Here are four links to subjects that are not what they seem. They are AGENDAS in disguise.
Shall I unmask them? They are ALL about CONTROL.
Hold the line against tobaccoThis one is against - what would you guess? Yes! ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES!
This last link is so good, I thought I would give myself the pleasure of posting the whole thing! It's a little attempt at sharing the idea that some vaper might like to follow
BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee on Twitter
@fgodlee and the
BMJ @bmj_latest or email her - email supplied below!
Hold the line against tobacco
BMJ
2014;
348
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7686
(Published 2 January 2014)
Cite this as:
BMJ
2014;348:f7686
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ fgodlee@bmj.com
How
should we view e-cigarettes? As a safe and effective way to quit
tobacco? (There is some evidence in support of these claims for harm
minimisation.) Or as a grave risk to public health because of their
potential to renormalise and glamourise smoking, especially among young
people? New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg has made his own view clear.
In one of his final acts before leaving office, he has banned the
smoking of e-cigarettes in indoor public places (doi:
10.1136/bmj.f7677).
Bloomberg’s
track record on public health has been extraordinary. Although his
critics charge him with failing to tackle New York’s rampant social
inequalities, there is no doubt he has provided global leadership in
public health. His administration’s moves against tobacco, trans fats,
and sugary drinks, and for promoting physical activity and calorie
counts on menus, are credited with improving life expectancy among New
Yorkers—now two years higher than the US national average. But just as
importantly, his clarity and courage has helped administrations around
the world take a firmer line against industries and behaviours that harm
the public’s health.
Will others copy his decision on
e-cigarettes? Scotland may be one place to watch. As Katherine E Smith
and Jeff Collin say in their editorial (doi:
10.1136/bmj.f7595),
Scotland has good reason to claim public health leadership within the
United Kingdom. As well as being the first place in Britain to ban
smoking in public places, the Scottish government endorsed standardised
cigarette packaging and held firm on a minimum price for alcohol, in
stark contrast to the UK government’s equivocations.
It
aims to make Scotland “smoke free” by 2034. Success in this may depend
on taking a firm stance on e-cigarettes. While e-cigarettes will help
some smokers to quit, they also threaten to blur battle lines and
reverse hard won gains in tobacco control. In their Analysis article,
Marisa de Andrade and colleagues warn that commercial exploitation of
e-cigarettes is undermining any potential public health benefits (doi:
10.1136/bmj.f7473).
The industry claims that e-cigarettes are all about harm minimisation.
But it is developing and promoting products for first time users and
encouraging long term use among existing smokers. E-cigarettes also
legitimise the industry, buying tobacco companies a seat as “partners”
at the health policy table.
With figures from the World
Health Organization showing an increase in the number of young smokers,
now is the time to tighten tobacco controls. The authors conclude that
e-cigarettes should be regulated not as medicines but as tobacco
products, and that the tobacco industry should be excluded from the
policy making arena. And, I would add, from the funding of medical
research, since this is another way in which industry seeks to
legitimise itself. The
BMJ and its sister journals recently announced that we would no longer publish research funded by the tobacco industry (doi:
10.1136/bmj.f5193).
Unsurprisingly, tobacco company researchers are unhappy with this
decision. In a letter this week, Christopher Procter calls the new
policy “antiscience” and invites the
BMJ to reconsider its decision (doi:
10.1136/bmj.f7489). We have no such plans.
