Vaping

In somewhat of a surprising move, the American Cancer Society has quietly updated its position statement on electronic cigarettes. I say quietly because there is no mention of this update on any of the social media channels, nor was there any special press release or blog post on their website.

Naturally, doing that makes me a tad suspicious.

Considering that, earlier this year they issued a press release in response to the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report - which I still need to write about. You would, therefore, think that, given that the report likely spurred this position update, they would issue something to herald it. But no.

To borrow from Andrew Allison, once upon a time private property rights were highly valued. As long as it was legal, what consenting adults did was no-one else’s business. With the March of the Puritans, however, there are umpteen state-funded Quangos, sock-puppets and Government busybodies poking their noses in where it is decidedly unwelcome.

As reported by the Halifax Courier last week:

Calderdale taxi drivers and passengers face vaping ban in cabs

This week saw another release of the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) with more information on ‘Reasons for Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students’.

Given that Scott Gottlieb made a big thing in his speech about youth, it is hardly surprising the route that this is going to take.

https://twitter.com/SGottliebFDA/status/964236004549971969

Those figures are, in fact, accurate. At least as far as the survey data goes. Remember, this is from the National Youth Tobacco Survey. As previously mentioned, the NYTS did change its questions on e-cig use which, unsurprisingly, led to a “shocking rise” in the use of said product.

Following on from the “Evidence Update” in September 2015, Public Health England has done it again. In fact, they have gone as far as repeating the same mistakes as last time, by mentioning the word “prescription”, and/or “NHS” in the press release.

Via the BBC:

E-cigarettes should be available on prescription, according to Public Health England (PHE).

The agency wants them to be prescribed on the NHS within the next few years because of how successful they have been in helping people give up smoking.

I noticed this piece in The Conversation yesterday (it also popped up on another, unrelated news site), and unlike the usual vaping related articles, it wasn’t penned by the illustrious Simon Chapman.

Of course, just because it wasn’t written by Chapman doesn’t mean it’s going to be a positive article. After all, The Conversation is his own playground.

I’ve written about regulations and standards before, and my views haven’t changed. The BSI PAS was in response to the TPD and thus had to operate within the confines of that Directive, which as we know is very limiting in what can and can’t be done. From regulation flows bad standards. From good standards flows good regulation. The downside is good standards can (and do) take years to put in place.

Leaving aside the fact that I haven’t posted for a while (almost two months), it isn’t particularly surprising to find that a) the media are at it again, and b) tobacco control researchers are at it again.

We have seen this kind of study before, at around the same time of the year, where some ‘research’ makes some claim about how e-cigarettes are “worse than originally thought”. We’ve recently seen a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) in the US which largely mirrors the findings from the UK’s Royal College of Physicians; I do plan to go over that at some point - time permitting.

“Big Vape is copying Big Tobacco’s playbook” says Liza Gross in her recent article on The Verge. This isn’t the first time, nor I suspect will it be the last time, that a media outlet tries to conjure up images of a faceless, and evil industry by conflating the tobacco and vaping industries.

Even if a representative of the vaping industry is interviewed (which is rare), the journalistic hack tries to subtly (or not so subtle in some cases) taint the piece with the usual “shill” claims.

Every so often, something so bizarre pops up that I end up just taking a few minutes to absorb just how utterly bonkers it is before either bursting out laughing or face-planting my desk.

In this instance, I didn’t do either. First, a little history. Most of you know Clive Bates. Once a week, he runs a search on PubMed on everything THR related. It’s then bundled up in a nifty e-mail that he sends to a nicotine consumer group which I’m in.

I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, but vaping isn’t a stick to go around beating smokers with. It isn’t purely a cessation tool, though most alphabet organisations would love you to believe that.

Sure, most vapers view vaping as a way off tobacco and bully for them. Some view it as a cessation method; ‘cos they wanted to stop smoking and nothing else worked for them. Again, bully for them. Vaping is, by and large, a flexible and thoroughly enjoyable pastime.

Just recently, the “gateway theory” has been doing the rounds yet again. I stumbled across this paper that claims the gateway theory is, in fact, real and undeniable.

As usual, the researchers are making wild claims about cause and effect, but there’s one key problem with this paper, in that it is the outcome of focus groups:

It is a form of qualitative research consisting of interviews in which a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, or packaging.