Suchergebnisse

Background: The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), also known as personal vaporisers (PVs), has increased rapidly in Australia despite legal barriers to the sale, possession and use of nicotine for non-therapeutic purposes. Australia is one of many countries in the process of developing regulations for these devices yet knowledge of consumers' views on e-cigarette regulation is lacking. Methods: An online survey was completed by 705 e-cigarette users recruited online. Participants answered questions about their smoking history, e-cigarette use, as well as their opinions on appropriate regulation of e-cigarettes. Results: Most participants were male (71%), employed (72%), and highly educated (68% held post-school qualification). They tended to be former heavy smokers who had stopped smoking entirely and were currently vaping. Participants generally agreed that the government should enforce minimum labelling and packaging standards and there was majority support for minimum quality standards. Most supported making e-cigarettes available for sale to anyone over the age of 18, but expressed concern about the government's motivation for regulating e-cigarettes. There was strong opposition to restricting sales to a medicines framework (prescription only or pharmacy only sales). Conclusion: E-cigarette users in Australia are in favour of e-cigarettes being regulated as long as those regulations do not impede their ability to obtain devices and refill solutions, which they view as important for them to remain smoke free. These views align with some aspects of appropriate policy designed to maximise the public health potential of e-cigarettes in society, but conflict with some of the proposed regulatory models. Governments should consider how future regulation of e-cigarettes will affect current consumers while helping to maximise the number of smokers who switch to e-cigarettes and minimise the possibility of non-smokers becoming addicted to nicotine.

Background: The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), also known as personal vaporisers (PVs), has increased rapidly in Australia despite legal barriers to the sale, possession and use of nicotine for non-therapeutic purposes. Australia is one of many countries in the process of developing regulations for these devices yet knowledge of consumers' views on e-cigarette regulation is lacking. Methods: An online survey was completed by 705 e-cigarette users recruited online. Participants answered questions about their smoking history, e-cigarette use, as well as their opinions on appropriate regulation of e-cigarettes. Results: Most participants were male (71%), employed (72%), and highly educated (68% held post-school qualification). They tended to be former heavy smokers who had stopped smoking entirely and were currently vaping. Participants generally agreed that the government should enforce minimum labelling and packaging standards and there was majority support for minimum quality standards. Most supported making e-cigarettes available for sale to anyone over the age of 18, but expressed concern about the government's motivation for regulating e-cigarettes. There was strong opposition to restricting sales to a medicines framework (prescription only or pharmacy only sales). Conclusion: E-cigarette users in Australia are in favour of e-cigarettes being regulated as long as those regulations do not impede their ability to obtain devices and refill solutions, which they view as important for them to remain smoke free. These views align with some aspects of appropriate policy designed to maximise the public health potential of e-cigarettes in society, but conflict with some of the proposed regulatory models. Governments should consider how future regulation of e-cigarettes will affect current consumers while helping to maximise the number of smokers who switch to e-cigarettes and minimise the possibility of non-smokers becoming addicted to nicotine.

AIMS: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti-smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. METHODS: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non-government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi-day face-to-face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. RESULTS: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking.

Australia has maintained a highly restrictive regulatory framework for nicotine vaping products (NVPs) and the regulatory approach differs from most other high income countries. This paper employed a thematic analysis to assess policy consultation submissions made to a government inquiry regarding use and marketing of NVPs. We included in the analysis submissions (n = 40) made by Australian institutions that influence or contribute to health policy-making including government agencies, health bodies and charities (n = 23), and public health academics and healthcare professionals (n = 18). Submissions from commercial entities and consumers were excluded. The majority of submissions from representatives of government agencies, health bodies and charities recommended maintaining current restrictions on NVPs. Arguments against widening access to NVPs included the demand for long-term evidence on safety and efficacy of an unusually high standard. There was widespread support for restrictions on sales, advertising and promotion, with most submissions supporting similar controls as for tobacco products. In contrast, the majority of individual submissions from healthcare professionals and public health academics advocated for widening access to NVPs for smokers and emphasized the potential benefits of smokers switching to vaping and the policy incoherence of regulating less harmful nicotine products more strictly than tobacco cigarettes. Progress in resolving the policy debate concerning NVP regulation in Australia will require policy makers, clinicians and the public health community to engage in a meaningful dialogue which gives due consideration to both intended and unintended consequences of proposed policies.