Language matters. In my last blog, I highlighted the campaign by Cancer Research UK to counteract the idea that e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as smoking. And part of the problem resides in conflation of ‘smoking’ and ‘tobacco’ when communicating about smoking-related death and disease and more generally the denial of accurate public health information to smokers.
More Norwegians use “snus” — a form of snuff particular to Nordic countries — instead of cigarettes for their nicotine fix, official figures showed for the first time yesterday. The preference for snus in Norway, is certain to revive debate over the health effects of the product, a moist powder tobacco that is popped under the lip. Though its sale is illegal across the EU, it is manufactured and used in Sweden, which has an exemption, and Norway, which is not an EU member.
The case to overturn the ban on snus in the EU now reaches a new important milestone – a hearing at the European Court of Justice on 25th January (Case number = C-151/17). Last year the ECJ asked all EU states and the EU Institutions to comment on the case. The court received five responses. On the 25th January our lawyer gets a brief opportunity to expand on our case before the court. Other parties also get this opportunity.
Imagine if cigarettes were no longer addictive and smoking itself became almost obsolete; only a tiny segment of Americans still lit up. That's the goal of an unprecedented anti-smoking plan being carefully fashioned by U.S. health officials. But the proposal from the FDA could have another unexpected effect: opening the door for companies to sell a new generation of alternative tobacco products, allowing the industry to survive — even thrive.
Vapers around the world can breathe easy knowing that E-cigarettes are not harmful, according to new research. A leading vape brand carried out the two year, 200 person study that found the tobacco alternative does not damage the heart or lungs or cause any health problems. It backs claims that the smoking devices are a safer option than cigarettes used by an estimated three million Britons, say scientists.
Next Thursday, on the 25th of January, the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA), will be at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, fighting the current EU snus ban alongside public health experts and consumers of reduced risk nicotine products. [...] The case against the ban on snus was originally put forward by the Swedish Match. Then, around this time last year, the NNA had appealed to the High Court in London, [...]
Licensed marijuana producer Aphria Inc. has signed a deal to buy Broken Coast Cannabis Inc., a cannabis producer on Vancouver Island, in a transaction it valued at $230 million in cash and stock. Under the agreement, Aphria will pay up to $10 million in cash with the remainder in shares based on a deemed price of $15.09 per share.
A new peer-reviewed clinical trial [...] shows that regular use of e-cigarettes does not have any negative health impact on smokers. The study, "Evaluation of the Safety Profile of an Electronic Vapour Product Used for Two Years by Smokers in a Real-life Setting", examined 209 volunteer smokers who used a typical closed-system e-cigarette for 24 months while researchers monitored for adverse events, [...]
Language matters. In my last blog , I highlighted the campaign by Cancer Research UK to counteract the idea that e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as smoking. And part of the problem resides in conflation of ‘smoking’ and ‘tobacco’ when communicating about smoking-related death and disease and more generally the denial of accurate public health information to smokers.
I recently wrote a blog for the website of the Wellcome Institute called Guerrilla Public Health . It was a brief overview of the history of harm reduction in the UK and centred on the fact that the...
There is a long-standing and recognised procedure for the publication of academic papers. They go through a peer-review process, suggestions may or may not be made by anonymous reviewers back to the...
Significant progress has been made in reducing smoking prevalence within the United Kingdom but the benefits have not fallen fairly across all groups. Smoking rates amongst those with personal incomes under £10,000 per annum is more than double of those with incomes over £40,000. However, there are other groups with rates higher still, for example people experiencing mental ill health have a smoking prevalence rate double the population average.