Access to e-cigs associated with Decrease in cigarette smoking in adolescence

[Oliver]

A very interesting study in the Journal of Health Economics has been published. I don't have access to the full article, but the abstract is posted below:

From: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629615001150

Understanding electronic cigarettes’ effect on tobacco smoking is a central economic and policy issue. This paper examines the causal impact of e-cigarette access on conventional cigarette use by adolescents. Regression analyses consider how state bans on e-cigarette sales to minors influence smoking rates among 12 to 17 year olds. Such bans yield a statistically significant 0.9 percentage point increase in recent smoking in this age group, relative to states without such bans. Results are robust to multiple specifications as well as several falsification and placebo checks. This effect is both consistent with e-cigarette access reducing smoking among minors, and large: banning electronic cigarette sales to minors counteracts 70 percent of the downward pre-trend in teen cigarette smoking in the states that implemented such bans.

 

[AndriaD]

Exactly what I've been saying about why it's totally stupid to ban vaping to minors. Teenagers are the MOST at-risk for beginning to smoke; if they could vape instead, for WHATEVER reason, they'll be far less likely to a) even try smoking, or b) enjoy it if they do try it.

But god forbid our lawmakers exercise anything resembling good judgment or even the much-cited, rarely-found "common sense".

Andria

 

[pennysmalls]

It's sure taking long enough for them to figure this stuff out. Would've been nice if they'd look at all this sooner before states enacted all this legislation that led to these kids taking up smoking. It's a no brainer, taste wise kids will choose dessert over vegetables any day of the week and the same rule applies to vaping versus smoking. The comparison between veggies and smoking may seem dumb but kids aren't concerned with issues of mortality, it's all about the here and now and instant gratification with no concern for their future.

 

[Racehorse]

from the same journal ---almost every study other than that one is negative to our cause-----littered with them (that I can't post as I will have to spend 2 hours breaking all the links)


to post a mere paragraph from a study done by student researchers at some univ and w/out details, and then present as some kind of victory.........how many in study, what was duration, what were controls, how many nations/ states/ cities did it cover, etc.



this is IMHO an embarrassing to approach issues, health and science to do so in this manner --- cherry pick studies from hundreds then not even post the actual study

Doesn't MATTER if I agreee or disagree with the outcome, its just that I know this cherry picking isn't the way to find truth, that's all.

 

[AzPlumber]

So e-cigs are a gateway to NOT smoking,

 

[Racehorse]

I thought we were supposed to break links to "sites spouting rubbish and lies" and if you cruise thru the index of this journal you will find an absolutel preponderance of anti smoking supportive studies etc.

I guess I"m confused as to how to "spot" rubbish from a scientific standpoint.......if it agrees with me it's not rubbish, if it doesn't it is? I mean, that is all I can tell from a one paragraph abstract, from a site that is littered with studies saying
- electronic cigarette usage does not result in decreased usage of conventional cigarettes among adolescents
- "Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance are reported. Although there are some reports of improved cessation in a subset of users, there are also studies reporting decreased cessation in dual users of regular and e-cigarettes. Additionally, there is no current regulation of these devices, and this allows virtually anyone with a form of online payment to obtain them."
-comprehensive state controlled CDC sponsored quit smoking programs work
- increasing taxes on tobacco products is good, because it helps people cut down on smoking and "large literature suggests smoking cessation even later in life reduces morbidity and increases longevity, our findings may represent substantial gains in health among tax-induced quitters."

There's even one right under the one you posted that claims formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and siloxanes were found in the aerosol profiles of ecig, as well as one that appears to say that advertising ecigs creates demand and another one that suggests that lack of regulation has generated product inconsistency and potential health hazards

So isn't this a site that, as old soldier suggested in his sticky in this topic area, to which links should be BROKEN, or should we just find the one or 2 that suit us and post links to only those?

This is why I have a hard time participating in these topics because I am surprised that this gets a "pass" from some

 

[Racehorse]

In order to do a real comparison, we would have to read the entire study, and then COMPARE it to studies that say that vaping is a gateway to smoking (says the opposite) and that comparison, and some discussion, might actually lead to some kind of truth


I handicap a horse race more thoroughly than this.

IMHO we must be vigilant about assigning legitimacy to any study w/out a thorough comparison and analysis.

 

[Kent C]

from the same journal ---almost every study other than that one is negative to our cause-----

I agree and exactly to what I was referring in a recent reply to you on another thread.

 

[nicnik]

to post a mere paragraph from a study done by student researchers at some univ and w/out details, and then present as some kind of victory.........

The criticisms you're making are very valid, but I didn't see it presented as a victory, but as an interesting study.

 

[pennysmalls]

I didn't see any praise being showered upon the journal or even on the study being pointed out. Just a mention of an interesting study. And perhaps it should be looked at as very interesting *because* all the other studies are so negative.

 

[Oliver]

To be honest, I don't see any real reason to break links. Not convinced it makes any difference.

 

[Kent C]

I didn't see any praise being showered upon the journal or even on the study being pointed out. Just a mention of an interesting study.

Yep. I find the 'letter to omb' by the Senators 'interesting'. Surely don't praise it though.

 

[Kent C]

To be honest, I don't see any real reason to break links. Not convinced it makes any difference.

Well, if there is anything to the idea that it stops hits on enemy sites, (or lessens their google ratings, etc. etc.) then that's worth it, and worth the time to break. There are great schemes by certain groups that make sure that nothing about their political opponents show up on the first page of google on a search. And they know a majority of people don't go past the first page.... or at least that's the thinking behind such schemes.

 

[DrMA]

Full text link http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/af...tes_affect_adolescent_smoking_circulate_0.pdf

This study demonstrates that public health policy based on greed and sanctimony is an act of terrorism. Let's use it to degrade and destroy the global [HASHTAG]#tobaccoConTrol[/HASHTAG] terrorist network

 

[Racehorse]

okay guys, thanks for your perspective....

 

[sofarsogood]

Full text link http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/af...tes_affect_adolescent_smoking_circulate_0.pdf

This study demonstrates that public health policy based on greed and sanctimony is an act of terrorism. Let's use it to degrade and destroy the global [HASHTAG]#tobaccoConTrol[/HASHTAG] terrorist network

I've read enough pages of the report (lunch hour) to conclude the researchers are probably doing competent work that they want to be able to stand up to peer review. They are naive or simplistic about a few things but I don't think that stops them from getting valid results about gateway, etc. So I think it's a good read.

 

[AndriaD]

On the subject of "cherry-picking" data.... I'm in a middle of a pretty interesting read, Broadcast Hysteria: Orson Welles' War of the Worlds and the Art of Fake News.

The legend goes that America was swept by panic when this was broadcast in 1938. It's not true; that "swept by panic" idea was almost *entirely* fabricated by the media -- newspapers, in 1938. A few people were terrified; a few were alarmed; and some sought verification by phoning "authorities" -- but the interesting thing is that the ones who were most alarmed by it had totally missed the "Martian" aspect of it; they tuned in late thanks to garbled accts from friends/neighbors/family... What most alarmed them was that this was just after the Czech Sudetenland crisis, the Nazi threat which was looking more ominous everyday; and some were alarmed because they thought it was a massive meteor strike. Those who actually understood the broadcast to be about a "Martian attack" understood that it was fiction, presented in an extremely realistic way, as if it was a "news flash."

A couple years following that broadcast, there was an "academic" research study done, which culminated in a book called The Invasion from Mars: A Study on the Psychology of Panic. The guy most responsible, Cantril, fell for the media's acct of "panic" hook, line, and sinker, and proceeded to do this extremely biased and un-scientific study -- sound familiar?

The media has been blowing molehills into mountains for a VERY long time, and what's far worse, some of the BEST educated people fall for the overwrought blather as if it's Truth. This is nothing new at all.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

The media has been blowing molehills into mountains for a VERY long time, and what's far worse, some of the BEST government educated people fall for the overwrought blather as if it's Truth. This is nothing new at all.

Today's "news" - bacon, sausage, red meat are "probably carcinogenic" The WHO. Who?? a bunch of vegans no doubt. (or PETA, or people who think animal flatulation is ruining the planet. )

They want to control everything people like. Well... they want to control... :- )

 

[AndriaD]

Today's "news" - bacon, sausage, red meat are "probably carcinogenic" The WHO. Who?? a bunch of vegans no doubt. (or PETA, or people who think animal flatulation is ruining the planet. )

They want to control everything people like. Well... they want to control... :- )

Yes... and if you look at the psychology of those with the greatest need to control, they're typically very insecure people, who feel that their life is out of control, so they have to FORCE control on as much as they can reach. With the pockets of mass media and gov't sponsorships, they can reach a good long way, which is scary in itself.

Then of course there are the self-righteous, and they've been around as long as the human race has been around -- "look at me, I'm more right/upright/moral than you are, so you should do it MY WAY."

I've got no use for either kind of control-freak. And the media... "If it bleeds, it leads" really says it all. Yellow journalism did not die with W.R. Hearst.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I find this 'interesting' :- ) And I think it speaks to the idea some have floated around here - basically, that it doesn't matter what the feds do, the states are shutting down vaping themselves.


In testing whether e-cigarettes raise or reduce teen cigarette smoking, this paper uses

multiple identification strategies to consider both average population effects and the possibility

of varying subgroup effects. The first set of analyses considers how state bans on e-cigarette


sales to minors affect the smoking rate among 12 to 17 year olds. These regressions use state level

data, specifically two-year average smoking rates from the National Survey on Drug Use

and Health, and control for state and period fixed effects as well as state cigarette taxes, the

presence of smoke-free air laws, a variety of demographic characteristics, and smoking rates

among 18 to 25 year olds. Considering both unweighted regressions and synthetic control

analyses, bans on e-cigarette sales to minors yield a statistically significant 1.0 percentage

point increase in the recent smoking rate among 12 to 17 year olds, relative to states without

such bans. This effect is both consistent with e-cigarettes reducing smoking among minors, and

large: on average, state smoking rates for this age group fell 1.3 percentage points per two-year

interval from 2002 to 2009, the year before the first bans went into effect. A 1.0 percentage point


increase in smoking over two years counters more than 75 percent of that downward trend.


Again - smoking rates fell 1.3% from 2002 to 2009 BEFORE ecigs, but when ecigs were banned by some states - smoking increased to almost wipe out the earlier gains. Yet continued to decline in states without bans on ecigs. States banning ecigs = more smoking teens.

Gov'ts again get 180° OPPOSITE of what they intend - ie 'saving' us from ourselves, and for our own good because THEY know better that we do.