Re: Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?
The long-term effects of e-cigarettes are relatively unknown. Advertisers are exploiting the absence of legislation regulating e-cigarettes, and their promotion, to promote them as a “healthy” and attractive alternative to smoking, using media in which tobacco advertising is illegal. E-cigarettes are consequently an expanding market, with unknown health implications. This reflects the fact that UK law, as it relates to psychoactive substances (including nicotine) is out of date.
There has been an explosion in the sale and promotion of so-called “legal highs” in the UK in the last 7 years. The number of novel psychoactive substances reported to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime rose from 166 in 2009 to 251 by mid-2012. The UK is Europe’s largest consumer of these drugs (1), which have been tried by approximately 5% of 16-24 year olds in Europe. They are becoming more popular year-on-year (1).
The government’s response to minimising the harm caused by “legal highs” has been to classify these drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act (2) on a case-by-case basis, in many cases making them illegal (3).
There are several problems with this. Firstly, the producers and sellers of such substances can evade classification by making small changes to the molecular structure of the drug they wish to sell (1). The new drug is not covered by existing legislation, and is legal to sell. The cycle then repeats – this process is probably responsible for the explosion in the number of novel psychoactive compounds detected over the last decade (1).
Not only does this tactic fail to control the sale of psychoactive substances to the general public, it contravenes the principles of harm reduction: if the drug-taking population obeys the letter of the law they are acting as trial subjects for chemicals which may never have been tested in animals or humans. The longer a drug is used by the population, the greater the understanding of its effects and risks: new, legal, street drugs are completely untested on any population, and therefore carry a much higher inherent risk to the user.
Secondly, witless consumers have no idea whether the drug which they have consumed is legal or illegal. Sellers also have no idea of what they’re selling. Adulteration of street drugs has always been an issue, but patients now are unable to even name the supposed “key ingredient” of what they’ve taken.
The government is left attempting to catch up with the relentless innovation and marketing of the “legal highs” and e-cigarettes.
I believe a more pragmatic approach would be to ban the import and commercial sale of any chemicals with psychoactive properties, other than those on an “approved list” (e.g. ethanol, tobacco, solvents). The onus would be on the manufacturer to prove that there was a genuine need for the novel chemical, and that it had a low potential for misuse. This would avoid the novel chemical being sold as "bath salts"(7) or "plant food"(8). Another approach would be to require a licence to sell any chemicals with potentially psychoactive properties (including e-cigarettes) – much as shops need licences to sell tobacco or alcohol.
Rapid Response:
Re: Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?
The long-term effects of e-cigarettes are relatively unknown. Advertisers are exploiting the absence of legislation regulating e-cigarettes, and their promotion, to promote them as a “healthy” and attractive alternative to smoking, using media in which tobacco advertising is illegal. E-cigarettes are consequently an expanding market, with unknown health implications. This reflects the fact that UK law, as it relates to psychoactive substances (including nicotine) is out of date.
There has been an explosion in the sale and promotion of so-called “legal highs” in the UK in the last 7 years. The number of novel psychoactive substances reported to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime rose from 166 in 2009 to 251 by mid-2012. The UK is Europe’s largest consumer of these drugs (1), which have been tried by approximately 5% of 16-24 year olds in Europe. They are becoming more popular year-on-year (1).
The government’s response to minimising the harm caused by “legal highs” has been to classify these drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act (2) on a case-by-case basis, in many cases making them illegal (3).
There are several problems with this. Firstly, the producers and sellers of such substances can evade classification by making small changes to the molecular structure of the drug they wish to sell (1). The new drug is not covered by existing legislation, and is legal to sell. The cycle then repeats – this process is probably responsible for the explosion in the number of novel psychoactive compounds detected over the last decade (1).
Not only does this tactic fail to control the sale of psychoactive substances to the general public, it contravenes the principles of harm reduction: if the drug-taking population obeys the letter of the law they are acting as trial subjects for chemicals which may never have been tested in animals or humans. The longer a drug is used by the population, the greater the understanding of its effects and risks: new, legal, street drugs are completely untested on any population, and therefore carry a much higher inherent risk to the user.
Secondly, witless consumers have no idea whether the drug which they have consumed is legal or illegal. Sellers also have no idea of what they’re selling. Adulteration of street drugs has always been an issue, but patients now are unable to even name the supposed “key ingredient” of what they’ve taken.
The government is left attempting to catch up with the relentless innovation and marketing of the “legal highs” and e-cigarettes.
I believe a more pragmatic approach would be to ban the import and commercial sale of any chemicals with psychoactive properties, other than those on an “approved list” (e.g. ethanol, tobacco, solvents). The onus would be on the manufacturer to prove that there was a genuine need for the novel chemical, and that it had a low potential for misuse. This would avoid the novel chemical being sold as "bath salts"(7) or "plant food"(8). Another approach would be to require a licence to sell any chemicals with potentially psychoactive properties (including e-cigarettes) – much as shops need licences to sell tobacco or alcohol.
1. UN World Drug Report http://www.unodc.org/wdr/en/nps.html
2. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/contents
3. Government Press Release https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mexxy-black-mamba-and-other-legal-hig...
4. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction: Cannabinoids http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/synthetic-cannabi...
5. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Addiction: Synthetic Cathinones http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/synthetic-cathinones
6. Office of National Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/opinions-and-lifestyle-survey/smoking-...
7. Ask Frank (UK government drugs advisory service) http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/legal-highs#aka=bath+salts
8. Ask Frank (UK government drugs advisory service) http://www.talktofrank.com/drug/legal-highs#aka=Plant+food
Competing interests: No competing interests