Well done for taking such a pragmatic approach! The biggest problem we’re facing on this issue is the conflation of the REAL problem - smoking related disease - with a purely moralistic distaste for nicotine “addiction”. There’s nothing wrong with nicotine and e-cigs allow us to enjoy it in a way that’s about two orders of magnitude safer than smoking, so to restrict them (and make them less attractive as an alternative to smoking) is either silly or spiteful. I can’t quite decide which.
Yes, you are right. Its about choice, and given that choice between 100s carcinogens in tobacco, versus a simple cocktail of liquid nicotine and food flavouring, it really IS no choice
You are right - the letter from the 53 experts were the views of scientists involved in smoking cessation.The reply was mainly from those who do not want to see the tobacco industry profit from any product,irrespective of the harm reduction benefit.
The smoking ban in 2007 was the first in an increasing number of restrictive measures - the result has been that prevalence has remained virtually the same since then.The evidence is that restriction has stopped being effective but restriction is the only solution for many in Tobacco Control and so they pretend their policies are working and we just need more of them.
It is somewhat of a shock that several DoPHs have looked at the issue of harm reduction with an independent mind and not just blindly followed the Tobacco Control clamour.You will save thousands of lives
You are correct and very refreshing to read.
You can’t force smokers to stop. It is and always was a personal choice.
On re-normalise smoking. It’s not smoking so how can it re-normalise. Better question is does the number of smokers go down or up?
On the safety. Absolute safe is impossible. Nothing is safe. They must be safer then smoking.
And on the kids. They will try them. Which do you prefer. Them starting vaping or smoking. And what if the kid was already a smoker?
You have hit on the essence of harm reduction. It is inconceivable that those 2.1million ecig users have not reduced the harm (actually, more accurately, the risk) posed by the inhalation of the by-products of burning tobacco. I would encourage you to contact Louise Ross as Leicester SSS who can help you implement a sound strategy for encouraging risk reduction without renormalisation etc.
Absolutely right.
Nocotine is a mild stimulant, not the bogeyman it has been made out to be.
Ecigs are, without doubt, the best possible chance we have ever had to finally end the scurge that is tobacco.
That the Tobacco Control evangelists are standing shoulder to shoulder with Big Tobacco in wanting Ecigs heavilly regulated, is abhorant.
I, for one, thank you sir.
It is a genuine pleasure to see a number of public health directors using common sense and thinking for themselves. Harm reduction works in ways prohibition and enforcement of unreasonable rules fails. The letters from the two respective camps were easy to separate. One came from 53 experts in the field of harm reduction, nicotine and tobacco research and was backed by solid science. The other was written by someone without medical qualifications and countersigned by paediatricians and social engineers. Its science was easily exposed as cherry picked data and insupportable qoutes.
Thank you sir for your thoughtful, and coherent views on the subject of harm reduction. Is there any chance you could please try to convince all of your political counterparts that something is better than nothing? Refusing to allow people to reduce the harm they are doing to themselves because it appears that they are still smoking is ludicrous.
In a word, yes. You are. Far better to allow the choice of harm reduction than limit the opportunity that ecigs represent. Far better to work with those who have chosen a healthier alternative than fight them and risk their relapse to smoking. Thank you for some refreshing open mindedness and balanced thinking.
Well done for taking such a pragmatic approach! The biggest problem we’re facing on this issue is the conflation of the REAL problem - smoking related disease - with a purely moralistic distaste for nicotine “addiction”. There’s nothing wrong with nicotine and e-cigs allow us to enjoy it in a way that’s about two orders of magnitude safer than smoking, so to restrict them (and make them less attractive as an alternative to smoking) is either silly or spiteful. I can’t quite decide which.
Yes, you are right. Its about choice, and given that choice between 100s carcinogens in tobacco, versus a simple cocktail of liquid nicotine and food flavouring, it really IS no choice
You are right - the letter from the 53 experts were the views of scientists involved in smoking cessation.The reply was mainly from those who do not want to see the tobacco industry profit from any product,irrespective of the harm reduction benefit.
The smoking ban in 2007 was the first in an increasing number of restrictive measures - the result has been that prevalence has remained virtually the same since then.The evidence is that restriction has stopped being effective but restriction is the only solution for many in Tobacco Control and so they pretend their policies are working and we just need more of them.
It is somewhat of a shock that several DoPHs have looked at the issue of harm reduction with an independent mind and not just blindly followed the Tobacco Control clamour.You will save thousands of lives
You are correct and very refreshing to read.
You can’t force smokers to stop. It is and always was a personal choice.
On re-normalise smoking. It’s not smoking so how can it re-normalise. Better question is does the number of smokers go down or up?
On the safety. Absolute safe is impossible. Nothing is safe. They must be safer then smoking.
And on the kids. They will try them. Which do you prefer. Them starting vaping or smoking. And what if the kid was already a smoker?
You have hit on the essence of harm reduction. It is inconceivable that those 2.1million ecig users have not reduced the harm (actually, more accurately, the risk) posed by the inhalation of the by-products of burning tobacco. I would encourage you to contact Louise Ross as Leicester SSS who can help you implement a sound strategy for encouraging risk reduction without renormalisation etc.
Well done sir. I only wish more people in Public Health had the sense to see vaping for what it is.
Absolutely right.
Nocotine is a mild stimulant, not the bogeyman it has been made out to be.
Ecigs are, without doubt, the best possible chance we have ever had to finally end the scurge that is tobacco.
That the Tobacco Control evangelists are standing shoulder to shoulder with Big Tobacco in wanting Ecigs heavilly regulated, is abhorant.
I, for one, thank you sir.
It is a genuine pleasure to see a number of public health directors using common sense and thinking for themselves. Harm reduction works in ways prohibition and enforcement of unreasonable rules fails. The letters from the two respective camps were easy to separate. One came from 53 experts in the field of harm reduction, nicotine and tobacco research and was backed by solid science. The other was written by someone without medical qualifications and countersigned by paediatricians and social engineers. Its science was easily exposed as cherry picked data and insupportable qoutes.
Thank you sir for your thoughtful, and coherent views on the subject of harm reduction. Is there any chance you could please try to convince all of your political counterparts that something is better than nothing? Refusing to allow people to reduce the harm they are doing to themselves because it appears that they are still smoking is ludicrous.
You don’t strike me as a silly man ;-) so i think you know you are right but i would like to take this opportunity to say a heartfelt THANK YOU!
In a word, yes. You are. Far better to allow the choice of harm reduction than limit the opportunity that ecigs represent. Far better to work with those who have chosen a healthier alternative than fight them and risk their relapse to smoking. Thank you for some refreshing open mindedness and balanced thinking.