DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Harm Reduction Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Harm Reduction Strategy Tobacco harm reduction Strategy A vision for a tobacco free future. Contents Page Forward 1 Vision and priorities 2 Tobacco control: a local priority 3 The Barking and Dagenham picture 4 Who is Smoking 5 The economic burden of smoking 9 Key strategies that support the Barking and Dagenham plan 10 Tobacco control workshop 2017 11 Local approaches to tobacco control 12 Approaches for Prevention, Protection and Treatment 13 Commissioning Intentions 21 Implementation of the strategy 21 References 23 Foreword Tobacco control remains central to achieving Barking and Dagenham’s purpose and objective - to become a healthy borough. To achieve this objective, we need to remove the burden of ill health as an outcome of smoking. The residents of Barking and Dagenham are not as healthy as they should be. Compared to other parts of the country they are not living as long, with many dying earlier from cancer, heart disease or other long-term conditions. Tackling the health inequality and the underlying causes is part of a collective responsibility to advance the right to life and to increase life expectancy, taking steps to protect all our residents, particularly children. At present the smoking prevalence in Barking and Dagenham is 20.4% which equates to approximately 35,337 smokers. This is high compared to the prevalence of smoking in London and England, and it highlights huge inequalities in the borough with smoking contributing to other major health issues. Each year smoking costs the local economy approximately £52.8 million. To address the health inequalities and reduce the smoking prevalence, we need to reduce the numbers of young people taking up smoking and help existing smokers give up. This current strategy sets out a vision for improving the health and wellbeing of residents and reducing inequalities by implementing a robust and effective Tobacco Control Plan. This will be guided and monitored by the Local Tobacco Control Alliance. Page 1 of 25 Vision & Priorities Through this strategy, we aim to secure a Smokefree future for all We recognise that tackling health inequalities is key to enabling this residents of Barking and Dagenham; where the community is free vision, three specific areas will help streamline this vision from the harms caused by smoking. We will achieve this by reducing the number of people who are affected by tobacco related harm, and to create a borough where people live long and healthy 3 Priorities to secure a Tobacco-free future lives. • A Smokefree future for Barking & Dagenham where our community • Preventing people from becoming Vision is free from tobacco related harms. 1 smokers • Protecting families and communities The strategy aims to: 2 from tobacco related harm • Reduce health inequalities by working in partnership to reduce the smoking prevalence in Barking and Dagenham • Motivating and help existing smokers • Encourage people to see not smoking as being normal 3 to quit • Protect people from the dangers from the second-hand smoke • Target the groups who are most likely to smoke Page 2 of 25 Tobacco harm reduction: a The national plan is to achieve the specific objectives by the end of national & local priority 2022. The plan sets out how the tobacco policy fits with the localism agenda and how, together with local partners, the Government will: Tobacco use remains one of our most significant public health • Reduce the number of 15 year old’s who regularly smoke challenges across England. Although smoking rates have from 8% to 3% or less decreased over recent years, smoking remains the single biggest • Reduce smoking among adults in England from 15.5% to cause of preventable premature death and disability. 12% or less Groups where prevalence are higher or there is more risk of harm • Reduce the inequality gap in smoking prevalence, between from smoking includes: young people, routine and manual workers, those in routine and manual occupations and the general pregnant women, those with mental illness, and single parents on population benefitsi. Locally smoking accounts for approximately half of the • Reduce the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy from 10.5% difference in life expectancy between the lowest and highest to 6% or less income groups. Additionally, smoking Is the largest contributor to poor physical health outcomes for people with mental health problems. National The North East London Sustainable Transformation Plan has a data indicates that smoking prevalence amongst this group is Tobacco Control plan that links with the current local Tobacco notably higher than in the general population with rates as high as Control Strategy. This supports the STP in its intentions to target 32% amongst people with a common mental health disorder, and pregnant women, use channel shift projects as an alternative to higher still in people with more severe conditions. face to face programmes, the embedding of very brief intervention Smoking increases the risk of a wide range of health conditions, practice within all relevant professional groups. including heart disease, stroke, cancer, COPD, and miscarriages amongst adults. Children exposed to second hand smoke have an increased risk of developing asthma, ear infections, behavioural problems and meningitis. In July 2017, a National Tobacco Control Plan was published where the Government set out its aims around tobacco control measures called Towards a smoke-free generation A Tobacco control plan for England. Page 3 of 25 Barking and Dagenham Picture The prevalence of smoking in Barking and Dagenham remains one of the highest in London and further action is required to decrease smoking rates across the borough. We currently have the 5th Highest prevalence of smoking in London, although it has improved in recent years from being the highest in London, there is still much work to be carried out. Smoking in the borough, is a major contributor to the high premature mortality and decreased life expectancy in Barking and Dagenham. Mortality in Barking and Dagenham from smoking in people aged over 35 years is the highest in London and above the national average. In the borough, mortality rates from smoking in people aged over 35 years is 394.9 per 100,000 people, compared to 260.4 in London and 283.5 in Englandii. While the number of people aged less than 75 years who die from cancer is falling in Barking and Dagenham, the mortality rate per is 85.1 per 100,000 from lung cancer in the borough. This is still above the national average. Smoking is also responsible for approximately 17% of deaths from heart disease, and 80% of the deaths from chronic lung diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema. Smoking is also linked to a greater risk of birth defectsiii, male impotence and sperm abnormalities, early menopause, asthma, and babies who are exposed to second hand smoke have an increased risk of cot deathiv. Page 4 of 25 Who is smoking? Smoking prevalence is measured using national surveys or through GP data reported by QOF (Quality and Outcomes Framework) QOF figures for 2015/16 suggest that Barking and Dagenham has the fifth highest prevalence in London, higher than national. There are approximately 20,757 households in Barking and Dagenham with at least one smoker. Most smokers reside within the poorest communities and when net income and smoking expenditure is considered; 18% of households with a smoker fall below the poverty line in Barking and Dagenham. The highest smoking prevalence falls in the areas where levels of deprivation v are also highest . The areas where the smoking prevalence is highest in the borough are Chadwell Heath (North), Mayesbrook, Alibon, Eastbury, Goresbrook and the North of Heath. Men are more likely to smoke than women, and although female smoking prevalence is lower than male prevalence in Barking and Dagenham, the proportion of women that smoke is higher than the average for England or London. Women are more likely to access Stop Smoking services than men in Londonvi. Page 5 of 25 Nationally several groups have been identified as being at a greater It is also noted that young people from the most deprived areas risk of smoking and thus at greater risk of dying from a smoking progress to regular smoking more rapidly than those in the least related illness. Prevalence is higher in these groups, and it is also deprived areas. suggested they find it more difficult to quit, even with support. These include some BME communities such as Bangladeshi men, Local research on the health of young people indicates that youth and people in poorer socio-economic groups such as those who are cigarette smoking prevalence is relatively low; with a current ‘routine and manual’ workers. estimated prevalence of 5.6% in15 year olds. However, the use of With a diverse population across LBBD it is evident that attitudes Shisha (19.3%) and vaping (10.8%) are notably higher. towards smoking differ between ethnic groups and these are In Barking and Dagenham, the prevalence of smoking is highest reflective of national smoking patterns (Figure 5.). amongst young people aged between 20 years and 30 years old. Smoking Age population pyramid 90+ 80-84 70-74 60-64 50-54 40-44 30-34 20-24 18 15-16 Figure 5: Smoking prevalence amongst ethnic groups Under 10 Smoking is a habit developed in early age with two-thirds of Female3,000 Ex-Smoker2,000 Female1,000 Current Smokers0 Male1,000 Ex-Smoker2,000Male Current3,000 Smokers4,000 smokers starting before the age of 18 and 40% of smokers starting regular smoking before the age of 16. Figure 6: Smoking prevalence by age group The long-term trend has seen a decrease in the number of people taking up tobacco smoking across the UKvii. Page 6 of 25 Smoking in Pregnancy Smoking & Teenage Pregnancy Another important group demonstrating concerning rates of All women from Barking and Dagenham who give birth should be smoking are young pregnant women.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Carolina Tobacco Directory
    South Carolina Tobacco Directory Updated: June 14, 2019 Office of the Attorney General South Carolina Tobacco Directory Alan Wilson Company Name Brand Name Original Certification Date Agreement type Status Cheyenne International LLC Decade 8/10/2005 NPM Compliant Aura 6/16/2014 NPM Compliant Cheyenne 8/10/2005 NPM Compliant Commonwealth Brands, Inc. USA Gold 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Crowns 3/16/2011 PM Compliant Rave 7/15/2009 PM Compliant Rave (RYO) 7/15/2009 PM Compliant Montclair 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Fortuna 9/15/2008 PM Compliant Sonoma 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Compania Tabacalera Internacional, S.A. Director 12/27/2017 NPM Compliant Dosal Tobacco Corporation 305 8/9/2010 NPM Compliant DTC 8/9/2010 NPM Compliant Firebird Manufacturing Cherokee 8/4/2010 NPM Compliant Palmetto 8/4/2010 NPM Compliant ITG Brands LLC Kool 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Winston 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Salem 8/12/2005 PM Compliant Maverick 8/11/2005 PM Compliant Japan Tobacco International U.S.A., Inc. Wave 8/10/2005 PM Compliant LD by L. Ducat 5/6/2016 PM Compliant Export A 8/10/2005 PM Compliant Kretek International Taj Mahal Bidis 10/18/2005 PM Compliant KT&G Corporation page: 0 of 1 Carnival 2/15/2012 NPM Compliant THIS 2/15/2018 NPM Compliant Timeless Time 2/15/2012 NPM Compliant Liggett Group Inc. Pyramid 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Liggett Select 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Eve 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Bronson 10/4/2011 PM Compliant Grand Prix 8/9/2005 PM Compliant Tourney 9/8/2005 PM Compliant Tourney Slims 8/9/2005 PM Compliant NASCO Products, LLC SF 1/5/2015 PM Compliant Native Trading Associates Mohawk 8/6/2013 NPM Compliant Native 6/14/2006 NPM Compliant Native (RYO) 12/10/2007 NPM Compliant Ohserase Manufacturing Signal 8/1/2011 NPM Compliant Peter Stokkebye Tobaksfabrik A/S Turkish Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Danish Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant London Export (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Amsterdam Shag (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Stockholm Blend (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Norwegian Shag (RYO) 8/15/2013 PM Compliant Philip Morris USA Inc.
    [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]
  • Pyramid Cigarettes
    ** Pyramid Cigarettes ** Pyramid Red Box 10 Carton Pyramid Blue Box 10 Carton Pyramid Menthol Gold Box 10 Carton Pyramid Menthol Silver Box 10 Carton Pyramid Orange Box 10 Carton Pyramid Red Box 100 10 Carton Pyramid Blue Box 100 10 Carton Pyramid Menthol Gold Box 100 10 Carton Pyramid Menthol Silver Box 100 10 Carton Pyramid Orange Box 100 10 Carton Pyramid Non Filter Box 10 Carton ** E Cigarettes ** Logic Disposable E Cigarette Menthol Gold 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Menthol High 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Menthol Platinum 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Menthol Sterling 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Menthol Zero 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Gold 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette High 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Sterling 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Platinum 24 Box Logic Disposable E Cigarette Zero 24 Box ** Premium Cigars ** Acid Krush Classic Blue 5-10pk Tin Acid Krush Classic Mad Morado 5-10pk Tin Acid Krush Classic Gold 5-10pk Tin Acid Krush Classic Red 5-10pk Tin Acid Kuba Kuba 24 Box Acid Blondie 40 Box Acid C-Note 20 Box Acid Kuba Maduro 24 Box Acid 1400cc 18 Box Acid Blondie Belicoso 24 Box Acid Kuba Deluxe 10 Box Acid Cold Infusion 24 Box Ambrosia Clove Tiki 10 Box Acid Larry 10-3pk Pack Acid Deep Dish 24 Box Acid Wafe 28 Box Acid Atom Maduro 24 Box Acid Nasty 24 Box Acid Roam 10 Box Antano Dark Corojo Azarosa 20 Box Antano Dark Corojo El Martillo 20 Box Antano Dark Corojo Pesadilla 20 Box Antano Dark Corojo Poderoso 20 Box Natural Dirt 24 Box Acid Liquid 24 Box Acid Blondie
    [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]
  • Directory of Fire Safe Certified Cigarette Brand Styles Updated 11/20/09
    Directory of Fire Safe Certified Cigarette Brand Styles Updated 11/20/09 Beginning August 1, 2008, only the cigarette brands and styles listed below are allowed to be imported, stamped and/or sold in the State of Alaska. Per AS 18.74, these brands must be marked as fire safe on the packaging. The brand styles listed below have been certified as fire safe by the State Fire Marshall, bear the "FSC" marking. There is an exception to these requirements. The new fire safe law allows for the sale of cigarettes that are not fire safe and do not have the "FSC" marking as long as they were stamped and in the State of Alaska before August 1, 2008 and found on the "Directory of MSA Compliant Cigarette & RYO Brands." Filter/ Non- Brand Style Length Circ. Filter Pkg. Descr. Manufacturer 1839 Full Flavor 82.7 24.60 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Full Flavor 97 24.60 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Full Flavor 83 24.60 Non-Filter Soft Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Light 83 24.40 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Light 97 24.50 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Menthol 97 24.50 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Menthol 83 24.60 Filter Hard Pack U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers, Inc. 1839 Menthol Light 83 24.50 Filter Hard Pack U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Menthol Content in U.S. Marketed Cigarettes
    HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author Nicotine Manuscript Author Tob Res. Author Manuscript Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 July 01. Published in final edited form as: Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 July ; 18(7): 1575–1580. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntv162. Menthol Content in U.S. Marketed Cigarettes Jiu Ai, Ph.D.1, Kenneth M. Taylor, Ph.D.1, Joseph G. Lisko, M.S.2, Hang Tran, M.S.2, Clifford H. Watson, Ph.D.2, and Matthew R. Holman, Ph.D.1 1Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20993 2Tobacco Products Laboratory, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA Abstract Introduction—In 2011 menthol cigarettes accounted for 32 percent of the market in the United States, but there are few literature reports that provide measured menthol data for commercial cigarettes. To assess current menthol application levels in the U.S. cigarette market, menthol levels in cigarettes labeled or not labeled to contain menthol was determined for a variety of contemporary domestic cigarette products. Method—We measured the menthol content of 45whole cigarettes using a validated gas chromatography/mass spectrometry method (GC/MS). Results—In 23 cigarette brands labeled as menthol products, the menthol levels of the whole cigarette ranged from 2.9 to 19.6 mg/cigarette, with three products having higher levels of menthol relative to the other menthol products. The menthol levels for 22 cigarette products not labeled to contain menthol ranged from 0.002 to 0.07 mg/cigarette.
    [Show full text]
  • A FOCUS on HARM REDUCTION Why It
    A FOCUS ON HARM REDUCTION Why it mattersSUSTAINABILITY FOCUS REPORT 2013: How we address the public health impact of our products A nicotine molecule In this report Focusing on the facts 2 At the core of our business strategy 3 Innovative nicotine products 4 ‘Safer’ tobacco products: the research 7 So, what’s next? 9 Our Chief Executive on why it matters b British American Tobacco Harm reduction: sustainability focus report 2013 Because it’s crucial to the future of our business. Surely tobacco harm reduction should just be about What areas are you concentrating on? getting people to quit smoking? Our approach to harm reduction has two distinct areas: The only way to be certain of avoiding the serious health risks nicotine-based alternatives and reduced-risk tobacco products. associated with smoking is not to smoke at all. However, despite In the nicotine category, we have established a stand-alone increasingly strict tobacco control policies, many people continue business solely dedicated to this area. This brings together our to smoke. And the World Health Organisation estimates that existing Nicoventures business with CN Creative, the e-cigarette 1 many more will do so in the future . So realistically the ‘quit or die’ company we acquired at the end of last year, into a single business approach to reducing the public health impact of smoking simply which will continue to operate under the Nicoventures name. isn’t enough. This business has already launched its first e-cigarette in the UK, For adults that choose to continue to smoke, tobacco harm which will be expanded into further markets in the coming year.
    [Show full text]
  • List of References Submitted During the Public Consultation
    Bibliography of the Sources Examined for the Opinion on the Addictiveness and Attractiveness of Tobacco Additives ACSCAN (American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network), American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Legacy Foundation. Submission to U.S. Food and Drug Administration re Docket No. FDA- 2010-N-0207, 2010; July 26. Available from: URL: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/regulatory_docs/Comments%20to%20 FDA%20RFI%20re%20youth%20and%20minority%20marketing%207-26-10.pdf Adam T, McAughey J, McGrath C, Mocker C, Zimmermann R. Simultaneous on-line size and chemical analysis of gas phase and particulate phase of cigarette mainstream smoke. Anal Bioanal Chem 2009; 394:1193-203. Adam T, Mitschke S, Streibel T, Baker RR, Zimmermann R. Puff-by-puff resolved characterisation of cigarette mainstream smoke by single photon ionisation (SPI)- time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS): comparison of the 2R4F research cigarette and pure Burley, Virginia, Oriental and Maryland tobacco cigarettes. Anal Chim Acta. 2006 Jul 21;572(2):219-29. Epub 2006; May 22. Ahijevych K, Garrett BE. Menthol pharmacology and its potential impact on cigarette smoking behaviour. Nicotine Tob Res 2004; 6 Suppl 1:S17-28. Ahijevych K, Gillespie J, Demirci M, Jagadeesh J. Menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes and smoke exposure in black and white women. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1996; 53:355-60. Ahijevych K, Parsley LA. Smoke constituent exposure and stage of change in black and white women cigarette smokers. Addict Behav 1999; 24:115-20. Akehurst BC Tobacco. Second edition. Tropical Agriculture Series. Longman. London and New York. 1981; Pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs: 2014
    Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs 2014 Suggested Citation Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs — 2014. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Ordering Information To download or order copies of this report, go to www.cdc.gov/tobacco or to order single copies, call toll-free 1 (800) CDC-INFO 1 (800) 232-4636 Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs 2014 The following individuals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health (OSH), were primary contributors to the preparation of this publication: Brian King, PhD, MPH Terry Pechacek, PhD Peter Mariolis, PhD The following OSH staff also contributed to the preparation of this publication: Judy Ahearn, BS; Stephen Babb, MPH; Diane Beistle, BA; Rebecca Bunnell, PhD; Ralph Caraballo, PhD; Shanta Dube, PhD, MPH; Monica Eischen, BS; Jami Fraze, PhD; Erika Fulmer, MHA; Bridgette Garrett, PhD, MS; Karen Gutierrez, BA; Carissa Holmes, MPH; David Homa, PhD, MPH; Brandon Kenemer, MPH; Rene Lavinghouze, MA; Allison MacNeil, MPH; Ann Malarcher, PhD, MSPH; Kristy Marynak, MPP; Timothy A. McAfee, MD, MPH; Sarah O’Leary, MPH, MA; Gabbi Promoff, MA; Robert Rodes, MS, MBA, MEd; Patti Seikus, MPH; Shawna Shields, MPH; Kisha Smith, MPH; Karla S. Sneegas, MPH; Xin Xu, PhD; and Lei Zhang, PhD. OSH also gratefully acknowledges the contributions provided by the following individuals: David Abrams, PhD, Legacy; Rob Adsit, MEd, University of Wisconsin; Linda Bailey, MHS, JD, North American Quitline Consortium; Cathy Callaway, BS, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; Jennifer Cantrell, DrPH, MPA, Legacy; Thomas Carr, BA, American Lung Association; Julia Cartwright, BA, Legacy; Frank Chaloupka, PhD, University of Illinois–Chicago; K.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Control
    TOBACCO CONTROL Playbook World Health Organization ABSTRACT Tobacco control is difficult and complex and obstructed by the tactics of the tobacco industry and its allies to oppose effective tobacco control measures. This document was developed by the WHO Regional Office for Europe by collecting numerous evidence-based arguments from different thematic areas, reflecting the challenges that tobacco control leaders have faced while implementing various articles of the WHO FCTC and highlighting arguments they have developed in order to counter and succeed against the tobacco industry. KEY WORDS TOBACCO CONTROL WHO FCTC HEALTH EFFECTS TOBACCO INDUSTRY ARGUMENTS © World Health Organization 2019 All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Tobacco Harm Reduction
    Tobacco Harm Reduction Brad Rodu Professor, Department of Medicine James Graham Brown Cancer Center University of Louisville The Smoking Status Quo: Unacceptable • The American Anti-Smoking Campaign is 45 Years Old • According to the CDC: 45 million smokers in the U.S. 443,000 deaths every year in the U.S. 5,800 in Oklahoma Lung Cancer (ICD 161-162) Mortality in Men and Women Age 35+, Oklahoma and the US, 1979-2009 250 OK Men 200 150 US Men OK Women 100 Deaths per 100,000 py 100,000 Deathsper US Women 50 0 Year If the Status Quo Continues In the next 20 years: • 8 million Americans will die from smoking All are adults over 35 years of age None of them are now children The Failed Anti-Smoking Campaign • The Campaign’s Only Message: Quit Nicotine and Tobacco, or Die • The Campaign’s Only Quitting Tactics: Ineffective Behavioral Therapy Ineffective Use of Nicotine Rodu and Cole. Technology 6: 17-21, 1999. Rodu and Cole. International J Cancer 97: 804-806, 2002. The Anti-Smoking Campaign- Behavioral Therapy • NCI Manual for Physicians- Counsel Patients to: – ”Keep your hands busy- doodle, knit, type a letter” – ”Cut a drinking straw into cigarette-sized pieces and inhale air” – ”Keep a daydream ready to go” Source: How to help your patients stop smoking. NIH Pub. No. 93-3064, 1993 The Anti-Smoking Campaign- Faulted Use of Nicotine • Temporary – 6 to 12 weeks • Expensive – per unit and per box • Very Low Dose – unsatisfying for smokers • 7% Success* – ”Efficacious”, ”Modest” *Hughes et al. Meta-analysis in Tobacco Control, 2003.
    [Show full text]