Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am clear that "vaping" ("smoking" electronic cigarettes) is likely to be safer than real smoking - probably orders of magnitude safer. So I applaud smokers who, while unable to give up their nicotine addiction, are able to switch it to vaping. Similarly, if people who would otherwise have been smokers start vaping, and never move on to smoking, this is likely to be a huge bonus to public health.
I have also however, become aware a yet another possibility, and one that I find particularly disturbing. This is that vaping may have been adopted by the big tobacco products as a gateway product. They can advertise e-cigarettes in a way which is appealing to young people, and thereby draw them in to trying e-cigarettes, thus gaining a new generation of nicotine addicts. Whether or not the young people subsequently move on to ordinary cigarettes seems almost irrelevant: what matters is that another generation of people will have become addicted to a drug which we know is more addictive than heroin.
Making it acceptable to vape might also to some affect attitudes towards the use of tobacco products more generally, and could even make smoking become more acceptable in groups in which it is now deprecated.
Bus stops close to schools in my neighbourhood have been plastered which appear to me to designed to make vaping look cool and glamorous to young people.
It strikes me as no accident that the product - "Vype" - is marketed by one of the big tobacco companies - British American Tobacco (BAT).
BAT claim that Vype "is a natural extension of [BAT's] approach to tobacco harm reduction".[1] A cynic might suppose that it is actually a deliberate extension into a newly legalised market, and an attempt to provide a gateway product that will get young people addicted to nicotine (initially at least in the form of e-cigarettes) now that it is harder to promote ordinary cigarettes to them.
I am sure that it was, as they claim, a complete accident that adverts for this product were placed in at least one iPad game for children (and quickly removed once their presence was pointed out);[2] but I, for one, one prefer not to see nicotine products marketed other than in a context in which that the adverts are intended only as a replacement for cigarettes for people who are already addicted.
I am therefore moving closer to the view that e-cigarettes should be regulated in very much the same way that tobacco products are.
I am aware that this would make it harder to promote the products to people who smoke, and might benefit from a safer alternative. It would also limit the market to the (I hope dwindling) number of smokers. This will reduce the size of the market, its profitability, and therefore increase the price of e-cigarettes. But I think that is likely to be a price worth paying if the alternative is the marketing of a gateway tobacco product to children.
All of this may be hypothetical at present; but I don't think we can afford to wait to ban advertising that glamorises vaping, and are displayed where so many children can see them.[3]
Re: EU policy on e-cigarettes is a “dog’s dinner,” says UK regulator
I am clear that "vaping" ("smoking" electronic cigarettes) is likely to be safer than real smoking - probably orders of magnitude safer. So I applaud smokers who, while unable to give up their nicotine addiction, are able to switch it to vaping. Similarly, if people who would otherwise have been smokers start vaping, and never move on to smoking, this is likely to be a huge bonus to public health.
I have also however, become aware a yet another possibility, and one that I find particularly disturbing. This is that vaping may have been adopted by the big tobacco products as a gateway product. They can advertise e-cigarettes in a way which is appealing to young people, and thereby draw them in to trying e-cigarettes, thus gaining a new generation of nicotine addicts. Whether or not the young people subsequently move on to ordinary cigarettes seems almost irrelevant: what matters is that another generation of people will have become addicted to a drug which we know is more addictive than heroin.
Making it acceptable to vape might also to some affect attitudes towards the use of tobacco products more generally, and could even make smoking become more acceptable in groups in which it is now deprecated.
Bus stops close to schools in my neighbourhood have been plastered which appear to me to designed to make vaping look cool and glamorous to young people.
It strikes me as no accident that the product - "Vype" - is marketed by one of the big tobacco companies - British American Tobacco (BAT).
BAT claim that Vype "is a natural extension of [BAT's] approach to tobacco harm reduction".[1] A cynic might suppose that it is actually a deliberate extension into a newly legalised market, and an attempt to provide a gateway product that will get young people addicted to nicotine (initially at least in the form of e-cigarettes) now that it is harder to promote ordinary cigarettes to them.
I am sure that it was, as they claim, a complete accident that adverts for this product were placed in at least one iPad game for children (and quickly removed once their presence was pointed out);[2] but I, for one, one prefer not to see nicotine products marketed other than in a context in which that the adverts are intended only as a replacement for cigarettes for people who are already addicted.
I am therefore moving closer to the view that e-cigarettes should be regulated in very much the same way that tobacco products are.
I am aware that this would make it harder to promote the products to people who smoke, and might benefit from a safer alternative. It would also limit the market to the (I hope dwindling) number of smokers. This will reduce the size of the market, its profitability, and therefore increase the price of e-cigarettes. But I think that is likely to be a price worth paying if the alternative is the marketing of a gateway tobacco product to children.
All of this may be hypothetical at present; but I don't think we can afford to wait to ban advertising that glamorises vaping, and are displayed where so many children can see them.[3]
REFERENCES
1. Hegarty R. BAT brings Vype e-cigarettes to the UK. The Grocer 2013; Updated 30 July; Accessed: 2013 (19 November 2013): (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/tobacco/bat-brings-vype-e-cigarettes-to-...).
2. Dredge S. British American Tobacco apologises for advertising e-cigarette in kids' app. The Guardian 2013; Updated 28 October; Accessed: 2013 (19 November 2013): (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/28/british-american-tobac...).
1. English PMB. On e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Peter English's random musings. London, 2013(http://peterenglish.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/on-e-cigarettes-and-smokeless...).
Competing interests: No competing interests