For more than a decade, Australian politicians, health departments and tobacco control organisations have presented New Zealand as a close policy cousin.
I am usually skeptical of joinpoint analyses because they too often take a naturally flattening curve (e.g., as smoking approaches zero), force a linear fit on it, and interpret the naturally-occurring change in slope as an externally-caused change. But here, this is one of the few joinpoint analyses I find credible because the change goes *against* the natural shape of the curve. The higher rate of decline is even more impressive considering that curve is bound to flatten (which it does in the last segment). I fully agree with Beaglehole et al. that these declines cannot be explained as long-delayed effects of tobacco control policies.
Compare it to Australia. Why has our long-standing tobacco control not had the same effect? We prove that the Blum et al. commentary is not consistent with the observed trends in NZ.
Your point makes sense, it’s unlikely that long-standing tobacco control measures alone would suddenly explain a sharper drop after years of more gradual change.
Alan Gor is, once again, spot on in his careful measured way noting that the NZ paper is also careful, measured and explicitly cautions against definitive conclusions being drawn from the data the authors examined. The commentary by Blum et al is the very opposite: ideological, hostile and indifferent to the compelling arguments the NZ authors have made. It’s a ‘Tale of Two Frameworks’: Evidence-based caution vs ideological intolerance. It’s surprising that the commentary was accepted by the journal. After all, it’s not as if the NZ experience is unique. In less than a decade after Japan allowed heated tobacco products to be legally sold, cigarette sales had declined by over 50%. This was achieved in Japan without any government or Health Department assistance. The experience of safer, smoke-free nicotine products replacing combustible cigarettes in Swedish men and later in Swedish women, Norway and Iceland is much the same. What Blum et al demonstrate is that the opposition to tobacco harm reduction has run out of ideas. Meanwhile in the Republic of South Africa, the decision seems to have just been reached to take one big step for tobacco harm reduction. This will be one giant leap for mankind if other countries in Sub Saharan Africa are influenced by the RSA.
Hee hee, kiwis rock!! Burn the liar, suck on ya vape!!
But im in the minority i think?
Started on 12mg menthol (pad smoker) and still on same nic n menthol main flavor. My juice is well steeped $20 bottles 120ml so 2ml daily use $0.33 as opposed to $40 pack a day. Addicted but not too 'pid!! Oh, my vape is bought at firesale prices when govt making up it's mind!! $64 vape for $10!! Hee hee 😜
Great coverage of these two articles!
I am usually skeptical of joinpoint analyses because they too often take a naturally flattening curve (e.g., as smoking approaches zero), force a linear fit on it, and interpret the naturally-occurring change in slope as an externally-caused change. But here, this is one of the few joinpoint analyses I find credible because the change goes *against* the natural shape of the curve. The higher rate of decline is even more impressive considering that curve is bound to flatten (which it does in the last segment). I fully agree with Beaglehole et al. that these declines cannot be explained as long-delayed effects of tobacco control policies.
Compare it to Australia. Why has our long-standing tobacco control not had the same effect? We prove that the Blum et al. commentary is not consistent with the observed trends in NZ.
Thanks, Arielle!
Your point makes sense, it’s unlikely that long-standing tobacco control measures alone would suddenly explain a sharper drop after years of more gradual change.
Exactly! A point which some of the same authors made well here (you probably know this one, too): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.70006
Yep, sure do. But Simon says NZ is an outlier????? :)
Alan Gor is, once again, spot on in his careful measured way noting that the NZ paper is also careful, measured and explicitly cautions against definitive conclusions being drawn from the data the authors examined. The commentary by Blum et al is the very opposite: ideological, hostile and indifferent to the compelling arguments the NZ authors have made. It’s a ‘Tale of Two Frameworks’: Evidence-based caution vs ideological intolerance. It’s surprising that the commentary was accepted by the journal. After all, it’s not as if the NZ experience is unique. In less than a decade after Japan allowed heated tobacco products to be legally sold, cigarette sales had declined by over 50%. This was achieved in Japan without any government or Health Department assistance. The experience of safer, smoke-free nicotine products replacing combustible cigarettes in Swedish men and later in Swedish women, Norway and Iceland is much the same. What Blum et al demonstrate is that the opposition to tobacco harm reduction has run out of ideas. Meanwhile in the Republic of South Africa, the decision seems to have just been reached to take one big step for tobacco harm reduction. This will be one giant leap for mankind if other countries in Sub Saharan Africa are influenced by the RSA.
Hee hee, kiwis rock!! Burn the liar, suck on ya vape!!
But im in the minority i think?
Started on 12mg menthol (pad smoker) and still on same nic n menthol main flavor. My juice is well steeped $20 bottles 120ml so 2ml daily use $0.33 as opposed to $40 pack a day. Addicted but not too 'pid!! Oh, my vape is bought at firesale prices when govt making up it's mind!! $64 vape for $10!! Hee hee 😜
Keep dem stacks cumin my friend 🧡