UK ASH says 3% of UK smokers have switched to e-cigs

[Vocalek]

ASH Suggests 3 Percent of UK Smokers Use E-Cigarettes | Electronic Cigarette Blog by VIP

Recent information from ASH suggests that 3% of smokers in the UK are using electronic cigarettes instead of tobacco. Awareness and use of e-cigarettes was measured as part of a 2010 ASH/YouGov national survey. The survey concluded 52% of smokers quizzed had heard of e-cigarettes but and not yet tried them. Nearly 10% reported having tried e-cigarettes and 3% of smokers were using them. Satisfying the urge to to smoke and helping to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked were seen as the main benefits of using the e-cigarette, particularly among heavy smokers.

The UK population is rapidly approaching 63 million. The survey suggests that around 400,000 of the UK’s 13.5 million smoking population use the e-cigarette.

Apparently this information is not "scientific"--at least not in the Phillipines.

But actually, there is no scientific study yet to determine if it is a good alternative to actual smoking using real cigarettes," Valencia said.

And then there's the alarming and unhealthful packaging...

"Definitely we are not endorsing e-cigarettes as an alternative to actual smoking using real cigarettes and its packaging maybe alarming and detrimental to health," said Dr. Ariel Valencia, DOH regional director.

Health office nixes e-cigarettes | Sun.Star

Wonder if any of the UK e-cig users have experienced adverse health effects from looking at the e-cig packaging.

 

[Tom09]

Very interesting survey, as it provided first information on a total population level.

There seems to be no formal publication, but ASH UK made use of the data in ASH Response to the MHRA Consultation on the Regulation of Nicotine Containing Products (May 2010)

Although published usage data are not yet available, the YouGov population survey finds that 9% of smokers report having used e-cigarettes and 3% are current users. That would suggest that there are around 300,000 e-cigarette users in the UK today. Furthermore, the fact that E-cigarettes have now been available for at least four years suggests that there is sufficient demand for these products to remain on sale. Banning them would therefore undermine the Government’s tobacco harm reduction strategy.

Appears as if similar population numbers have also been obtained in a Scottish survey (source):

ASH Scotland conducted a recent YouGov survey, finding that approximately 7% of adult smokers surveyed have used e-cigarettes (with around 3% still using them).

The ASH UK survey results have been presented at a smoking cessation conference:
Martin Dockrell, Ann McNeill and Indu Hari: What smokers tell us about e-cigarettes. 2010 UK National Smoking Cessation Conference, 14th & 15th June 2010, Glasgow, Scotland;
the abstract page links to the more detailed conference presentation (Flash file here).

 

[Vocalek]

Good find, Tom. I knew I had seen that 3% figure before, and now I recall that it was from Dockrell's presentation at the Bath UK SRNT 2010 conference.

Dockrell M, Indu SD, Lashkari HG, McNeill A. “It sounds like the replacement I need to help me stop smoking”: Use and acceptability of “e-cigarettes” among UK smokers. 12th annual meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Europe. Bath, UK, 2010.


https://secure2.symphonyem.co.uk/CMS/UserDocuments/899/symposia.pdf (accessed June 2011)

 

[jtpjc]

Wonder if any of the UK e-cig users have experienced adverse health effects from looking at the e-cig packaging.

Oh, you were supposed to only LOOK at it? That explains the smoke alarm going off.

 

[Ande]

Yes- if you burn the package, it WILL set off the smoke alarms.

This would be both unhealthy and alarming.

I want to see the original that the quote was translated from- methinks that it just isn't quite right. Anybody know where I can find the original article?

BEst,
Ande

 

[Vocalek]

No, but there are some fun new signs posted at Engrish.com

There's even a special section for packaging: http://www.engrish.com/category/bagspackaging/

And really, labels ARE important: http://www.engrish.com/2008/08/if-the-flames-dont-get-ya-the-explosions-will/

 

[misterhyde]

"Definitely we are not endorsing e-cigarettes as an alternative to actual smoking using real cigarettes and its packaging maybe alarming and detrimental to health," said Dr. Ariel Valencia, DOH regional director.

Are they suggesting that using electronic cigarettes is worse than using real cigarettes? That's what I came away with, and if so, that is just ... backwards.

 

[Thulium]

Are they suggesting that using electronic cigarettes is worse than using real cigarettes? That's what I came away with, and if so, that is just ... backwards.

That appears to be the new (rehashed) tactic. Ignoring the fact that the most dangerous products were regulated first, they are carefully wording the propaganda to suggest that "unregulated products" may be dangerous. It's the same sort of half truth "smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to quitting" warnings and pictures of trenchmouth that deceived most smokers to think that they would increase their chances of oral cancer by switching to smokeless.

According to data published by CDC, the estimated number of additional deaths from 46 million tobacco users is 13,000 for cigarettes but 6,000 for smokeless. Modern smokeless products with reduced TSNA's have not been linked to any statistically significant increased cancer risk in any studies to date.

 

[Vap0rJay]

That appears to be the new (rehashed) tactic. Ignoring the fact that the most dangerous products were regulated first, they are carefully wording the propaganda to suggest that "unregulated products" may be dangerous. It's the same sort of half truth "smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to quitting" warnings and pictures of trenchmouth that deceived most smokers to think that they would increase their chances of oral cancer by switching to smokeless.

According to data published by CDC, the estimated number of additional deaths from 46 million tobacco users is 13,000 for cigarettes but 6,000 for smokeless. Modern smokeless products with reduced TSNA's have not been linked to any statistically significant increased cancer risk in any studies to date.

Devil’s advocate… Could always start a FDA is hazard to your Freedom & Health campaign. Fight fire with fire…

Billboards, bumper stickers, etc. with a website that lists the (im sure) millions of reasons why. Everything from Cheerios being labeled as a drug to baning birthing pools to the plethora of “approved” drug side effects.

Only problem I see is that the campaign leaders might “disappear” one night to silence them and the website seized. After all, truth is treason if I’ve been interpreting the news correctly these days. End up being waterboarded in some camp that doesn't exist all over a pamphlet about multivitamins