April 30, 2013
I spent three great weeks in New Zealand, one week hosted by the University of Otago ASPIRE 2025 tobacco control program, where I presented lectures in Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin. The visit generated substantial media coverage dealing with smokefree movies, effective anti-tobacco media campaigns, and e-cigarettes. The Nine to Noon interview provides a good summary of all the issues that came up (as well as my days working at NASA on Project Apollo) and the TV one interview a good summary of why New Zealand should invest more in industry and secondhand smoke denormalization ads.
With a foundation of its existing ad ban, high taxes, point-of-purchase restrictions, (reasonably good) smokefree policies, and pack warning labels (with plain packaging on the way), allocating available resources towards these more aggressive approaches will make it easy for New Zealand to reach its goal of being smokefree by 2025.
April 23: NZ Herald: What do you think about smoking in movies?
April 3, 2013
I recently posted a comment noting that I agreed with the FDA’s decision not to appeal the misguided court ruling against the graphic warning labels it had issued. At this point, the question is what the FDA should do now to get warning labels on to the front of the package as quickly as possible.
To quickly get warning labels on the front of the packs, the FDA should issue simple warning labels that are consistent with what the courts have said they cannot and can do.
The court said that graphic warning labels could not:
1. Use “non-factual cartoon drawings.”
2. Use digitally enhanced photos.
3. Use pictures of people crying or graphics that are overtly intended to “evoke emotion.”
4. Require the “1-800-Quit Now” hotline number to be part of the warning label.
April 2, 2013
I am among the many public health professionals who were shocked to hear that former Surgeon General Richard Carmona joined the board of directors of e-cigarette company NJOY.
Echoing justifications physicians gave for working with the conventional cigarette companies decades ago, Carmona told the Associated Press, “I’m probably going to be [the company’s] biggest critic. … I still look at my job as being a doctor of the people, and I’m going to look at the science. … If we can find a viable alternative that gave us harm reduction as people are withdrawing from nicotine, I’m happy to engage in that science and see if we can do that.”
The problem with this statement is that the e-cigarette industry is already aggressively promoting their products as safer alternatives to conventional cigarettes that can be used to help quit smoking.
April 2, 2013
E-cigarette company v2cigs.com is trying to mobilize opposition to SB648, a bill in the California legislature that, quite sensibly, would protects innocent bystanders from e-cigarettes the same way that California protects them from cigarettes.
According to V2cigs, the bill “declares that the use of electronic cigarettes is a hazard to the health of the general public” and proposes to regulate e-cigs “to the same extent and in the same manner as cigarettes and other tobacco products.” If passed, the bill would:
- Ban smoking within 25 feet of a playground, punishable by a $250 fine.
- Prohibit the use of e-cigs in enclosed places of employment, punishable by a fine of as much as $500.
- Prohibit the use of e-cigs on any railroad, bus or plane that provides departures from the state of California
- Force landlords to prohibit the use of e-cigs on their rental property, including any exterior areas (balconies, patios, walkways, etc.)
March 21, 2013
Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would not be appealing the Court of Appeals decision striking down the current warning label regulation. Holder noted that, "the court concluded that FDA had not established that 'the graphic warnings will 'directly advance' its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke.''"
The court was, unfortunately, correct in that the FDA did not make a compelling case that the warning labels would have an important effect on smoking largely because of the poorly done cost-benefit analysis that both grossly understated the benefits and overstated the costs of the warning labels.