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37195268/ E-Cigarette price impacts legal and black-market cigarette purchasing under a hypothetical reduced-nicotine cigarette standard.] === | |||
* The authors looked at various conditions in a hypothetical marketplace that included VLN cigarettes, illicit cigarettes and e-cigarettes at different prices. | |||
* Some rare informative work on a reduced nicotine rule looks at choices made by users facing a market in which a nicotine rule has been imposed. This is an experimental economic study and, therefore, more closely approximates the behavioural processes involved in responding to a regulation that requires users to make economic choices (i.e. pay money to buy something they want). More so than, say, randomised controlled trials, which have very poor external validity and tell us very little beyond their high level of non-compliance. | |||
* Results: Usual-brand cigarette purchasing was greater than illicit normal-nicotine content cigarettes and less than reduced-nicotine content cigarettes. In the cross-commodity purchasing tasks, illicit cigarettes and e-cigarettes both served as economic substitutes for reduced-nicotine content cigarettes; however, when e-cigarettes were available for $4/pod, they were purchased at greater levels than illicit cigarettes and resulted in greater reductions in reduced-nicotine content cigarettes purchasing than when available for $12/pod. | |||
* Implications: E-cigarettes available at low, but not high, prices were stronger substitutes for legal, reduced-nicotine content cigarettes than illegal, normal-nicotine content cigarettes in a hypothetical reduced-nicotine tobacco market. Our findings suggest the availability of relatively inexpensive e-cigarettes may reduce illicit cigarette purchasing and combusted cigarette use under a reduced-nicotine cigarette standard. | |||
* There's an interesting and revealing [https://twitter.com/Drug_Researcher/status/1659281443040686091 Twitter thread] by senior author Matthew Johnson, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Johns Hopkins. Here are the headlines, starting with the resistance to publishing sceptical research about tobacco control Big Idea: | |||
** Had a hell of a time publishing this due to zealotry in nicotine research field. Never received money from tobacco/e-cig companies but have long recognized e-cigs as a powerful public health benefit to replace smoking. | |||
** I've long recognized the potential catastrophe of banning full nicotine cigarettes. As if a hundred years of drug prohibition of other substances has worked and as if the world isn't finally moving away from those failed policies. The cigarette black market would EXPLODE. | |||
** We need to view nicotine/tobacco in the broader context of drug policy. We need to recognize that e-cigs are inherently different than the debacle of "light" cigarettes which likely harmed public health. E-cigs poised to be far less deadly than cigarettes, esp if well regulated. | |||
* Dolan SB, Bradley MK, Johnson MW. Nicotine Tob Res. 2023 May 17:ntad067. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntad067. Online ahead of print. PMID: 37195268 | |||
===2022: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntac010/6505261 Educating the public on the health risks of very low nicotine content cigarettes: Results from a U.S.-based convenience sample]=== | ===2022: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntac010/6505261 Educating the public on the health risks of very low nicotine content cigarettes: Results from a U.S.-based convenience sample]=== | ||
edits