Annual NIDA Survey Shows Declines in Teen Drug Use

The kids are all right.

Every year, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health, conducts its Monitoring the Future survey of drug use among American young people in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades.

This year, students got very good marks. “We are heartened to see that most illicit drug use is not increasing, non-medical use of prescription opioids is decreasing, and there is improvement in alcohol and cigarette use rates,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of NIDA.

Here are some highlights from this year’s study:

— Despite nationwide concerns over prescription opioid and heroin abuse, heroin use among students has hit historic lows, while “narcotics other than heroin” continue to decline as well. Only 4.4% of high school seniors reported Vicodin use in the past year, compared to more than 10% in 2003.

—The downward trend in teen cigarette smoking continues, and is presently at the lowest rate in the study’s history. 5.5% of high school seniors had smoked, compared to 10.7% in 2010. The highest rate of smoking recorded among seniors was 25% in 1997. Among 10th graders, daily smoking has been cut in half in the past five years, down to 3%.

—For the first time since the annual study began, marijuana use exceeds cigarette use among 12th graders. 35% of high school seniors reported past-year cannabis use, and 6% reported daily use. (Daily use of cigarettes was 5.5%). Disapproval rates concerning regular smoking have continued to rise, even as the disapproval rates concerning marijuana risk continue to fall among teens.

—Alcohol use continues its slow but steady downward trend among teens, “with significant reductions seen in the past five years in nearly all measures.” However, it remains the most commonly used drug, 58% of seniors having used it in the past year.

—Synthetic marijuana, the class of Spice/K2/herbal incense drugs, continues to decline in popularity, presumably due to fears about adverse side effects.

—16% of 12th graders reported using e-cigarettes in the past month, although only one out of five student users said they were vaping nicotine. 13% of 8th graders said they had no idea what was in the e-cigarette device they were using. Other answers ranged from flavorings to marijuana.

The End of Combusted Tobacco?

With E-cigarettes, a mixed bag of possible outcomes.

E-cigarettes represent a controversial and uncertain future for nicotine addiction, and for this reason they have attracted acolytes and naysayers in what feels like equal measure.

It has been almost 8 years since e-cigarette imports first reached our shores, and the FDA’s determination that they are subject to regulation as tobacco products brings the industry to a crucial crossroads.

On the one hand: “Marked interdevice and intermanufacturer variability of e-cigarettes… makes it hard to draw conclusions about the safety or efficacy of the whole device class.”

On the other hand: “Published evaluation of some products suggest that e-cigarettes can be manufactured with levels of both efficacy and safety similar to those of NRT [nicotine replacement therapy] products… they could play the same role as NRT but at a truly national, population scale.”

So which will it be? Is there an outside chance that the decision by the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products will represent the first step in dealing with nicotine products currently “designed, marketed, and sold” outside the regulatory framework established for NRT?  A stalemate presently prevails. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. David Abrams and Nathan K. Cobb, Johns Hopkins professors affiliated with the American Legacy Foundation, a tobacco research and prevention organization funded with lawsuit money from the major tobacco companies, highlight the irony: In order to market e-cigarettes as smoking cessations devices, manufacturers must seek approval from the FDA to market pharmaceutical products, “an expensive and time-consuming process than no manufacturer has yet attempted.”

Thus, questions about nicotine content, additives of various kinds, and assorted carrier chemicals go unanswered. Yet these are precisely the questions that need answers before e-cigarettes can be viewed as tools in the harm reduction armamentarium. Cobb and Abrams note that current e-cigarettes “represent a single instance of a nicotine product on a shifting spectrum of toxicity, addiction liability, and consumer satisfaction.” But the market dictates that “to compete with and displace combusted tobacco products, e-cigarettes will need to remain relatively convenient, satisfying, and inexpensive,” regulation notwithstanding.

Still, the harm reductionists’ dreams for the product remain seductive, because “surely any world where refined nicotine displaces lethal cigarettes will experience less harm, disease, and deaths? That scenario is one endgame model for tobacco control: smokers flee cigarettes en masse for refined nicotine and ultimately quit all use entirely.”

Critics say fat chance: “As Big Tobacco’s scientists shift from blending leaves and additives to manipulating circuit boards, chemicals, and dosing schedules, they’re unlikely to relinquish their tolerance for risk and toxicity that prematurely kills half their users in their efforts to ensure high levels of customer ‘satisfaction,’ addiction, and retention.”

Once again, it is the dictates of the market that may end up shaping the future of tobacco, and making the plans of harm reductionists look naïve indeed. “Tobacco companies and their investors,” write Cobb and Abrams, “need millions of heavily addicted smokers to remain customers for decades, including a replenishing stream of young people. No publicly traded company could tolerate the downsizing implicit in shifting from long-term addiction to harm reduction and cessation.”

The marketing innovations most likely to stem from tobacco companies entering the market for e-cigarettes are those most likely to “sustain high levels of addiction and synergistic ‘polyuse’ of their existing combusted products,” while simultaneously crimping competition from NRT manufacturers and independent e-cigarette manufacturers. Tobacco companies are past masters at manipulating things like nicotine content, vaporization methodologies, flavorings, and unknown additives. They will surely bring this expertise to bear in seeking a major bite out of the e-cigarette market while maintaining acceptable profit margins on traditional cigarettes.

The authors suggest that the FDA could weight the matter in harm reduction’s favor by using its product-standard authority “to cripple the addictive potential of lethal combusted products by mandating a reduction in nicotine levels to below those of e-cigarettes and NRT products and eliminating flavorings such as menthol that make cigarettes more palatable.” Tax breaks for e-cigarettes would further load the dice.

But not today. The FDA’s proposal calls for warning labels or product safety and quality standards for e-cigarettes—but not for at least two years. Two years is a long time in a fast-emerging market already valued in excess of $2 billion. The authors call the delay disturbing, “given the variability in product quality and a documented spike in cases of accidental nicotine poisoning.”

In conclusion, the authors believe that for smokers hoping to quit, “NRT products still represent safer, more predictable choices, even if they are more expensive and less appealing.”

Photo credit:  http://www.rstreet.org/

Why the CDC Director Hates E-Cigarettes

The pros and cons of getting your vape on.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began a new era—regulating e-cigarettes. With a non-controversial first step, the FDA banned the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, required health warnings, prohibited health claims, and outlined a plan to register and license all electronic nicotine products at some future date. The FDA’s proposed rules would also give the agency the power to regulate the currently unregulated mixture of chemicals and flavorings that are heated during e-cigarette use.  Whatever regulations the FDA promulgates for electronic cigarettes will also apply to nicotine gels, water pipe tobacco, and hookahs.

Perhaps what rankles e-cigarette activists the most is the FDA’s insistence that companies will have to provide scientific evidence before making any implied claims about risk reduction for their product, compared with cigarettes. The FDA did not restrict advertising or prohibit flavorings (bubble gum, apple-blueberry, gummi bear, and cappuccino are popular).

Within a few days after the FDA’s announcement, Chicago, New York City, and other major cities placed e-cigarettes under the same municipal smoking bans as cigarettes. 

The battle over e-cigarettes is both a public health issue and a private enterprise war for market share. Corporate giants Altria and Lorillard, which dominate the corporate tobacco landscape in the U.S., are fighting for a piece of what has become nearly a $2 billion market in a few short years. (Altria recently boosted  its growth forecast to 6-9% growth for 2014). Lorillard has been making heavy acquisitions of its own, and commands more than half the present market with its Blu brand. Altria has made its own vapor acquisitions, and is launching its own brand, MarkTen.

So far, the moves being contemplated by the FDA do not have these companies shaking in their boots. They anticipated the ban on sales to minors, a system of formal FDA approval, a disclosure of ingredients, and health warnings about the addictive nature of nicotine. And Congress gave the FDA legal authority to draft a set of rules for e-cigarettes five years ago, so the FDA’s reluctance to step in on liquid nicotine delivery systems has been evident.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Tom Frieden, director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), listed the reasons for his opposition to electronic cigarettes:

—E-cigarettes are an additional means of hooking another generation of kids on nicotine, making them more likely to become adult smokers.

—Smokers who might have quit smoking will maintain their nicotine addiction, remaining highly vulnerable to tobacco craving.

—Ex-smokers might make themselves more vulnerable to relapse if they take up vaping.

—Smokers might forego medications that could help them quit, in favor of the unproven promise of tobacco abstention via e-cigarette.

—E-cigarettes might have the cultural effect of “re-glamorizing” smoking.

—E-cigarette users might be exposing children and pregnant women to nicotine via secondhand smoke mechanisms.

—E-cigarette users can refill cartridges with liquid cannabis products and other drugs.

Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco expert at the Boston University School of Public Health, worries that smaller players will be squeezed out due to costs associated with the FDA approval process, driving sales toward the traditional cigarette industry leaders. Go-go analysts have predicted market penetration of as much as 50% for e-cigarettes, but Siegel is more pessimistic, and believes the e-cigarette share could top out at 10% if FDA regulations set back efforts by vaping proponents to position their product as a safer and healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes. And that, says Siegel, would be a shame. He told the Boston Globe: “There simply is no product on the market that’s more dangerous than tobacco cigarettes, and nobody in their right mind would argue that cigarette smoking is less hazardous or even equally hazardous to vaping.”

Frieden at the CDC is sympathetic to the fact that many smokers have indeed quit smoking tobacco with the aid of e-cigarettes. “Stick to stick, they’re almost certainly less toxic than cigarettes.” But like many tobacco experts, he sees the possibility of a new generation of nicotine addicts. Almost two million high school kids have tried e-cigarettes, Frieden told the LA Times, “and a lot of them are using them regularly…. That’s like watching someone harm hundreds of thousands of children.”  The CDC reported that the percentage of high school students who have used an e-cigarette jumped from 4.7% in 2011 to 10% in 2012. Calls to poison control centers involving children and e-cigarettes have increased sharply as well.

Frieden views the Food and Drug Administration as David under siege by Goliath. The FDA, he said, “tried to regulate e-cigarettes earlier, and they lost to the tobacco industry…. So the FDA has to balance moving quickly with moving in a way that’s going to be able to survive the tobacco industry’s highly paid legal challenge.” If E-cigarette makers really want to market to people trying to quit smoking, Frieden told the LA Times, “then do the clinical trials and apply to the FDA. But they don’t want to do that.” (See my post on Big Tobacco’s move into the e-cigarette market).

“It’s really the wild, wild West out there,” a beleaguered FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg told the press.   “They’re coming in different sizes, shapes and flavors in terms of the nicotine in them.”

On May 4, the New York Times published a report by Matt Richtel, based on an upcoming paper in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research. Nicotine researchers discovered that high-end electronic cigarette systems with refillable tanks produce formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, as a component of the exhaled nicotine vapor. Moreover, unlike disposable e-cigarettes, tank systems require users to refill them with liquid nicotine, itself a potent toxin. “Nicotine is a pesticide, fundamentally,” Michael Eriksen, dean of the School of Public Health at Georgia Statue University, told CNN. “We take so many precautions about pesticides for our lawns and how to wear gloves. But what precautions do consumers take when they put the nicotine vials in?”

This was not good news for harm reductionists, who view the advantages of e-cigarettes as self-evident. The New York Times report says that the toxin is formed “when liquid nicotine and other e-cigarette ingredients are subjected to high temperatures,” according to the research. “A second study that is being prepared for submission to the same journal points to similar findings.” In addition, a new study by researchers RTI International documents the release of tiny metal particles, including tin, chromium and nickel, which may worsen asthma and bronchitis.

Eric Moskowitz at the Boston Globe  reported that “thousands of gas stations and convenience stores statewide carry e-cigarettes, usually stocking disposable or cartridge-based versions that resemble traditional cigarettes.”

In U.S. News, Gregory Conley, president of the trade group American Vaping Association, predicted “a huge influx of anti-e-cigarette legislation in the last half of 2014 and especially in 2015 when the legislative sessions get going again.” 

According to Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, “it may be years before  regulations are imposed. The lobbying at FDA and Congress will be intense.”

Effectively regulated, e-cigarettes have the potential to drastically reduce deaths from tobacco-related diseases among cigarette smokers. In an editorial for the journal Addiction, Sara Hitchman, Ann McNeill, and Leonie Brose of King’s College, London, wrote: “E-cigarettes may offer a way out of the smoking epidemic or a way of perpetuating it; robustly designed, implemented and accurately reported scientific evidence will be the best tool we have to help us predict and shape which of these realities transpires.”

Photo credit: http://ecigarettereviewed.com

The Escalating Debate Over E-Cigarettes

Follow the bouncing ping-pong ball.

“E-cigarettes are likely to be gateway devices for nicotine addiction among youth, opening up a whole new market for tobacco.”

—Lauren Dutra, postdoctoral fellow at the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

“You’ve got two camps here: an abstinence-only camp that thinks anything related to tobacco should be outlawed, and those of us who say abstinence has failed, and that we have to take advantage of every opportunity with a reasonable prospect for harm reduction.”

—Richard Carmona, former U.S. Surgeon General, now board member of e-cigarette maker NJOY. 

“Consumers are led to believe that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to cigarettes, despite the fact that they are addictive, and there is no regulatory oversight ensuring the safety of the ingredients in e-cigarettes.”

—From a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) signed by 40 state attorneys general.

“E-cigarettes need more time to develop and to out-compete deadly conventional cigarettes, but they have the potential to end the tobacco epidemic. So if regulators decide to ban them or submit them to stricter regulations than conventional cigarettes, this would be detrimental to public health.”

—Professor Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine. 

“There is no scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for traditional cigarettes or an effective smoking cessation tool. In fact, they may entice young people into trying traditional cigarettes.”

—Russ Sciandra, New York State Director of Advocacy, American Cancer Society.

“I firmly believe that the [New York] City Council’s bill restricting e-cigarettes is a major blow to people who are trying to stop smoking and will end up accomplishing the opposite of advocates’ intended goals of improving people’s health and reducing smoking-related deaths.”

—Tony Newman, director of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.

“Once a young person gets acquainted with nicotine, it’s more likely that they’ll try other tobacco products. E-cigarettes are a promising growth area for the tobacco companies, allowing them to diversify their addictive and lethal products with a so-called ‘safe cigarette.’”

—Alexander Prokhorov, head of the Tobacco Outreach Education Program, University of Texas.

“What would constitute a final victory in tobacco control? Must victory entail complete abstinence from e-cigarettes as well as tobacco? To what levels must we reduced the prevalence of smoking? What lessons should be drawn from the histories of alcohol and narcotic-drug prohibition?”

—Amy L. Fairchild, professor of sociomedical sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. 

Photo Credit: St. Paul Pioneer Press (Chris Polydoroff).

Built-In Advantages Give Big Tobacco an Edge in E-Cigs

The Big Three are now in it to win it. 

If there was ever any doubt that major tobacco companies have designs on the emerging electronic cigarette market, a recent roundup in the Wall Street Journal makes the case with ease, something that eager acolytes of e-cigs are anxious to avoid. No doubt about it, Big Tobacco wants in.

Results from intensive test marketing in Colorado have, like a political primary, provided an early indication of where the popularity lies. Reynolds American, the nation’s 2nd largest tobacco company (Camel), led the, uh, pack with its offering, the Vuse e-cigarette, introduced in July. Vuse racked up a 55% market share in that state. Next in line, with 25%, was Blu, owned by the 3rd largest cigarette maker, Lorillard (Newport). NJOY, an independent company, came in third.  The elephant in the room, Altria Group, the largest U.S. tobacco firm (Marlboro), is still in the test marketing stage with its e-cigarette entry, the MarkTen. Altria began testing the MarkTen in Indiana and Arizona in late summer.

It took Reynolds less than 16 weeks to achieve market dominance in Colorado, and the company made sure that investors heard about it. With 1,800 retail outlets in Colorado, and a database of 12 million tobacco consumers, Reynolds is perfectly poised to benefit from the inherent advantages of being Big Tobacco. The Big Three have three major head starts, the Wall Street Journal reported: “extensive distribution networks, existing customer relationships numbering in the millions, and deep pockets.”

The market for electronic cigarettes has broken a billion dollars, say stock watchers. This magic number seems to have energized the Big Three to take a heavy step into a market that has been around in nascent form since 2006, even though it’s still small change compared to the $100 billion U.S. tobacco market. It was not clear, in the beginning, whether Reynolds, Lorillard, and Altria would attempt to, pardon me, snuff out the competition, or dominate it. That decision now appears to have been made, and the game is on.

Stephanie Cordisco, president of R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, which markets Vuse, said the marketing tagline in Colorado was: “A perfect puff. First time, every time.” 

So far, e-cigarettes, which heat nicotine-based liquid to create a vaporized mist, have benefitted from the fact that they are not, at present, savagely taxed like regular cigarettes. And e-cigs come in flavors, cherry and pina colada being among the favorites.

In April of 2012, Lorillard broke the e-cig barrier when it acquired Blu Ecigs for $135 million. At the Wall Street Journal, Mike Esterl suggested that the move came “as the Food and Drug Administration weighs a possible crackdown on menthol-flavored cigarettes, which represent about 90% of revenue at Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, owner of the popular Newport brand. The FDA already has banned all other cigarette flavors.”

Reynolds followed Lorillard into the market early in 2013 with Vuse. And the giant Altria Group announced in October that it planned to expand sales of the MarkTen after successful “lead market” sales. It’s too early too say how it will go for the MarkTen, but Altria CEO Marty Barrington said in a conference call reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch that the company is not overly worried about cannibalizing Marlboro sales: “I can tell you that with respect to who is trying the products in e-vapor generally,” he said, “ we do know that there is dual use. As adult smokers try e-vapor products, we know that some of them are satisfied and others are not. Some of them use [e-cigarettes] situationally.”

That does not sound like an executive rolling out a stop-smoking therapy tool.

Graphics Credit: http://seekingalpha.com

The Year in Drugs

Top Posts at Addiction Inbox.

By the look of it, readers had marijuana on their minds in 2012. Of the posts at Addiction Inbox with the highest number of page views, an overwhelming majority are concerned with marijuana, and specifically, with marijuana addiction, withdrawal, and brain chemistry. Of the 9 most heavily trafficked posts of the year, only one involved alcohol. Readers were also interested in the safety of e-cigarettes, and the mysteries of neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine. Happily, all the top posts were patently science-oriented articles.

See you in the New Year.

•  Marijuana Withdrawal

For Some Users, Cannabis Can Be Fiercely Addictive.

For a minority of marijuana users, commonly estimated at 10 per cent, the use of pot can become uncontrollable, as with any other addictive drug. Addiction to marijuana is frequently submerged in the welter of polyaddictions common to active addicts. The withdrawal rigors of, say, alcohol or heroin tend to drown out the subtler, more psychological manifestations of cannabis withdrawal.

•  Serotonin and Dopamine: A Primer

The Molecules of Reward

Serotonin and dopamine are part of a group of compounds called biogenic amines. In addition to serotonin and dopamine, the amines include noradrenaline, acetylcholine, and histamine. This class of chemical messengers is produced, in turn, from basic amino acids like tyrosine, tryptophan, and choline.

•  Marijuana Fact and Fiction

Why cannabis research is a good idea.

There is little doubt among responsible researchers that marijuana--although it is addictive for some people--is sometimes a clinically useful drug. However, there is little incentive for commercial pharmaceutical houses to pursue research on the cannabis plant itself, since they cannot patent it.

• Anandamide: The Brain’s Own Marijuana

Anxiety and the THC receptor.

Several years ago, molecular biologists identified the elusive brain receptor where THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, did its work. Shortly after that discovery, researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem identified the body’s own form of THC, which sticks to the same receptors, in pulverized pig brains.

•  The Mysteries of the Blunt

Why do so many smokers combine tobacco with marijuana?

People who smoke a combination of tobacco and marijuana, a common practice overseas for years, and increasingly popular here in the form of “blunts,” may be reacting to ResearchBlogging.orgsome unidentified mechanism that links the two drugs. Researchers believe such smokers would be well advised to consider giving up both drugs at once, rather than one at a time, according to an upcoming study in the journal Addiction.

•  Are E-Cigarettes a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

A group of nicotine researchers argue for an alternative.

Electronic cigarettes are here to stay. If you're not familiar with them, e-cigarettes are designed to look exactly like conventional cigarettes, but they use batteries to convert liquid nicotine into a fine, heated mist that is absorbed by the lungs. Last summer, even though the FDA insisted on referring to e-cigarettes as “untested drug delivery systems,” Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of California in San Francisco--a prominent nicotine researcher for many years--called e-cigarettes “an advancement that the field has been waiting for.”

•  Cannabis Receptors and the “Runner’s High”

Maybe it isn't endorphins after all.

A perennial favorite, the runner’s high post shows what long-distance running and marijuana smoking have in common. Quite possibly, more than you’d think. A growing body of research suggests that the runner’s high and the cannabis high are more similar than previously imagined….Endocannabinoids—the body’s internal cannabis—“seem to contribute to the motivational aspects of voluntary running in rodents.” Knockout mice lacking the cannabinioid CB1 receptor, it turns out, spend less time wheel running than normal mice. 

• Topamax for Alcoholism: A Closer Look

Epilepsy drug gains ground, draws fire as newest anti-craving pill.

A drug for seizure disorders and migraines continues to show promise as an anti-craving drug for alcoholism, the third leading cause of death in America, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in its current issue.

•  Is Marijuana Addictive?

The argument continues.

Marijuana may not be a life-threatening drug, but is it an addictive one?
There is little evidence in animal models for tolerance and withdrawal, the classic determinants of addiction. For at least four decades, million of Americans have used marijuana without clear evidence of a withdrawal syndrome. Most recreational marijuana users find that too much pot in one day makes them lethargic and uncomfortable. Self-proclaimed marijuana addicts, on the other hand, report that pot energizes them, calms them down when they are nervous, or otherwise allows them to function normally.


Graphics Credit:  http://1.bp.blogspot.com (Creative Commons)

Are E-Cigarettes a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

A group of nicotine researchers argue for an alternative.

Electronic cigarettes are here to stay. If you're not familiar with them, e-cigarettes are designed to look exactly like conventional cigarettes, but they use batteries to convert liquid nicotine into a fine, heated mist that is absorbed by the lungs. Last summer, even though the FDA insisted on referring to e-cigarettes as “untested drug delivery systems,” Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of California in San Francisco--a prominent nicotine researcher for many years--called e-cigarettes “an advancement that the field has been waiting for.” And recently, Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health wrote: “Few, if any, chemicals at levels detected in electronic cigarettes raise serious health concerns.” Furthermore, Dr. Siegel took a swipe at the opposition: “The FDA and major anti-smoking groups keep saying that we don’t know anything about what is in electronic cigarettes. The truth is, we know a lot more about what is in electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes.”

Harm reduction advocates are ecstatic. But do e-cigarettes simply reduce harm by eliminating combustion by-products--or do they perpetuate nicotine addiction, frustrate the efforts of smoking cessation experts, and give false hope to smokers that they can have their cake and eat it, too?

Dr. Siegel conducted a survey of e-cigarette users and found that 66% reported a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked at the six-month point. “Of respondents who were not smoking at 6 months, 34.3% were not using e-cigarettes or any nicotine-containing products at the time.” Pretty impressive--although Siegel himself refers to the findings as “suggestive, not definitive”--and seemingly a giant leap forward for harm reduction.

However, even though they have dramatically altered the harm reduction landscape, e-cigarettes will not change anything for smokers who are attempting to completely quit using nicotine. When they inhale their last e-cigarette mist, several hours later they will begin to suffer the same withdrawal pains as regular cigarette smokers: “Irritability, craving, depression, anxiety, cognitive and attention deficits, sleep disturbances, and increased appetite,” as NIDA summarizes it. Current smokers are keenly interested in the new products, partly because of health concerns, and partly, it seems safe to venture, because a new generation of nicotine-based products like e-cigarettes “will enable them to put off the need to quit smoking,” as Dr. Dorothy Hatsukami, director of the Tobacco Use Research Center at the University of Minnesota, has asserted.

Harm reduction advocates for the electronic cigarette often make it sound like once the smoker is only inhaling nicotine, his or her problems are solved. But nicotine, of course, is the addictive part. Nicotinic receptors are present in moderate to high density in the brain areas containing dopamine cell bodies--the ventral tegmental area and the nucleus accumbens—the same pattern as almost every other addictive drug.

Even that part wouldn’t be a problem if addiction to nicotine were utterly benign. But it isn’t--although you wouldn’t know it from the pro-electronic cigarette propaganda. Nicotine in the blood is correlated with increases in arterial vasoconstriction, and is strongly suspected of playing a role in arteriosclerosis and other cardiovascular diseases. Nicotine increases LDL cholesterol, causes brochoconstriction, and has been implicated in the origin of lung tumors. There are also strong suggestions of links between nicotine and low birth weights in newborns.

So, it’s important not to kid ourselves about the hazards of nicotine, even though it may also be a medicine under certain conditions, like many other addictive drugs. Nicotine, you may recall, found industrial use as a farm crop insecticide. A poison, in other words. Nonetheless, what nicotine is NOT linked to certainly matters as well. Nicotine does not cause chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, like emphysema—a huge plus. Nicotine won’t worsen asthma, as cigarettes do. And in the form of the electronic cigarette, it won’t cause secondhand smoke—another major plus for the e-cig.

There is another approach to regulating the harm caused by cigarettes. A group of scientists has been calling for a major effort at reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarettes so that, over time, a non-addictive level of nicotine would be reached--and cigarettes would no longer be addictive. Study after study has shown that if such were the case, about 80 to 90% of smokers would quit. And teens who experimented with truly low-nicotine cigarettes wouldn’t get hooked—unlike the “light” cigarette scandal, where the supposedly safer cigarettes may actually have turned out to be more dangerous because they forced smokers to smoke more in order to get the desired effect. Dr. Hatsukami and five other prominent nicotine experts contend that extremely low-nicotine cigarettes do not cause smokers to smoke more, “because it is harder to compensate for very low nicotine intake,” according to Hatsukami. Especially if there are no high-nicotine alternatives for sale—legally, at least. Mitch Zeller, who along with Hatsukami, co-chairs the National Cancer Institute’s Tobacco Harm Reduction Network, painted this picture: “Imagine a world where the only cigarettes that kids could experiment with would neither create nor sustain addiction."

Nonsense, counters Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health. “Asserting that smokers won’t smoke more cigarettes to get the nicotine they crave is a fairy tale,” he said. “The likely result is a major increase in cigarette-related diseases.”

These are the competing visions of our nicotine-addicted future. In one scenario, smokers stay addicted to nicotine, with its accompanying heath risks and all the other negative aspects of being addicted. But the immediate harm to their health is lessened due to fewer inhaled carcinogens, and they don’t create secondhand smoke. In the opposing scenario, smokers continue to smoke, and society continues to deal with secondhand smoke through no-smoking policies, while medical research agencies, under government mandate, oversee the gradual reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to a level below what is needed for addiction.

The optimistic thought here is that either of these approaches would bring much-needed improvement to the semi-controlled anarchy and hypocrisy of the current situation.

Photo Credit: http://whyquit.com 

Era of the Electronic Cigarette Officially Begins.

Court blocks FDA from prohibiting e-cigarettes.

It’s official: The e-cigarette is here. The right of a distributor of Chinese electronic cigarettes to market the product in the U.S. was solidly affirmed last week by a three-judge ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Food and Drug Administration’s refusal last year to allow importation of e-cigarettes by Sottera Inc. had been the basis for a lower court decision in Sottera’s favor. The earlier court ruled that e-cigarettes did not require FDA approval because they were neither new drugs nor new drug delivery devices. (The FDA is prohibited by an act of Congress from barring the sale of tobacco products outright.)

Last month, under a consent judgement worked out with California state Attorney General Jerry Brown in a related case, Florida-based Smoking Everywhere Co., another distributor of Chinese electronic cigarettes, had agreed not to target minors in its advertising, or to make claims that its products are safe alternatives to tobacco. The move came shortly after the FDA announced plans to regulated battery-powered e-cigarettes as new drug delivery devices, culminating in the Sottera lawsuit.

The legal argument before the appeals court hinged largely on semantics. The court found that electronic cigarettes are “battery-powered products that allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without fire, smoke, ash or carbon monoxide. The liquid nicotine is derived from natural tobacco plants.”

Here is the catch: “The FDA may only approve a product for marketing under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) if it is safe and effective for its intended use,” the Appeals Court Justices ruled.  However, the FDA has “exhaustively documented” that tobacco products are unsafe for pharmacological use of any kind. The earlier court had concluded, stealing a page from “Alice in Wonderland”: “If they cannot be used safely for any therapeutic purpose, and yet they cannot be banned, they simply do not fit” within any conceivable regulatory scheme.

Hence the difficulties in the FDA’s attempt to regulate by agency fiat. E-cigarette manufacturers and distributors, having sensed an opening, are now ready to drive a convoy of semis right through it. This wasn’t a completely straightforward march, as the e-cigarette forces, in the appeals presentation, were required to thread the needle on such conundrums as: Does it matter that e-cigarettes do not, strictly speaking, contain “tobacco products?” Nicotine is a component of, not a product of, tobacco.

You see the problem. The relevant statutes have not been written with pure nicotine delivery devices in mind. In fact, having nicotine--but not the evil substance tobacco--in your product turned out to be a definitional advantage for the e-cigarette marketers: The court pointed out that, unlike products containing tobacco, which the FDA has found to be associated with “cancer, respiratory illnesses, and heart disease,” the FDA has manifestly NOT found that nicotine or tobacco-free products that deliver nicotine are inherently unsafe. And second, the “tobacco-specific legislation” invoked in earlier court cases “simply does not address products that deliver nicotine but contain no tobacco.”

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a prepared statement: "This decision will allow any manufacturer to put any level of nicotine in any product and sell it to anybody, including children, with no government regulation or oversight at the present time. We urge the government to appeal this ruling."

Among the many  questions the ruling leaves open is the status of e-cigarettes under existing no-smoking regulations. That litigation has not even gotten underway.

See my earlier post on the e-cigarette question HERE.

For the full court decision, click HERE.

Graphics Credit:  http://thestrobel3.blogspot.com/

New Warning Labels for U.S. Cigarettes; Big Tobacco on the Rampage

Philip Morris Intl. sues Uruguay and Brazil.

Lots of developments on the nicotine front these days. On opposite ends of the news spectrum, so to speak, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced plans to slap new and much more graphic warning stickers on cigarette packs--while elsewhere in the world, the world’s major tobacco companies got busy fighting tougher regulations on cigarette marketing. Meanwhile, the state of California has set limits on the marketing of e-cigarettes, disallowing companies from promoting the nicotine inhalers as “smoking-cessation devices.”

So let’s get busy. In the first significant change for cigarette advertising in 25 years, the FDA, freed by Congress last year to regulate tobacco products, will select nine new designs from among 36 contenders for new, far more graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. The new warning labels will begin appearing in about a year. To view the contenders, go to www.fda.gov/cigarettewarnings.

But will new, grisly images of dying smokers and rotted lungs really make a difference to the roughly one-quarter of adult Americans who still smoke?  “I am pleasantly shocked that [they are] doing this,” Stanton A. Glantz, a tobacco researcher at UC San Francisco, told the Los Angeles Times.  “There is no question but that strong graphic warning labels work,” he said. “Right now we have the weakest warning labels in the world. Now we will be right up there tied for the strongest.”

No so fast, counters John F.  Banzhaf, the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health and a George Washington University law professor. In the same L.A. Times article, Banzhaf said he was “quite disappointed,” stating that the agency “has done nothing more than exactly what Congress told them to do, and not one iota more.” So far, the FDA has banned advertising in magazines for young people, nixed the marketing ploy of handing out free samples on the street, and forbidden tobacco companies from marketing cigarettes by using the words “light” or “low-tar.”

Perhaps a more important result of Congressional approval of FDA oversight is that Medicare has now changed its rules to include smoking cessation products for covered beneficiaries. Previously, only people dying of lung disease were approved for smoking cessation products—a bit late in the disease cycle to do anybody much good.

According to a variety of estimates from government and research agencies, as many as half a million Americans die prematurely from smoking-related diseases. The Department of Health and Human Services has lately been stymied by a smoking rate of about 20%, basically unchanged since 2004. In 1965, about 42% of Americans smoked. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a stated goal of bringing smoking levels down to 12% by 2020.

That will not be an easy target to hit. And neither Congress nor the FDA nor HHS can count on anything amounting to cooperation from the cigarette giants. The New York Times, in an article by Duff Wilson, notes that worldwide cigarette sales rose 2% last year, as cigarette companies increasingly shift their marketing efforts toward a hunt for new customers in developing countries.  The aggressive nature of the worldwide cigarette marketing push was underscored this year when Philip Morris International sued the governments of Uruguay and Brazil, claiming that those countries had enacted tobacco regulations that were excessive and a threat to the company’s trademark and property rights.

Dr. Douglas Bettcher of the World Health Organization’s Tobacco Free Initiative accused the company of “using litigation to threaten low- and middle-income countries.” Philip Morris subsidiaries are also filing suits in Ireland and Norway over display advertising prohibitions. (Philip Morris USA, a separate division, is not involved in these lawsuits, and did not join with R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies in filing suit against the FDA last year.)

In the New York Times article, Wilson writes:

Companies like Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco are contesting limits on ads in Britain, bigger health warnings in South America and higher cigarette taxes in the Philippines and Mexico. They are also spending billions on lobbying and marketing campaigns in Africa and Asia, and in one case provided undisclosed financing for TV commercials in Australia.

As tobacco expert Dr. Cynthia Pomerleau points out on her blog, low smoking rates among women in the developing world make them a particularly tempting marketing target for the tobacco industry. Pomerleau, research professor emerita in the University of Michigan’s Department of Psychiatry, also reminds us that “the real goal here is not to remove health warnings altogether—health warnings have actually worked well for them by legitimizing the claim that if people choose to smoke, it’s not their fault—just to prevent them from dominating the package and actually becoming salient.”

It is important for the industry, says Pomerleau, to publicize “effects that can be achieved or problems that can be addressed by smoking.” In this respect, Pomerleau is concerned about the likelihood that the tobacco industry will seize upon the relationship between smoking and thinness as the wedge for sales campaigns aimed at women. “If it worked in the U.S., why not in Africa or Asia or South America?”

And finally, under a consent judgment worked out with California state Attorney General Jerry Brown, the Florida-based Smoking Everywhere company, a distributor of electronic cigarettes, has agreed not to target minors in its advertising, or to make claims that its products are safe alternatives to tobacco. The move comes shortly after the FDA announced plans to regulated battery-powered e-cigarettes as new drug delivery devices. Smoking Everywhere distributes e-cigarettes manufactured in China. The consent judgment also bars the company from selling its products in vending machines, and requires the products to contain warning labels about the dangers of nicotine.

And don’t forget: Thursday, November 18 marks the 35th annual Great American Smokeout.