2 thoughts on “E-cigarettes and the gateway hypothesis”

  1. Posted 07/05/2013 at 17:08 | Permalink

    I was going to mention the cost element, but the other way round!

    It is easy to see how a person over 18 could buy twenty cigs and then sell them fo 50p each to young people and make a profit. 50p is pocket money cost. It is hard to see that scenario with respect to ecigs. For a start, a greater initial cost outlay is required, and it is unlikely that youths would pay ‘for a puff’.

  2. Posted 07/05/2013 at 18:19 | Permalink

    Thank you for explaining this issue.

    A similar one is the question of flavours: the accusation that these are used to attract young smokers (or even non-smokers) to e-cigarettes. Again there is no evidence for it; the problem is that since there is no science base or evidence base to use for attacks on e-cigarettes, the only option is propaganda. Since there are more e-cigarette users in their 60s than in their 20s, and since they are the ones using flavours and demanding even more flavours are introduced, again there is no basis in fact.

    The latest development at EU level is an attempt to ban flavours in Swedish Snus. As this would be likely to decrease the rate of smokers switching to Snus, and therefore protect smoking (or even increase it), we can see the true motives behind such attacks on THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction): protect smoking and protect pharmaceutical industry profits – at any cost. The tobacco control industry and their pharma funders bitterly resent the fact that Sweden is the world leader in the reduction of smoking-related death and disease, and with an expected male smoking prevalence of just 5% in around three year’s time, even has a realistic prospect of reducing smoking deaths to insignificant numbers. This has been a disaster for pharma in Sweden and they are desperate to stop the Swedish scenario being spread elsewhere.

    It is clear who is taking the pharma shilling from the voting to ban ecigs at EU level. We need a forensic accountants’ investigation of their personal financial affairs, to root out those paid to protect cigarette sales by restricting access to e-cigarettes. As Prof Britton of the Royal College of Physicians has said, “If all UK smokers switched to e-cigarettes, five million lives would be saved of those alive today”. You can’t get much clearer than that. It would be more realistic, perhaps, to calculate it based on the very likely 50% switch of smokers to ecigs that will eventually occur if left alone; millions of lives removed from pharma’s sick smoker treatment channel (chemotherapy drugs etc) that nets them billions from the UK taxpayer. People need to ask their MEPs how they will vote on this issue; those who vote for regulations on ecigs are voting to protect cigarette sales and protect pharma’s income. Now why would they do that?

Comments are closed.