Does India's Ban on Electronic Cigarettes Improve Public Health Outcomes?

M. Gowda, Shonali Thangiah
{"title":"Does India's Ban on Electronic Cigarettes Improve Public Health Outcomes?","authors":"M. Gowda, Shonali Thangiah","doi":"10.55763/ippr.2023.04.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn 2019, India banned Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) – a broad category that includes electronic cigarettes, vaping devices, and Heat Not Burn (HNB) devices – because of concerns about health impacts, youth vulnerability, and their potential to undermine tobacco control efforts. This is a missed public health opportunity to reduce tobacco consumption, if ENDS actually help reduce and wean users off nicotine dependency in less harmful ways. This paper applies a risk analysis framework to examine whether India’s ban on ENDS improves public health outcomes, or whether an alternative approach such as regulation would be more effective. It studies global responses and compares how public health goals are served in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, based on four key parameters of concern – health impacts, normalisation of ENDS usage among non-smokers, appeal among youth, and device safety. This comparison demonstrates that the United Kingdom’s regulation-focused approach delivers superior outcomes across all four parameters. Thus, the evidence-based recommendation for India would be to regulate at least HNB devices under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (as they utilise tobacco), as this can help reduce harm and promote innovation in devices that can wean users off nicotine dependence. \n","PeriodicalId":173340,"journal":{"name":"Indian Public Policy Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Public Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55763/ippr.2023.04.02.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2019, India banned Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) – a broad category that includes electronic cigarettes, vaping devices, and Heat Not Burn (HNB) devices – because of concerns about health impacts, youth vulnerability, and their potential to undermine tobacco control efforts. This is a missed public health opportunity to reduce tobacco consumption, if ENDS actually help reduce and wean users off nicotine dependency in less harmful ways. This paper applies a risk analysis framework to examine whether India’s ban on ENDS improves public health outcomes, or whether an alternative approach such as regulation would be more effective. It studies global responses and compares how public health goals are served in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, based on four key parameters of concern – health impacts, normalisation of ENDS usage among non-smokers, appeal among youth, and device safety. This comparison demonstrates that the United Kingdom’s regulation-focused approach delivers superior outcomes across all four parameters. Thus, the evidence-based recommendation for India would be to regulate at least HNB devices under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (as they utilise tobacco), as this can help reduce harm and promote innovation in devices that can wean users off nicotine dependence.
印度禁止电子烟能改善公众健康状况吗?
2019年,印度禁止了电子尼古丁输送系统(ENDS)——这是一个广泛的类别,包括电子烟、电子烟设备和热不燃烧(HNB)设备——因为担心对健康的影响、青少年的脆弱性以及它们可能破坏烟草控制工作。如果ENDS真的能以较无害的方式帮助用户减少和戒断尼古丁依赖,那么减少烟草消费的公共卫生机会就错过了。这篇论文运用了一个风险分析框架来检验印度对ENDS的禁令是否改善了公共卫生结果,或者监管等替代方法是否会更有效。它研究了全球应对措施,并根据四个关注的关键参数——健康影响、非吸烟者使用终端的正常化、年轻人的吸引力和设备安全性——比较了美国和联合王国如何实现公共卫生目标。这一比较表明,英国以监管为重点的方法在所有四个参数上都取得了更好的结果。因此,对印度的循证建议是,至少要根据《香烟和其他烟草制品法》(因为它们使用烟草)对HNB设备进行监管,因为这有助于减少危害,并促进能够让用户戒除尼古丁依赖的设备的创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信