FDA Tobacco use study - More background info than hard news, but relevant

[Lori2014]

In landmark FDA tobacco study, e-cig questions likely to linger - Business Insider

 

[WhiteHighlights]

The five-year Population Assessment of tobacco and Health (PATH) Study of about 46,000 people, begun in 2011, is expected to provide a wealth of data about smoking behavior that could shape regulations ranging from warning labels and advertising restrictions to new product approvals.

"It is going to provide the most fine-grain, comprehensive, highest quality data on tobacco use that has ever been collected in the United States," said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco control expert at the University of California, San Francisco.

Ok, the cynic in me doesn't expect much from the FDA, but this bit from Stanton had me shaking my head... we know how low he sets the bar.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Nothing like the FDA and lazy reporters hyping a study that hasn't even been released, while totally ignoring the three new largest nationwide surveys on e-cig and cigarette use (summarized below) that were presented at last week's SRNT conference in Philly (at the same conference FDA hyped its not yet published study).

There's already a thread on these surveys at
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ers-no-longer-regularly-smoke-cigarettes.html


2013/14 survey (NTBM n=30,136) finds 8.7% of US adults (i.e. 21.1 million) reported ever regular use of e-cigs (i.e. >9 days in any month), among whom 89.0% (i.e. 18.7 million) reported ever regular cigarette smoking, among whom 97.1% (i.e. 18.2 million) reported regular e-cig use after regular cigarette smoking, among whom 23.7% (i.e. 4.3 million) reported no longer regularly smoking cigarettes. Finds ever regular cigarette smokers were 17.2 times more likely to transition to ever regular e-cig use than ever regular e-cigs users were to transition to regular cigarette use, which accounted for just 1.3% (i.e. .2 million) of those who reported ever regular use of cigarettes and e-cigs. (POS4-146, page 333) 2013 US Census of 242.5 million adults was used for estimates.
http://www.srnt.org/conferences/SRNT_2015_Abstracts_WEB.pdf
American FactFinder - Results
National Totals: Vintage 2014 - U.S Census Bureau

2013/14 survey (TTM n=11,173) finds 6.1% of US adults (i.e. 14.8 million) self-identified as current regular e-cigarette users, among whom 91.1% (i.e. 13.5 million) reported ever regular use of cigarettes, among whom 97.1% (i.e. 13.1 million) reported regular use of e-cigs after regular use of cigarettes, among whom 24.5% (i.e. 3.2 million) reported no longer regularly smoking cigarettes. Finds smokers were 13.5 times more likely to transition to current regular e-cig use than current regular e-cig users were to transition to regular cigarette use, which accounted for just 1.7% (i.e. .2 million) of those who reported ever regular cigarette use and current e-cig use. (POS4-146, page 333) 2013 US Census of 242.5 million adults was used for estimates.
http://www.srnt.org/conferences/SRNT_2015_Abstracts_WEB.pdf
American FactFinder - Results
National Totals: Vintage 2014 - U.S Census Bureau

2014 CDC survey of 13,304 US adults finds “past 30 day” use of an e-cig by 21.5% of current smokers, 5.2% of former smokers, and 1.6% of never smokers. But CDC authors ignored those e-cig usage differences (i.e. smokers are exponentially more likely than never smokers to vape), and instead concluded that less relevant and reliable subjective differences in “main reasons for vaping” (as multiple answers could be checked off) between young adults (18-25) and those over 25 should be emphasized for “public health prevention efforts” (i.e. preventing vaping). (PA13-1, page 47)
http://www.srnt.org/conferences/SRNT_2015_Abstracts_WEB.pdf

 

[VapieDan]

Demonize then tax! It's all pretty clear. Ban and collect cigarette taxes. That works too!

 

[WattWick]

Is this Mr. Glantz adding to his growing body of evidence? Just making sure people know already that whatever this study comes up with (guess what that is) - will be the best research 'evah!'?

Could someone please change his title to 'master of rhetorics' instead of 'tobacco control expert'? ... oh wait... I get it now... tobacco control expert.

Let me quote Mr. Glantz: "I came into this agnostic". Riiiaiaiaiiiight!

 

[caramel]

Speaking from a conflict of interest point of view, BT looks like roses compared to him. If all smokers would quit tomorrow, the redundant BT workers would find equivalent jobs in other industries - from janitor to CEO. There's no equivalent job for a person with his qualifications and experience.