Search

Aims: The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti‐smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use. Methods: We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non‐government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi‐day face‐to‐face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular. Results: Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction. Conclusions: An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to a paper printed in a prior issue is presented, written by Berridge et al., which discusses policy around electronic nicotine delivery systems.

Aim: To describe an outbreak of lung injuries in 2019 among people who vaped in the United States (type of injuries, people afflicted, substances vaped and cause of the injuries) and to analyse critically the regulatory responses of public health authorities and the media reporting of the outbreak. Methods: Case studies of the reporting of the e‐cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI) outbreak. We examined data on the number of cases of lung injury provided by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), public advice on the causes of the outbreak provided by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), major media reports of the outbreak and proposed regulatory responses by governments in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Results: The CDC initially suggested that the cause of the outbreak was nicotine vaping because the outbreak followed a large increase in nicotine vaping among US adolescents. Case–control studies revealed that the majority of cases had vaped illicit cannabis oils that were contaminated by vitamin E acetate. The CDC's public advice and the media were slow to report the evidence on the role of cannabis vaping. Popular government regulatory proposals—bans on sales of nicotine flavours and vaporizers—were based on the assumption that nicotine vaping was the cause of the outbreak. Conclusions: Media reporting in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom of the US Centers for Disease Control's analysis of the causes of the e‐cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury outbreak contributed to regulatory over‐reactions to nicotine vaping by the public health community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Aims To assess the effectiveness of methamphetamine precursor regulations in reducing illicit methamphetamine supply and use. Methods A systematic review of 12 databases was used to identify studies that had evaluated the impact of methamphetamine precursor regulations on methamphetamine supply and/or use. The guidelines of the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) of The Cochrane Collaboration were used to determine which study designs were included and assess their quality. Results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 15 interventions (13 regulations and two related interdiction efforts), all of which were located in North America. Interventions had consistent impacts across various indicators of methamphetamine supply and use. Seven of the 15 interventions produced reductions in methamphetamine indicators (ranging from 12% to 77%). Two of the largest impacts were seen following interdiction efforts, involving the closure of rogue pharmaceutical companies. There was no evidence of a shift into other types of drug use, or injecting use, although the impact on the synthetic drug market was not examined. Null effects were related largely to the existence of alternative sources of precursor chemicals or the availability of imported methamphetamine. Conclusions Methamphetamine precursor regulations can reduce indicators of methamphetamine supply and use. Further research is needed to determine whether regulations can be effective outside North America, particularly in developing countries, and what impact they have on the broader synthetic drug market. Improved data on precursor diversion are needed to facilitate the evaluation of precursor regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commentary to: Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British Psychoactive Substances Bill [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]