16 Sep 14: Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you (by Clive Bates)

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I still want to know if they count them in the number of successful quits.

 

[Nate760]

I still want to know if they count them in the number of successful quits.

Knowing what I know about how that industry operates, I'd be surprised if they didn't.

 

[Kent C]

I still want to know if they count them in the number of successful quits.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Nate wrote:

I'm looking now at the CDC's numbers on national cigarette consumption (here's the link if anyone wants to refer to it: Consumption of Cigarettes and Combustible tobacco — United States, 2000–2011 ), and here's what I see: their most recent data are from 2011, which is a few years after e-cigs first became widely available. In the five-year period between 2007-2011, total cigarette consumption went down by 25.5 percent. In the previous five-year period, it went down by 11.3 percent. In other words, in the first half-decade after large numbers of people started vaping, the rate of decrease in cigarette consumption more than doubled.

Please note that US cigarette consumption declined sharply in 2009/2010 after US Congress increased the federal cigarette excise tax by $.62/pack (from $.39/pack to $1.01/pack), and after cigarette companies responded to the tax hike by increasing cigarette prices by more than $1/pack (to recoup their losses from the sharp decline in consumption).

E-cigs have clearly had a huge impact on cigarette consumption since 2010 (probably causing 50% of the cigarette consumption decline).

Far more accurate and reliable cigarette consumption and taxation data (nationwide and for all 50 states) is
The Tax Burden on tobacco (2012) at
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/Tax_Burden_2012.pdf

 

[DC2]

To this assertion, I would respond with a long list of products that gained the fabled FDA stamp of approval only to be withdrawn from the market at a later date after they'd killed a whole bunch of people.

There is no doubt that would be the correct response...

And really, when you get down to it, we have a correct and valid response for EVERYTHING they try to throw at us.
My issue is that what we're doing hasn't been working fast enough to prevent things from going south.

I wish we could find a way to do what we are doing faster and better.
But in the end, I think it's going to take lots of money, one way or the other.

And certainly, a LOT more awareness from the vaping world.

 

[Nate760]

Please note that US cigarette consumption declined sharply in 2009/2010 after US Congress increased the federal cigarette excise tax by $.62/pack (from $.39/pack to $1.01/pack), and after cigarette companies responded to the tax hike by increasing cigarette prices by more than $1/pack (to recoup their losses from the sharp decline in consumption).

Yes, tax hikes and price increases obviously have a chilling effect on cigarette consumption, which is why I was careful to note that it would be a mistake to attribute the decline solely to e-cigs and vaping. In my own case, I'd be lying if I said the price of cigarettes soaring past $6 wasn't one of the factors that made me start to contemplate giving up the habit.

 

[Nate760]

There is no doubt that would be the correct response...

And really, when you get down to it, we have a correct and valid response for EVERYTHING they try to throw at us.
My issue is that what we're doing hasn't been working fast enough to prevent things from going south.

I wish we could find a way to do what we are doing faster and better.
But in the end, I think it's going to take lots of money, one way or the other.

And certainly, a LOT more awareness from the vaping world.

I think 100 years from now, this is going to be a case study in every business/economics school, as a prime example of the blinding swiftness with which a new industry can arise and evolve, so quickly that none of the interested parties really have any idea what's going to happen next.

 

[Kent C]

Nate wrote:



Please note that US cigarette consumption declined sharply in 2009/2010 after US Congress increased the federal cigarette excise tax by $.62/pack (from $.39/pack to $1.01/pack), and after cigarette companies responded to the tax hike by increasing cigarette prices by more than $1/pack (to recoup their losses from the sharp decline in consumption).

E-cigs have clearly had a huge impact on cigarette consumption since 2010 (probably causing 50% of the cigarette consumption decline).

Far more accurate and reliable cigarette consumption and taxation data (nationwide and for all 50 states) is
The Tax Burden on Tobacco (2012) at
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/tobacco/papers/Tax_Burden_2012.pdf

Bill, aren't the 'new numbers' on percentage of smokers US due soon? I know the teens figures are 'delayed' but I'm talking the wider percentage of smokers per capita US, currently at 18.1% by the last survey.

 

[DC2]

I think 100 years from now, this is going to be a case study in every business/economics school, as a prime example of the blinding swiftness with which a new industry can arise and evolve, so quickly that none of the interested parties really have any idea what's going to happen next.

If we still exist 100 years from now...

 

[Kent C]

I think 100 years from now, this is going to be a case study in every business/economics school, as a prime example of the blinding swiftness with which a new industry can arise and evolve, so quickly that none of the interested parties really have any idea what's going to happen next.

And I hope Wikipedia 2114 tells how the FDA and CDC, Zeller et. al. were responsible for millions of deaths.

 

[Nate760]

And I hope Wikipedia 2114 tells how the FDA and CDC, Zeller et. al. were responsible for millions of deaths.

Our descendents will view them no differently than we view the people who once opposed smallpox vaccination. I firmly believe this.

 

[Kent C]

Our descendents will view them no differently than we view the people who once opposed smallpox vaccination. I firmly believe this.

I was thinking along other lines but that would do as well.

 

[AndriaD]

I still want to know if they count them in the number of successful quits.

I have a strong suspicion that the ANTZ *only* count it as successful IF the smoker dies -- hey, they're a smoker, they DESERVE to die, right? And then they can count it as another "smoking-related death"!

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Our descendents will view them no differently than we view the people who once opposed smallpox vaccination. I firmly believe this.

I find it incredibly hard to fathom, but apparently there are STILL {MODERATED} who oppose vaccination. Must be the same folks who think the earth is really only 6000 yrs old. They'd rather believe fairy tales than evidence.

Andria

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I have a strong suspicion that the ANTZ *only* count it as successful IF the smoker dies -- hey, they're a smoker, they DESERVE to die, right? And then they can count it as another "smoking-related death"!

Andria

Hadn't thought of that, for the ANTZ it's a 2fer they can count it both ways.

 

[sonicdsl]

I find it incredibly hard to fathom, but apparently there are STILL {MODERATED} who oppose vaccination. Must be the same folks who think the earth is really only 6000 yrs old. They'd rather believe fairy tales than evidence.

Andria

There are lots of people who believe what they've read about this, quite vehemently, I might add (based on the autism claims). Some of whom are vapors and read this board even. Let's not be insensitive to other's beliefs here outside of the topic of the thread please.

 

[Nate760]

There are lots of people who believe what they've read about this, quite vehemently, I might add (based on the autism claims). Some of whom are vapors and read this board even. Let's not be insensitive to other's beliefs here outside of the topic of the thread please.

You're the boss, obviously, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid tangent, as a good argument can be made that the anti-vax movement is another way in which people fail to understand the concept of harm reduction. If a vaccine has a 1-in-10 million chance of harming you, and the disease it prevents has a 1-in-500 chance of killing you if you come down with it, it takes an exceedingly strange thought process to decide the latter option is the less hazardous one.

 

[AndriaD]

You're the boss, obviously, but I don't think it's necessarily an invalid tangent, as a good argument can be made that the anti-vax movement is another way in which people fail to understand the concept of harm reduction. If a vaccine has a 1-in-10 million chance of harming you, and the disease it prevents has a 1-in-500 chance of killing you if you come down with it, it takes an exceedingly strange thought process to decide the latter option is the less hazardous one.

No kidding! I thought we were all in favor of science and evidence here, not unsupported "beliefs."

Andria

 

[Jingles]

My daughter is delaying the vaccines for my grandson. He's almost a year old and hasn't had any vaccines since he was 2 months old. I think she mostly doesn't want to hurt him when he was too young to understand why he was being hurt. She has always been kind of a free spirit kind of person. Keep in mind her generation, she's 20, has seen more kids with autism than they have seen kids dying from from vaccine preventable diseases. I am not saying that I agree with her decisions. My kids were all vaccinated on schedule. The younger generation doesn't remember when the whole neighborhood came down with the measles and one or two didn't survive or had serious complications....

 

[sonicdsl]

Sorry, my point was, let's not call people names when expressing disagreement with their beliefs on something sensitive to others here in our own house.

I apologize for being confusing earlier.