May 29th, 2016

Do not read this or discuss it and in no circumstances should you comment

Australian Council on Smoking & Health Parody of the 1953 meeting between Big Tobacco and PR company Hill & Knowlton

Warning: misleading people about the benefits of e-cigarettes is logically and morally equivalent to misleading people about the harms of smoking

A new discussion paper on e-cigarettes has come out in Australia. “Options to minimise the risks associated with the marketing and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems [ENDS] in Australia” by Professor Chapman and some of his following at the University of Sydney. [PDF – 8.5Mb or via Scribd as embedded below or linked here]. >> read the full post

May 27th, 2016

Beyond the Quit: what happens when e-cigs go wrong? - Louise Ross

Foxys Vape Bar

Meet people where they are or want to be

Guest post by Louise Ross, Service Manager at Leicester City Stop Smoking Service – the pioneering e-cig friendly service for smokers who want to quit.  Louise explains how her service is teaming up with a vape bar and vaper to give practical help to smokers as they master vaping as an alternative to smoking. This is real public health to me – and I hope the public health establishment is paying attention and reflecting carefully on what is happening here.

Louise starts here… >> read the full post

May 24th, 2016

Are they nuts? The dysfunction and decadence of tobacco control in one chart

Ecig acceptability

The chart of an audience poll from the Global Tobacco Dependency Treatment Summit 2016 (23-24 May 2016, twitter:#TDTSummit16) is deeply disturbing…

>> read the full post

May 23rd, 2016

Who or what is the World Health Organisation at war with?

Dr Chan is at war

Dr Chan is at war – but who or what is she fighting?

The World Health Organisation does a good line in war-like rhetoric when it comes to tobacco policy. But what is it actually at war with? In this post, I examine the confusion in ‘tobacco control’ about what it is actually trying to achieve. >> read the full post

May 21st, 2016

No surrender! The fight against harmful, incompetent and pointless European law goes on

No surrender

Fantastic to see the increasingly powerful UK vaping consumer voice tearing into poor policy and bad law that will do nothing but harm while meddling incompetently in the free choices of adults and free movement of goods. The Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and its UK implementing regulations are truly dreadful.

Here are three things to look at:

  1. New Nicotine Alliance – Letter to the Department of Health – on the harmful unintended consequences of the TPD
  2. New Nicotine Alliance – Letter to the Prime Minister – on the escape from the TPD
  3. House of Lords fatal motion and #LordsVapeVote campaign TAKE ACTION!

>> read the full post

May 14th, 2016

Who cares about a few thousand dead? Defending EU limits on the strength of nicotine e-liquids

graveyard

Not that many dead – what’s all the fuss about…?

Updated 16 May 2016

Apparently, there are still people in public health trying to defend the EU Tobacco Products Directive as it applies to vaping! It’s a ludicrous measure, that protects the cigarette trade, has costs and risks that vastly outweigh the non-existent benefits. ASH (London) appears relaxed about the nicotine strength limit: New EU rules on nicotine strength not a problem for most vapers it declares this morning (16 May 2016).

ASH claims that because ‘only’ nine percent of current vapers use liquids over the limit set by the EU Tobacco Products Directive, concerns raised in Parliament (Lords debatePrime Minister’s Questions) are unjustified:

Concerns raised in Parliament [4] about the EU rules are not borne out by the ASH Smokefree GB Adult Survey. Only 9% of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine (the limit set by the EU Tobacco Products Directive is 20mg/ml).

Or maybe Parliament is right and ASH is wrong…? How might one respond to this defence of the indefensible?  >> read the full post

May 9th, 2016

Professor Glantz brings his anti-vaping crusade to Europe - I review his presentation

Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome… Professor Glantz visits Europe

Regrettably, the influence of Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Fransisco is not confined to California or to the United States.  Last month he made a visit to Europe – to Austria in fact.  As good Europeans, we always take our American visitors seriously and listen to what they have to say. So I have done a review of the presentation he gave at the Austrian Acadamy of Sciences in Vienna.

>> read the full post

May 4th, 2016

Regulators and the compliance fallacy - buying 99% nicotine e-liquid from China

IMG_4663

99% nicotine e-liquid bought from China

How easy will it be to sidestep European Union and U.S. FDA regulation? To find out, I bought some high strength e-liquid from the internet. The problem is that bad regulation doesn’t attract compliance, it attracts non-compliance. >> read the full post

May 3rd, 2016

Fighting the Vape Militia Online and Off - a reply to the speakers

California Public Health Conference

Offensive: a failed campaign mocks its critics

This session from a California tobacco control conference was circulated on Twitter and caught my eye. To me, it summarises a lot that is wrong with the anti-nicotine crusade and also with the behaviour of public servants and public health professionals in this field.  Here was my reaction on twitter, but I decided to go further…

Click to go to Twitter

Click to go to Twitter

>> read the full post

April 30th, 2016

Anti-vaping zealots write flat-earth letter to The Times

MckeeTimesA remarkably self-regarding letter is published in The Times (London) today.  The writers are reacting with hostility to the outstanding Royal College of Physicians report, Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction, and the very positive editorial in The Times (Vaping Vindicated) that followed its launch.

In my view, their letter is truly dreadful, but it is also very revealing. In this post, I take a look at the arguments they make.

Update 2 May: my reply published in The Times.

>> read the full post