Here's a pretty good report from ASH Wales, of all places...

[Spazmelda]

Alan beard and a couple of others have been posting this on Facebook.

http://www.ashwales.org.uk/creo_fil...nd_e-cigarettes_in_wales_final_march_2014.pdf

Young People and the use of e-cigarettes in Wales

Seriously, go look. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Jman8]

The report is well written and organized. Thanks for posting it.

I found it hard to relate to the takeaways from the research conducted, but not because of this study. Again, that seems top notch to me. Just how I view this sort of research in general. If other side of the equation did similar research with different biases, I'd likely be saying similar thing.

 

[Spazmelda]

Do you mean survey based research?

 

[Kent C]

The report is well written and organized. Thanks for posting it.

I found it hard to relate to the takeaways from the research conducted, but not because of this study. Again, that seems top notch to me. Just how I view this sort of research in general. If other side of the equation did similar research with different biases, I'd likely be saying similar thing.

The problem is the 'other side' did not do similar research, but are 'extrapolating' the wrong conclusions from studies that did not show what this study does, and hence showing their biases, rather than the real numbers.

When only 3.8% of those who never smoked, tried an ecigarette, and 58% of those who smoked, tried an ecigarette, then you can't conclude that 'ecigarettes are a gateway to smoking'. The other internals show that in fact, a larger percentage that smoked and tried ecigs, did as we have done - used ecigarettes to either reduce or stop smoking.

The one stat that is significant, imo, is that in the 17-18 year old range - those most likely to smoke, but have never smoked - 71%, have also never tried an ecigarette - 0%.

 

[Spazmelda]

Never mind.

 

[Spazmelda]

Check out this quote from the discussion/conclusion: "The use of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation or harm reduction devices by young people who are already smokers needs to be explored further. This is essential if the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s is to be banned, as is currently planned in the UK as there would be adverse consequences to banning a product that young people may actually be using to stop smoking. Again, anecdotally, this behaviour has been reported but evidence is required in order to inform the debate."

 

[Kent C]

Figure 11, is more than 'anecdotal'. Larger studies would be nice. The figures in 11 - "smoke normal cigarettes but never tried ecigarettes" vs. the "use ecigarettes but never smoked normal cigarettes" - tell the story, for this group. Basically 7 out of 646 who never smoked tried an ecigarette. 5 times that have smoked and never used an ecig.

 

[DrMA]

Figure 11, is more than 'anecdotal'. Larger studies would be nice. The figures in 11 - "smoke normal cigarettes but never tried ecigarettes" vs. the "use ecigarettes but never smoked normal cigarettes" - tell the story, for this group. Basically 7 out of 646 who never smoked tried an ecigarette. 5 times that have smoked and never used an ecig.

Quite apart from the methodological limitations of this survey, there's another interesting finding that's not discussed by the authors. Look at Figure 10: it shows that about 85% of kids never smoked or vaped, which leaves about 15% that have. Out of these 15% (let's call them would-be smokers, or WBS), about half (47% of WBS) are exclusive tobacco users, 13% of WBS are using ecigs to cut down on tobacco smoking, and 10% quit tobacco and are exclusive vapers. This means that ecigs as a cessation tool have helped a total of 23% of WBS to quit or reduce their tobacco use. It also puts the success of vaping for quitting tobacco altogether at 10% (of smokers), which is twice the success rate of traditional NRT (Note that quitting success using NRT has not been established for teens, but it's likely far lower than for adults).

 

[Kent C]

Quite apart from the methodological limitations of this survey, there's another interesting finding that's not discussed by the authors. Look at Figure 10: it shows that about 85% of kids never smoked or vaped, which leaves about 15% that have. Out of these 15% (let's call them would-be smokers, or WBS), about half (47% of WBS) are exclusive tobacco users, 13% of WBS are using ecigs to cut down on tobacco smoking, and 10% quit tobacco and are exclusive vapers. This means that ecigs as a cessation tool have helped a total of 23% of WBS to quit or reduce their tobacco use. It also puts the success of vaping for quitting tobacco altogether at 10% (of smokers), which is twice the success rate of traditional NRT (Note that quitting success using NRT has not been established for teens, but it's likely far lower than for adults).

You're right. It's what I was pointing to above with "The other internals show that in fact, a larger percentage that smoked and tried ecigs, did as we have done - used ecigarettes to either reduce or stop smoking."

 

[rothenbj]

Check out this quote from the discussion/conclusion: "The use of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation or harm reduction devices by young people who are already smokers needs to be explored further. This is essential if the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s is to be banned, as is currently planned in the UK as there would be adverse consequences to banning a product that young people may actually be using to stop smoking. Again, anecdotally, this behaviour has been reported but evidence is required in order to inform the debate."

Obviously denying e cigs to smoking minors is detrimental the the cause of eliminating smoking. You want those smokers vaping instead. First to get them off cigarettes and second, to have kids that are potential smokers to vape instead. However, that's just logical and there's nothing logical in the prohibitionist's mind.

 

[Kent C]

Obviously denying e cigs to smoking minors is detrimental the the cause of eliminating smoking. You want those smokers vaping instead. First to get them off cigarettes and second, to have kids that are potential smokers to vape instead. However, that's just logical and there's nothing logical in the prohibitionist's mind.

Force them to wait 3-5 years before they can attempt to quit cigarettes.

 

[Spazmelda]

Obviously denying e cigs to smoking minors is detrimental the the cause of eliminating smoking. You want those smokers vaping instead. First to get them off cigarettes and second, to have kids that are potential smokers to vape instead. However, that's just logical and there's nothing logical in the prohibitionist's mind.

Right, I agree, but I'm shocked to see it in print from ASH.

 

[Jman8]

Do you mean survey based research?

I mean survey based research results. Never really strike me as scientific. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate it, nor that I don't care for it, cause all that is being discussed in this thread, I do care about, but seems like spin and, IMHO, not up to par with anecdotal evidence. I realize many would disagree with this, but again, this isn't cause I don't appreciate survey research, but perhaps cause I understand how the process works a little too well.

The problem is the 'other side' did not do similar research, but are 'extrapolating' the wrong conclusions from studies that did not show what this study does, and hence showing their biases, rather than the real numbers.

I don't think we're going to disagree on the 'other side's' lack of overall integrity. Though we may disagree with how the other side could do similar research and how it would be treated/spun in similar fashion, which is point I was trying to make, but perhaps didn't make so well, and perhaps not worth discussing, as I do recognize the more studies from our side, the better. I think most people really dig what survey results are saying/indicating about subjects. And treat it like hard science. I generally don't, but I recognize I'm in a minority.

When only 3.8% of those who never smoked, tried an ecigarette, and 58% of those who smoked, tried an ecigarette, then you can't conclude that 'ecigarettes are a gateway to smoking'. The other internals show that in fact, a larger percentage that smoked and tried ecigs, did as we have done - used ecigarettes to either reduce or stop smoking.

Nor would I conclude otherwise on the bolded part. Anecdotal evidence had this pretty well covered before this survey was done.

I don't think a hundred surveys showing same data are going to stop ANTZ from claiming that eCigs are a gateway to smoking. Though, I wish it worked like that.

The part of my wording above that is bolded is what I'd like to emphasize most in this post. Pretty please.

 

[Kent C]

I don't think we're going to disagree on the 'other side's' lack of overall integrity. Though we may disagree with how the other side could do similar research and how it would be treated/spun in similar fashion, which is point I was trying to make, but perhaps didn't make so well, and perhaps not worth discussing, as I do recognize the more studies from our side, the better. I think most people really dig what survey results are saying/indicating about subjects. And treat it like hard science. I generally don't, but I recognize I'm in a minority.

Nor would I conclude otherwise on the bolded part. Anecdotal evidence had this pretty well covered before this survey was done.

I don't think a hundred surveys showing same data are going to stop ANTZ from claiming that eCigs are a gateway to smoking. Though, I wish it worked like that.

The part of my wording above that is bolded is what I'd like to emphasize most in this post. Pretty please.

I agree with the bolded part.

I think it's significant that the ANTZ reported the 'gateway' without the data that was in this study. And this is where the bias is - making a conclusion - "gateway" - on insufficient data, as Bill, Siegel, Clive and Phillips have pointed out. But they (the good guys) didn't have any data (other than the anecdotal) that showed it was not a gateway; only that the data used by the ANTZ didn't show that it was.

This study gives some evidence that it is not a gateway, but a 'get away'. I understand that some (you and me included no doubt) don't put much weight in such polling, but it is some evidence and more than we had before.

The other point is that while the ANTZ can lie, spin, demonize and terrorize, in the end, it is politicians that make the judgments as to what to do about this, and they can be influenced by such studies regardless of what the ANTZ are claiming.

 

[Jman8]

it is some evidence and more than we had before.

Agreed.

The other point is that while the ANTZ can lie, spin, demonize and terrorize, in the end, it is politicians that make the judgments as to what to do about this, and they can be influenced by such studies regardless of what the ANTZ are claiming.

Seems like wishful thinking, but in spirit, I agree.

Existence, promotion, and rhetoric of ANTZ has allowed politics and science to go down a few notches on the credibility scale. And seemingly, non-vapers don't care a whole lot.

 

[Kent C]

Seems like wishful thinking, but in spirit, I agree.

Existence, promotion, and rhetoric of ANTZ has allowed politics and science to go down a few notches on the credibility scale. And seemingly, non-vapers don't care a whole lot.

It is wishful. When science becomes consensus (the opposite of science), then that affects politicians, since 'consensus' means votes to them, not 'certainty'. And the wish is that people would use their rational faculty to rise above that. I know the history isn't good. lol...