Forbes "Are Electronic Cigarettes A Public Good Or A Health Hazard?" - some noteworthy US #s in Harvard case study

[Roger_Lafayette]

I don't usually do individual articles on a thread (because that would flood this forum, obviously), but some of these numbers made my eyes pop out:

http://www.forbes.com/
sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2014/04/23/4292/

For ex., this Harvard B-school prof. claims that the vaping market was worth $3B last year (well above Herzog's estimates, I believe).

But more astonishingly we have this gem:

"In the case of electronic cigarettes, existing evidence indicates that they have led to a net decrease in smoking. Of the 43.8 million smokers in the United States in 2012, 3.5 million converted to eCigs; during the same period only 1.3 million eCig smokers converted to tobacco. That means a net decrease of cigarette smokers of 2.2 million, or 5%.

"At the same time, 2.8 million nonsmokers converted to electronic smokes. But even that doesn’t tell the whole story, says Quelch, since it leaves out the number of smokers who would have taken up smoking tobacco if e-cigarettes didn’t exist, as well as the number of smokers who would have quit cold turkey without the availability of electronic products. 'To really determine the public health impact of e-cigarettes requires a lot of sophisticated market research and analysis,' says Quelch."[boldface added]

Actually it's not that tough to estimate the number of new tobacco cigarette smokers from teen smoking rates and population statistics (and perhaps even vapers). And his figure of 3-4M US vapers seem to be in line. Plus we know that about 5-10% of US tobacco cigarette smokers quit either "cold turkey" or via NRT (more on the low side of that range, I think).

But how in the world is he getting the # of vapers who converted to smoking tobacco cigarettes? My understanding is that there are very few, at least if we count the small fraction of vapers who have never smoked.

I find it very difficult to believe that there are gobs of vapers kicking around who have never smoked tobacco cigarettes (certainly not a quarter of us), let alone vapers who are either converting back to tobacco cigarettes, or never-smokering vapers who are becoming new tobacco cigarette smokers. Doesn't make sense to me. And frankly, I've never seen anything like the detailed numbers that he's providing on these subcategories (i.e. vapers who turn to smoking). The only numbers I've seen are overall #vapers and overall #smokers. (Perhaps there's some unorthodox counting of dual users going on, given that most vapers start out as dual users.)

I can certainly see how some of these conclusions will be abused by vaping opponents. The headlines are easy to write: "E-cigarettes create new smokers by the million." Ugh.

Something is rotten in Denmark - nobody that I know of has this guy's numbers (otherwise we'd have heard of them before, right?). Obviously they're estimates, but the $64,000 Q is how did he get them? There are some other rather unremarkable things in the article, such as the conjecture that BT is going to take over the vaping market, and from there, they'll jack up the price of cigAlikes to the point where their users will turn back to tobacco cigarettes. (Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the FDA's BP-bought-and-paid-for officials will help them do that, by effectively squashing the non-cigAlike market ... which seems to be precisely where the EU is headed w/ the TPD.)

BTW this link is identical: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/
item/7449.html

(You can paste both of those links directly into your browser, the extra line won't matter.)

 

[Uma]

Interesting! I don't know where he received the numbers from, either, but I don't doubt the possibility that would be tobacco smokers grabbed an eCig instead. That's a note worthy of celebration, but it's one that the ANTZ enjoy twisting into evil concoctions to suit their agenda. The ANTZ know that EC users detox from TC's, and then can more easily cope with cold turkey if desired. Reaching for the detox tool first and bypassing the toxic addiction scares the control freak money hungry fools to no end. People are savvy enough to know there are choices now, instead of being faced with the one & only "do and die" choice that existed for decades. People are attracted to seeing anxiety released into thin air. It's a satisfying feeling even for the non smoker, as millions deliberately exhale into the brisk morning air. Being able to do so at whim, is attractive. Being able to so so in a safer way that also comes with customizable independence like never before, is priceless. Unfortunately, the ANTZ have "other" plans for the human race.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

<snip>

Uma, for now it doesn't help our cause much if people are turning to vaping w/o being tobacco cigarette smokers (or OTP users) first - unless it's nic-free vaping.

While I personally don't see much of a medical issue w/ inhaled nic., it's going to be very difficult at this stage to change public perceptions about it. (At least the harms from tobacco cigarettes begin to plummet as a result of vaping. And that can't happen if the ANTZ manage to stop or significantly slow down the growth in vaping.)

One of their critical arguments is that vaping is a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking for adults (as well as teens). If people start vaping e-liquid containing nic. - w/o being smokers first - then that strengthens the hand of vaping opponents, because they can argue that these vapers will "graduate" to tobacco cigarettes.

Which is the second disturbing thing about the numbers in this "study" (actually I think it's a "case report."). If a tobacco cigarette smoker turns to vaping, and then goes back to tobacco cigarettes, that's obviously not good news. But if vapers who have never smoked tobacco cigarettes (or used OTP products) turn to tobacco cigarettes, then this is the second part of the ANTZ argument. I.e. they can claim that never-smokers become vapers first, and subsequently turn into tobacco cigarette smokers.

Who the heck are these people is what I want to know? First, I mean the vapers who have never smoked tobacco cigarettes, for one thing. Are these nic-free cloud chasers? (I could believe that, but if so, then they're probably not at all at risk for becoming tobacco cigarette smoking, it would appear. Cloud chasing and hot boxing don't seem to have a thing in the world to do w/ tobacco cigarette smoking. Maybe pipe smoking, IDK.)

Second, I want to know who these large number of vapers are, who are allegedly becoming tobacco cigarette smokers. I find it hard not to believe that they're simply failed quitters. And if so, then they don't deseve to be counted as vapers who are switching to tobacco smoking. People try and fail w/ NRT, too. Does NRT cause tobacco cigarette smoking? I don't think so.

The PR problem for our side is that anyone with credentials can jimmy up junk numbers, or practice junk science and junk statistics with complete impunity. As long as the result is anti-vaping, they get celebrated as heros by the US medical and public health communities - which are all too happy to shower them with accolades, grant money, and of course publish their garbage. And then American media and politicians are even more delighted to cite the "peer reviewed research." (When is Glantz going to get a JAMA publication that links vaping to al-Queda? I wouldn't bet against it.)

Frankly after three huge news stories last week, I was hoping things would calm down a bit. We had the Durbin Report, the re-emergence of the bogus "cancer link" stories, and then the Reuters thing on March FDA complaints.

Let's see what Melissa (Vonder Haar, of CSPNet) says about this. She's the only mainstream US reporter that I'd trust to delve into this thing, and shed some serious light on it. The rest of our media is just going to report half the story, and pick out the anti-vaping parts.

 

[Jake6731]

If you want to pony up 14 bucks, you can download the PDF of the Case Study here:
E-Cigarettes: Marketing Versus Public Health - Harvard Business Review
This was published last year, so I cannot believe that we have not heard something about it before this..
Publication Date: Nov 20, 2013

 

[Uma]

Hurts our cause? I don't buy that. The ANTZ hurt our cause, not us. Everything we say and do can and WILL be turned against us no matter what. This main concept, that newbies are reaching for zero nicotine vapor gadgets instead of fully boosted real cigarettes, has been the main burr under the ANTZ saddle for years. They deplore the facts that the next gen won't be addicted like the previous gens. They deplore the fact that they will not be able to rule over others with hate and fear. They deplore us for coming up with a gadget that we actually like and is affordable to most. They deplore us for not giving them all our hard earned money. They deplore us, period.
Sorry. I didn't read your entire post, before going off in my mind and in type. But it sat so wrong with me I am bursting here.
The facts speak for themselves. The ANTZ are fighting zero nicotine, and non boosted non adulterated nicotine, and zero sin tax. Period.

PS. For newbies and to update oldies: Dr. Farsalinos 19,000 survey is out, which proves what we've said all along. EC's are not a gateway to road tar, they are a gateway away from it. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...02-results-study-19000-e-cigarette-users.html

 

[Kent C]

edit:whoops... got it

 

[patkin]

The facts speak for themselves. The ANTZ are fighting zero nicotine, and non boosted non adulterated nicotine, and zero sin tax. Period.

PS. For newbies and to update oldies: Dr. Farsalinos 19,000 survey is out, which proves what we've said all along. EC's are not a gateway to road tar, they are a gateway away from it. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...02-results-study-19000-e-cigarette-users.html

Exactly! Nearly two years ago now, as a new vaper and frightened by the (at the time) scares of FDA looming, I brought this up and was poo pood basically. I pointed out that, as of that date, many used ecigs as food replacements for varying reasons. I was summarily hushed up with, basically, "its only nicotine they're after." I shut up but was not dumb enough to think, based on past behavior, that any anti seeing vapor spewed from the mouth was not going to go after it whether there was nic involved or not. I think the local bans/regs around the country pretty well bare that out as there is no requirement for determining if the vapor contains nic or not.... just don't vape... period.

 

[pt91]

The author needs to supply the source or print a correction for this:

"3.5 million converted to eCigs; during the same period only 1.3 million eCig smokers converted to tobacco."

I cannot imagine that is correct and/or how the math was done

Unless he is deducting the % of smokers that tried ecigs and went back to smoking...but that word conversion is misleading to say the least if that is what he was trying to state.

 

[Kent C]

The author needs to supply the source or print a correction for this:

"3.5 million converted to eCigs; during the same period only 1.3 million eCig smokers converted to tobacco."

I cannot imagine that is correct and/or how the math was done

Unless he is deducting the % of smokers that tried ecigs and went back to smoking...but that word conversion is misleading to say the least if that is what he was trying to state.

I think you're right - on both accounts. First, they get fast and loose with statistics (going back to the 'tobacco related deaths' stuff where someone who experimented with cigarettes at age 14 and quit, is still part of the stat at age 90), and second 'converted' should at least be 'reverted' if that's the case.

 

[Uma]

Exactly! Nearly two years ago now, as a new vaper and frightened by the (at the time) scares of FDA looming, I brought this up and was poo pood basically. I pointed out that, as of that date, many used ecigs as food replacements for varying reasons. I was summarily hushed up with, basically, "its only nicotine they're after." I shut up but was not dumb enough to think, based on past behavior, that any anti seeing vapor spewed from the mouth was not going to go after it whether there was nic involved or not. I think the local bans/regs around the country pretty well bare that out as there is no requirement for determining if the vapor contains nic or not.... just don't vape... period.

I know, right. Same here. So infuriating when the ANTZ try to convince officials that grape flavored zero nic vape pens cause addiction. Say what?! Even if someone began with 36mg, the EC's brilliant concept allows the user to wean down the nic levels as desired. I, too, responded to so many articles, determined to get the truth out there. The ANTZ antics are disturbing, to say the least.
My sis-in-law quit smoking in 2001 or thereabouts. By 2014 she had to undergo the stomache shrinking surgery in order to lose weight. She can no longer snack to fill her boredom or restlessness, and considered going back to smoking. She asked me about vaping instead, thank goodness. I told her she'd have to drink a lot of water, to avoid dehydration, but her belly was seen too little to make it a feasible option. I then told her about Swedish Snus. Both EC's and Snus are so unfairly demeaned and dismissed by the ANTZ. They want everyone on their sponsors products, and that's their final say. They aren't health experts, they are advertising experts, IMHO. Anyway, there are a lot of weight watchers who are avoiding the upcoming weight taxes.