"Public Health consensus" on ecigs signed by PHE & 11 other agencies

[DrMA]

«All of the evidence suggests that the health risks posed by e-cigarettes are relatively small by comparison [...] There is no circumstance in which it is better for a smoker to continue smoking»

E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus - Press releases - GOV.UK

Correction: It's 11 other agencies, I must've counted them thrice the first time around. Would a mod please correct the thread title?

 

[zoiDman]

Thank you for Posting this.

 

[Kent C]

Good .... except for:

"To be clear, the public health opportunity is in helping smokers to quit, so we may encourage smokers to try vaping but we certainly encourage vapers to stop smoking tobacco completely."

...along with this:

"In October this year, regulations to protect children will make it an offence to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 or to buy e-cigarettes for them and within a year the EU Tobacco Products Directive proposes a ban on all print and broadcast advertising of e-cigarettes as part of a full range of regulations."

So while advertising helps 'get the word out' on all types of products (or public service announcements about AIDS, condoms, smoking, drinking, and the whole multicultural tolerance thing) even though they want to encourage vapers - they obviously don't want to inform them of the benefits or show them what's available and where.

.. and they evidently don't want anyone under 18 to use the most popular method to quit smoking. And imo, the most 'effective' way as well.

 

[Katya]

My favorite part:

"Public Health England

Action on Smoking and Health

Association of Directors of Public Health

British Lung Foundation

Cancer Research UK

Faculty of Public Health

Public Health Action (PHA)

Royal College of Physicians

Royal Society of Public Health

Tobacco Free Futures

UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies

UK Health Forum"

Hello, FDA, CDC, ACS, ALA, HHS, etc.--are you paying attention???

 

[BardicDruid]

Hello, FDA, CDC, ACS, ALA, HHS, etc.--are you paying attention???

No

 

[caramel]

Hello, FDA, CDC, ACS, ALA, HHS, etc.--are you paying attention???

No. UK is different. We are Marlboro Country.

 

[Katya]

 

[DrMA]

Good .... except for:

"To be clear, the public health opportunity is in helping smokers to quit, so we may encourage smokers to try vaping but we certainly encourage vapers to stop smoking tobacco completely."

...along with this:

"In October this year, regulations to protect children will make it an offence to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 or to buy e-cigarettes for them and within a year the EU Tobacco Products Directive proposes a ban on all print and broadcast advertising of e-cigarettes as part of a full range of regulations."

So while advertising help 'get the word out' on all types of products (or public service announcements about AIDS, condoms, smoking, drinking, and the whole multicultural tolerance thing) even though they want to encourage vapers - they obviously don't want to inform them of the benefits or show them what's available and where.

.. and they evidently don't want anyone under 18 to use the most popular method to quit smoking. And imo, the most 'effective' way as well.

That may be technically accurate, Kent, but you're missing the point. The message of that PR was a personal one directed at the infamous UK deniers, McKee & Capewell. It was a resounding "Shut the F*** up!" from all the heavyweight PH organizations in UK, including FPH (where McKee is VP). Together with this BMJ response it's a 1-2 punch KO of vaping science denial in the UK.

 

[Kent C]

That may be technically accurate, Kent, but you're missing the point. The message of that PR was a personal one directed at the infamous UK deniers, McKee & Capewell. It was a resounding "Shut the F*** up!" from all the heavyweight PH organizations in UK, including FPH (where McKee is VP). Together with this BMJ response it's a 1-2 punch KO of vaping science denial in the UK.

I'm not missing the point. There have been many articles here where people think they are just great but where more negative points/bashes/old arguments are brought up with a few 'throw you a bone' positive comments. People here tend to focus on the positive ones - which is normal but those 'out there' reading those articles also pick up on the negatives and unlike us they don't have any of the counter arguments.

Here, this one is not too bad of an example but the thing I mentioned wasn't the only 'negative'/illogic mentioned:

"One in 2 lifelong smokers dies from their addiction." (Not true - Or they are using the false 'smoking related death' hoax, and it reinforces 'addiction' where studies show addiction might not be the right take. )

...but the one I mentioned - esp. because of the juxtaposition of the comments was just stupid - it's like they didn't know what they just wrote two paragraphs earlier. OR they can't make the connection between how banning ads will defeat their stated purpose.

McKee & Capewell are idiots - they can make their case on that and not soft soap the piece into 'all they are doing' with banning stuff.

 

[tim brown]

 

[Oliver]

What DrMA said. You might not like Public Health overall objectives, but this is a huge step on the way to marginalising purveyors of e-cig junk science.

It's worth noting that McKee is an absolute giant, and in cahoots with Glantz, Chapman and others - it's this nexus which drives the WHO's position, publicises junk science, and it's this nexus which needs to be taken apart...

 

[Oliver]

I'd add that this could well be an important step on the way to readdressing all THR science and policy objectives. Including that of snus, which is as important as ever as the WHO continues to insist that the appalling rates of oral cancer in India are the result of smokeless tobacco, obfuscating the fact that it's not the tobacco component that causes the problem.

 

[Moonbogg]

Silly people in the UK can't fool us Americans. They don't even have real American doctors over there, so any opinion they have is not a professional one. Its just some silly wannabe American doctor living in the UK. Only America (specifically the US) has real doctors. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that if you aren't educated in America, you just don't know anything and any press release caries about as much weight as a reality TV show or something.
The people in the UK are going to get everyone killed. I'll wait for an unbiased and honest FDA ruling on the safety of e-cigs and believe it with religious fervor.

 

[nicnik]

Silly people in the UK can't fool us Americans. They don't even have real American doctors over there, so any opinion they have is not a professional one. Its just some silly wannabe American doctor living in the UK. Only America (specifically the US) has real doctors. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that if you aren't educated in America, you just don't know anything and any press release caries about as much weight as a reality TV show or something.
The people in the UK are going to get everyone killed. I'll wait for an unbiased and honest FDA ruling on the safety of e-cigs and believe it with religious fervor.

That's the danger of socialized medicine. You end up with policy that encourages death by e-cig.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I'll wait for an unbiased and honest FDA ruling on the safety of e-cigs and believe it with religious fervor.

 

[Oliver]

.. and they evidently don't want anyone under 18 to use the most popular method to quit smoking. And imo, the most 'effective' way as well.

Yeah, this is a big mistake. What this law actually does is to criminalise proxy purchasing (i.e. by an over 18 for an under 18), so parents who wish their smoking children to move onto vaping will be criminalised.

Let's be honest - this is a sop, not evidence based, and catering for the "think of the children" crowd. Policy making at its most asinine. Interestingly, this law only applies to England: Scotland are not introducing the proxy purchasing law (although they might be for cigarettes, not sure).

 

[Jman8]

«All of the evidence suggests that the health risks posed by e-cigarettes are relatively small by comparison [...] There is no circumstance in which it is better for a smoker to continue smoking»

This would be one of those type of threads where I think the diacetyl issue ought to be brought up. Cause surely it is playing into what is stated in the above quote, just as surely as it has for the last 7+ years.

Are we to go to another thread where that is the issue and then pretend that vaping is highly dangerous in that discussion, but come back here and prop up vaping as a significantly better health decision than smoking?

IOW, I strongly dislike that we want to have it two ways. Great flavor, and a zillion options are around 80% of reason why vaping is received much better by former/current smokers over smoking. And then perhaps after months/years after vaping you enter into teeny tiny minority where you expect your vape product to be even more safe than it already is, and is propped up to be, continuously.

If inhaling diacetyl is, in even one case, more dangerous via vaping than it is via smoking (which all smokers did engage in), then there would be at least one circumstance where it is plausibly better for a smoker to continue smoking. That it is very very very unlikely to be more dangerous via vaping is why these type of posts actually make sense.

 

[nicnik]

Great flavor, and a zillion options are around 80% of reason why vaping is received much better by former/current smokers over smoking.

I doubt your "80%" is anything more than a guess, and I doubt it's that high, if it's even reasonable to put a figure on it. Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, however.

 

[Jman8]

I doubt your "80%" is anything more than a guess, and I doubt it's that high, if it's even reasonable to put a figure on it. Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, however.

You do know that 42% of all stats are made up, right?

 

[nicnik]

You do know that 42% of all stats are made up, right?

No, I didn't know that, but thank you for this valuable information.