January 11, 2014
Rong Zablocki and colleagues recently published a nice paper that followed 1718 California smokers from 2009 to 2011 to see what effect smokefree homes and percieving laws requiring smokefree outdoors had on their smoking behavior.
Living in a smokefree home more than doubled the odds of smoking less (adjusted odds ratio 2.4) and making a quit attempt (AOR 2.3). Perceived smokefree outdoor policies nearly doubled the odds of smoking less (AOR 1.9) and making a quit attempt (AOR 1.8).
This paper adds to the growing evidence that smokefree policies not only protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, but also help smokers quit.
The full paper, "Smoking ban policies and their influence on smoking behaviors among current California smokers: A population-based study," was published in Preventive Medicine and is available here.
January 11, 2014
Kelvin Choi and Jean Forester just published a well-done longitudinal study of young adults that followed young adults in Minnesota for one year and examined how attitudes about e-cigarettes affected behavior.
They report that one year after entering the study 7.4% of the young adults reported ever using e-cigarettes (21.6% among baseline current smokers, 11.9% among baseline former smokers, and 2.9% among baseline nonsmokers). Put another way, 11.9% of people who had quit smoking before the study started were using e-cigarettes at the end as were 2.9% of people who had never smoked. For these people, e-cigarettes were a pathway to renewed or new nicotine addiction.
January 11, 2014
Today NPR Morning Edition interviewed Ken Warner on the impact of the 1964 Surgeon General report. During the interview Ken repeated the mantra that increasing taxes is the most effective tobacco control policy.
There is a strong consensus that people smoke less as the price increases, with a price elasticity of -0.4 for adults and -0.65 for adolescents. What this means is that a 10% increase in price leads to a 4% reduction in consumption by adults and a 6.5% reduction among youth. Put another way, the effect of the price increase will depend on how big it is.
This also means that it is possible to compare the relative effects of different tobacco control policies to each other by computing the size of the price (tax) increase that it would take to achieve the same effect.
January 10, 2014
Working with colleagues in India and England, we recently published the paper, "Association between being employed in a smoke-free workplace and living in a smoke-free home: Evidence from 15 low and middle income countries," in Preventive Medicine. We found that, on average, people covered by legislation requiring smokefree workplaces and public places are 60% more likely to implement voluntary policies making their homes smokefree.
Here is the abstract:
Objective:To assess whether being employed in a smoke-free workplace is associated with living in a smoke-free home in 15 low and middle income countries (LMICs).
Methods: Country-specific individual level analyses of cross-sectional Global Adult Tobacco Survey data (2008–2011) from 15 LMICs was conducted using multiple logistic regression. The dependent variable was living in a smoke-free home; the independent variable was being employed in a smoke-free workplace. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, residence, region, education, occupation, current smoking, current smokeless tobacco use and number of household members. Individual country results were combined in a random effects meta-analysis.
January 10, 2014
Eight years ago, in 2006, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler convicted the big cigarette companies and their trade and scientific groups of forming an illegal racketeering "enterprise" to defraud the American people and, among other things, ordered the cigarette companies to publish "corrective statements" telling the public that they had lied about the dangers of smoking, secondhand smoke, and nicotine addiction. (Judge Kessler also prohibited them from challenging the evidence that these statements are true, which is why the companies no longer do so.)
Judge Kessler ordered the defendant tobacco companies to work with the Department of Justice and the public health intervenors to determine just how the corrective statements would be made on the internet, in print, and on television and radio. These negotiations have now concluded and a draft ruling submitted to the Court.