The narrative concocted to support this ban is a sham. Vaping is not a public health crisis. Aside from a handful of deeply flawed studies that have been discredited, the accumulated evidence is becoming clearer and clearer--vaping is orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking is. And it's hardly more of a nuisance than wearing an excessive amount of perfume.
A study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine addresses an interesting, incremental way to motivate people to butt out: you pay them. In a previous post I've written about both the public and private sector rewarding people for healthy living, including in terms of being more physically active and eating/drinking more nutritiously. Paying people to quit may, at first, seem far fetched. But it is part of a larger movement to implement what are regarded as sound policies without invoking the heavy hand of the state: regulating lite.
There's good news and bad news about smoking. Recent statistics reveal that consumption rates are at record lows and appear to be dropping even further. And, as those rates fall, the menace of second-hand smoke also recedes. But these positive developments come at a time when new evidence warns that cigarettes are even more hazardous than we have thought. So to end smoking and the many costs it imposes on this continent, let alone elsewhere in the world, much remains to be done.
Taxation is mostly used by state governments to generate revenue; it is sometimes used as a policy tool to dissuade citizens from the consumption of different products or services. However, the introduction of disparate taxation may lead to unintended consequences. Disparate taxation on cigarettes may lead to the creation and expansion of black markets for cigarettes. It is very important to be cognizant of the unintended consequences of disparate taxation when it is used as a policy tool.
So when no evidence exists to show that e-cigarettes are safe for long-term use by humans, when laboratory studies demonstrate worrisome potential physiological risks, and when strong evidence is mounting that e-cigarettes are leading our youth to consider smoking tobacco cigarettes, I would contend that caution here is the only reasonable approach.
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians living with obesity over the past few decades and it is often cited as a risk factor for other chronic health conditions including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer. This means that obesity is frequently a hot topic in the news. But media stories often miss the mark when it comes to informing Canadians about the complex factors that lead to obesity.
Caloric labelling is a recent strategy in combatting obesity. It's been tried in the United States in various cities and states. Something similar, in fact, happened in the battle against smoking. No one intervention brought down the rate. Instead a variety of legal strategies (banning sales to children, restricting advertising, mandating warnings, imposing high taxes etc.) working together significantly cut the numbers who use cigarettes.
There are many factors we can't control that affect our cancer risk, like growing older, our genetic profile and having a family history of the disease. But the good news is that there is a lot we can control. It's as simple as making healthy choices every day and having policies in place that protect our health. Here are the top 10 ways to lower your risk of cancer.
The method's goal is to help people make better choices in a variety of areas without removing their right to choose. Researchers claim that individuals select more wisely when provided with a clear set of options. The method may be able to curb problems such as smoking, intemperate drinking, and problem gambling.
Those approaches, for unhealthy eating in particular, can be a real challenge, because they bang hard against the reactor core of our economic system -- consumption. Consumption and lots of it. Like tobacco, the fight for healthy eating will challenge the heart of what companies do: sell as much as they can.
The pain and terror that seem, for those first few days, like everything -- seen, smelled, tasted, heard, felt -- will be replaced by a longing similar to the kind one feels towards an old paramour. It is even possible that you will be capable of returning to the warm arms of the infrequent cigarette at some distant speck in the future without drowning again in the compulsion.
When it comes to the climb of pop stardom, Miley Cyrus has proven she can't be tamed. Earlier this month, the singer posted a photo showing a new tattoo in a rather unlikely place: her lower lip. Unlike the other maneuvers, which may have social consequences, this one could lead to medical problems.
There's vast potential for an additional revenue stream that can more than offset the losses of choosing not to sell cigarettes in their pharmacies. CVS's move is not only socially conscious; it's also a shrewd business move. And smart, educated, and astute consumers don't begrudge a company posting a profit, if their demands have been met and their concerns addressed.