Category Archives: Vaping

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Vaping and E-Cigarette Regulation in Central Europe" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This bundle report brings together individual regulatory reports covering Central Europe, including Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria and the Czech Republic.

Each report offers a detailed overview of the current regulatory framework in place for vaping products, covering all areas of law from product and age restrictions, labelling and packaging requirements and advertising, to taxation, notification and retail channel restrictions.

While all of these Central European countries have transposed the EU's Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), with Slovenia being among the last to do so, some such as Austria have implemented restrictions that go even further than those laid out in the TPD.

The benefit of this bundle is that it allows a comparative analysis of these four countries, enabling you to draw similarities and differences between the regimes.

Despite being in the same region, each of these countries have taken different approaches to regulating these products - taxation being an area where marked differences can be seen, with excise tax levied on e-cigs in Slovenia while in the other three countries there is no specific tax on such products.

If you are interested in this region, then this report provides you with a comprehensive overview of each market.

Key Topics Covered:

E-cigarette Regulatory Report: Slovenia

E-cigarette Regulatory Report: Slovakia

E-cigarette Regulatory Report: Austria

E-cigarette Regulatory Report: Czech Republic

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/gyfri1

Here is the original post:

Central Europe Vaping and E-Cigarette Regulation Report 2021: Focus on Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria and the Czech Republic - ResearchAndMarkets.com -...

There is a glut of research surrounding safer alternatives for people who use opioids. Less well researched are safer alternatives for crack cocaine usethough some argue that chewing coca leaf (a precursor to cocaine and, thus, crack) has potential.

A kind of crack vape pen, yet to be developed, could be a valuable harm reduction tool, mitigating some of the health risks of consuming crack from illicit sources, according to a new paper.

Its a thought Ive had for a very long time, Fabian P. Steinmetz, a toxicologist who co-authored the paper with social scientist Heino Stver, told Filter.

In Europe, where the paper was drafted, the most commonly seen state-banned substancesoutside of cannabis and perhaps MDMA in some jurisdictionsare heroin and crack, he said. Steinmetz noted that there are numerous long-established harm reduction models and tools for heroin (though they are not present in every country).

Switzerland, for instance, has been offering pharmaceutical heroin to people who use drugs for decades, helping people to stay safer and stabilize their lives.

Logistically thinking, how can we provide 20 hits of crack per day to a person?

However, most medically provided heroin programs work because providing a person with heroin two to three times a day isnt particularly difficult, according to Steinmetz, though having to attend clinics so regularly can present a barrier for people. But with crack, this problem is amplified, because the effects last a number of minutes, rather than hours.

Logistically thinking, how can we provide 20 hits of crack per day to a person? Steinmetz asked.

A crack vape pen, or e-cigarette, the paper argues, would potentially answer this question, while having several other benefits. Like safe supply in general, it would be free of undesired and potentially harmful compounds, containing only crack plus anything in the vape juice. It would also contain a known dose.

Further, accessing the devices via a doctors office, for instance, could give people who regularly use crack the opportunity to speak with medical staff about some of the health issues that might go along with its uselike sleep deprivation or cardiovascular problemsand anything else. However, activists have criticized the limitations and barriers of overly medicalized models of safe supply, when so many people who use drugs have had traumatic experiences with health care systems.

But much like prescribed heroin or any form of freely provided safe supply, prescribed crack vape pens could add stability to peoples lives by removing or reducing the need to obtain drugs from other sources.

As for the specific properties of such a device, vaping is less harmful to the lungs compared to smokinga fact that underpins harm reduction with nicotine. Smokingin general, and with crack in particularinvolves inhaling hot particles, which among other issues can burn the lungs, a pretty tender organ, Steinmetz said.

This is a big advantage for pulmonary health, Steinmetz said of the difference a crack vape could make. He also noted that such a device could be configured to allow a specific quantity to be drawn on each hit.

Steinmetz emphasized that this is an entirely theoretical concepteven setting aside legal barriers, theres no prototype and no experiments have been done to make such a pen. However, it should be technically possible. There are many other kinds of vapes on the market, from cannabis to DMT and even cathinones.

The general principle to put drugs in e-cigarettes, I mean, this is already pretty old school, he said.

Ideally, policymakers should use different regulatory levers to encourage use of slower-acting forms of cocaine, Rolles said.

Steve Rolles, who is mentioned in the acknowledgement section of the paper for feedback he provided on the idea, is a senior policy analyst with Transform Drug Policy Foundation, and the author of the book How to Regulate Stimulants: A Practical Guide.

He is not against the idea of a cocaine vape penhe acknowledged that it would carry fewer risks than smoking crack, stressing that there needs to be more discussion of stimulants in harm reduction and that crack use should not be stigmatized. But he does have some concerns.

While Rolles supports anything that makes drug use safer, he told Filter that he wondered about the possibility that vape penswhich would almost certainly sometimes end up on the illicit marketcould potentially encourage some people to use crack more frequently, without removing all of the attendant risks. Trials would need to be performed to see how the vapes performed in different situations, he said.

Rolles is in favor of the legal regulation of all forms of cocaine, removing criminalization and supply-side risks. But ideally, policymakers should use different regulatory levers to encourage use of slower-acting forms of cocaine, which come with fewer health risks, he said.

[S]lower-release forms of cocaine, most obviously oral coca leaf preparations, are lower-risk, according to Rolles. [T]hey release the alkaloid steadily over an extended period, avoiding the roller coaster of redosing, and the initial rapid onset particularly associated with smoked or injected use; the rush is part of the appeal for many, but also increases cardiac risks, and lends itself to more intense patterns of dependent or binge use.

At the same time, some people with lived experience feel theres certainly potential for the vape-pen strategy. Nat Kaminski is the president of the Ontario Network of People Who Use Drugs (ONPUD), a new organization governed by people with lived/living experiences of drug use in the Canadian province.

I think the discretion piece is huge. It could protect some of the most vulnerable populations that smoke crack.

Kaminski told Filter that even outside of a sanctioned safe crack supply program, the discreet nature of a vape pen, compared to a pipe, could be valuable in terms of harm reduction. It could look and potentially smell less conspicuousthis, in turn, could protect people using them from being arrested in public spaces.

I think the discretion piece is huge, Kaminski said. It could protect some of the most vulnerable populations that smoke crack.

They also said that vaping oil is a slower process compared to burning crack using a torch and a pipe and, thus, the crack may last longer.

Leticia Mizon, an ONPUD board member who also has lived experience, told Filter that people who use the vapes might also be less targeted if someone decided they wanted to steal their drugswhich isnt terribly common, she said, but does happen.

Kaminski and Mizon also noted some other potential benefits with vapes. Theres less chance that a person could cut their lips compared with a pipe. If the vape pen were made in the right way, it could also be easier to control dosage.

However, they also noted potential barriers. For one, the vapes would need to be inexpensive (or potentially free), as crack is quite costly, and an added price from the pen itself might dissuade people from switching.

Rituals surrounding use are very, very intimate.

Further, Kaminski and Mizon described the power of the rituals often associated with doing drugs. In terms of crack, this can involve packing a pipe, scraping out the resin, and such. A vape pen would functionally remove that, though Kaminski suggested that a person could use the pen outside the home, and a pipe inside.

Because of these rituals, and a persons preferred method of consumption, the two also noted that it would equally be a hard sell getting people who use crack to transition to slower-release methodssuch as insufflation or chewing coca leaf.

Rituals surrounding use are very, very intimate, Mizon said.

A cocaine e-cig is likely to be a long way off, if indeed it ever gets made. Legal barriers persist, even if safe supply is breaking through in countries like Canada. And pharmaceutical companies might not see enough profit to get interested in developing these devices without additional incentives from government.

But devoting more attention to stimulant harm reduction is a need on which Steinmetz, Rolles, Kaminski and Mizon all agree. And researchers thinking outside the box on this issue, even if not every idea comes to fruition, is a positive sign.

Photograph via pxfuel

More here:

Could Crack Cocaine Vapes Be Harm Reduction Tools of the Future? - Filter

Nicotine delivery devices such as vapes and e-cigarettes need to face similar sale and advertising restrictions as tobacco products, an Oireachtas Committee has heard.

E-cigarettes are increasingly being marketed towards teenagers, and their colourful packaging and fruity flavours are contributing to the rise in young people vaping, the Oireachtas Health Committee was told.

Chris Macey from the Irish Heart Foundation said that while vaping is less harmful than smoking, its long-term effects were still unlcear.

The number of young people smoking and vaping is also rising, he added.

After falling from 41 per cent to 13 per cent, the smoking rate among 15-16 year-olds here is now increasing for the first time in a quarter of a century.

Additionally, 39 per cent of this age group have used e-cigarettes and 15.5 per cent are regular users.

Mr Macey added that the Health Research Board has concluded that adolescents who vape are up to five times more likely to take up smoking.

Ads for vapes can appear on billboards, in shops and on social media, and they do not face the same level of advertising restrictions as cigarettes and other tobacco products.

The Irish Heart Foundation has called on the age limit for purchasing tobacco and e-cigarettes to increase to 21, along with a ban on all e-cigarette flavours bar tobacco, a ban on all vaping advertising and the introduction of plain packaging.

Averil Power, chief executive of the Irish Cancer Society, said is true that some smokers prefer vaping to the use of licensed nicotine replacement gums and other products. However, as the Health Research Board has pointed out, e-cigarettes are no more effective than approved and regulated nicotine replacement therapies to help people stop smoking, she said.

The World Health Organisation has stated that electronic nicotine delivery systems cannot be recommended as cessation aids at the population level and warned they could hinder cessation in some individuals by prolonging or increasing addiction to nicotine.

The committee was also told that the Government needs to do more to cover the cost of other smoking cessation tools, as vaping is cheaper.

The State takes in roughly 1 billion per year in tobacco-related tax, but just one per cent of this is spent on helping people quit smoking, Mr Macey said.

Paul Gordon from the Irish Cancer Society claimed that big tobacco is using vapes as a trojan horse and does not have any interest in ending nicotine addiction.

Most of the large e-cigarette companies are either owned or part-owned by tobacco companies. In the US, with Juul for example... they were part-owned by Altria, Marlboros parent company.

Here, we see Vype and VIP owned by PJ Carroll, who are a subsidiary of British American Tobacco. Logic are owned by Japan Tobacco International. They all have significant shares in those vaping companies.

When asked about the Department of Healths approach to vaping, both the Irish Heart Foundation and the Irish Cancer Society said the department is undecided about the pros and cons of vaping and viewed e-cigarettes as a potential cessation tool, a view they disagreed with.

Both organisations said they wanted the new Public Health (Tobacco and Nicotine Inhaling Products) Bill to include more restrictions on vape products.

In a statement, Japan Tobacco International said it is committed to marketing its products in a responsible manner.

A cornerstone of this commitment is that minors should not vape and should not be able to obtain vaping products, and we act responsibly to ensure Logic advertising is directed at existing adult smokers and vapers. E-Vapour products sold in Ireland are subject to strict EU-wide regulations, which were introduced in 2016 and restrict certain types of advertising and marketing. We strictly adhere to them for our Logic brand.

View post:

More restrictions needed on sale of vapes and e-cigarettes, Oireachtas committee told - The Irish Times

When people talk about e-cigarettes, they usually talk only about health benefits and the absence of toxic chemicals. This is understandable because e-cigarettes are a less harmful alternative to regular tobacco cigars. However, there are plenty of other reasons why you should try no nicotine disposable vape cigarettes if you are a smoker. Here are the 3 most compelling non-health related reasons why smoking e-cigarettes is good for you.

Other than the obvious health threats and issues, one of the main downsides of smoking regular tobacco cigars is the unpleasant odour. The main cause of this odour is, of course, the presence of various toxic chemicals that can be found in regular cigars. If you choose to switch from regular cigars to e-cigarettes, you wont have to deal with those odours anymore. The walls and curtains in your home will be grateful. Also, your hair, skin, and clothes wont smell like tobacco. You have to admit, this is a compelling reason for you to, at least, consider the concept of e-cigarettes.

This is something not a lot of people talk about. However, its definitely worth mentioning. In order to smoke e-cigarettes, you need to have the proper equipment. Dont worry, its nothing too fancy or pricey. But, its safe to say that this equipment is rather fun to use. Therefore, if you love playing with gadgets, using e-cigarette equipment every day can be therapeutic for you. Its much more fun than simply lighting a regular tobacco cigar. You can even make the equipment personalised.

When it comes to flavours, regular tobacco cigars are pretty straightforward. Sure, there are a few exceptions that have menthol versions, but there arent too many flavours a smoker can choose from. On the other hand, e-cigarettes offer a plethora of options regarding flavour. If you are an adventuristic person, you will definitely want to try plenty of flavours. This will enhance your smoking experience and it can be a good conversation starter if you meet a new person who is also an e-cigarette enthusiast.

The main reason why you should consider e-cigarettes is the fact that they are less harmful than regular cigars. However, these non-health related things we talked about today will definitely make your life fun and it will do good things for your image.

View original post here:

Three non-health related reasons why you should try vaping - London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com - London Loves Business

BEAMSVILLE, Ontario, Nov. 12, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The WHOs Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) provisional agenda for COP9 indicated that talks around tobacco harm reduction products, including e-cigarettes, would be postponed until 2023. The Canadian Vaping Association (CVA) is disappointed COP9 will not discuss the merits of vaping as a harm reduction tool or WHOs flawed recommendations on vaping.

Leading up to COP9, many organizations including the CVA, were critical of WHOs regressive approach to regulating safer nicotine products. Notably, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPGs are informal, cross-party groups formed by MPs and Members of the House of Lords), stated that WHOs recommendations were not fit for purpose.

In an APPG report, Chair Mark Pawsey states, it is clear that since 2016 the number of people making the switch has slowed, and last year the number of vapers declined year-on-year for the first time. This retraction in use has coincided with increased negative messaging in the media about vaping and reduced risk products, much of it fuelled in no small part by the position taken by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The positions of APPG are mirrored by the UK Institute for economic affairs who state on their website, The FCTC Secretariat and the COP meetings are not fit for purpose. In their relentless opposition to vaping and other reduced risk products, they have become a threat to global health, and Governments which recognise vapings potential to save lives should make their case strongly at COP9. If the WHO continues to spread misinformation about e-cigarettes, governments should withdraw funding from the FCTC Secretariat.

The UK Institute for economic affairs also voices the global concern shared by tobacco harm reduction advocates that WHOs recommendations will be used to implement harmful policy. The WHO influences policy worldwide by putting out negative statements about vaping which misrepresent the scientific evidence. These statements are then cited by policymakers.

Story continues

Action on Smoking and Health said it best, England is not an outlier on vaping: its a frontrunner. Removing safer nicotine products from the agenda has prevented a critical analysis of WHOs recommendations and stifled a global dialogue on harm reduction. The CVA is extremely disheartened that harm reduction solutions will not be publicly discussed as tobacco use remains the leadi ng cause of death, said Darryl Tempest, Executive Director of the CVA.

Darryl Tempest Executive Director 647-274-1867 dtempest@thecva.org

Original post:

Canadian Vaping Association: COP9 will not discuss tobacco harm reduction, preventing a transparent dialogue of WHOs vaping recommendations - Yahoo...

SHENZHEN, China, November 17, 2021--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Chinas leading vaping media, Bluehole New Consumption, today published a feature story on global advocacy for tobacco harm reduction prior to WHO FCTC COP9, while atomization offers promising prospects in healthcare and other fields.

Here below is the full article in English:

The Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) took place on November 8-13, 2021. During the conference, the delegates debated over measures to reduce smoking-related death and disease.

According to the earlier announcement of the FCTC Secretariat, in this years COP (COP9), evident on vaping and heat-not-burn products will be presented to the Parties, however, no decision will be made until COP10 in 2023.

The WHO FCTC is a legally binding treaty that requires member countries or Parties to implement its measures as calls for more rigorous regulations on tobacco marketing and increased taxation of tobacco products, in a bid to reduce tobacco uses and exposures to tobacco smoke from both demand and supply ends.

In fact, the WHO once recognized in 2020, "completely substituting electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems (EN&NNDS) for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces users exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes."

However, in practice, the WHO has rejected reduced-risk products, such as e-cigarettes, as the real-world strategy to improve public health. Instead, the WHO FCTC exhorts its Parties to impose high taxes and bans on all tobacco products, no matter combustible or non-combustible products. The WHO remains doubtful about e-cigarettes and other reduced-risk products, considering them an industry tool to get consumers hooked on nicotine.

In July 2021, the WHO released a report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021. It is the first time that the organization presented data on electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and argued that ENDS need to be regulated.

Story continues

Moreover, WHO FCTC COP9 raised more global concerns over biased regulatory guidance, which will undermine vapings potential to benefit public health, suggesting a step backward for global public health. For example, in the US, cigarette sales rose in 2020 for first time in two decades. Public health experts warn that House Democrats voting on vaping tax without a tax increase in cigarettes will push vapers back to more harmful combustible tobacco.

100 specialists in nicotine science, policy and practice from all over the world has also signed a letter to Parties to the FCTC to encourage WHO to promote the inclusion of tobacco harm reduction into the FCTC. This letter argues that "e-cigarettes are a driver of smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction presents significant public health opportunities".

The British Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (BCCP) has also encouraged the Philippines government to join United Kingdom in accepting a science-based approach in combating smoking problem ahead of the WHO FCTC COP9.

As an advocate for Tobacco Harm Reduction, the U.K government recently announces its plan to integrate medically licensed e-cigarettes into NHS prescription to reduce smoking rates. Since 2014, Public Health England(PHE) has issued a series of reports on latest evidence on the effects of vaping products on smoking cessation. The agency also concluded that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco.

The global adoption of reduced-risk products, including e-cigarette, for the benefit of public health, is inevitable. Global health regulators should seize the "single biggest public health opportunity, according to New York University Professor David Abrams.

In addition, the vaping industry players have also been proactively exploring the applications of atomization technology in healthcare and other fields, transforming into broader atomization healthcare and wellness businesses. For example, British America Tobaccos US bio-tech subsidiary is working on a potential vaccine for COVID-19 while Philip Morris has acquired inhaled-drug firm OtiTopic and asthma inhaler maker Vectura. Committed to building the worlds leading atomization technology platform, SMOORE, the worlds largest vaping manufacturer, is also about to launch its atomized healthcare and beauty technologies in early December.

To read the original article, please visit: https://www.bluehole.com.cn/news/detail/47508

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211116006457/en/

Contacts

Frankie ChenFrankie.chen@smoorecig.com (86)13530848319

Go here to see the original:

Bluehole Publishes a Feature Story on Global Advocacy for Tobacco Harm Reduction Prior to WHO FCTC COP9 - Yahoo Finance

COP9 excludes many legitimate perspectives: notably consumers, pro-harm reduction public health experts, policy think tanks and critical economists, libertarians, and commercial entities affected by decisions made by COP,

However, there is an obvious sharp contrast between the two COPs. COP9 is secretive, restrictive and what can only be described as a classic example of group think: a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.

COP9 has gained a reputation of striving to keep multiple stakeholders out of any discussions. It excludes many legitimate perspectives: notably consumers, pro-harm reduction public health experts, policy think tanks and critical economists, libertarians, and commercial entities affected by decisions made by COP, said Bates of the event.

In contrast, COP26 includes representatives from business and industry, environmental groups, farming and agriculture, indigenous populations, local governments and municipal authorities, research and academic institutes, labour unions, and so on. In other words, it is not hostile to any group, even if their views and goals may be in contrast to those of the convention. Examples of such groups are: the World Coal Association, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), Organisation of International Automobile Manufacturers and International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM).

Bates goes on to list the comparisons in detail:

This insularity is not a feature of the UNFCCC climate COP meetings. A comparison with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is revealing.

As at 8 November 2021

21 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) [source]

28 Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) [source]

One observer, the Framework Convention Alliance (FCA) is a holding group for about 300 organisations nearly all of which would not qualify if they had to apply using the current criteria. Its members can attend under the FCA umbrella but they must meet FCAs membership requirements and support its tobacco control vision and mission. This organisation was given de facto permanent observer status under the Rules of procedure 32(1):

Nongovernmental organizations which participated in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and in the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control are accredited as observers to the Conference of the Parties.

This is referring to meetings held in 1999-2003.

No business or consumer organisations have been granted observer status. No organisations critical of the FCTC, its interpretation by COP, WHO, the Secretariat, any parties or tobacco control generally have been admitted. They are ruled out by selection criteria, veto and reporting requirements.

As of 2019 is 2,500 organisations (2,360 NGO and 140 IGOs) were admitted as observers. The NGOs represent a broad spectrum of interests. They include representatives from business and industry, environmental groups, farming and agriculture, indigenous populations, local governments and municipal authorities, research and academic institutes, labour unions, women and gender and youth groups. [source] [list]

Includes Business NGOs likely to be hostile to the aims of the UNFCCC, such as the World Coal Association, International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP), Organisation of International Automobile Manufacturers and International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM). Does not admit for-profit businesses.

Applicants must be international. This excludes most individuals (e.g. academics) and organisations that support tobacco harm reduction.

They must have aims and activities that are in conformity with the FCTC spirit purpose and principles. This effectively excludes critics.

Rules of procedure 31(2)

31.2. international and regional non-governmental organisations whose aims and activities are in conformity with the spirit, purpose and principles of the Convention, may apply for observer status, which may be granted by the Conference of the Parties, based on the report of the Secretariat, and taking into account the 17th and 18th preambular paragraphs as well as Article 5.3 of the Convention. Such applications should be submitted to the Secretariat not later than ninety days before the opening of the session.

Applicants may be a national body and only have to show they have relevant knowledge, not necessarily a particular policy perspective.

UNFCCC Article 7(6)

Any body or agency, whether national or international, governmental or non-governmental, which is qualified in matters covered by the Convention, and which has informed the Secretariat of its wish to be represented at a session of the Conference of the Parties as an observer, may be so admitted unless at least one third of the Parties present object.

The Secretariat reviews conformance with criteria and makes a recommendation to the COP, which has to agree by consensus. As a result, any party has a veto.

Rules of procedure 31.2

granted by the Conference of the Parties, based on the report of the Secretariat, and taking into account the 17th and 18th preambular paragraphs as well as Article 5.3

The Secretariat reviews applications and makes recommendations to the COP based on capabilities. An applicant can only be blocked by one-third of the parties.

UNFCCC Article 7(6)

may be so admitted unless at least one third of the Parties present at the session object

Observers should contribute to tobacco control efforts.

From rule 31.2 on observers- referring to FCTC text

17th recitation:

Emphasising the special contribution of non-governmental organisations and other members of civil society not affiliated with the tobacco industry, including health professional bodies, womens, youth, environmental and consumer groups, and academic and health care institutions, to tobacco control efforts nationally and internationally and the vital importance of their participation in national and international tobacco control efforts,

None

Visit link:

A Comparison Between The Restrictive COP9 And The Science-Based COP26 A Comparison Between The Restrictive COP9 And The Science-Based COP26 - Vaping...

Dr. Richard Feldman| Special to the Courier & Press

We have made significant progress in the battle against tobacco use and nicotine addiction since the 1960s with tremendously falling rates of smoking among both adults and children.

Reducing the smoking rates and progressively making smoking socially unacceptable has been a comprehensive effort involving prevention and cessation programs, media campaigns, smoke-free air laws, increased cigarette taxation, and FDA oversight.

But all this progress is threatened with the introduction of e-cigarette use, commonly referred to as vaping," especially among youth; its nothing less than an epidemic among middle and high school students.

More: Dr. Richard Feldman: E-cigarettes have become a public nightmare

We are facing a public health crisis with the potential of new generations of youth risking lifelong nicotine addiction with eventual disease and premature death. Vaping has been demonstrated to be far from harmless and commonly also leads to tobacco use.

We are in a battle to reclaim our children from vaping.My last column focused on taxation to curtail e-cigarette use. Lets look at another crucial action to discourage vaping among children.

In recent years, renewed attention of the public and policymakers has considerably focused on sweet-flavored vaping products that entice youth to initiate and sustain their use. Examples include gummy bear, fruit, cotton candy, menthol, peanut butter cup, and cookies n cream.

Most flavorings were prohibited in cigarettes by federal regulation in 2009 but have been permitted in other tobacco products including smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, cigars, and most worrisome in e-cigarettes. The tobacco industry knows well that these flavorings lure children into use, and their marketing continues today by the vaping industry, largely controlled by tobacco companies. Eighty percent of youth who use tobacco products initiated with a flavored product. Seventy-two percent of youth tobacco users use a flavored tobacco product. Two-thirds of youth tobacco users report using tobacco products primarily because they come in flavors.

The Trump administration pushed for federal restrictions on flavored vaping products resulting in legislation signed into law. What started out as appearing as a substantial and meaningful prohibition eventually resulted in federal regulation with huge gaps, which will potentially result in relatively little effect. There are plenty of exemptions including disposable and refillable products and e-liquids found in vaping shops. The limited restrictions apply essentially only to self-contained closed pod cartridges in products like Juul. Menthol flavoring is also exempted. Over fifty percent of children initiate and maintain their use with menthol-flavored products.

Only five states currently have comprehensive flavoring bans in effect to bolster the current weak federal legislation. To the credit of a number of more public health-minded Indiana legislators, there has been genuine interest in placing a permanent ban on flavored products during past legislative sessions; it should be of no surprise that nothing was enacted.

The federal Food and Drug Administration finally stepped up to potentially restrict flavored vaping products. Recently, the FDA began to exercise its authority with the denials of applications by certain companies to market their flavored vaping products. The applications must include evidence that their products have overall public health benefits, which were lacking. How far reaching this prohibition will be is still unknown.

Dont assume that the recent federal legislation increasing the legal age of tobacco and vaping products to age 21 will solve the problem of youth vaping. Although an important action, just as with alcohol, youth will achieve access to these prohibited products.

Vaping products are todays candy cigarettes. Candy cigarettes didnt adversely affect childrens health, but vaping is a different story.

Dr. Richard Feldman is an Indianapolis family physician and the former Indiana state health commissioner. Email him atricharddfeldman@gmail.com.

Read more:

Dr. Richard Feldman: Flavorings lure young people to vaping - Courier & Press

Driving through Brussels in the iconic electric pink 'Vape Bus', the World Vapers' Alliance (WVA), representing vapers worldwide, displayed a powerful selection of quit stories from around Europe. The collection of stories from individual ex-smokers was gathered as part of the Back Vaping. Beat Smoking campaign, which travelled across Europe throughout 2021.

The demonstration brought these messages from across Europe directly to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), who are currently debating the Beating Cancer plan which may set the direction for anti-smoking policies across Europe.

Michael Landl, Director of the World Vapers' Alliance, said:

"The next few weeks will be crucial for smokers, vapers and public health in general with Europe's Beating Cancer Plan being finalised. We came here today to make sure that vapers' voices are heard and that the MEPs understand the real-life stories of people who have been able to quit smoking thanks to vaping.

European policymakershave the opportunity to make history and save lives if they back vaping as a tool to beat smoking. Our message to them is clear: choose science and save lives," he added.

19 million smokers in Europe could switch to vaping, an alternative that is 95% less harmful, if the European Parliament would support harm reduction tools, such as vaping, in all their future legislation, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan.

"There is a risk that European lawmakers - under pressure from anti-vaping activists - will introduce laws that would treat vaping the exact same as smoking. This would spell disaster for vapers, for smokers and for global public health. The best way we can beat smoking is to promote vaping as part of public health policies,"Michael Landl concluded.

Notes to editor:

Photo - https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1688508/World_Vapers_Alliance_in_Brussels.jpgPhoto - https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1688507/World_Vapers_Alliance_in_Brussels.jpg

SOURCE World Vapers Alliance

See the original post here:

The Voices of Vapers Arrive at MEPs Front Door - PRNewswire

Earlier this year, FCTC organizers had announced that there would be no discussions or decisions around Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) products at COP9. They highlighted that any related documents should still be submitted for information to COP9. However, any substantive discussions related to smokeless tobacco and heated tobacco products and novel and emerging tobacco products, would be postponed until 2023s COP10.

Naturally many public health and tobacco control experts were outraged by the fact that not are such discussions postponed, but also by the fact that THR representatives were totally excluded from the event. Moreover, Executive Coordinator the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA) Nancy Loucas, said she believes that that discussions and decisions on safer nicotine alternatives will still be taking place at COP9. Its now clear, however, that was a complete pretence aimed at minimizing a growing backlash against the WHOs anti-vaping agenda.

Meanwhile last Friday, the public was allowed a rare glimpse into the secret meeting that they were not allowed to participate in. Of course everything was set by then, such as the fact that the next COP meeting taking place in 2023, will be held in Panama.

Dr. Adriana Blanco Marquizo was re-elected as Head of the FCTC Secretariat and gave a speech which acknowledged that COP9 had experienced many technical issues. Ironically she boasted that COP9 had allowed journalists from around the world to sit in on their meetings, which as CopWatch rightly pointed out is something that should really go without saying. For the FCTC, it seems transparency is a privilege to be granted rather than a right.

CopWatch added that interestingly Marquizo affirmed that it is the parties who make the decisions. The EU spokesperson at the event announced that that the Italian Ministry of Health is donating 130k euros to fund work into the Expert Group on Articles 9 &10 and also for the knowledge hubs.

The article commended sCOPe for streaming brilliant content and giving vapers a seat at the table. The five-day livestream was simulcast via YouTube and Facebook. Presenters and panellists challenged and scrutinized COP9 including whos influencing and funding its efforts to demonise vaping, and why.

Read Further CopWatch

The WHO Cant Afford to Get Wrong Again Yet It Is!

Continue reading here:

COP9 Live Streamed Its Final Session - Vaping Post