Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
Like Tree72Likes

Thread: A response from Simon Chapman

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    42

    A response from Simon Chapman

    I mentioned in a previous thread that I was planning to write to Simon Chapman about the reasons behind his objection to e-cigs. While many here, including me, have been critical of his views, I had a growing feeling that his focus was more anti-big tobacco than anti-e-cig. I wrote to him to seek some clarity on this. With his permission, here are the questions I asked and his responses. I suspect they are not quite as far away from many of our own attitudes as earlier thought.



    You frequently refer to e-cigarettes from the perspective of what the ‘Big Tobacco’ companies (Altria, British American, etc) are hoping to gain from entering this market. Personally, I agree that their primary motivation is to use e-cigs to normalise traditional cigarette smoking behaviour and to encourage their use as a side-by-side product, rather than as nicotine replacement therapy. Most people who gave up cigarettes for e-cigarettes also agree and hold a mistrust of those companies that is nearly identical to your own. Given that:

    1) Is your main objection to electronic cigarettes that they are inherently dangerous, or that tobacco companies will use them as a tool to maintain sale levels and social acceptability of traditional cigarettes?

    RESPONSE: e-cigs are plainly far less dangerous than combusted tobacco. But nicotine is far from benign. Go to PubMed Home - PubMed - NCBI and search "nicotine and apoptosis" or "nicotine and angiogenesis" or "nicotine and inflammation". So policy about e-cigs should not be based on assumptions of near t zero risk in my view.

    2) If e-cigarettes were adequately regulated – age-restricted sale, ingredients quality-controlled and expressly stated such as we do for processed foods, mandatory warning labels and, ideally, – and taking Big Tobacco tactics out of the equation for a moment, would you consider using only e-cigarettes to be a less harmful alternative to smoking combustible cigarettes for people who have been unsuccessful with other methods? At least from a harm minimisation point of view?

    RESPONSE: Yes, unequivocally.

    3) Do you agree or disagree that, if the influence of Big Tobacco were removed, electronic cigarettes could be a far safer (if not 100% as safe as complete abstinence) and more environmentally-friendly alternative to cigarettes?

    RESPONSE: That's a very big if, given their frenzied entry into the market. I dot not agree e-cigarettes are likely to carry the same risks as complete abstinence. We won't know that until longitudinal studies are done.

    4) Given your criticism of the motives and advertising practices of Big Tobacco, would you support moves to ban e-cigarettes that are produced by companies that also make combustible/carcinogenic products but allow the sale and manufacture by companies that do not have such a dual interest?

    RESPONSE: Dual use will be promoted by BigTobacco, not the start ups. But the concern about dual use is independent of who sells and promotes ecigs. I don't look at dual use and assess its impact by asking who sold the Ecig. It's the fact of dual use likely to being widespread that is the relevant public health issue. The concern is that while some/many former smokers will switch completely to ecigs (a positive) that possibly many more will use both, and that some/many who (in the absence of ecigs) would have used neither, might use ecigs. And with the latter, there's concern that some having acquired the whole smoking performance, might drift into dual use as well. The net population effect is not calculated just by looking at how many smokers quit smoking, but by whether the advent of ecigs is associated with a stalling of cessation rates, or even a reversal. That's something that studies will be able to demonstrate. I keep reading that in the UK, over a million are using ecigs. I'm not aware that a million have quit smoking there recently. So that can only mean lots of dual use.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    736
    Interesting responses.

    There are only one or two that I cannot agree with to some degree.

    The one that really gets me is "I keep reading that in the UK, over a million are using ecigs. I'm not aware that a million have quit smoking there recently. So that can only mean lots of dual use."

    While there may not be data available that shows the numbers of recently quit smokers it does not automatically infer that "dual use" MUST be occurring.

    The second is that the ecigs WILL become a gateway to the consumption of tobacco.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    265
    So if Dr Gartner's study comes back stating that ecigs are more effective than NRT -as we expect it should- then he will stop smearing us?

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Realistically, what is the issue with the "Dual users" The reason the would be duel using is to try and circumnavigate the smoking in public paranoia. They have no intention of quitting. There should be more attention and consideration given to the millions around the globe who truly want to (and have) quit tobacco.
    Last edited by Robray; 23-06-13 at 01:39 PM.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    265
    Interesting point. Barring some kind of crystal ball how do we divide people who do and don't want to quit and their outcomes i.e. people who always wanted to continue smoking and intentionally dual use, and people who started dual use as a stepping stone to quitting but failed to completely stop smoking alongside vaping, dispute motivation.

    Also, what about people we catch on their journey to complete smoking cessation, for instance I dual used for a couple of months before having the faith I could completely quit. My intent was to vape only and stop smoking forever and for over one year later I have been completely successful. In fact so successful I am very annoying to my smoking partner because I am sensitive to tobacco smoke now and legitimately cough or experience disgust when his smoke gets into my mouth or nose and sometimes he feels I'm passing comment on him.
    Last edited by Jessamine; 23-06-13 at 01:33 PM.

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessamine View Post
    Interesting point. Barring some kind of crystal ball how do we divide people who do and don't want to quit and their outcomes i.e. people who always wanted to continue smoking and intentionally dual use, and people who started dual use as a stepping stone to quitting but failed to completely stop smoking alongside vaping, dispute motivation.


    My feeling is there is no need to try and separate these dual user figures. What ever their motivation, it will have no consequence for the people who have converted. I am guessing that the majority of PV users have done so for the right reasons. The minority might change their views eventually, but we have a certainty with the full converts.
    Last edited by Robray; 23-06-13 at 01:38 PM.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Robray View Post
    Realistically, what is the issue with the "Duel users" The reason the would be duel using is to try and circumnavigate the smoking in public paranoia. They have no intention of quitting. There should be more attention and consideration given to the millions around the globe who truly want to (and have) quit tobacco.
    OT: I just flashed to an image in my mind of a pair of OTT hipsters in a back alley with 2 foot drip tips on their mods trying to stab each other as though they were holding swords... >_<
    Robray likes this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    335
    Well posed questions kaijurama and while I don't agree with all he's said, it's good to see he a) responded and b) responded in a civil and thoughtful way - there is perhaps some hope!

    Here's the keeper quote from him IMO:


    "e-cigs are plainly far less dangerous than combusted tobacco."


    .. this is what we build on.

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by KamaKaZzie View Post
    OT: I just flashed to an image in my mind of a pair of OTT hipsters in a back alley with 2 foot drip tips on their mods trying to stab each other as though they were holding swords... >_<

    Ok, Ok, I fixed it already!!!
    KamaKaZzie likes this.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    740
    It's the fact of dual use likely to being widespread that is the relevant public health issue.
    Why? Why is dual use a public health issue? Given that smoking has been banned from almost all areas in which it could have detrimental effect on the 'public', why is this a 'public' issue. Surely once you have removed the dangers of smoking as it concerns the non-smoking public it ceases to be 'public health issue' and merely becomes a private health issue. Does the prof think that if we allow ecigs then smoking will then be allowed back into the public domain of offices and indoor areas that it has since been banned? Why? What reasons does he have for thinking this? And if not, then why are ecigs a 'public' health issue?

    Once again it is the human all too human inclination to expand one's field of influence despite the reasons for it slowly but surely receding into the distance. Nobody wants to give up their hard one influence and standing. So the prof will more than likely continue his crusade by means of fudging of the line between public and private so that his field of expertise and influence expands until there is no such thing as a private realm at all.
    Stabs, Olfella and vaping_gal like this.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:25 AM.