BMJ poll - should we follow New York and ban ecigs in public?

[h116]

done.
<label class="pds-feedback-label"> Yes 4.94% (75 votes) </label>

<label class="pds-feedback-label"> No 95.06% (1,444 votes) </label>

 

[Chegs]

this isn't the first time the BMJ has put up a poll about vaping that hasn't had they result they were probably hoping for.

Hope they put in a few more vaping items during the next 2 weeks as thats how long my membership runs for,then I can read the entire article & submit my "fuck off you know nothing"'s

 

[steffijade]

Hope they put in a few more vaping items during the next 2 weeks as thats how long my membership runs for,then I can read the entire article & submit my "fuck off you know nothing"'s

Maybe KulrMeStoopid could award you an honourary doctorate in advanced vaping from the university of POTV? Then you could add Dr to your username.

Obviously, this would instantly give you assumed moral authority.

Give em hell Dr Chegs .

 

[Chegs]

Just been reading the BMJ responses pages where I came across the dude's email address of where our MHRA/Government/Linda (cocksucker)McAvan etc are getting their hare-brained ideas on regulation of e-cigs(hate using this description)

• Simon Chapman, professor of public health

Author Affiliations

• [email protected]
• I also found several of his "tirades" where it would seem his main focal point is actually capitalism rather than public health,as he not only attacks Big Tobacco,but also Big Pharma.
  
  The last response I was reading....
  
  

 

[Chegs]

here

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has decided to license electronic cigarettes as medicines from 2016.Simon Chapman agrees with regulation, seeing e-cigarettes as another way for big tobacco to try to make nicotine addiction socially acceptable again, but Jean-François Etter (doi:10.1136/bmj.f3845) says restrictions will result in more harm to smokersAmid the feverish embrace of electronic cigarettes, come several statements by the tobacco industry that should cause public health proponents of such products to get a grip. For example, the chief executive of Reynolds America told shareholders in November 2012, just six months before entering the e-cigarette market, “We have a little mantra inside of the company . . . which we call the 80-90-90 . . . We spend about 80% of our resources in the combustible space. The combustible space is still 80%, 80+% of our operating income . . . [and] 90% of the organizational focus . . . And despite a lot of these new innovations that you see coming out, 90% of our R&D [research and development] budgets are actually directed at the combustible category . . . That is the category that’s still going to deliver a lot of growth into the future.”1
[h=2]Misconceptions[/h]Big tobacco is not investing in e-cigarettes to wean itself off cigarette sales. Its recent
oleaginous rhetoric about them saving lives is utter duplicity. None of the big companies now in the e-cigarettes market have desisted from virulent opposition to policies that are known to reduce smoking. None has declared accelerated targets for reducing cigarette sales. As with other forms of smokeless tobacco, big tobacco wants smokers to use e-cigarettes as well as cigarettes, not instead of them. Its five goals are widespread dual use; retarding smoking cessation; resocialising public smoking back into fashion from its forlorn exile outside buildings; conveying to young, apprehensive would-be smokers that nicotine is a benign drug; and welcoming back lapsed smokers.
If big tobacco succeeds with any of these ambitions, e-cigarettes may cause a net increase in population harm. Urged on by myopic health professionals who seem to have lost any population health focus they might have had, this may become one of the biggest blunders of modern public health.
Public health enthusiasts for e-cigarettes see their promise as a way to get smokers to quit or reduce toxic exposure, but they seem blasé about the other possible effects described above. There are many impassioned, vocal testimonies that e-cigarettes have helped many thousands to quit or cut down smoking. But the first prospective study found that although smoking cessation and harm reduction motivated many e-cigarette users, there were no differences in smoking quit rates between e-cigarette users and non-users.2 And importantly, cutting down cigarettes rather than quitting confers little if any health benefit,3 so dual use may be as bad as continued smoking in terms of health outcomes.

[h=2]Regulation is required[/h]So how should we respond to e-cigarettes? The first step must be to move beyond anecdotal testimony and naive optimism and study large populations to build the evidence about whether e-cigarettes do accelerate quitting and to quantify behaviours indicative of the important industry goals above.
Tobacco use may kill a billion people this century,4 largely because of tobacco’s historic treatment as an unexceptional item of commerce and, later, decades of glacial action by governments failing to regulate this dangerous consumer product. But in the past 50 years, we have learnt much about how to reduce tobacco use—for example, only 15.7% of Australians aged 15 or over now smoke daily,5 and youth smoking has never been lower.6 We are finally pulling access to tobacco products back to where it should have started: expensive, highly regulated, non-advertised, plain packaged, and out of retail sight.
We should make none of the many disastrous mistakes made with cigarettes in the name of allowing e-cigarettes to compete better with cigarettes. We should start by not assuming they are benign items of commerce. Drug companies have long been able to sell nicotine in small doses as a quitting aid but have never tried to register high dose products. Their awareness of the role of nicotine in apoptosis, angiogenesis, inflammation, and cell proliferation7 8 9 has always put the brakes on any temptation to have regulatory agencies allow them to sell products with doses that genuinely compete with cigarettes. So why should e-cigarettes, for which users can create their own e-juice, escape such regulation?

Many smokers want to access e-cigarettes to quit or reduce risk, and they should not be denied this opportunity. But the needs of often desperate smokers must not become the tail that wags the dog of tobacco control policy, putting at risk the massive gains we have achieved. The advent of e-cigarettes provides a perfect pretext to introduce a form of user licence for nicotine products in the same way that access to potent drugs has long required a temporary licence (a prescription) for those who need them.10 This would balance the right to use e-cigarettes with all the constraints and disincentives that are now, and should be further, applied to cigarettes. For countries where e-cigarettes are virtually “off the leash” this will probably be impossible. But for most nations that have acted cautiously, e-cigarettes may in fact turn out to be a Trojan horse, stimulating regulators to take more seriously the regulation of all tobacco and nicotine products—not just pharmaceutical nicotine—regardless of the motive of the individual user or the stated and unstated motives of the manufacturer.

 

[onthejazz]

Done

Sent from my C6603 using Planet of the Vapes mobile app

 

[Chegs]

Another naysayers viewpoint(protect the chiiiiiillllllddddddrrrreeeeennnnnnn)

Should electronic nicotine be as freely available as smoked nicotine? Professor Chapman argues "no" while Professor Etter says "yes." What's being missed is that, in order to protect youth, the e-cigarette's arrival mandates revision of nicotine product sales laws worldwide. It's a golden opportunity for health advocates to unite in demanding that merchants be compelled to select between having adolescents as customers, or the sale and marketing of what's arguably the planet's most captivating chemical.
If heroin were legal, would we remain silent and allow it to be marketed in front of our children or grandchildren?

Why compel teenagers to stare into evolving neo-nicotine industry store power-walls when purchasing candy, chips or ice-cream? Why allow their brains to be hammered by countless use invitations suggesting e-cigarettes are flavorful, as safe as cola, lots of fun, allowed nearly everywhere, a rite of passage into adulthood (expect second generation large yellow "We Card" signs), and will aid them in making (enslaving) lots and lots of new friends?

How hard would it be when amending existing youth nicotine dependency prevention laws to simply add a provision which reads: "Nicotine products, other than government approved smoking cessation products being marketed for smoking cessation (not nicotine maintenance), shall not be sold or distributed in any business location allowing access to persons under eighteen years of age. Each entrance to any nicotine product sales location shall conspicuously display a legible sign having minimum dimensions of 21 x 21 centimeters (8 x 8 inches). The sign shall use white lettering on a red background and read, 'YOUTH WARNING - NICOTINE SALES LOCATION - DO NOT ENTER – Nicotine is highly addictive. Our law requires that you must be at least 18 years of age to enter this location. The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $500 dollars.' This section shall take effect one year from date of enactment."

While in full agreement with Etter that clean nicotine delivery is a no-brainer and vastly safer than smoke, as Chapman suggests, dual use, retarded cessation, ex-smoker relapse and youth experimentation have potential to quickly erase 50 years of nicotine dependency recovery gains.

And nicotine's known burden upon the body (cancer promotion and artery hardening via angiogenesis, possible mutagenesis, apoptosis inhibition, cell proliferation, insulin resistance, together with a host of fetal harms) is in stark contrast to Etter's surprising assertion that nicotine is "not a public health problem." Informed consent mandates honesty in detailing residual risks, including the fact that none of us as yet have any idea of the long-term consequences of inhaling vaporized nicotine into lungs already damaged by years of smoking.

Let's not forget that nicotine cessation is being asked to take a backseat to a permanent brain dopamine pathway wanting disorder and mental illness that is every bit as real and permanent as alcoholism. Picture substantial brain circuitry overlap between the wanting, urges and craves for food felt by Chapman and Etter once or twice daily, and the wanting, urges and craves endured by those dependent upon nicotine, which are just as real and felt 10, 15 or 20 times daily.[1].

Nicotine dependency isn't nearly as much about the addict's eventual cause of death as it is about how each day gets lived, as slave to mandatory nicotine feedings, every waking hour of every day. While Etter suggests that e-cig use is "for enjoyment," it isn't that e-cig users like or love using, but that they don't like what happens when they don't. Suggesting that bringing an end urges, craves and anxieties is joyful is akin to saying that it feels good to stop pounding your fingers with a hammer.

We stand one youth fad away from causing millions of teenagers to spend the balance of life battling to reclaim their freedom and priorities. As argued by Chapman, it's myopic to think that the nicotine industry won't seize and rely upon arguments similar to Etter's "safer alternative" and "not a public health problem" assertions in targeting youth for dependency and ex-smokers for relapse. The time for public health leadership is now.

John R. Polito
Nicotine Cessation Educator

[email protected]

 

[steffijade]

Funny how none of these supposed advocates for health seem to have any empathy for current smokers isn't it?

That's one of my main objections to the anti smoking lobby.. they view smokers as being sub human, feel it's ok to demonise and vilify them and think that any policy that protects 'the children' is ok, even if that policy harms the potential for current smokers to quit. Any early deaths of current smokers seem to be viewed as 'acceptable losses' and why shouldn't they? In their eyes, smokers are sub human and unworthy of any consideration.

The hypocrisy of claiming to be concerned about public health, whilst at the same time dismissing a sizeable proportion of the population as being unworthy of consideration reveals these zealots for what they actually are... bigots.

 

[Fleabag]

Funny how none of these supposed advocates for health seem to have any empathy for current smokers isn't it?

That's one of my main objections to the anti smoking lobby.. they view smokers as being sub human, feel it's ok to demonise and vilify them and think that any policy that protects 'the children' is ok, even if that policy harms the potential for current smokers to quit. Any early deaths of current smokers seem to be viewed as 'acceptable losses' and why shouldn't they? In their eyes, smokers are sub human and unworthy of any consideration.

The hypocrisy of claiming to be concerned about public health, whilst at the same time dismissing a sizeable proportion of the population as being unworthy of consideration reveals these zealots for what they actually are... bigots.

Absolutely - a large proportion of smokers, myself included, took it up when we were under the legal age to buy them. Their lack of concern for those of us who were left with the burden of nicotine dependence because they failed to "think of the children" sufficiently when we were at a suggestible age implies that once that child became an adult, they became part of the cause of the problem, no longer a victim of it.

Though I don't particularly want to identify as a victim or that nicotine dependence is a major problem (providing my safe means of delivery is protected), they should recognise that teenage rebellion, schoolyard bullying and the need to conform with peers and the availability of cigarettes to minors (including the "seppies" we could buy from reputable vendors - I mean, when a young person came into a shop wanting to buy 2 cigarettes, who was stupid enough to believe they were over 16?) all contributed to us becoming adult smokers.

Logic suggests they care about children smoking because they want to avoid them becoming lifelong smokers with all the associated health implications, but their actions suggest they don't give a monkey's about their future health, or they'd be more active in making viable alternatives to smoking available.

Let's face it, a teenager who smokes for a couple of years to look cool amongst his/her peers isn't likely to suffer any lasting damage - it's those who are still smoking into adulthood that have a much greater chance of health problems

 

[Fubar1977]

Done.
96% not in favour of a ban as at 9pm 31/12/13

By the way, it was really nice meeting you in person Matt and I wish you every success in your business.
I'll be sure to call in again next time I'm in York.