Article

"Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product.

Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, 315 East Health and Human Development, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Tobacco control (Impact Factor: 5.15). 09/2005; 14 Suppl 2:ii3-7. DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.008334
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks. The "no safe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.

0 Followers
 · 
118 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore how advertising affects demand for cigarettes and potential substitutes, including snus, dissolvable tobacco, and medicinal nicotine. A Web-based experiment randomized 1062 smokers to see advertisements for alternative nicotine products or soft drinks, then complete a series of purchase tasks, which were used to estimate demand elasticity, peak consumption, and cross-price elasticity (CPE) for tobacco products. Lower demand elasticity and greater peak consumption were seen for cigarettes compared to all alternative products (p < .05). CPE did not differ across the alternative products (p < .03). Seeing relevant advertisements was not significantly related to demand. These findings suggest significantly lower demand for alternative nicotine sources among smokers than previously revealed.
    American journal of health behavior 01/2014; 38(1):103-13. DOI:10.5993/AJHB.38.1.11 · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epidemiological and toxicological evidence suggests lower risk of smokeless tobacco (ST) products compared to cigarettes. Less is known, however, about consumer perceptions and use of novel forms of ST, including snus and dissolvable tobacco. In this study, we conducted in-person experimental auctions in Buffalo, NY, Columbia, SC, and Selinsgrove, PA with 571 smokers to test the impact of information and product trials on smokers' preferences. Auctions were conducted between November 2010-November 2011. We found no evidence of an impact of product trials on demand in our auctions. Anti-ST information increased demand for cigarettes when presented alone, but when presented with Pro-ST information it decreased demand for cigarettes. It did not decrease demand for ST products. Anti-smoking information increased demand for ST products, but did not affect cigarette demand. These findings suggest that credible and effective communications about tobacco harm reduction should reinforce the negative effects of smoking.
    Preventive Medicine 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.11.001 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some major national and international tobacco control organisations favour mandating a reduction in nicotine content of cigarettes to non-addictive levels as a tobacco control tool. Reducing nicotine content, it is argued, will make tobacco smoking less attractive. The 2009 U.S. Food and Drug Administration's regulation of cigarettes appears to have the power to reduce nicotine to non-addictive levels provided it is not taken to zero. A consideration of the U.S. context, however, raises doubts about (a) whether this will ever be practicable and (b), if practicable, how long it will take to implement. Current versions of the nicotine-reducing strategy propose the systematic, incentivised use of less harmful nicotine/tobacco products as elements of the mandatory cigarette nicotine-reduction strategy. Time will tell if and when mandatory nicotine reduction in tobacco cigarettes will occur and what impact it might have on smoking prevalence. The question posed here is "Why wait?" Resources used in implementing reduction in nicotine content have an opportunity cost. In the meantime, nicotine-maintaining harm reduction strategies can have nearer term effects on tobacco use as an individual and a public health issue. Copyright © 2015 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    The International journal on drug policy 02/2015; 10. DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.02.001 · 2.54 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from