[What does Harm Reduction in Tobacco Use means to Public Health]. / Reducción de daños en tabaquismo desde la Salud Pública.

Harm reduction is a classic Public Health concept to refer to the reduction of the negative effect of drug use/abuse with a focus on justice and human rights, but the tobacco industry has been perverting this concept for years and using it as a tool for its own marketing. This publication details what real harm reduction action on tobacco use would be, when it should be implemented, and what pillars it should be based on. Different methods of reducing the harmful effects of tobacco and nicotine have been tried and tested over time, but the results have been poor; therefore, smoking cessation by the various officially recognised methods is recommended as a priority objective, using the tools that are truly supported by science. In contrast, it also explains the strategies developed by the industry to manipulate consumers and make them dependent on products that can eventually kill them: from the development of filtered cigarettes to light cigarettes, and from menthol to flavoured vapes. In all cases, they have falsely led people to believe that they were developing less toxic products when they were not. Nowadays, both light and menthol cigarettes are banned in Spain, filters have not reduced risk but increased the use, and vapes try to replace cigarettes with their attractive flavours and their false legend of healthier products when what they are really doing is maintaining the same addiction by changing the object, encouraging dual use, and attracting younger and younger non-smokers. At the same time, a strategy of dividing the opinion of health professionals has been developed, using medical doctors and researchers with recognised conflicts of interest but who manage to confuse consumers. In conclusion, we consider that, although nicotine releasing devices may be useful elements in some particular cases, they are not recommended at the population level as they can promote onset, prevent cessation, as well as maintaining the addictive capacity. The only nicotine products that are recommended are those of pharmacological use approved for the case and provided they are used as a transitional tool to complete cessation.

La reducción de daños es un concepto clásico de la Salud Pública para referirse a la reducción del impacto negativo del consumo de drogas con un enfoque de justicia y derechos humanos, pero la industria tabacalera lleva años pervirtiendo este concepto y utilizándolo como una herramienta de su propio marketing. La presente publicación detalla qué sería una verdadera acción de reducción de daños en tabaquismo, cuándo debería aplicarse y en qué pilares debería sostenerse. A lo largo del tiempo se han probado distintos métodos de minorar los efectos perjudiciales del tabaco y de la nicotina, si bien los resultados han sido escasos; así pues, se propone como objetivo prioritario la cesación tabáquica por los distintos métodos reconocidos, utilizando como herramientas las verdaderamente amparadas por la Ciencia. En contraste, se explican también las estrategias desarrolladas por la industria para manipular a los consumidores y hacerles dependientes de unos productos que eventualmente pueden acabar con sus vidas: desde el desarrollo de los cigarrillos con filtro a los light, y de los mentolados a los vapers de sabores. En todos los casos han hecho creer falsamente que desarrollaban productos menos tóxicos cuando no era así. Hoy en día, tanto los cigarrillos light como los mentolados están prohibidos en España, los filtros no han conseguido una disminución del riesgo y sí un aumento del consumo, y los vapers intentan sustituir a los cigarrillos con sus aromas atractivos y su falsa leyenda de productos más sanos cuando lo que están haciendo en realidad es mantener la misma adicción cambiando el objeto, fomentando el consumo dual, y atrayendo a consumidores no-fumadores previos cada vez más jóvenes. Paralelamente, se ha desarrollado una estrategia de división de la opinión de los profesionales sanitarios, con médicos e investigadores con reconocidos conflictos de interés pero que logran confundir al consumidor. Como conclusión consideramos que, si bien en algún caso particular los DSLN (dispositivos susceptibles de liberar nicotina) puedan ser elementos útiles, no son recomendables a nivel poblacional ya que pueden promover el inicio del consumo e impedir la cesación, además de mantener la capacidad adictógena. Los únicos productos de nicotina que se recomiendan son aquellos de uso farmacológico aprobados para el caso y siempre que se usen como herramienta transitoria para la cesación completa.

Community Voices: A Qualitative Study Exploring Perceptions of Menthol Cigarette Sales Restrictions in Los Angeles County Among Black Adults Who Smoke Menthol Cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: The commercial tobacco industry has long targeted Black communities by making menthol cigarettes not only appealing but affordable through marketing, advertising, and pricing strategies, particularly in the retail environment. Policies that focus on restricting the sale of menthol cigarettes have the potential to significantly reduce the death toll from smoking while also mitigating health inequities and advancing racial equity. However, limited qualitative research exists on the perceptions of menthol cigarette sales restrictions, including local policies, among Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes. AIMS AND METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted between January and September 2021 with self-identified non-Hispanic Black adults who reported current menthol cigarette use (n = 26). Participants were asked open-ended questions about awareness and perceptions of the Los Angeles County law banning the retail sale of menthol cigarettes in unincorporated communities, including how it influences their smoking and purchasing behaviors. RESULTS: We used three thematic categories to structure the results: (1) Are People Aware of Local Menthol Cigarette Sales Restrictions? Levels of Awareness and Strategies to Increase Awareness, (2) Why Ban Menthol? Concerns About Equity and Fairness, and (3) Will Menthol Cigarette Bans Decrease Smoking? Mixed Perceptions About Potential Impact. Most participants (88.5%) had heard about the menthol ban in their communities. Participants described ambivalence towards the ban and identified several factors that hinder support, participation, and well-being, including uncertainty regarding the rationale for banning menthol cigarettes; perceptions that the ban specifically targets Black communities; and concerns regarding government overreach and constraining individual choice. Participants had differing views on whether the ban would likely help them and others who smoke menthol cigarettes reduce or quit smoking. Participants also described situations in which they would purchase menthol cigarettes in another state, country, online, or in the illicit market. Furthermore, participants often viewed the ban as perpetuating criminalization and over-policing of Black communities-arguments used by the commercial tobacco industry to oppose menthol bans. CONCLUSIONS: Our community-based sample of Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes face challenges and concerns about local menthol bans. Community-centered interventions, messages, and materials about racial equity in menthol bans, access to free cessation services, and countering commercial tobacco industry interference, in addition to measurable steps toward rectifying injustice from the commercial tobacco industry and repeated exemptions of menthol cigarettes from federal legislation through tangible reparations, would be helpful to this community. IMPLICATIONS: We sought to add to the literature on flavored nicotine and commercial tobacco policies in the United States by centering the voices of Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes regarding their awareness, perceptions, and opinions of local laws restricting menthol cigarette retail sales and how such polices influence their smoking and purchasing behaviors. Our findings suggest that Black adults who smoke menthol cigarettes are aware of local laws restricting menthol cigarette retail sales and are ambivalent about the rationale. Our findings have implications for the development and delivery of equity-focused strategies and resources to increase awareness of and rationale for the ban; counter commercial tobacco industry interference; and facilitate smoking cessation among Black adults who experience more combustible tobacco-related morbidity and mortality than their racial/ethnic counterparts. By understanding this relevance, we can also recognize how individual awareness and perceptions are moored within and contextualized by broader social structures and systemic inequities that warrant policy considerations.

Strategies for Effective Capacity-Building in the Fight Against Commercial Tobacco.

The Center for Black Health & Equity's approach to addressing health inequities relies on the inherent ability within community-based organizations to respond to public health priorities while addressing the political and social determinants of health. By using Dr. Robert Robinson's Community Development Model as a foundational framework, communities can address systemic barriers that impede optimal health outcomes. The model includes community engagement and mobilization activities that motivate communities to achieve equity-centered policy change and offers milestones that show progress made toward their goals and objectives. We operationalized the Community Development Model into the Community Capacity Building Curriculum to train community partners to form a multicultural coalition through asset mapping as a tool for community mobilization. This curriculum is both cost effective and efficient because it enables communities to address health disparities beyond tobacco control, such as food and nutrition, housing, and environmental issues. Coalitions are prepared to identify and make recommendations to address policies that perpetuate health disparities. Facing off against a powerful tobacco industry giant is challenging for small grassroots organizations advocating for stricter tobacco regulations and policies. Such organizations struggle for resources; however, their passion and dedication to the mission of saving Black lives can promote change.

Smoking out Australia's growing illicit tobacco market: Current trends and future challenges.

Data from the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Border Force show notable recent increases in illicit tobacco seizures across Australia. The illicit tobacco market results in substantial losses in tax revenue, funds organised crime, and perpetuates tobacco use, threatening to undermine Australia's ability to achieve its national commercial tobacco endgame goal of 5 % or less smoking prevalence by 2030. This commentary discusses recent trends in Australia's illicit tobacco trade, reasons why this is of concern, potential drivers of Australians' illicit tobacco use, and policy measures that could be implemented to mitigate increasing illicit tobacco trade such as implementing a track and trace system, increased investment in the Australian Border Force to enhance detection of illicit tobacco shipments at Australia's borders, and encouraging public tip-offs of illicit tobacco sales.

Compliance to Online Retail of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in India before and after the 2018 Ban Order of the Government of India.

Since their launch globally in 2012, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) were positioned as a harm reduction strategy and cessation device but it is yet to be proven to have clinical safety or public health benefits. Instead, recent reports suggest that the tobacco industry targeted youth and sponsored research whose evidence was used to mislead policymaking. On August 28, 2018, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare's advisory banned the sale, purchase, and trade of ENDS. A survey was done in two waves. The first survey was done between August 10 and 25 2018 all websites which sold ENDS product were mapped and documented. The survey was repeated (November 30, 2018) were after the restriction to trade on ENDS was proposed by the Department of Customs. The two waves of survey found that no website, whether comprehensive e-commerce portals or dedicated ENDS marketing platforms fully complied with government orders. National and states government enforcement agencies are currently unaware of internet-based sale of ENDS. Although some states have given specific directions to stop the sale and delivery of ENDS within the state through e-commerce, there is limited monitoring and legal compliance by seller. Public health advocates need to stay vigilant and monitor the online sale and point of sale retail of ENDS to ensure strict compliance of national and state regulations.

Banning Loose Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products in India: A Policy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sale of single cigarettes (also known as singles or loosies) is a key driver for early initiation of smoking and is a leading contributor to the smoking epidemic in India. Sale of singles additionally deter implementation of tobacco control strategies of pictorial health warnings including plain packaging and defeat effective taxation and promote illicit trade. We review India's tobacco control policy responses towards banning singles and other products sold as loose tobacco and identify opportunities for future policy intervention especially in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Existing national and sub-national policy documents were analyzed for their content since the inception of the tobacco control laws in the country. RESULTS: There are no effective provisions at national level to ban loose tobacco products in India. However, the implementation of multiple legislative and regulatory measures (Acts/circulars/letters/notifications/orders/court judgements) in 16 Indian states and jurisdictions provide sufficient legal framework to substantiate its complete ban pan India. While the majority of state governments have adopted state level measures, Rajasthan had issued specific directive to all the 33 districts banning loose cigarettes and other tobacco products. Himachal Pradesh introduced the most unique and comprehensive legislation, for banning the sale of cigarettes and beedis (Dated November 7, 2016). The most recent notification in the state of Maharashtra (September 24, 2020) is the first to leverage powers using a mix of national and state legislations including the legislation addressing the rapidly emerging challenge of managing COVID-19. CONCLUSION: A robust national policy which supports strong provision to deter tobacco companies, their distribution network and vendors from selling singles or loose tobacco products is urgently needed. Such policy should be backed by cautionary messaging for consumers as well. Eliminating singles and loose tobacco sale will help in blunting tobacco use prevalence besides curbing spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19 pandemic.

Health Warning Label Compliance for Smokeless Tobacco Products and Bidis in Five Indian States.

BACKGROUND: The burden of tobacco use In India is very high. To inform users of harm, India has a strong health warning label law that applies to all tobacco products. This study examines the extent of compliance of health warning labels on smokeless tobacco (SLT) and bidi products with the Indian law. METHODS: In 2017, a systematic protocol was used to collect unique SLT and bidi packages from five Indian states. To assess compliance, we used three indicators: location, label elements, and warning size. RESULTS: Only 1% of the 133 SLT products and none of the 32 bidi packs were compliant with all three compliance indicators. Other compliance-related issues included non-standardized packaging, incomplete health warning labels, poor printing quality, and old warning labels. CONCLUSION: There is very poor compliance with the health warning label law on bidi and SLT products. India needs to regularly monitor and address implementation to ensure that warning labels are effective.

Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship in India and Indonesia: Present Regime and the Way Forward.

One of the important factors contributing to tobacco epidemic is tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS). TAPS is employed by tobacco industry to increase demand for its products, often through targeting specific groups or market segments. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) recommends implementation of comprehensive bans on TAPS as part of an effective set of tobacco control policies. Article 13 of the WHO FCTC and its guidelines mandate a comprehensive ban on all TAPS. Besides, TAPS ban is one of the MPOWER strategy and is included in the 'Best Buys' for effective tobacco control. However, many countries, especially low-income and middle-income countries, primarily implement only partial TAPS bans, allowing the tobacco industry to directly or indirectly advertise and promote its products via multiple media. This review article analyzes the current state of affairs in respect of TAPS in India and Indonesia, the two of the largest countries in the WHO South-East Asia Region of the world, and discusses the way forward to address the identified gaps in TAPS ban policy formulation and implementation focusing on strengthening its compliance and enforcement at the country level.

A Legal and Epidemiological Consideration of the Causal Relationship between Tobacco and Lung Cancer.

This study reviewed issues including causality among tobacco companies' illegal acts, smoking, and lung cancer occurrence. In tobacco lawsuits so far, the burden of proof regarding negligence and a causal relationship has fallen on plaintiffs, who are the injured party. However, since the legislation of the Product Liability Act, the possibility of mitigating plaintiffs' burden of proof has opened up. Nevertheless, this alone cannot prevent the immense socioeconomic cost incurred due to smoking. It is legislatively necessary to enact a tobacco management law so that the no-fault liability of tobacco companies, which are the defendants, for compensation can be acknowledged. However, it is necessary to take supplementary measures through the social security system such as establishing the upper limits for liquidated damages in lawsuits and creating a relief fund for the victims of smoking. In addition, it is fundamentally necessary for courts to accept the methods for inferring causality that are based on the natural sciences and epidemiology in situations such as tobacco lawsuits, where a causal relationship cannot be proven easily. In particular, jurists, too, must consider the application of population-based evidence presented by epidemiologists to lawsuits in a forward-looking manner for redressing damages to individuals with diseases; thus, bridging the gap between normative adjudication and scientific judgment to draw a conclusion about a causal relationship.