Will Brazil rethink its vaping prohibition?

“O Brasil vai repensar sua proibição de vaping?” Brazil is consulting on lifting its ban on vaping products. Will it recognise the perverse consequences of prohibition and shift to risk-proportionate regulation? We argue it should rethink its approach to nicotine.

Prohibition is about the worst regulatory response to safer alternatives to smoking

Brazil’s public health agency, ANVISA, has been consulting on whether the long-standing policy of prohibition of vaping products should be retained or lifted. The consultation questionnaire seeks comments on a technical document.

Shortcut to full response (PDF).

Here’s my take…

Continue reading “Will Brazil rethink its vaping prohibition?”

Health Canada heading in the wrong direction on tobacco and nicotine policy

Health Canada’s review of its tobacco and vaping legislation focuses only on reducing youth vaping. It shows no awareness of the links between smoking and vaping, between adults and adolescents, and the case for harm reduction at all ages

Health Canada’s tobacco policy continues to depart from a true public health mission

This blog takes a critical look at Canada’s ongoing review of its tobacco and vaping legislation. Health Canada produced a discussion document to inform the review, posed twenty-two questions and invited comments. Responses from me and David Sweanor are set out below.

Continue reading “Health Canada heading in the wrong direction on tobacco and nicotine policy”

E-cigarette risk perceptions – an American crime scene

Most Americans now incorrectly believe that e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than cigarettes. US health organisations have unethically cultivated this misunderstanding and compare unfavourably with UK equivalents. Their duplicitous behaviour resembles that of Big Tobacco 50 years ago.

Note: ‘Don’t know’ is handled inconsistently across the surveys, so I have merged ‘don’t know’ and ‘never heard of e-cigarettes’ (some care needed)

I have drawn the chart above from the US National Cancer Institute HINTS survey, picking up results from 2014, 2017 and the most recent data from 2020. The current situation is shocking and the trend is a disgrace. But how has this happened?

In this blog, I compare the vaping risk communications of four major American health organisations with four similar UK organisations. The comparison is damning.

Continue reading “E-cigarette risk perceptions – an American crime scene”

FDA spreads confusion about nicotine and smoking

FDA has authorised 22nd Century to claim a reduced nicotine cigarette is a reduced risk product. This will spread confusion and divert smokers from better choices.

In one of its most ill-judged moves to date, the US Food and Drug Administration has today granted 22nd Century Group the right to market its VLN King and VLN Menthol King combusted, filtered cigarettes as modified risk tobacco products.

It has done this because these products are reduced in nicotine and, FDA concludes, anyone who is willing to smoke them will experience lower exposures to nicotine. But we have known for a long time that “people smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar” (Mike Russell). This is a product that reduces the nicotine but keeps the tar. What could possibly go wrong?

Continue reading “FDA spreads confusion about nicotine and smoking”

Twenty reasons to be sceptical about rules lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes – and what to do instead (updated)

Using regulation to remove nearly all the nicotine from cigarettes is similar in effect to a prohibition – with all that entails. That will trigger a wide range of responses by consumers and suppliers. These have barely been studied or understood.

What matters is how users respond to a rule, not what the rule and rule-makers intend. The graphic illustrates various response pathways to a reduced nicotine rule. These may be combined or evolve over time as producer and consumer behaviour adapts. These pathways are in competition with each other.

Updated: I am revisiting this post with a new graphic (above).

What would be the biggest possible tobacco control measure? That would be a proposed rule lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes with a view to making “Very Low Nicotine Cigarettes” (VLNC) sub-addictive – thereby persuading adults to quit and adolescents to never start.  The trouble is that consumers, markets, producers, and criminal networks have a way of thwarting such bold ambitions. Continue reading “Twenty reasons to be sceptical about rules lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes – and what to do instead (updated)”

The WHO tobacco control treaty meetings are closed bubbles of cultivated groupthink – a comparison with the UN climate change treaty

Stakeholders with legitimate (and sometimes life-or-death) interests are deliberately excluded from FCTC meetings.

At the start of COP-9, the head of the FCTC convention secretariat proudly drew a comparison with the other COP, the one going on in Glasgow dealing with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).  Perhaps she hoping some of the interest in UNFCCC COP-26 would rub off on the altogether more tawdry FCTC COP-9.  But the tobacco COP takes an aggressive exclusionary and insular approach to stakeholders that would never be tolerated in the climate COP.  This post compares the two COPs.

Continue reading “The WHO tobacco control treaty meetings are closed bubbles of cultivated groupthink – a comparison with the UN climate change treaty”

Prohibitionists at work: how the WHO damages public health through hostility to tobacco harm reduction

Gangsters celebrate their good fortune with drinks at a speakeasy during US alcohol Prohibition

This post examines how WHO and related institutions aggressively promote the prohibition of much safer alternatives to cigarettes, such as vaping and heated tobacco products. The effect, if not the intent, is to protect the cigarette trade from competition, to promote black markets, to stimulate harmful workarounds, to nurture criminal networks, to harm young people, and to prolong the epidemic of avoidable smoking-related disease.  It’s a reckless policy, built on misplaced righteousness, defended by bureaucratic inertia, sustained by group-think, and cultivated by elitist billionaire foundation money. It’s a curse and a blight on public health, and government representatives should apply real-world policy disciplines and reject it.

The post is broken into six sections:
Continue reading “Prohibitionists at work: how the WHO damages public health through hostility to tobacco harm reduction”

One hundred specialists call for WHO to change its hostile stance on tobacco harm reduction – new letter to FCTC delegates published

Just want the letter? PDF version: English, Français, Español, Deutsch (new) – and text below.

Continue reading “One hundred specialists call for WHO to change its hostile stance on tobacco harm reduction – new letter to FCTC delegates published”

Expert statements on WHO and tobacco harm reduction

100 experts sign a public letter on the failure of the WHO approach to tobacco smoking and public health. In this post, they express their views in their own words 

Continue reading “Expert statements on WHO and tobacco harm reduction”

Psychoactive Podcast: The E-cigarette revolution – vaping, nicotine and harm reduction

I had an excellent conversation with Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance for his outstanding Psychoactive podcast series about all aspects of drugs and drugs policy, which I highly recommend.

In this episode, “The E-cigarette revolution”, we covered vaping, nicotine, harm reduction – science, policy, politics and controversy – with Ethan as host putting the challenging questions.   Listen via your usual podcast provider (search on Psychoactive)… or via these links.

Continue reading “Psychoactive Podcast: The E-cigarette revolution – vaping, nicotine and harm reduction”