Cigarette filter edit

The 1950s gave birth to numerous scientific studies that proved the link between cigarettes and cancer (see Wynder and Graham, 1950 Doll and Hill, 1952, 1954 Hammond and Horn, 1958). 6 In response to these studies and their perceived threat to the tobacco industry s future profitability, tobacco companies experimented with new modifications to the cigarette design. 6 By altering the cigarette design, tobacco companies hoped to create a “safer” cigarette that would better appeal to their increasingly health conscious consumers. 7 The addition of filters to cigarettes was one of the industry s first design modifications, and filters would become essential to the later development of light and low tar products. 8 Claiming that filtered cigarettes literally filtered out much of the harmful tar and carcinogenic particles found in regular cigarettes, tobacco companies promoted relative product safety in order to convince smokers to continue smoking. 7 Because filtered cigarettes were depicted as relatively safer and less harmful, smokers who were concerned about tobacco s negative health impacts were led to believe that by switching to filtered cigarettes, they would minimize smoking’s detrimental impact on their health as a result, millions of addicted smokers switched to filtered cigarettes instead of quitting altogether. 7 By 1960, filtered cigarettes had become the leading tobacco product. 8

Creation of the “light” cigarette edit

In addition to heavily promoting the filtered cigarette as the answer to smokers health concerns, the industry also poured resources into developing a cigarette that would produce lower machine measured tar and nicotine yields when tested by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 6 This endeavor resulted in the introduction and heavy promotion of light cigarettes during the 1970s. 8 The newly designed light cigarette employed a special filter perforated with small holes these perforated filters allegedly offset the concentration of inhaled harmful smoke with clean air. Most important to the tobacco industry, however, was that light cigarettes produced lower tar and nicotine levels when tested with the FTC s smoking machines. 6

Market share edit

By 1997, the advertising of light cigarettes constituted fifty percent of the industry s advertising spending. 8 Through heavy marketing, the tobacco industry succeeded in misleading its consumer base to believe that light products were safer than regular brands, and thus, that these products were the rational choice for smokers who cared about their health. 7 9 As a result of these implicit and widespread health claims, the popularity of light and low tar cigarettes grew considerably. In fact, the market share of light cigarettes grew from a mere 2.0 percent in 1967 to 83.5 percent of the tobacco market in 2005. 8 Due to recent federal regulations requiring that the tobacco industry s internal documents be made publicly available online, there is no doubt about the industry s underlying motives behind the development of light products. 10 These documents explicitly state that the industry sought to both maintain and expand its consumer base by manipulating smokers health concerns to the industry s advantage. 10

Health claims edit ISO machine smoking method edit

Packages of light, mild, and low tar cigarettes are often labeled as being lower tar and nicotine and also list tar and nicotine levels that are lower than those found on the packages of regular cigarettes. The lower tar and nicotine numbers found on cigarette packages represent the levels produced when machine smoked by a smoking machine test method. 3 Developed by the FTC in 1967, the smoking machine test method was created to determine the yield of a cigarette by smoking it in a standardized fashion by machine this test method is also known as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) machine smoking method. 11 While the FTC has always recognized that the smoking machine did not replicate human smoking and that no two human smokers smoke in the same way, the FTC did not initially recognize the tobacco industry s ability to design cigarettes that yielded low levels of tar and nicotine when machine smoked, but yielded much higher levels when smoked by a human being. 12

Cigarette modifications and “compensatory” smoking edit

Light cigarettes essentially fool smoking machines through several techniques. A light cigarette s filter perforated by tiny holes, for instance, is uncovered when smoked by machine, and consequently, the cigarette smoke is heavily diluted with air and causes the machines to report falsely low levels of nicotine and tar. 3 When smoked by human smokers, in contrast, this filter is usually covered by smokers lips and fingers. 3 Consequently, the tiny filter holes are covered, and the light cigarette actually becomes equivalent to a regular cigarette. 3 Some tobacco manufacturers also increased the length of the paper wrap which covers the cigarette filter this modification serves to decrease the number of puffs available to the machine test and limits the amount of tobacco that is machine smoked. 3 In reality, however, the tobacco found under this paper wrap which is not smoked by machine is still available to and smoked by the human smoker. 3

The human act of “compensating” is perhaps the most important method by which light cigarettes cheat the ISO machine smoking method. Unlike machines, human smokers are often heavily addicted to the nicotine in cigarettes, and consequently, smokers alter their smoking behaviors in order to consume the amount of nicotine required to satisfy their cravings. Compensatory behavior especially occurs if a smoker switches from regular cigarettes to light cigarettes. 3 12 4 13 Numerous scientific studies reveal that the smoker actually compensates for the lower amount of nicotine by actively changing his or her smoking habits and even increasing the number of cigarettes that are smoked per day. 3 12 4 13 Smokers adjust their smoking techniques by smoking their cigarettes more intensively. 4 More intensive smoking is achieved by taking larger, more rapid, and more frequent puffs, by inhaling more deeply, by smoking more cigarettes per day, and/or by reflexively blocking the cigarette s filter. 3 4 14 Due to these compensatory smoking behaviors, smokers inhale significantly more nicotine and tar levels than what are measured by the ISO machine smoking method. 10 3 4 13

Scientific conclusions edit

With these factors in mind, it is unsurprising that switching from regular to light or low tar cigarettes does not reduce the health risks of smoking or lower the smoker s exposure to the nicotine, tar, and carcinogens present in cigarette smoke. 3 4 15 According to the 2004 Surgeon General s report, Smoking cigarettes with lower machine measured yields of tar and nicotine provides no clear benefit to health. 16 The tobacco industry s own internal documents, too, reveal that cigarette manufacturers are more than aware of the difference between machine measured levels of nicotine and tar, and those actually inhaled by smokers. 3 The industry is equally aware of the compensatory behaviors that smokers engage in when smoking light cigarettes. 3 Nonetheless, these health truths are not widely publicized or understood by the average smoking population, and even today, the tobacco industry’s implicit health claims lead countless smokers to switch from regular cigarettes to light cigarettes, rather than quitting altogether.

Research into low nicotine cigarettes and effects on smoking frequency edit

A recent small scale study led by nicotine researcher Neal Benowitz found that smokers who were switched to cigarettes with tobacco that contained progressively less nicotine did not compensate by smoking more cigarettes, although a significant minority of the smokers in the research withdrew from the study citing a dislike of the taste of the reduced nicotine cigarettes. These results differ greatly from those obtained in earlier studies by Benowitz and others, where fil
ter based nicotine reduction was found to result in compensatory smoking behaviours. According to a USCF article on the study, Benowitz wanted to simulate a societal scenario in which the nicotine content of cigarettes would be progressively regulated downward.

According to a more recent Washington Post article, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has backed low nicotine cigarette research as it weighs its new regulatory power. That new power includes the power to regulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes and was given to the FDA by the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, described below.

2009 anti smoking legislation edit

In June 2009, the United States Senate passed anti smoking legislation described by USA Today as the most sweeping tobacco control measure ever passed by Congress, and this legislation directly impacts the marketing and consumption of light tobacco products. 2 In addition to giving the FDA regulatory power over all tobacco products, the bill severely restricts the tobacco industry s previous marketing strategies, many of which relied on making implicit health claims about their products. 2 17 According to the bill, cigarette manufacturers are also forbidden from using product descriptors such as light, low tar, and mild. 17

Critics of the legislation question whether it will have a significant impact on today s pervasive tobacco market. 7 For one, the bill does not specify acceptable words for differentiating light cigarettes from other cigarettes. 2 Cigarette manufacturers quickly responded to this loophole by strategically color coding their products so that Camel Lights, for example, is now Camel Blue. Nik Modi, a tobacco industry analyst, concedes that prohibiting terms like “light” and “low tar” will hardly affect the tobacco market because smokers have already become acclimated to color coding. 18

Notes edit

Legal status of electronic cigarettes – wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cigarettes online Blog Archive Stanford research into the impact of tobacco advertising

On 19 December 2012 the European Commission adopted its proposal to revise the European Union Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC which included proposals to introduce restrictions on the use and sales of e cigarettes. 5 6 7 On 8 October 2013 the European Parliament in Strasbourg voted down the Commission’s proposal to introduce medical regulation for electronic cigarettes, but proposed that cross border marketing of e cigarettes be regulated similarly to tobacco products, meaning that sales of e cigarettes to under 18s would be prohibited in the European Union, along with most cross border advertising. Warning labels also would be required. The Parliament and Member States are involved in trilogue discussions to reach a common conclusion. 8 In February 2014, the European Parliament approved new regulations for tobacco products, including e cigarettes. The new regulations forbid advertising of e cigarettes, set limits on maximum concentrations of nicotine in liquids, limit maximum volumes of liquid that can be sold, require child proof and tamper proof packaging of liquid, set requirements on purity of ingredients, require that the devices deliver consistent doses of vapor, require disclose of ingredients and nicotine content, and empower regulators to act if the regulations are violated. 9 10 In October 2014 e cigarette manufacturer Totally Wicked won the right to challenge the directive at the Court of Justice of the EU. 11 The hearing is expected to take place in 2015. 11

  • In Austria nicotine containing cartridges are classified as medicinal products and e cigarettes for nicotine inhalation as medical devices. 12
  • In Bulgaria, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal, as well as the sale of cartridges and liquids with nicotine. There are no specific regulations from EU. 13
  • In the Czech Republic, the use, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes are legal. 14
  • In Denmark, the Danish Medicines Agency classifies electronic cigarettes containing nicotine as medicinal products. Thus, authorization is required before the product may be marketed and sold, and no such authorization has currently been given. The agency has clarified, however, that electronic cigarettes that do not administer nicotine to the user, and are not otherwise used for the prevention or treatment of disease, are not considered medicinal devices. 15
  • In Estonia, the Estonian State Agency of Medicines had previously banned e cigarettes, but the ban was overturned in court on 7 March 2013. 16 Currently e liquids containing more than 0.7 mg/ml of nicotine are still considered medicine and as such cannot be legally purchased within the country due to no manufacturer being licensed properly. Following the outcome of EU tobacco directive in October 2013, the legislation is moving towards a more relaxed stance on the issue. As stated by the Estonian minister of social affairs Taavi R ivas (in charge of tobacco regulation), e cigarettes will receive an advertisement ban and will clearly be banned for minors but will be available for adults before the end of 2013.
  • In Finland, the National Supervisory Authority of Welfare and Health (Valvira) declared that the new tobacco marketing ban (effective 1 January 2012) will also cover electronic cigarettes, 17 resulting in that Finnish stores or webstores can’t advertise e cigarettes because they might look like regular cigarettes. In theory, e cigarettes with nicotine free cartridges may still be sold, as long as their images and prices are not visible. Ordering from abroad remains allowed. Sale of nicotine cartridges is currently prohibited, as nicotine is considered a prescription drug requiring an authorization that such cartridges do not yet have. However, the Finnish authorities have decided that nicotine cartridges containing less than 10 mg nicotine, and e liquid containing less than 0,42 g nicotine per bottle, may be legally brought in from other countries for private use. If the nicotine content is higher, a prescription from a Finnish physician is required. From a country within the European Economic Area a maximum of one year’s supply may be brought in for private use when returning to Finland, while three months’ supply may be brought in from outside the EEA. Mail order deliveries from EEA countries, for a maximum of three months’ supply, are also allowed. 18 19
  • In Germany, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal. 20
  • In Hungary, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal. The sale of cartridges and liquids with nicotine is illegal.
  • In Ireland, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal. 14
  • In Italy, by a Health Ministry decree (G.U. Serie Generale, n. 248, 23 October 2012) electronic cigarettes containing nicotine cannot be sold to individuals under 16 years of age. 21
  • In Latvia, e cigarettes are legal. 22
  • In Lithuania, e cigarettes are legal. 22
  • In the Netherlands, use and sale of electronic cigarettes is allowed, advertising is restricted. 14
  • In Norway the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal, 14 but nicotine cartridges can only be imported from other EEA member states (e.g. the UK) for private use. 23
  • In Poland, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal. 14
  • In Portugal, with nicotine it is restricted, without nicotine it is not regulated. 14
  • In Romania, the sale and use of electronic cigarettes are legal, the World Health Organization proposed that electronic cigarettes mustn’t be sold to teenagers, though the idea was not estabilshed as a law electronic cigarette merchants are trying to respect it. 24
  • In Switzerland, the sale of nicotine free electronic cigarettes is legal. The use and importation of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine is legal, but they cannot be sold within the country. 25 As of December 2011, the tobacco tax does not apply to e cigarettes and respective liquids containing nicotine. 26
  • In Turkey electronic cigarettes are sold openly 27
  • In the United Kingdom, the use, sale and advertising of electronic cigarettes are legal and electronic cigarettes are not covered by smoking bans. 28 In 2014 the government announced legislation would be brought forward to outlaw the purchase of electronic cigarettes by people under the age of 18. 28
  • Wales could become the first part of the United Kingdom to ban electronic cigarettes in enclosed public spaces. 29

United States edit Federal regulation edit

The FDA classified electronic cigarettes as drug delivery devices and subject to regulation under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) before importation and sale in the United States. The classification was challenged in court, and overruled in January 2010 by Federal District Court Judge Richard J. Leon, citing that “the devices should be regulated as tobacco products rather than drug or medical products.” 30 31

In March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the injunction pending an appeal, during which the FDA argued the right to regulate electronic cigarettes based on their previous ability to regulate nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine gum or patches. Further, the agency argued that tobacco legislation enacted the previous year “expressly excludes from the definition of ‘tobacco product’ any article that is a drug, device or combination product under the FDCA, and provides that such articles shall be subject to regulation under the pre existing FDCA provisions.” 32 On 7 December 2010, the appeals court ruled against the FDA in a 3 0 unanimous decision, ruling the FDA can only regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products, and thus cannot block their import. 33 The judges ruled that such devices would only be subject to drug legislation if they are marketed for therapeutic use E cigarette manufacturers had successfully proven that their products were targeted at smokers and not at those seeking to quit. The District Columbia Circuit appeals court, on 24 Janua
ry 2011, declined to review the decision en banc, blocking the products from FDA regulation as medical devices. 34

In April 2014, the FDA proposed new regulations for tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes. The regulations require disclosure of ingredients used in e cigarette liquids, proof of safety of those ingredients, and regulation of the devices used to vaporize and deliver the liquid. 35 36 37 38

State regulation edit

With an absence of federal regulations, many states and cities have adopted their own e cigarette regulations, most commonly to prohibit sales to minors, including Maryland, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, and Colorado. Other states are considering similar legislation. 39

  • In New Hampshire, the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors is illegal as of July 2010. 40
  • Arizona is planning to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. 41
  • In Maryland, sales to minors are banned. 42
  • New York State banned e cigarette sales to minors starting on 1 January 2013. 43
  • In Pennsylvania, SB 1055 was introduced by Sen. Tim Solobay in 2013 and would ban sales to minors. 44 That same year physician members of the Pennsylvania Medical Society called upon the state legislature to pass electronic cigarette laws that have safeguards equivalent to existing tobacco laws. 45
  • A Kansas law that went into effect July 1, 2012 banned possession of e cigarettes by anyone under 18. 46
  • As of October 1, 2014 Connecticut bans the sale and possession to any person under the age of 18
  • As of August 1, 2014, Hillsboro, Oregon bans the use of e cigarettes in public parks. 47
  • As of July 3, 2014, all states except Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin & Wyoming have regulations against e cigarette usage indoors to some degree.

A review of regulations in 40 U.S. states found that how a law defines e cigarettes is critical, with some definitions allowing e cigarettes to avoid smoke free laws, taxation, and restrictions on sales and marketing. 48

New York City signed a ban into law on December 30, 2013. 49 50

States edit Alabama edit

  • Localities in Alabama with e cigarette bans that include all bars and restaurants
    • Daphne, banned in all publicly owned city facilities does not including private workplaces, nor bars and restaurants 51
    • Foley, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including restaurants but exempting bars 52
    • Opelika, banned in all enclosed workplaces, including restaurants but exempting bars 53

California edit

  • Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would regulate the sale of electronic cigarettes within the state on grounds that “if adults want to purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they should be able to do so.” 54 Senate Bill 648(Authored by Senator Ellen Corbett), proposed a bill that would classify eCigarettes as tobacco products, thus banning their use wherever smoking was banned. In August 2013, SB648 was shelved for the session, just hours before its hearing in the State Assembly. It has not been determined if Sen Corbett will revise the bill and re introduce it in 2014. 55

Colorado edit

  • Localities in Colorado with e cigarette bans that include all bars and restaurants (2 total)
    • Fort Collins, July 15, 2014 banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants also includes hotel/motel smoking rooms 56
    • Lakewood, July 14, 2014 banned in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants 57

Kansas edit

  • No statewide e cigarette ban. Instead, e cigarette usage is generally prohibited on all Department of Corrections property and grounds, by both employees and inmates, with no exceptions whatsoever. All other indoor places, including bars, restaurants, and gambling facilities are entirely exempt from the state e cigarette regulations. Municipalities may enact laws restricting their usage in public spaces more stringently than the state, but so far Overland Park is the only city to have done so, banning their use in public and sports arenas, restricting sales to minors, and requiring new stores operate from standalone storefronts. 58

Missouri edit