DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Harm Reduction: a Comprehensive Nicotine Policy to Reduce Death and Disease Caused by Smoking (Resolution 403-A-17) (Reference Committee D)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Harm Reduction: a Comprehensive Nicotine Policy to Reduce Death and Disease Caused by Smoking (Resolution 403-A-17) (Reference Committee D) REPORT 5 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-18) Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Comprehensive Nicotine Policy to Reduce Death and Disease Caused by Smoking (Resolution 403-A-17) (Reference Committee D) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: This report examines the available evidence regarding harm reduction approaches to reducing tobacco-related mortality, with a focus on electronic cigarettes. Methods: English language reports were selected from searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases from March 2014 to January 2018 using the search terms “tobacco” and “harm reduction,” “nicotine,” “electronic cigarette,” “e-cigarette,” “ENDS,”, “noncombustible tobacco product,” “smokeless tobacco,” and “ tobacco cessation.” Additional articles were identified by manual review of the reference lists of pertinent publications. Recognizing the dynamic nature of the research being published on this topic, the Council deemed it appropriate to summarize the findings and conclusions of the recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) report on the “Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes” related to harm reduction. Articles published subsequent to the National Academies report are cited, as appropriate. Results: Despite reductions in combustible tobacco use, it still represents the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. A growing number of non-combustible tobacco products are thought to be less hazardous than combustibles, but limited evidence is available on their long-term health risks. E-cigarettes are among the most widely used non-combustible tobacco product. Available evidence suggests that those who completely substitute e-cigarettes for combustible tobacco cigarettes have reduced exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes. However, the efficacy of e-cigarettes in reducing health risks has not been adequately evaluated in well-designed epidemiological studies and RCTs. Benefits are not realized in dual users, who in fact may be exposed to additional adverse health effects. Conclusion: Currently available evidence from short-term studies points to electronic cigarettes as containing fewer toxicants than combustible cigarettes, but the use of electronic cigarettes is not harmless. Significant concerns exist that novel, non-combustible products may pose a significant threat to tobacco cessation and prevention efforts. Smokers concerned about their health who see the claims for novel tobacco products may think that a safer cigarette genuinely exists, making them less inclined to try to quit smoking. Likewise, those who never used tobacco products may initiate tobacco use assuming that a safe tobacco product exists. E-cigarette use among youth and young adults is a public health concern. Available data suggest that youth who use e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke combustible cigarettes. AMA policy should recognize that the use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe and can cause addiction. Evidence-based methods for tobacco cessation exist. More needs to be done to promote evidence-based cessation methods to those who are trying to quit smoking. REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH CSAPH Report 5-A-18 Subject: Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Comprehensive Nicotine Policy to Reduce Death and Disease Caused by Smoking (Resolution 403-A-17) Presented by: Robert A. Gilchick, MD, MPH, Chair Referred to: Reference Committee D (Shannon Kilgore, MD, Chair) 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 Resolution 403-A-17, “Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Comprehensive Nicotine Policy to Reduce 4 Death and Disease Caused by Smoking,” introduced by the Resident and Fellow Section and 5 referred by the House of Delegates, asks: 6 7 That our American Medical Association (AMA) advocate for tobacco harm 8 reduction approaches to be added to existing tobacco treatment and control efforts 9 (New HOD Policy); 10 11 That our AMA educate physicians and patients on the myriad health effects of 12 different nicotine products and emphasize the critical role of smoke and combustion 13 in causing disease (Directive to Take Action); 14 15 That our AMA encourage physicians to adopt patient-specific, individualized 16 approaches to smoking cessation, particularly for patients with disease secondary to 17 smoking and for patients who have otherwise failed traditional methods for 18 smoking cessation (New HOD Policy); 19 20 That our AMA continue its focus on research to identify and expand options that 21 may assist patients to transition away from smoking, including nicotine replacement 22 therapies and noncombustible nicotine products (including e-cigarettes) (Directive 23 to Take Action); 24 25 That the AMA reaffirm its position on strong enforcement of US Food and Drug 26 Administration and other agency regulations for the prevention of use of all 27 electronic nicotine delivery systems and tobacco products by anyone under the legal 28 minimum purchase age. This shall include marketing to children, direct use or 29 purchasing by children and indirect diversion to children. Further, that our AMA 30 reaffirm physician education of patients to limit these products for children in any 31 and all capacity. (Reaffirm HOD Policy) © 2018 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Action of the AMA House of Delegates 2018 Annual Meeting: CSAPH Report 5 Recommendations Adopted as Amended, and Remainder of Report Filed. CSAPH Rep. 5-A-18 -- page 2 of 11 1 The Council on Science and Public Health (Council) has issued two previous reports on 2 electronic cigarettes, in 2010 and 2014, which helped establish our AMA’s existing 3 policy around non-combustible tobacco products. 4 5 METHODS 6 7 English language reports were selected from searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and 8 Cochrane Library databases from March 2014 to January 2018 using the search terms “tobacco” 9 and “harm reduction,” “nicotine,” “electronic cigarette,” “e-cigarette,” “ENDS,”, “noncombustible 10 tobacco product,” “smokeless tobacco,” and “ tobacco cessation.” Additional articles were 11 identified by manual review of the reference lists of pertinent publications. Websites managed by 12 federal and state agencies and applicable regulatory and advocacy organizations also were 13 reviewed for relevant information. 14 15 Recognizing the dynamic nature of the research being published on this topic, the Council deemed 16 it appropriate to summarize the findings and conclusions of the recent National Academies of 17 Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) report on the “Public Health 18 Consequences of E-Cigarettes” related to harm reduction. Articles published subsequent to the 19 National Academies report are cited, as appropriate, in this report. 20 21 CURRENT AMA POLICY 22 23 It is the AMA’s position that all tobacco products are harmful to health, and that there is no such 24 thing as a safe cigarette. AMA policy urges Congress to pass legislation to phase in the production 25 of less hazardous and less toxic tobacco, and to authorize the FDA to have broad-based powers to 26 regulate tobacco products. AMA policy also encourages the FDA and other appropriate agencies to 27 conduct or fund research on how tobacco products might be modified to facilitate cessation of use, 28 including the elimination of nicotine and elimination of additives that enhance addictiveness. 29 30 AMA policy encourages physicians to use evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on smoking 31 cessation for the treatment of patients with nicotine dependence and urges physicians to promote 32 the use of FDA-approved smoking cessation tools and resources for their patients and caregivers. 33 Physicians should be prepared to counsel patients about the use of electronic nicotine delivery 34 systems (ENDS), including electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), the potential for nicotine addiction, 35 and the hazards of dual use of e-cigarettes with conventional cigarettes. Our AMA also encourages 36 further clinical and epidemiological research on e-cigarettes as well as research and evaluation on 37 promising smoking cessation protocols that promote abrupt cessation of smoking without reliance 38 on pharmaceutical products. 39 40 HISTORY OF TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION 41 42 Tobacco products in any form are harmful and addictive and can cause disease and death.1 43 Combustible cigarettes cause the majority of tobacco-related disease and are responsible for more 44 than 480,000 deaths in the United States each year, and for millions more living with smoking- 45 related diseases.1,2 When used as intended, combustible cigarettes are addictive by design and are 46 directly responsible for the deaths of at least half of all long-term users.3 47 48 Over the last decade, a new generation of tobacco products has entered the marketplace promising 49 reduced exposure to toxicants in tobacco smoke and claiming to reduce the risk of cancer or other 50 diseases.4 This has resulted in a renewed discussion around harm reduction policies, which aim to 51 reduce, but not eliminate tobacco-related health risks.5 CSAPH Rep. 5-A-18 -- page 3 of 11 1 Public health advocates have been hesitant to support harm reduction approaches for tobacco 2 because of a lack of trust in tobacco companies and their ability or willingness to develop products 3 that will actually reduce risks.6 Several times in the last 50 years, the tobacco industry has 4 developed a new cigarette, which it has
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Gap: a Practitioner's Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug
    Bridging the Gap A Practitioner’s Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts by Alejandra Garcia and Dave Lucas a Author Alejandra Garcia, MSW Center for Court Innovation Dave Lucas, MSW Center for Court Innovation Acknowledgements Bridging the Gap: A Practitioners Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts represents an ambitious reimagining of drug court practices through a harm reduction lens. It was born of two intersecting health emergencies—COVID-19 and the overdose crisis—and a belief that this moment calls for challenging conversations and bold change. Against this backdrop, Bridging the Gap’s first aim is plain: to elevate the safety, dignity, and autonomy of current and future drug court participants. It is also an invitation to practitioners to revisit and reflect upon drug court principles from a new vantage point. There are some who see the core tenets of drug courts and harm reduction as antithetical. As such, disagreement is to be expected. Bridging the Gap aspires to be the beginning of an evolving discussion, not the final word. This publication would not have been possible without the support of Aaron Arnold, Annie Schachar, Karen Otis, Najah Magloire, Matt Watkins, and Julian Adler. We are deeply grateful for your thoughtful advice, careful edits, and encouraging words. A special thanks also to our designers, Samiha Amin Meah and Isaac Gertman. Bridging the Gap is dedicated to anyone working to make the world a safer place for people who use drugs. Thanks to all who approach this document with an open mind. For more information, email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment
    Prepared by: Karissa Hughes April 2018 Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment 1 Philosophy/Overview ● Harm reduction is a client-centered philosophy that engages clients in the process of behavior change even if they are not motivated to pursue abstinence from substance 2 use or refrain from engaging in other risk-taking behaviors as a treatment goal. ​ ● Harm reduction challenges the traditional notion of abstinence as a universal treatment goal for problem substance use. It focuses on reducing the harm of drug use to the user and society (health, social, and economic consequences) for people unable or unwilling to stop using drugs rather than requiring abstinence as a condition of treatment. o Harm reduction strategies are community-based, user-driven, non-judgmental and address systems that isolate and marginalize individuals. o Harm reduction acknowledges that clients often seek out substance abuse treatment services to address risky injection practices and sexual risk-taking behavior, even when they are not interested in changing substance use patterns. ● Many people who use drugs prefer to use informal and non-clinical methods to reduce their drug consumption or reduce the risks associated with their drug use. Thus, harm reduction is a public health philosophy and service delivery model to reduce the risks of drug use while respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals. o Harm reduction policies and practices emphasize the human right for the highest attainable standard for health of people who use drugs. o The approach is based on the belief that it is in both the user's and society's best interest to minimize the adverse consequences of drug use when the person is unable or unwilling to discontinue using.
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Tobacco Harm Reduction
    TALKING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION // WHAT’S HARM REDUCTION? Harm reduction is a range of Do they make sunbathing or pragmatic policies, regulations driving 100% risk-free? and actions. Reducing health risks by providing less harmful forms No – but they do make them of products or substances, less harmful by reducing the or by encouraging less risky risk of illness or injury. behaviours. Sun cream and seat belts are We believe non-combustible nicotine Next Generation Products everyday examples of harm (NGPs) are also an effective form of reduction in action. harm reduction for adult smokers who wish to continue using nicotine – relative to conventional cigarettes. // INTRODUCING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION Science demonstrates smoking a For adult smokers, the greatest risk of cigarette is the most harmful way to disease stems from burning tobacco and consume nicotine. inhaling the smoke. // WHAT IS THR? Tobacco smoke contains over 7000 The undisputed best action adult chemicals – nicotine is one of them. smokers can take to improve their Around 100 are classified by public health is to stop all tobacco and health experts as causes or potential nicotine use entirely, but many are not causes of smoking-related disease. interested or willing to take this step. Numerous public health bodies1 While the science suggests nicotine is believe transitioning to nicotine addictive and not risk-free, it’s neither products that are substantially less carcinogenic nor the primary cause of harmful than inhaled tobacco smoke smoking-related diseases. is their next best option – we agree. Contains 7000+ Contains chemicals, 100 significantly of them harmful fewer and lower or potentially levels of harmful harmful.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Smoking Fact Sheet -- Mtf Updated Version
    TOBACCO USE AND HISPANICS Despite reductions in smoking prevalence achieved since the first Surgeon General’s report on the consequences of smoking in 1964, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.1 Smoking accounts for more than 480,000 deaths in the United States each year, and is a major risk factor for the four leading causes of death: heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke.2 Tobacco Use Among Hispanic Adults According the 2019 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) of adults ages 18 and over, 8.8 percent of Hispanic adults in the United States are current smokers, compared to 15.5 percent of Whites, 14.9 percent of African, Americans, 20.9 percent of American Indian/Alaska Natives, and 7.2 percent of Asian Americans. Overall, 14.0 percent of U.S. adults are current smokers.3 Current smoking prevalence among Hispanics reflects nearly 46 percent decrease from 2005, when the rate was 16.2 percent. Hispanic smokers also tend to consume fewer cigarettes per day than non-Hispanic white smokers and are less likely to be daily smokers than smokers of all other racial/ethnic groups. 4 However, research also shows that—as with other immigrant groups—smoking behavior trends toward that of non-Hispanic whites as Hispanics acculturate to the United States, particularly for female Hispanics.5 While Hispanic smoking rates are low overall, differences exist within Hispanic subpopulations that are masked when surveys group Hispanics as a single population. For example, according to combined NHIS data from 2009-2013, 21.6 percent of Puerto Ricans, 18.2 percent of Cubans, 13 percent of Mexicans, and 9.2 percent of Central or South Americans are current smokers (the overall smoking prevalence for Hispanics during this time period was 13.5%).6 In addition, smoking rates are significantly higher for U.S.-born Hispanics than for foreign- born Hispanics in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research
    Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research Discussion Paper This paper has been prepared by the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) to stimulate dialogue on a particular topic or topics. The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the CNA board of directors. CNA is the national professional voice of registered nurses in Canada. A federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations and colleges representing 143,843 registered nurses, CNA advances the practice and profession of nursing to improve health outcomes and strengthen Canada’s publicly funded, not-for-profit health system. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher. © Canadian Nurses Association 50 Driveway Ottawa, ON K2P 1E2 Tel.: 613-237-2133 or 1-800-361-8404 Fax: 613-237-3520 Website: www.cna-aiic.ca ISBN 978-1-55119-349-6 March 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Illegal Drug Use in Canada .................................................................................................. 7 Health
    [Show full text]
  • Comments to the FDA on Swedish Match
    November 25, 2014 Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061 Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1051, Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications: Applications for 10 Products Submitted by Swedish Match North America, Inc. The undersigned organizations submit these comments in response to the announcement for public comment of a modified risk tobacco product application by Swedish Match North America, Inc. (“Swedish Match” or “the company”) for 10 tobacco products.1 The Swedish Match application presents evidence to FDA that support the proposition that Swedish smokers who switch entirely to snus derive individual health benefits. Swedish Match also provides evidence indicating that the high prevalence of snus usage among men in Sweden has contributed to a lower frequency of tobacco-related disease and mortality than is found in comparable populations with higher cigarette smoking rates. This information suggests that if Swedish Match presents convincing evidence that being permitted to make a modified risk claim would lead smokers that would not otherwise quit smoking to switch completely to one of these Swedish snus products, without leading to significant use among youth, such an application would deserve serious consideration. However, as discussed at length in Part I below, the modified risk application submitted by Swedish Match in its current form must be denied by FDA because it is legally defective under federal law. Although Swedish Match seeks a modified risk order under Section 911 of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (“Tobacco Control Act” or “TCA”), Swedish Match does not propose to make a claim concerning the relative risk for the listed snus products.
    [Show full text]
  • An Endgame for Tobacco? by the Various Proposals
    Editorial Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-050989 on 15 April 2013. Downloaded from then to evaluate what might be achieved An endgame for tobacco? by the various proposals. The latter requires contemplation of each strategy’s Kenneth E Warner potential outcomes, good and undesirable, and the political, legal, ethical, economic, regulatory and social barriers to realising ABSTRACT great successes of many national anti- the strategy’s implementation. Finally, the Since its origins in the 1960s, tobacco control smoking campaigns notwithstanding, the very idea of what constitutes the end of has achieved remarkable success against the pandemic persists. In many developed the endgame needs to be addressed. scourge of tobacco-produced disease and countries with the most robust tobacco Strikingly, to date, there has never been a death. Yet tobacco use, especially cigarette control efforts, the decline in smoking serious discussion within the tobacco smoking, remains the world's leading cause of prevalence has slowed to a trickle. control community about what would preventable premature death and is likely to Evidence-based policies seem incapable of constitute a final victory in tobacco do so for decades to come. Evidence-based substantially hastening the demise of control. Would it be a reduction in 5 policies seem incapable of substantially smoking in these countries. In LMICs, smoking-produced deaths to, say, 10% of hastening the demise of smoking. Slowness in smoking is on the rise. The net effect is current levels?
    [Show full text]
  • 2.3 Harm Reduction – What Is It and Why Is It Useful?
    SENSIBLE CANNABIS EDUCATION A Toolkit for Educating Youth 2.3 HARM REDUCTION – WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT USEFUL? By the end of this section, you will: 1. Understand what harm reduction is 2. Understand practical ways to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use, through both abstinence and the reduction of risky behaviours for youth who are already using cannabis WHAT IS HARM REDUCTION? “Taking a pragmatic approach to this generally understood phenomenon, harm reduction avoids taking a uniform stance that substance use is bad, but instead focuses on getting accurate and unbiased information on the harm of use to potential users, in order to help them make informed decisions about whether to use, and if they choose to use, what precautions to take to minimize their risk.”277 Harm reduction is a philosophy that underpins public health approaches to drugs and drug use, and attempts to reduce the harms of drug use without necessarily reducing drug use itself. Harm reduction acknowledges that there are inherent risks involved with a range of behaviours and that there are ways to reduce those risks. Harm reduction can also be understood in the context of a range of activities other than drug use, as simple as wearing sunscreen or wearing a helmet. REDUCING CANNABIS-RELATED HARMS In order to ensure cannabis education is suitable for all young people, discussing strategies to reduce the harms of cannabis use is of critical importance to supporting responsible and safe use among those youth who may choose to use cannabis. In 2017, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM) released an evidence- based guide on how to improve health and minimize risk for Canadians who use cannabis.278 The following discussion relies on CRISM’s “Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines” (LRCUG), however, it is tailored to youth based on feedback from our content committee and contributors.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Cannabis Harms: a Guide for Ontario Campuses
    Reducing cannabis harms: A guide for Ontario campuses About This Guide This guide explores issues related to cannabis use and provides readers with an overview of health approaches that can reduce the harms and risks associated with it. Any campus professional — whether faculty, academic advisor, counsellor, or student services professional — working with students who use cannabis will be able to refer to the guide for information. The first section will give you a better understanding of cannabis, the Ontario context, the substance use spectrum, as well as substance use disorders and problematic substance use. Section 2 looks at the reasons why students use or don’t use cannabis, the effects of cannabis use on the brain in adolescents and young adults, the link between cannabis use and mental health, the effects of language and stigma, and strategies that campus professionals can use to reduce harms when directly engaging with students. The final section provides concrete steps for developing a campus-wide cannabis-use framework to reduce harm. While the focus of this guide is on cannabis use by students, not campus staff or faculty, this is in no way meant to minimize the need to address the broader scope of mental health, substance use, and well- being on campuses, including among faculty and staff. Each post-secondary institution has unique strengths, circumstances, and needs. For this reason, while the broad areas addressed in this guide are relevant to all institutions, it is not meant to be prescriptive or to serve as legal advice pertaining to cannabis use legislation. As of its writing, the information in this guide is accurate and reflects current research and legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Removed from the California Tobacco Directory by Brand
    Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Removed From The California Tobacco Directory by Brand Brand Manufacturer Date Comments Removed #117 - RYO National Tobacco Company 10/21/2011 5/6/05 Man. Change from RBJ to National Tobacco Company 10/20's (ten-twenty's) M/s Dhanraj International 2/6/2012 2/2/05 Man. Name change from Dhanraj Imports, Inc. 10/20's (ten-twenty's) - RYO M/s Dhanraj International 2/6/2012 1st Choice R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 5/3/2010 Removed 5/2/08; Reinstated 7/11/08 32 Degrees General Tobacco 2/28/2010 4 Aces - RYO Top Tobacco, LP 11/12/2010 A Touch of Clove Sherman 1400 Broadway N.Y.C. Inc. 9/25/2009 AB Rimboche' - RYO Daughters & Ryan, Inc. 6/18/2010 Ace King Maker Marketing 5/21/2020 All American Value Philip Morris, USA 5/5/2006 All Star Liberty Brands, LLC 5/5/2006 Alpine Philip Morris, USA 8/14/2013 Removed 5/4/07; Reinstated 5/8/09 Always Save Liberty Brands, LLC 5/4/2007 American R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 5/6/2005 American Bison Wind River Tobacco Company, LLC 9/22/2015 American Blend Mac Baren Tobacco Company 5/4/2007 American Harvest Sandia Tobacco Manufacturers, Inc. 8/31/2016 American Harvest - RYO Truth & Liberty Manufacturing 8/2/2016 American Liberty Les Tabacs Spokan 5/12/2006 Amphora - RYO Top Tobacco, LP 11/18/2011 Andron's Passion VCT 5/4/2007 Andron's Passion VCT 5/4/2007 Arango Sportsman - RYO Daughters & Ryan, Inc. 6/18/2010 Arbo - RYO VCT 5/4/2007 Ashford Von Eicken Group 5/8/2009 Ashford - RYO Von Eicken Group 12/23/2011 Athey (Old Timer's) Daughters & Ryan, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction / Drug Policy Reform Notes
    Questions and answers on the issue of a regulated market for currently illegal drugs Mark Haden Vancouver Coastal Health Draft: February 2012 For the past decade I have been involved with public presentations which explore the failures of drug prohibition. In these presentations I recommend a public health, human rights model of drug control which brings all currently illegal drugs into a regulatory framework. The following is a list of the most common challenges I experience: Q1: Are you saying that you want to legalize all drugs? A: No: Legalization is often interpreted to mean that the current capitalist free market system would be used to advertise and distribute currently illegal drugs. The goal of the free market is to increase consumption. The concept of a regulated market is instead guided by Public Health which has the goal to reduce the health and social problems associated with drugs. Q2: What do you mean by a regulated market for illegal drugs? A: A regulated market would actively control drugs based on the principles of public health and human rights. Prohibition paradoxically stimulates a illegal market that makes concentrated and sometimes toxic, drugs widely available. The goal is to greatly reduce or shut down the illegal market and regulate drugs in a way that reduces harm to individuals, families and our society as a whole. Seeing drug use as primarily a health and social issue rather than a criminal issue allows us to explore a wide range of tools to manage the problems associated with drugs in a more effective way. Q3: Are you saying “yes” to drugs? A: No – but we are saying “yes” to using more effective ways of controlling drugs and their problems.
    [Show full text]
  • R Street Policy on Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR)
    1728 Connecticut Ave, NW 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 Free Markets. Real Solutions. 202.525.5717 www.rstreet.org [email protected] R Street Policy on Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) is a policy and process by which smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit smoking are enabled and encouraged to switch to a lower risk tobacco/nicotine product to reduce their future risk of potentially fatal cancer, heart and lung disease. All of the illness and death used to justify tobacco control programming in the USA is due to a single tobacco product – the cigarette. Despite lip service to the contrary, American tobacco control policy has the practical effect of reinforcing the cigarette as the primary means of nicotine delivery by protecting cigarettes against competition by far less hazardous non-prescription alternatives. R Street’s founding staff began work on THR when they worked for the Heartland Institute which, in turn, had worked on the issue since the early 1990s. On many issues—such as restrictions on sales of tobacco to minors and the overall dangers of smoking—the two organizations hold the same positions. That being said, R Street and Heartland do not have identical positions on tobacco-related policy or THR. For example, R Street generally supports laws that ban smoking in public places whereas Heartland generally opposes them. THR policy in the United States should be at least partly based on the research now completed showing that the smoke-free products that have been commonly available on the American market since the mid-1980s pose a risk of potentially fatal cancer, heart and lung disease that is less than 2 percent of the risk posed by cigarettes.
    [Show full text]