NYT: Peering Through the Haze

[BuGlen]

A follow up article on the CDC report in the NY Times, emphasizing the historic drop in combustible cigarette consumption by teens and giving credit to e-cigs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/18/opinion/joe-nocera-peering-through-the-haze.html

And yet buried in the news release — and played down by Frieden and others at the C.D.C. — was an astonishing fact. Actual cigarette smoking — the kind that requires inhaling carcinogens, that kills one out of every two long-term smokers and that public health officials have been trying to eradicate for decades — that kind of smoking has dropped to a mere 9.2 percent among teens.

That is a 25 percent drop in a year, a nearly 42 percent drop since 2011—and the first time that teen smoking in America has ever hit single digits. That sure sounds like big news to me.


In fact, to take it a step further, it seems pretty obvious that the decline in cigarette smoking has largely been caused by the rising popularity of e-cigarettes. This, too, was denied by Frieden. But as David Sweanor, a tobacco policy expert at the University of Ottawa, put it to me: “What other huge interventions have there been? It’s not like there has been a big new cigarette tax, or tough new package warnings. The only thing that is new is the introduction of e-cigarettes.”

 

[Tache]

OMG!!! A journalist who chose to look beyond the headlines AND used logic in forming his opinions (it was an opinion piece after all), while still presenting both sides of the story - this one's a "keeper".

 

[OCD]

Awesome find BuGlen, imagine how could one explain a 25% drop in teen smoking in a single year... a 42% drop in just a few years and single digit current use that has never been seen in how many decades of tobacco control in the lead of controlling tobacco. Boggling to imagine how one would explain that.

 

[CES]

This was a good one. Nocera has been fairly reasonable about looking at e-cigs. Glad someone is.

 

[choochoogranny]

Thank you, BuGlen! Will share some happy news for a change on Facebook.

 

[skoony]

good find.
i posted a response in the comments section.
i hope it gets through the moderation.
(they did post it.)
poster,
E-cigarettes are nicotine delivery systems. They are also have high potential for exploitative marketing to vulnerable youth for deliver other harmful products, encouraging frequent ingestion of damaging substances and normalizing other high-risk behaviors (other drug consumption, for example) in settings where e-cigarettes are heavily used. The fact that tobacco-based nicotine carries much greater disease risks is important, and a drop in tobacco consumption is certainly welcome. But it is very poor thinking from a public health perspective to hold that using less-damaging but still-dangerous products at a much higher rate is a good thing. It is also poor logic: Damage can equal or exceed previous harm levels. The goal should be to stop all high-risk ingestion, and to keep public policy pressing for gains in that direction, rather than settling for half a toxic loaf. Get a grip, Mr. Nocera. The CDC got it right.

Reply 10Recommend
Thank you for your submission. We'll notify you at when your comment has been approved.
me,
mike Pending Approval
you are correct in assuming it does no good to switch or try some that may be less harmful. after all its still smoking,right? trading one addiction for another. one should quit the approved way or keep smoking cigarettes. i for one would never consider using a product that is 3 to 5 orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes as it would expose me to the potential of harm of that of drinking tap water to maybe no harm at all.


mike

 

[BuGlen]

good find.
i posted a response in the comments section.
i hope it gets through the moderation.
(they did post it.)
poster,
E-cigarettes are nicotine delivery systems. They are also have high potential for exploitative marketing to vulnerable youth for deliver other harmful products, encouraging frequent ingestion of damaging substances and normalizing other high-risk behaviors (other drug consumption, for example) in settings where e-cigarettes are heavily used. The fact that tobacco-based nicotine carries much greater disease risks is important, and a drop in tobacco consumption is certainly welcome. But it is very poor thinking from a public health perspective to hold that using less-damaging but still-dangerous products at a much higher rate is a good thing. It is also poor logic: Damage can equal or exceed previous harm levels. The goal should be to stop all high-risk ingestion, and to keep public policy pressing for gains in that direction, rather than settling for half a toxic loaf. Get a grip, Mr. Nocera. The CDC got it right.

Reply 10Recommend
Thank you for your submission. We'll notify you at when your comment has been approved.
me,
mike Pending Approval
you are correct in assuming it does no good to switch or try some that may be less harmful. after all its still smoking,right? trading one addiction for another. one should quit the approved way or keep smoking cigarettes. i for one would never consider using a product that is 3 to 5 orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes as it would expose me to the potential of harm of that of drinking tap water to maybe no harm at all.


mike

How much do you want to bet that your sarcasm will be lost on quite a few people who closely follow the ANTZ dogma?

 

[pennysmalls]

I really liked this article, a lot. Shared on facebook.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

The article is good, but the anti's are winning the comment section.. 'it's too soon to know the risks', 'we don't know what's in there', regulate - especially those candy flavors, and attacking Joe for the perspective. It's a scary world out there.

 

[mctess]

...deleted... read the rest of the comment and see it was sarcasm..

 

[OCD]

The article is good, but the anti's are winning the comment section.. 'it's too soon to know the risks', 'we don't know what's in there', regulate - especially those candy flavors, and attacking Joe for the perspective. It's a scary world out there.

Sadly the comments section isnt where the antz are winning. It is the repeat it enough and it becomes true IRL where they are winning, doesnt matter how outrageous the lie nor the real consequences in terms of human health tell a lie enough times in mainstream media and you will make enough of the 30 second blip public believe it to win the game.

I am honestly quite saddened to have lost my faith in the greater good prevailing.

 

[Kent C]

Sadly the comments section isnt where the antz are winning. It is the repeat it enough and it becomes true IRL where they are winning, doesnt matter how outrageous the lie nor the real consequences in terms of human health tell a lie enough times in mainstream media and you will make enough of the 30 second blip public believe it to win the game.

I am honestly quite saddened to have lost my faith in the greater good prevailing.

That's not always a bad thing, depending on the definition of 'greater good'. The ANTZ purport to operate off that same goal. For any minority, even if it's the smallest minority - the individual - the 'greater good', which often reflects majority opinion, is almost always an enemy.