One week of WW-THR findings

Thanks as always to the eminent Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania for collecting and disseminating links to research, media, policy and politics surrounding the World War on Tobacco Harm Reduction:

UK government finds record low 17.2% cigarette smoking rate for adults in 2015, acknowledges vaping a reason for decline (from 20.1% in 2010)

Smoking numbers hit new low as Britons turn to vaping to help quit cigarettes

Analysis of 2014 Eurobarometer survey (of 15+ year olds from 28 EU states) data finds:
– Current smokers were 36 times more likely than never smokers to vape nicotine daily,
– Former smokers were 52 times more likely than never smokers to vape nicotine daily,
– Current smokers were 29 times more likely than never smokers to vape daily,
– Former smokers were 39 times more likely than never smokers to vape daily,
– 93% of daily vapers reported vaping nicotine daily,
– 1.08% of total population (15+ years) vaped daily, and 1.00% vaped nicotine daily,
– Just 0.08% of never smokers vaped daily, and only 0.04% vaped nicotine daily,
– 49.1% of daily nicotine vapers reported quitting smoking by switching to vaping,
– 0.0% of daily vapers reported increasing their cigarette consumption, and
– 9.3% of ever e-cig users vaped daily, and 8.6% of ever e-cig users vaped nicotine daily.

The 2014 Eurobarometer survey also found (as detailed in August 2016 article below):
– 6.1 million EU citizens quit smoking cigarettes by switching to vaping,
– 9.2 million EU citizens had reduced cigarette consumption after beginning to vape,
– Just 1.3% of never smokers reported current use of nicotine e-cigs, and
– Just 0.8% of ever tobacco/vapor users reported using vapor first.

Bulgarian Health Ministry says 4.6% of Bulgarians are now daily vapers in Europe’s  most prevalent cigarette smoking country, where 31.4% still smoke cigarettes daily.

FDA PATH survey found almost 90% of American youth (ages 12-17) who vaped in past month reported doing so because vaping is less harmful than cigarette smoking, refutes claim (in recent JAMA letter) that flavorings are why youth vape; Saul Shiffman to present this and other PATH findings at SRNT conference March 10 in Florence, Italy.

Study of young adult vapers (ages 18-45) in US finds:
– Daily users of e-cigarettes found them at least as satisfying as cigarettes.
– Satisfaction from e-cigarettes was more likely in more frequent users.
– All daily users reported them as less dangerous than cigarettes.
– Perceived danger from e-cigarettes was higher in less frequent users.
– Daily users of e-cigarettes were more likely to be using non-cig-alikes.

New UB study sheds light on perceptions of e-cigs

Study finds young vapers (ages 16-26) correctly know that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking cigarettes, and that vaping has made smoking less acceptable

Mintel survey finds UK smokers are still more than twice as likely to use vapor to quit smoking than Big Pharma drugs (62% vs 29%), which is why Big Pharma and its funding recipients have demonized and lobbied worldwide to ban vapor sales and use. But UK news headlines hype drop (from 69%) in percent of smokers who vape to quit smoking.

Survey of customers at 14 vape shops finds 84% reported first buying a vapor product to quit smoking

Four country survey found smokers who tried vaping to quit smoking (compared to smokers who tried quitting cold turkey) were far more likely to report 30 day sustained cigarette abstinence in countries that don’t ban sales of nicotine vapor products (i.e. US & UK) than in countries that banned sales of nicotine vapor products (Canada & Australia).

Brad Rodu: E-cigarette toxic chemical exposure is same as for nonsmokers

Nicotine vapor has far fewer genetic effects than cigarette smoke

Brad Rodu – Heavy Snus Use: Possible Link to Type 2 Diabetes

Brad Rodu: Nicotine, Smokeless tobacco & Tourette Syndrome

THR Education

BAT Harm Reduction Focus Report 2016: Inspiring Products Driving Change
(new BAT report more accurate than info from all public health agencies, except PHE)$file/Harm_Reduction_Focus_Report_2016_v2.pdf

Nitzkin discusses issues on Tobacco Harm Reduction

Log Cabin Republican Gregory Angelo: Vaping is best way to stop LGBT smoking

Scott Ballin discusses Tobacco Harm Reduction

UK vapers urge the Chancellor to recognize benefits of vaping on “No Smoking Day”

Fresh urges smokers to Ditch or Switch to Vaping on “No Smoking Day” (UK)

Responsible Parent’s Response to Child Vaping


Big Tobacco has caught startup fever (about new low risk tobacco/nicotine alternatives)

Proposed BAT acquisition of Reynolds clears US antitrust hurdle

NJOY completes financial restructuring

Marlboro brand value hits record high of US$32.4 billion

North Carolina based Madvapes registers 86 e-liquid products to comply with EU TPD

TMA hires new president and CEO Christopher Greer

GOP Healthcare Reform Legislation

GOP healthcare reform bill would eliminate CDC’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, which wasted $495.3 million of taxpayer money on “Tobacco Use Prevention” (including demonizing and banning use of lifesaving vapor products and very low risk smokeless tobacco products) since 2012 (i.e. $126M-2016, $111M-2015, $105M-2014, $60.3M-2013, $93M-2012), Godshall comments.
“Tobacco Use Prevention” stated purpose “To raise awareness and shift key attitudes and beliefs about the harms of tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke in areas of the country with some of the highest rates of tobacco use prevalence.”

FDA Deeming Regulation/Ban

VTA, SFATA, AVA, CASAA urge House Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi to support Cole/Sanford bill (HR 1136) to keep many vapor products legal to sell after FDA’s Deeming Ban on August 8, 2018 (by moving the Feb. 15, 2007 predicate date)

Heritage Foundation – Rethinking Tobacco Policy: The Federal Government Should Stop Blocking Alternatives

Joel Nitzkin: Congress, Please Make Smoking Less Harmful

Guy Bentley: A modest reform could mean life of death for the vaping industry

ACSH’s Hank Campbell: Myths, Facts and Fixing Policy on Vaping

4 State AGs (AZ, TX, LA, MI) file amici brief opposing FDA’s Deeming Regulation/Ban on premium cigars

FDA’s lies about and proposed ban for low risk smokeless tobacco products

Nitzkin/Rodu: FDA should get out of the smokeless tobacco industry

Guy Bentley: How the CDC masks the truth about smokeless tobacco

Brad Rodu discusses Tobacco Harm Reduction (and FDA lies about smokeless tobacco)

THR prohibitionists at TCLC endorse and promote FDA’s proposed standard that would ban the sale of >95% of smokeless tobacco products in the US, which would prompt many/most of the 3.2 million cigarette smokers who also use smokeless tobacco (per FDA’s PATH data) to increase cigarette consumption and reduce smokeless tobacco use.

FDA/NCI financed extremist Stan Glantz urges FDA to not extend public comment period on proposed cigarette protecting standard that would ban sales of >95% of low risk smokeless tobacco products now on US market, and would prompt many of the 3.2 million dual users of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes to increase cigarette consumption.


FDA lets Reynolds’ Natural American Spirit cigarette keep using term “Natural” in brand name and trademarks (after previously claiming it was a banned MRTP claim), FDA agreed to settlement with Reynolds in January that wasn’t made public (requiring removal of terms “Additive Free” and “natural” on brands’ labels, advertising and promotions), anti-tobacco/vapor extremists CTFK and Legacy lies initiative criticize
Note that FDA’s agreement with Reynolds is similar to FDA’s agreement with Altria’s John Middleton allowing “Black and Mild” cigar brands to keep that name (even though the TCA banned the word ‘mild’ as a tobacco brand descriptor), and is consistent with a 2004 statement by Altria’s Mark Berlind about 1st Amendment protections.

CTFK’s Matt Myers and Legacy’s Robin Koval in denial that brand names are protected by the US Constitution, criticize FDA for letting Reynolds keep cigarette brand name.

22nd Century says it withdrew its MRTP application for its very low nicotine cigarettes, and now plans to submit a “more expensive and robust” MRTP application to FDA.

FDA increases fines on retailers that violate the Tobacco Control Act

Trump Administration

Trump appoints Noel Francisco for US Solicitor General; Francisco is a Jones Day lawyer who represented Reynolds in lawsuit that struck down FDA’s unconstitutional graphic cigarette warning labels (after Godshall warned Obama’s FDA that its intentionally deceptive warnings may be unconstitutional)


Fort Lauderdale law firm wins $6 million tobacco verdict for WWII veteran’s widow


New Mexico Senate approves bill (SB 231) to impose 76% tax on vapor products, increase cigarette tax from $1.66 to $3.16/pack, increase OTP tax from 25% to 76%

Kansas Senate rejects Gov. Brownback’s proposed tobacco tax increases

Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee amends, recommends passage of bill (SB 130) to change vapor e-liquid tax from $.20/ml to $.05/ml
CASAA asks Kansas vapers to urge legislators to support and enact SB 130

After NY State Health Commissioner Zucker sends letter to all MDs in NY that grossly misrepresents the evidence on vapor products and urges their support for Gov. Cuomo’s proposed $.10/ml tax on e-liquid, R Street sends letter responding to Zucker .

NY Conservative Party: Block Tax on E-cigarettes

PA Rep. Jeff Wheeland to proposed bill to change PA’s 40% vapor tax to $.05/ml
PA Sen. Camera Bartolotta to proposed bill to change PA’s 40% vapor tax to $.05/ml
CASAA urges PA vapers to send letters of support for bills to tax e-liquid at $.05/ml

CASAA urges MN vapers to oppose bill (SF 1052) backed by Reynolds to impose $.30/ml tax on e-liquid.

Frank Chaloupka points out that raising cigarette tax benefits health and economy (OK)

UK Government to increase taxes and duties on cigarettes

Philip Morris Limited (PMI’s subsidiary in UK) urges British government to slightly increase cigarette tax to purportedly encourage smokers to switch to less harmful smokefree alternatives, but PML opposes any substantive cigarette tax increase.
Ironically, in 2015, Philip Morris Limited vehemently opposed a UK cigarette tax increase, and instead urged the UK government to tax vapor products (see page 290)

BAT opposes minimum excise tax on cigarettes in UK, claims it will hurt low

Indiana E-liquid Monopoly Law

Indiana Senate Cmte votes 8-1 for bill (SB 1) to repeal Indiana’s e-liquid monopoly law

Flavoring Bans

Menthol cigarettes will soon be banned (UK)

NJ Assembly/Senate Health Cmtes approve bills to ban sale of flavored vapor products

Flavored E-liquid

Clive Bates: Are e-liquid flavours really

Advertising Restrictions

Advertising Standards Authority bans billboard showing Santa Claus vaping (UK)

Minimum Age

Utah bill (HB 406) to increase minimum tobacco/vapor sale age to 21 years dies in House

Idaho bill to increase minimum tobacco/vapor sale age to 21 years dies in Senate

CASAA urges IL vapers to oppose bill (HB 3208) to raise minimum age for tobacco/vapor sales to 21

Florida bill (SB 1138) would increase minimum age for tobacco/vapor sales to 21

Vaping Bans

New Mexico Senate approves bill (SB 318) to ban vaping in workplaces after bill sponsor Sen. McSorley falsely claims scientific evidence has found vapor aerosol harms nonusers

Allegheny County (PA) Council protects cigarettes, threatens smokers and vapers, bans vaping in 99% of workplaces (despite no evidence vaping harms non users) after Health Dept, Big Pharma shills, UPMC and MDs lied about vaping risks and benefits, and after County Executive Rich Fitzgerald pressured Democrats on Council to vote for ban.

Univ of Pittsburgh Medical Center commits public health malpractice, protects cigarettes (and UPMC’s future revenue from treating sick and dying smokers) by lying about vapor products, urging Allegheny County Council to ban vaping in 99% of workplaces.

Kokomo and Howard County (IN) ban smoking (and smokefree vaping) in workplaces

Croatian bill to ban vaping in workplaces sent to Parliament for consideration

Tacoma/Pierce County (WA) Health Dept post vaping ban signs that deceive public to believe vaping is as harmful as cigarette smoking.

Arkansas bill (SB 285) to ban vaping in workplaces dies in Senate committee–1/

Access to Vaping

Inmates in Irish prisons may soon have access to e-cigarettes

Vapor Prohibition – Taiwan

Clive Bates: Challenging the proposed e-cigarette prohibition in Taiwan

Clive Bates urges Taiwan to reject proposed cigarette protecting vapor ban

International Network of Nicotine Consumer Organizations urges Taiwan to embrace lifesaving vapor products instead of banning them

R Street’s Eli Lehrer and Ed Anselm urge Taiwan to reject proposed cigarette protecting vapor ban


Derek From: Ottawa could muzzle access to scientific data on vaping (Bill S-5)–ottawa-could-muzzle-access-to-scientific-data-on-vaping.html

Derek From: Vaping laws keep less harmful option out of Canadian’s reach

Derek From: Feds need to rethink anti-vaping legislation

Tyler Dawson – Tobacco control endgame, is it really about saving people?

Canadian Health Minister Jane Philpott touts contradictory goals of reducing tobacco use to 5% by 2035 while imposing even more bans on lifesaving vapor products

Eric Gagnon: How marijuana makes the obvious case against plain packaging for tobacco products (Canada)

CAMH deceptively conflates its “tobacco free” policy with a “smokefree” policy, opposes cigarette smokers switching to low risk smokeless tobacco products


Experts slam TGA e-cigarette ban as ‘unethical’ and ‘unscientific’ (Australia)

New Zealand

NZ Mauro Party co-leader Marama Fox calls for government subsidization of vapor products (just as it subsidizes Big Pharma drugs) in NZ where vapor sales are banned.

Mauri health group urges NZ Health Ministry to subsidize vapor products for smokers

Smokers shifting onto e-cigarettes ‘is a win’ – Kiwi doctor (John Cameron)

‘I think we’ve got a win’ – NZ doctor believes vaping could shift people from smoking tobacco


Big Pharma funded health and medical groups in Israel upset Health Minister Litzman won’t ban sales of PMI’s low risk heat-not-burn iQOS

Junk Science, Propaganda and Lies

FDA/NCI funded study finds air contains more benzene than e-cig vapor, but study authors (the same ones who falsely claimed vaping emits lots of formaldehyde in the NEJM) deceive peer reviewers, editors and news media again by falsely claiming their new study found “significant levels of cancer-causing benzene” in e-cig vapor.

Science Times article repeats and further hypes false fear mongering claims that vaping emits lots of benzene, along with horror stories about benzene to confuse and scare

Abstinence-only anti-THR extremists at CASA protect cigarettes by falsely claiming just 20% of adult cigarette smokers in US are addicted, repeat hundreds of false fear mongering claims from junk studies to demonize nicotine, lifesaving vapor products, very low risk smokeless tobacco products, low risk cigars, pipes and hookah; deceitfully conflate all tobacco/nicotine products (except Big Pharma nicotine) with cigarettes.

Big Pharma financed ACS and ALA falsely claim cigarette companies sell most vapor products in US, but they will if FDA’s Deeming Regulation (that was aggressively lobbied for by ACS, ALA and other Big Pharma shills) isn’t rescinded or repealed.

Singapore’s Health MinisterAmy Khor falsely claims low risk heat-not-burn tobacco alternatives are “not significantly different” than deadly cigarettes, claims (despite zero evidence) they will addict children and be gateways to cigarettes as reasons to ban them.

Polosa/Howard refute false claims by DHHS funded vaping opponents about “dripping”

Big Pharma/FDA/NIH funded American Heart Association press release falsely claims vaping may increase stroke risk more than smoking (based on totally inapplicable rodent study in which mice were given more than a lethal dose of nicotine daily for 30 days); lazy stupid news media repeat false fear mongering claim without any fact checking.

Mike Siegel: American Heart Association claims that vaping causes severe strokes and is more risky than smoking

Philly Health Cmsnr Farley (who lied about vaping to lobby for NYC’s 2013/14 workplace vaping ban) now falsely claims cigars are target marketed to youth

FDA/NCI/Legacy funded Glantz keeps lying about the modest impact smokefree workplace laws had on heart attack rates (as the vast majority of workplaces were already smokefree before the laws were enacted), comments refute and debunk Glantz

California Health Dept funded Yolo County Health Dept denounces retailers for selling lifesaving vapor products and low risk cigars (but not deadly cigarettes)

California Health Dept demonizes vaping again, and retailers who sell vapor products

Orange County Register hypes Yolo County Health Dept’s demonization of vapor

FDA funded junk study authors rely upon Twitter postings in another deceitful attempt to misrepresent why millions of smokers have switched to life saving vapor products

Huff Post runs yet another op/ed that falsely claims vaping is addicting many nonsmokers and is harming vapers

CVS funds study to congratulate itself for ending tobacco (and vapor) sales

CVS press release falsely congratulates itself for nation’s decline in cigarette smoking,

**KUDOS** Good, honest, ethical and open minded KI researcher OP-ED on the diabetes issue from snus.

OP-ED :The results do signal a real effect from snus use and risk of developing diabetes

Translation by Atakan Erik Befrits of and New Nicotine Alliance Sweden, FCTC 5.3 compliant civil society NGO’s representing over 20 million successful ex-smokers, with the help of +95% harm reduced consumer nicotine products. All mistakes are my own.

OP-ED · “A single study can never give the final answer to a research question. We would still like to say that the current study is an important addition to the existing knowledge on tobacco and type 2 diabetes” Associate professor Sofia Carlsson and Professor Cecilia Magnusson conclude.

Sofia Carlsson, Associate Professor, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute

Cecilia Magnusson, Professor, Department of Public Health, Karolinska Institute

As Patrik Strömer writes on SVT Opinion, there may indeed be other explanations for the findings in our study, connecting snus use and type 2 diabetes, than the snus use itself causing diabetes.

For example, we can not rule out that snus users and non-users of snus differ with respect also to other factors that contribute to an increased risk of diabetes.

At the present time there are relatively few studies of snus and type 2 diabetes, and they partly do provide different results. One explanation for different results may be that the previous studies have not been large enough to study consumers who use quite large quantities of snus, which is where we primarily find an increased risk.

Smoking is an established risk factor for diabetes, and a problem in previous studies has been to separate snus effects from smoking as dual use is common.

Our study is the largest to date on snus and the risk of type 2 diabetes. We have thus been able to examine the effect of exclusive use of snus.

We have also, insofar as possible, taken into account other risk factors for type 2 diabetes such as overweight, physical inactivity, heredity, alcohol consumption, and education level.

The results show a so-called dose-response relationship, meaning that the risk of type 2 diabetes increases with the number of cans of snus consumed per week, which reinforces the interpretation that snus is indeed behind the increase in risk.

Finally, experimental studies show that nicotine can inhibit insulin sensitivity, which means that there is a possible biological explanation for that snus can cause diabetes.

Combined, these findings make us more inclined to believe that the results do indicate that snus use does indeed affect the risk for diabetes.

A single study can never give the final answer to a research question. Every one study instead contributes a new piece to the puzzle, and slowly extends the research frontier.

We remain confident in claiming that the current study is an important addition to the existing knowledge on tobacco and type 2 diabetes.

Although we cannot prove that snus causes type 2 diabetes, we think that the public and decision makers have the right to be informed of our research findings.

Good research is characterized by humility and critical reasoning, media headlines sometimes do not reflect this adequately, and we therefore welcome these subsequent discussions.

Weaponized kafkaism from Tobaksfakta to secure funds for lobbying for more funds for lobbying for more funds for lobbying for more funds for lobbying for more funds………….

For the casual reader who is new to Swedish Tobacco Control: Tobaksfakta is a tax funded “independent” think tank lobbying organisation that also orchestrates (and shares offices with) Doctors against Tobacco, Dentistry against Tobacco, Psychologists against Tobacco, Teachers against Tobacco, Nurses against Tobacco and finally the all encompassing Professional Organisations against Tobacco. Incidentally all the above organisations co-habit with the Swedish Society of Medicine in their cushy town-house mansion in central Stockholm.

Please find below, translated for your reading pleasure, interesting and ground breaking scientific findings on how propaganda works.

____________________________ Scientific report: More knowledge increases support for stricter tobacco policy


How does knowledge enhancing information impact public perceptions?

Tobaksfakta (Tobacco Facts) – an independent think tank – measured this in method experiments presented in an article by Göran Boethius, Tobacco Fakta’s chairman and responsible for the survey.

The starting point was a measurement that was included in the annual report by the SOM Institute at Gothenburg University and was presented in June 2016. Tobacco Facts provided questions in the section on tobacco. A powerful result was that there was very strong support for smoke free outdoor environments. 66-92 percent supported non-smoking cafés, entrances, railway platforms, bus stops and balconies of apartment buildings. The share of unsure replies like “no opinion” or “neither good nor bad” accounted for low 5-17 percent scores.

The “not sure” category was significantly greater on the answers to questions 2 to 5, questions that dealt with tobacco taxes, display bans in shops, plain-packs of cigarettes and a national political decision for a non-smoking society, 21-40 per cent.

Goran Boëthius formed the hypothesis that the low uncertainty figures regarding support for smoking bans in public spaces outdoors, was due to more respondents having personal experience and knowledge of tobacco smoke in outdoor environments.

– Therefore, it is easy to understand the meaning of this question. While, e.g. the issue of introducing requirements for storing packs of cigarettes out of sight in shops, provide too little information for participants in the survey to know and understand enough to really take a stand, says Göran Boethius.

– More information is needed on issues, information that improves the knowledge level in the respondents. It makes it easier to take a position, but public opinion agencies on the other hand fear that these questions are likely to be leading if they contain more information. Therefore, they must be brief.

Boëthius got the idea to study a comparison of results from two groups where one group was questioned with the briefly worded questions from the SOM survey, and the other group with fuller, informative, query formulations that provided increased knowledge of the subject. After consultation with the SOM Institute and by a grant from the Jacob Wallenberg foundation, the polling institute Novus was tasked with examining the degree to which a fuller information given in conjunction with the questions, affected the outcome of the survey. It was the four SOM issue questions not regarding outdoor environments that were tested.

The experiment showed a significant effect on the responses, when more informative formulations were presented. The question on proposed tax increase on cigarettes however, expressed very small differences in all three groups, the original SOM, Novus with, and Novus without, fuller explanatory texts.

The proportion of positive responses to increased regulation increased considerably, while the proportion of “unsure” decreased, in responses to the questions about the display bans, plain packs and a long-term strategy for phasing out tobacco from the Swedish society. They were now supported by seven out of ten, while one in ten are negative and two out of ten remain “unsure”.

– These results show how crucially important information is and knowledge is, when important public health issues are to be decided, says Göran Boethius.

– The conclusion that the politicians that we try to support should take home from this is: Politicians need to improve information to the public about why measures need to be introduced and about the benefits they will generate. 

– Our survey shows that with greater knowledge comes greater acceptance for the need to further tighten tobacco policy.

Original article in Swedish:

Original web page translated above: review A Billion Lives film before seeing it – We don’t even know if they will see it or not.

Dear All,

Under this link you can find a commentary on A Billion Lives from biggest ”independent” heavily tax funded think-tank Tobaksfakta. Published today on Saturday February 4th 2017. Tobaksfakta also run and control several other groups, namely: Doctors against tobacco, Psychologists against tobacco, Dental care against tobacco, Teachers against tobacco, Professional organisations against tobacco.
Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate if they came and saw the film and wrote a film review after?
OK translation below
Comments to the film A Billion Lives – about e-cigarettes and Public Health
Are e-cigarettes a panacea for global epidemic of tobacco-related deaths? A panacea unfortunately held back by an unholy alliance of governments, the pharmaceutical industry and the tobacco industry (and even supported by public health workers)?
These claims are made by filmmaker Aaron Biebert in the documentary a Billion Lives. It premiered last year and tours continent by continent in a campaign-like shape, with the support of the e-cigarette industry. On 7 February it will screen in Stockholm. The screenings are marketed by a number of vape companies Filmvisningarna marknadsförs av ett antal e-cigarettföretag..
Stopped by conspiracy?
Film director Aaron Biebert runs a media company in Milwaukee, United States. He has previously produced music videos, commercials and short films for social media. A Billion Lives is his first feature leangth film. It tells how the suffering and death follows in the tracks of tobacco smoking all over the world and how the tobacco industry in the longest attempted to conceal the devastating effects of smoking. One billion people are at risk of dying from smoking in this century, says Aaron Biebert. But he has a prescription for the majority of all these lives (A Billion Lives) will be saved – namely, to encourage e-cigarette smoking.
That not everyone is as convinced as he is that e-cigarettes are a side-effect free panacea against the tobacco epidemic, Aaron Biebert describes as a result of a conspiracy. He believes that the various economic and political interests have joined together to prevent e-cigarette suceeding. This he argues is behind and causing heavy requirements for legislation on e-cigarettes and that they are even banned in some countries.
What does the tobacco prevention professional say?
In Sweden, the government is currently working out a proposal for a new special law on e-cigarettes, as a result of new EU Tobacco Products Directive where EU country regulation of e-cigarettes is taken. Tobaksfakta and other tobacco prevention organizations welcome the regulation of e-cigarettes.
But why the need for such legislation, however, should we not do anything to unreservedly support the e-cigarette use if it is true that it is so good for public health as A Billion Lives claim? To answer this we ask Barbro Holm Ivarsson, Chairman of Psychologists against Tobacco who is closely following and reporting on the development of knowledge concerning e-cigarettes:
– There are many reasons to have precise control over these new products.
Among other things, many studies show that the risk increases that teenagers start smoking conventional cigarettes if they are experimenting with e-cigarettes. And e-cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular among young people – about 30 percent have ever used them.
– The E-cigarette is not a safe product, the customer does not know what it contains and it can explode and cause injury or fire. Nicotine in high concentrations may be fatal if a child ingests it. We also know that the e-cigarette vapor contains harmful and even carcinogenic substances, but not how the long-term impact on health will be.
– Therefore, there needs to be child-resistant packaging, limits on nicotine concentration in e-liquid, 18-year limit, ban candy flavors and packaging that look like toys, advertising bans – including exposure ban in stores, ingredients lists, directions for use, warnings and license requirements for dealers, and quality assurance of product. Finally, the vapor that e-cigarettes also emits are harmful to bystanders and the product must be urgently prohibited in all non-smoking environments.
Barbro Holm Ivarsson also emphasizes that no one yet can say for sure what the net effect of e-cigarettes will be. Does the product really help more smokers to quit than the number that will be attracted, when taken into account that
1) Smokers postpone quitting smoking indefinitely when they are lulled into security when replacing a part of cigarettes to e-cigarettes,
2) young people who would not otherwise have started to smoke regular cigarettes, do it after having started with e-cigarettes,
3) Former adults smokers and never-smokers tempted to start with e-cigarettes, and then transferred to conventional cigarettes, and
4) e-cigarettes make nicotine consumption and smoking more cool and popular again?
What does the addiction researcher say?
An addiction researcher who followed the e-cigarette research for a long time is Fred Nyberg, senior professor of biological addiction research at Uppsala University. He confirms that there is not yet enough research evidence to be able to say anything for certain about the health advantages and disadvantages of e-cigarettes.
– In terms of how well they can help tobacco smokers to reduce their health risks are research results so far contradictory. My conclusion is still that it inveterate smokers are better off to switch to e-cigarettes than to continue with regular cigarettes. But there are more categories than inveterate smokers who meets e-cigarettes, says Fred Nyberg.
– The ones I’m most concerned about are those who haven’t started smoking at all, especially those who are under 20 years. Nicotine is addictive and especially young people are vulnerable to these effects. The nicotine in e-cigarettes triggers the reward system and the risk  becoming a gateway to both tobacco use and other addictive drugs.
– In addition, the e-cigarette even begun to be used to cannabinoid drugs and stimulants because you get a much faster effect of the drug if you smoke or inhale it. Developments in the drug field is fast and I am convinced that soon you will find many more illegal substances to put in e-cigarettes.
Another aspect is, says Fred Nyberg, that nicotine can have adverse effects on the fetus, and he believes that pregnant women should not use e-cigarettes. Along with uncertainty about the potential risks of hazardous substances in the steam, making all the listed factors he recommends a restrictive regulatory approach.
– We must have control of this and wait for more research. It took 40 years for us to learn lessons about the dangers of smoking tobacco. Let us not make the same mistake again.
Erik Atakan Befrits
INNCO Steering Group
+46 764 156046
+90 531 5942910


Intentionally conflating smoking and tobacco – stolen exposé

As very often I am indebted to Professor Brad Rodu for helping to point out the patently obvious. When taken into account that tobacco is +95% less harmful than smoking tobacco, but that broad knowledge among smokers would create a massive shift to safer products, it becomes clear why is is so important to also include e-cigarettes in the “tobacco” products category.

The original piece by Professor Rodu can be accessed here: Rodutobaccotruth

Smokers aren’t supposed to switch, smokers are supposed to Quit-or-Die. All of the current revenue stream models are based on the Quit-or-Die maxim and this very much also includes revenue streams to the WHO FCTC and funding for tobacco research.

New WHO/NCI Report Falsely Conflates Smoking & Tobacco

The World Health Organization and the U.S. National Cancer Institute recently published a 700-page report on the economic consequences of smoking, tobacco use, or both (here).  The dozens of tobacco experts who contributed failed to distinguish between tobacco and smoke.  This is especially disappointing, since one of the two editors, University of Illinois at Chicago professor Frank Chaloupka, previously acknowledged the difference (here).

The report’s summary conclusions, which are mainly about smoking and not tobacco, follow, with smoke highlighted in red and tobacco highlighted in green.

  1. There are about 1.1 billion smokers in the world, and about 4 in 5 smokers live in low- and middle-income countries. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s smokers live in 13 countries.
  1. Substantial progress has been made in reducing tobacco smoking in most regions, especially in high-income countries. Overall smoking prevalence is decreasing at the global level, but the total number of smokers worldwide is still not declining, largely due to population growth. Unless stronger action is taken, it is unlikely the world will reach the WHO Member States’ 30% global reduction target by 2025.
  1. Globally, more than 80% of the world’s smokers are men.  Differences in prevalence between male and female smokers are particularly high in the South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions and in low- and middle-income countries.
  1. Globalization and population migration are contributing to a changing tobacco landscape, and non-traditional products are beginning to emerge within regions and populations where their use had not previously been a concern.
  1. An estimated 25 million youth currently smoke cigarettes.  Although cigarette smoking rates are higher among boys than girls, the difference in smoking rates between boys and girls is narrower than that between men and women. Smoking rates among girls approach or even surpass rates among women in all world regions.
  1. Worldwide, an estimated 13 million youth and 346 million adults use smokeless tobacco products.  The large majority of smokeless tobacco users live in the WHO South-East Asia Region.  Smokeless tobacco use may be undercounted globally due to scarcity of data.
  1. Secondhand smoke exposure remains a major problem. In most countries, an estimated 15%–50% of the population is exposed to secondhand smoke; in some countries secondhand smoke exposure affects as much as 70% of the population.
  1. Annually, around 6 million people die from diseases caused by tobacco use, including about 600,000 from secondhand smoke exposure. The burden of disease from tobacco is increasingly concentrated in low- and middle-income countries.

In the last item, the substitution of tobacco for smoke is obvious.  In fact, most of the report is distorted by this bogus substitution.

The sham synonym tactic reflects the anti-tobacco posture of the report’s sponsors, NCI and WHO.  Officials at those organizations supplied two prefaces, totaling 2,700 words. “Tobacco” appears 128 times, while “smoke” is used only 14 times.

Decades of scientific studies document that tobacco is not synonymous with smoke (here and here).  The deliberate conflation of terms by anti-tobacco forces would not be tolerated in any other serious scientific or medical debate.


10 years on with e-cig and vaping, 150 years on with snus – to the best of our measurements still without serious adverse health effects.

Particulate Peril

Norbert Zillatron

particulate-vaporOne dire warning against vaping that pops up again and again is particulate matter measured in the vapor. And that particulate matter is known to be dangerous. But what is really behind that scientific sounding scarecrow?

Solid Particulate Matter!

When ordinary people hear and read about “particulate matter” it’s usually in the context of tiny solid nasties. Some even carcinogenic. Like diesel soot, asbestos fibers, coal dust, and of course smoke. In German this association is even more firmly entrenched. Here the term is “Feinstaub”, literally “fine dust”. The smaller these agents of destruction are, the deeper they infiltrate the lungs, take up permanent lodging, and wreak their havoc. It’s the bad stuff you can see turning filter pads a sickly brown.

Liquid Particulate Matter?

We almost never heard it mentioned when people talk about fog (real or theatrical), steam (cooking or sauna) or the aerosol of medical inhalers. Not…

View original post 215 more words

UPDATED: Worst ever vaping bullshit? Naturally courtesy of hypocrisy undisputed heavy weight champion of the world, Sweden



For the reader’s information before delving into this crap:

  1. Snus in Sweden saves +3000 lives a year and does not take any lives at all
  2. Snus in Sweden is used by 300,000 people to no longer smoke. The total amount of smokers in Sweden is 1 million so the fraction who successfully no longer smoke, and/or quit successfully, with snus is very large.
  3. Snus has a 70% success rate NRT’s (gums, patches etc.) have about 3%-7% success rate depending on who you ask
  4. E-cig and snus are not “gateway” products to smoking at all. If anything e-cig and snus function as “gateways” away from smoking, and act as protectors against future smoking (but do not protect against nicotine use or nicotine addiction)
  5. Vaping among young people may well be “infectious” to use a very misleading and unsatisfactory word. The question is what choice between being “infected” by cigarettes or “infected” by e-cigarettes or snus, is the lesser evil choice?
  6. Kids who try stuff, try stuff. In effect there is a close correlation between youth experimentation and youth uptake of and within several different unhealthy habits. This does not in any way signal causation or a “gateway” slippery slope
  7. A Non Smoking Generation was started in 1979 as a fantastic initiative. They were intellectually corrupted in the 90’s to also be against “snus”, the globally most successful form of Tobacco Harm Reduction in relation to the population size by a very very wide margin.
  8. Since 2010’s A Non Smoking Generation are also (very) unfortunately vehemently against e-cig and vaping in all forms
  9. It is not at all implausible that the anti-THR stance of A Non Smoking Generation in effect means that the organisation today causes more net harm to society from anti-THR, than they generate net benefit from lower smoking
  10. A Non Smoking Generation show utter disregard for basic principles regarding human rights to best health. Denying adult smokers information on and access to attractive and vastly harm reduced alternatives to smoking means trading the Human Rights of smokers against a perverted version of Human Rights for youth. Human Rights are by definition individual (everyone has them in equal portion), universal (smokers have them just as much as kids and non smokers do) and inalienable (NEVER EVER EVER may you take from one to give to another)

Horse trading in Human Rights as A Non Smoking Generation are proposing below in order to protect youth, is in fact violating three separate sets of Human Rights for smokers and those who have already successfully transitioned to Low Harm products.

The right to best attainable health is out the window

The right to autonomy in making personal risk choices is out the window

The right to correct and balanced information on such choices is out the window


”Youth tricked into nicotine addiction”


Who does the tobacco industry think are attracted by nicotine flavors like tutti-frutti, raspberry licorice, toffee, toffee and banana cream? Yes, you read that right. These are not flavors of ice cream or candy. These are the tasty liquids available for e-cigarettes, today the cheapest way to consume large amounts of nicotine, writes Helen Stjerna, CEO A Non Smoking Generation.

 Those who use e-cigarettes are learning to like smoke, and just as with other smoking connects the brain use to reward and satisfaction, which leads to a nicotine addiction, writes Helen Stjerna, A Non Smoking Generation. Photo: Erik Nylander / TT


In February this year, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that e-cigarettes are not a medical class products, and therefore they should be regulated in the Swedish law on the basis of the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive.

The state investigator then proposed a fast track with a proposal for a law that would take effect on 1 October. The proposal included, among other things, the 18-year limit, a permit rquirement for the sale, exposure bans, and bans on attractive flavors.

October 1st has now passed and it is now urgent. Already we see in the statistics that more and more young people start smoking e-cigarettes. In the 2015 survey of schoolchildren’s drug habits of CAN (Swedish Council for Alcohol and Other Drugs) the negative trend is obvious.

The proportion of boys in second year high school who have used (tried) e-cigarettes increased a full 10 percentage points in just one year, from 26 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2015. The corresponding figure for girls was an increase of 5 percentage points, 21-26 percent in 2015. Perhaps it is more worrying that also more and more students in grade nine are using (have tried) e-cig.

According to the survey most young people say that they start with e-cigarettes out of curiosity. The young people also states themselves that they continue because it is cheap and easily accessible. Using (trying) e-cig often leads on to regular cigarettes. According to the World Health Organization the risk that a young person will start smoking regular cigarettes is more than doubled for those who first started with e-cigarettes.

That our government continues to allow these products to be freely available is incomprehensible. Why can a 12-year-old buy these nicotine products as perfectly legal, enticingly equipped with tutti frutti flavor?

Research shows that nicotine inhibits brain development in young people and impairs cognitive ability. The damage can in particular be seen in impaired working memory and impaired attention. The side effects of the over 8000 flavorings that e-juices can contain as reported to the WHO, it is not yet fully known by anybody.

As so often with new nicotine products, we understand the consequences too late. But our young people are not waiting, just because the community are watching from the sidelines. Below we list three of the biggest problems that e-cigarettes bring to our youth.


  • E-cigarettes – a gateway to nicotine use. Those who use e-cigarettes are learning to like smoke, and just as with other smoking connects the use to brain to reward and satisfaction, which leads to nicotine dependence. Both local and global institutions indicate that youth who trial and use of e-cigarettes to a greater extent also use or will use regular tobacco in the future.


  • E-cigarettes – as infectious as cigarettes. A survey Novus has made on behalf of A Non Smoking Generation in spring 2016 show that 9 out of 10 surveyed children between the ages of 14 and 18 indicate friends as the main reason to start smoking. 8 out of 10 say they do it to fit in. Smoking is contagious and in many cases, it is at school that the infection is spread.


  • E-cigarettes – marketed freely to children and adolescents. Product Design and campaigns aimed directly at children and adolescents. In many cases it is difficult to determine whether it is e-cigarettes, candy or toys that are sold. The tobacco industry (!) are also present at festivals and youth events, where young people are encouraged to sell and market

That there is still a hole in the legislation where manufacturers and sellers of e-cigarettes can freely market themselves directly to young people should be seen as nothing more than an abject failure. The regulation of e-cigarettes is therefore a necessity that must as soon as possible before more young people damaged by the effects of nicotine. This is not candy that we are talking about here.

We want the government and schools to immediately address the sale and use of e-cigarettes.

We want to see the following:

1 \. E-cigarettes to be equated with the tobacco with regards bans on exposure, monitoring of sales and the age limit.

2 \. Young people are sensitive to price and a price increase on all tobacco should therefore be made.

3 \. All schools should have an action plan for e-cigarettes and introduce an e-cigarette ban in schools.

Helen Stjerna, Secretary General

A Non Smoking Generation

REBUTTAL December 14, 2016

“E-cigarettes are a route away from tobacco”

The campaign against nicotine use leads to the wrong results, since it is tobacco use that is harmful to health. E-cigarettes are a way for youngsters to get away from tobacco, says Ubbe Strihagen, president of Vapoteket, in a rebuttal.


Helen Stjerna from A Non Smoking Generation (ANSG) conflates smoking tobacco and e-cigarettes (SvD 11/12). More than two million people use tobacco in Sweden today. It is well established that 1 in every 2 tobacco smokers die prematurely. Tobacco smoking is the largest avoidable health problem in Sweden.

E-cigarettes are a new nicotine-replacement product. Several studies, from among others the British Health Authority Public Health England, show that e-cigarettes reduce the risk by 95 percent compared to tobacco cigarettes. It is not the Nicotine that is the problem with dangerous tobacco smoking. The risks of e-cigarettes can be compared with drinking coffee, soft drinks and other things that do affect the body, but that compared to tobacco smoking are relatively harmless.

Many are now using e-cigarettes to quit smoking tobacco. That’s why e-cigarettes are quickly gaining popularity. Unfortunately, many young begin to smoke tobacco, despite all the information efforts. Our common challenge is to get all users to abandon combustible tobacco.

Thus far, I think we agree with each other. However, the ANSG continue to pursue a misleading campaign against the use of nicotine, when tobacco use is what is dangerous to health. In order to achieve better public health, focus must be to get both youth and adults not to smoke deadly tobacco. Not to limit the use of nicotine, for example in gum, patches or e-liquid. Furthermore, ANSG claim that e-cigarettes lead to tobacco smoking. This is clearly misleading. There are no reliable studies to support the claim. On the contrary, we see that e-cigarettes leads habitual smokers away from tobacco. That is why it is important to continue having flavored e-liquids. Without flavors the products become tasteless, and then smokers will stick with their tobacco cigarettes.

The Supreme Administrative Court during this year ruled that e-cigarettes with nicotine will be sold openly in regular stores. We welcome, as ANSG do, responsible legislation that allows for good protection and control of products to ensure the health of users. We therefore propose the following regulatory options:

  1. Regulate the age limit for all nicotine products. All reputable companies in the industry have already implemented this on their own self-regulation. There is already a general rule with an 18-year limit for nicotine, but we would appreciate a regulatory clarification.
  2. Clear list of ingredients on the products and quality guarantees. Mandate requirements that clearly show the contents of the products, but do not impose any restriction on harmless flavorings. We have to be allowed to use the same flavors that are allowed for the rest of the food industry.
  3. Regulations on promotion. Allow marketing of these products in order to inform and encourage current smokers of tobacco cigarettes to switch to e-cigarettes in order to achieve improved public health.

Ubbe Strihagen, CEO Vapoteket