Latest news with #vapers
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Quitting the quit-aid: people trying to stop vaping nicotine need more support – here are some strategies to help
New Zealand is among a number of countries that encourage vaping (the use of e-cigarettes) as a tool to help people stop smoking tobacco. But what happens when people want to quit vaping? Nicotine vapes can be addictive. While they have helped many New Zealanders quit smoking cigarettes, others – including people who never smoked – now find themselves wanting to quit vaping. To better understand how and why people try to quit, we surveyed more than 1,000 people in Aotearoa New Zealand who have used nicotine vapes. The findings from our study point to a need for support that treats vaping cessation like quitting smoking because for many, the challenges are similar. We focused on New Zealanders aged 16 and over who had vaped nicotine. Of the 1,119 respondents, 401 currently vaped and 718 had quit vaping. Around one in eight had never smoked tobacco at all. We found using vapes for more than two years and with nicotine concentrations above 3% was linked to higher dependence on vaping. Most current or past vapers wanted to stop, and more than three-quarters of participants had made up to three serious attempts to quit vaping. Some people wanted to quit vaping because what began as a tool to support quitting smoking has become a new source of frustration or worry. The most common reasons to stop vaping were concerns about current or future health, disliking the feeling of being dependent, and the cost of vaping products. These motivations echo the reasons many people cite for quitting smoking, suggesting that people who vape (like most people who smoke) do not want to remain hooked on nicotine, even if it helped them quit cigarettes. Participants used a variety of strategies to quit, including abrupt cessation ('cold turkey'), switching to other forms of reduced-harm nicotine (such as nicotine patches, gums, lozenges, mouth sprays), and tapering down nicotine levels. Many also relied on support from whānau (family) and friends. These strategies mirror those used in smoking cessation. Our participants reiterate the importance of personal strategies, building on previous work on interventions that target vaping cessation. Some people did quit vaping and had no problem quitting. However, others struggled. Triggers that cause a relapse to vaping are similar to those many people who smoke experience, including stress and symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Being around others who vape is also a trigger for relapse. These factors highlight the social and psychological effects of vaping, just as they have long been recognised in tobacco addiction research. Importantly, these triggers appeared consistent across different groups regardless of age, gender, cultural background or smoking history. Whether someone vaped to stop smoking or whether vaping was the first nicotine product they tried, quitting came with similar challenges. Our study suggests many New Zealanders are now trying to quit nicotine vapes, and some face real barriers to doing so. We think existing smoking-cessation support and medications could play a useful role. These tools include behavioural support, such as building self-belief in the ability to quit, identifying key triggers (and strategies to avoid them), stress management strategies, and access to tapering schedules (cutting down the frequency of vaping over time or gradually reducing nicotine concentration). As previous work shows, the type of support needed may differ between older tobacco smokers and the growing population of teens taking up vaping. Vaping as an exit from tobacco smoking should still be offered to people who smoke. Once vaping is taken up, it should be promoted as a medium-term, step-down tactic (3–12 months), while ensuring that relapse to smoking is avoided. Such a strategy aligns with vaping-cessation guidance provided in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. But it's clear the landscape has shifted. Vaping is no longer just used to quit smoking; vapes are used by people who have never smoked. For some, vaping becomes a habit they want to quit in its own right, but it may not always be easy given the addictive nature of nicotine. We need dedicated support for vaping cessation to address this growing concern. Findings from our survey have been key to the development of a New Zealand vaping-cessation clinical trial currently underway. People who are interested in quitting vaping can find out more and register their interest. This article is republished from The Conversation. It was written by: Joya Kemper, University of Canterbury; Amanda Palmer, Medical University of South Carolina; Bodo Lang, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University; Chris Bullen, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; George Laking, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; Jamie Brown, UCL; Lion Shahab, UCL; Natalie Walker, Flinders University, and Vili Nosa, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Read more: Want to quit vaping this year? Here's what the evidence shows so far about effective strategies Young non-smokers in NZ are taking up vaping more than ever before. Here are 5 reasons why We asked young people if they wanted tighter vaping regulation to phase out nicotine – here's what they said This study was supported by a grant from the University of Auckland, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences Research and Development Fund. Amanda Palmer has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health and Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina. Bodo Lang has received funding from the Health Research Council of NZ. Chris Bullen receives funding from the Health Research Council of NZ, Ministry of Health and US NIH for research projects on smoking and vaping and personal funding from Kenvue Asia for cochairing ASEAN smoking-cessation leadership meetings. He co-chairs the smokefree expert advisory group for Health Coalition Aotearoa. George Laking has received funding from the Health Research Council of NZ. Jamie Brown has received (most recently in 2018) unrestricted funding to study smoking cessation from Pfizer and J&J, which manufacture medically licensed smoking cessation medications. Lion Shahab received personal fees from a grant funded by the US National Cancer Institute as part of his role as a member of an external scientific advisory committee outside of the submitted work. He also acted as a paid reviewer for grant awarding bodies and as a paid consultant for health-care companies and, in the past, has received honoraria for talks, an unrestricted research grant, and travel expenses to attend meetings and workshops by producers of smoking cessation medication (Pfizer/Johnson&Johnson). Natalie Walker has received personal fees from a grant funded by the US National Cancer Institute as part of her role as a member of the external scientific advisory committee. She is involved in a grant (in-kind) supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. She also received grants from the Health Research Council of NZ and funds from the US National Institute for Health and the Food and Drug Administration tobacco regulatory science grant. She has acted as a paid reviewer for grant awarding bodies. She has no financial links with tobacco companies, e-cigarette manufacturers, or their representatives. Vili Nosa has received funding from the Health Research Council of NZ.
Daily Mail
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Booze, wood-burners, Sunday roasts... as the list of everyday pleasures targeted by the SNP grows longer, have we EVER been subjected to a more censorious nanny state government?
They've clobbered smokers. Thought – aloud – about criminalising the ownership of cats. Its Fife panjandrums are now leaning on local chippies to slash portion-sizes – in the averred interests of public health: now, SNP surrogates threaten your Sunday roast. The ink had barely dried on the first Scottish Parliament minutes before that first cohort of MSPs had banned fox-hunting and hare-coursing. Passed a whole Act about dog-fouling. Our underemployed, overwaged legislators are still after anyone gasping for a fag - in the latest wheeze, you can now be prosecuted for puffing within fifteen metres of a hospital boundary, even if you are on the other side of the street. Disposable vapes are in their sights too: for years it has been an offence to vape at any Scottish railway station, even on a platform in the open air. No pleasure seems safe from the Nats, from their fatuous efforts to police football chants – indeed, the initial law was so intrusive, and so unworkable, it had to be abandoned. Forget that soothing drink, by the way. 'Minimum pricing,' whacked up again last year, means you're now shelling out more for a litre of sherry than, back in 1999, you had to hand over for a bottle of Famous Grouse. Our English neighbours enjoy cheaper beer than we do. And now the Nats have a real new beef with us. The Scottish Government's Climate Change Committee, wagging a sententious finger, says we should all be eating 30 per cent less red meat. And that farmers – as if they did not have trials enough, with scant profit-margins and over-weening bureaucracy in one of Scotland's loneliest jobs – should rear a third fewer sheep and cattle. Even that shocker has had to jostle for attention with other ridiculous headlines. NHS Fife, for instance, is leaning on the hot takeaway trade to cut the typical portion of, for instance, fish and chips. And the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission suddenly has anglers in its crosshairs. Fishing practices should be reformed, it drones, as fish are 'sentient beings' with 'emotional experiences that matter to them.' It hopes ministers will soon review the law regarding 'actions that occur in the normal course of fishing.' Such a move, panted one newspaper and as if it had just unmasked Lord Lucan, 'could outlaw many aspects of angling such as hooking a fish and removing it from the water.' SAWC does, admittedly, have form. Only in February, it thought about forbidding cat ownership in parts of the country where there was demonstrable predation on birds and small mammals. It would make still more sense to shoot every last bird of prey out of the sky and, if SAWC wants a rough guide, between 1837 and 1840 gamekeepers in forested Invergarry killed 285 common buzzards, 63 goshawks, 27 white-tailed sea eagles, 15 golden eagles and 18 ospreys. Not to mention six gyrfalcons, eleven hobbies, 275 kites, 371 rough-legged buzzards, 462 kes-trels, 78 merlins, 63 hen harriers and seven orange-legged falcons. The First Minister, of less stern stuff, limply assured the public that the SNP administration had no plans to ban pet cats. Last year, too, the Nationalists were even forced to abandon a crazed scheme to ban wood-burning stoves in new-build houses. It feels increasingly as if you cannot take three strides in what one of John Swinney's predecessors once hailed as 'the best small country in the world' without being lectured, harangued, re-proached and disapproved of. Tobacco, sugar, booze, salmon or that jumbo-sausage supper… ministers have their beady little eyes on us. And, no doubt, others have eyes on them too. It is only fair to point out that this culture of censure, rebuke and righteously rapped knuckles long predates the SNP's 2007 ascent to power. From practically the start, the devolved new Scotland rapidly won much wry comment for eat-your-vegetables nanny statism. After the first MSPs had solemnly voted themselves a com-memorative medal. In 2005, for instance, Nora Radcliffe – Liberal Democrat MSP for Gordon, till Alex Salmond toppled her from obscurity into oblivion – called for a ban on the boiling of live lobsters. The Scottish Executive, as it then was, pelted us with posters and raucous TV ads about the horrors of everything from eating too many crisps, through dodgy electric blankets, to the enormity of consigning your Christmas turkey to the fridge before it was completely cold. And, in April 2006 and to widespread trepidation – many journalists hurried up from England, hoping for riots on the streets – Jack McConnell's administration banned smoking in enclosed public spaces. A policy, in fact, first suggested by a Nationalist MSP, Stewart Maxwell. But Scots submitted to it so meekly that one wonders how much it emboldened another First Minister, fourteen years later, to impose all sorts of ridiculous restrictions on our liberties during Covid. At its height, you could not sit down on a park bench, enjoy coffee with a neighbour in your garden or leave your house more than once a day. It was even decreed an offence to venture beyond the bounds of your own local authority. When I in March 2021 had briefly to scamper back to my Hebridean lair, by deserted roads through silent towns, for an armful of Astra-Zeneca, I was so terrified of being stopped and challenged I carried a sort of letter-of-transit from my GP. Meanwhile, our unfortunate children shuffled down school corridors in sweaty masks as – concerned about classroom ventilation – ministers wondered aloud about sawing the bottoms off doors and Nicola Sturgeon tut-tutted that Prince William dared to visit Scotland. Behind this are two dark realities. The first is that, while finally responsible for a host of public services, the Scottish Government (and, by extension, the Scottish Parliament) delivers virtually none of them. Local authorities school most of our children; local health-boards direct primary care and hospitals, and so on. When it finally did have an immediate and grave responsibility, from the dawn of 2021 – vaccinating the elderly and the vulnerable against coronavirus – the Scottish Government made such a laboured fist of things that, quietly and with the deepest tact, Whitehall sent in the army. The second reality is that there is a very old middle-class tradition in Scotland of censuring working-class pleasures. In an era when, for most ordinary people, Sunday was their only day off, clergy insisted on the shuttering of galleries and museums. In a noted Court of Session case – with consequences, generations later, for the Western Isles – it was finally ruled that the good and respectable folk of Burntisland, most conscious of their goodness and respectability, could not ban the Sabbath visits of excursion steamers. In 1875 the Religion and Morals Report for the Free Church General Assembly railed that, to a large extent, 'our farm servants are ignorant, licentious, profane and rude'. What yokels might have thought of Free Church ministers is not recorded. Meanwhile, Presbyterians grew so obsessed with the demon drink that, by the Great War, many congregations celebrated Communion with non-alcoholic wine. And, in 1907, a United Free Church minister assailed a new social phenomenon as 'perfect iniquities of Hell itself,' capped in Glasgow Corporation's 1909 roar about 'the great and increasing evil' it was doing to the city's young men and women. Business ventures 'owned by 'aliens and Roman Catholics,' touting an unnecessary product 'epitomising,' gasped one gentleman, 'the evil of luxury being smuggled into the souls of Glaswegians.' The target of such ire? Italian ice cream cafés. As if not to be outdone, the Free Presbyterian Magazine warned young Highland lasses, seeking urban employment, of the perils of the white-slave trade. They should not, for instance, accept sweets from strangers. Retreating from such past larks to the latest decrees from those with the rule over us, it is striking how few stand up to logical examination. Take the Scottish Climate Committee's clamour for less beef and fewer cows; the reduced bleating of sheep. This is presumably pegged to three core tenets of tree-hugging faith: that reduced upland grazing will in scant decades see the regeneration of much Scottish forest; that cattle-feed is a wildly inefficient use of grain; and that cows, naturally flatulent, are responsible for about 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gases. The precise figure is, in fact, disputed. But the Committee's lordly loftiness flies in the face of basic realities. For one, about 65 per cent of all the land in Britain can bear nothing but grass. Cows and sheep – hold the front page – eat grass. We cannot. Our cloven-hooved stock will, accordingly, be an essential part of our food economy till the end of time, and the beef industry in particular has for years been working hard to reduce its carbon footprint. For another, much of upland and coastal Scotland is too high – or too exposed to salted winds – to bear significant woodland. Life in somewhere like Lewis or Tiree is, as someone once said with feeling, like living on the deck of an aircraft-carrier. Snow can fall on Ben Nevis in any calendar month of the year. And, even were it otherwise, the Climate Change Committee seems to be blithely unaware of the real menace: deer. The deer population on Britain, as Patrick Galbraith details in his rather good book about Brit-ain's vanishing birds - In Search of One Last Song - is completely out of control: two million beasts on the trot, the highest in a thousand years. The ideal on a well-managed Scottish estate is five deer per square kilometre – on some, numbers are at an unsustainable twenty per kilometre. The depredations of muntjac alone have wiped out the nightingale in many parts of England. Deer threaten the survival, too, of black grouse, ptarmigan and the capercaillie. They are, additionally, responsible for many fatal road-accidents; and there is no more ferocious foe of forest than browsing Bambi. But households remain reluctant to buy and cook venison – and, absurdly, much of the venison for sale in Britain today is imported. In any event, most of us eat less red meat these days, not least because it is so expensive: you will struggle to buy a family-sized pot-roasting cut for less than a tenner. And in the Hebrides, well within living memory, it was a rare treat: fish and potatoes all week, with meat (and the related broth as the first course) on Sundays. There are other environmental realities that seem to have eluded the Climate Change Committee. Without cattle, as the Royal Agricultural Society of England has pointed out, 'there would be no dung, which would vastly reduce the presence of dung beetles in their habitat. 'As well as delivering a myriad of ecosystem benefits, such as sequestering carbon into the soil, dung beetle larvae are a key food source for ground-nesting birds. It is estimated that dung beetles save farmers in the UK £367 million per year…' Then we have that NHS Fife obsession: how big is your fish supper? In fact, fish and chips – cooked properly and well – is a remarkably healthy meal. There is, for instance, no added sugar. It is rich in Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins B12 and D, and high-quality protein – and less fat than a typical serving of, say, chicken tikka masala or an oil-slicked Chinese takeaway. 'Typically,' assures one authority, 'fish and chips on average have 9.42 grams of fat per 100 grams, while the average pizza has 11, chicken korma 15.5 and a donner kebab a whopping 16.2…' We come to SWAC's vapourings about angling. One rather doubts such solicitude extends to every creature of the earth. Even the Commission's august personages doubtless prefer life without headlice, tapeworms and rats and most, presumably, vaccinate their children. It remains official NatureScot advice to smash dead any American signal crayfish you meet in our fresh waters and, for over two decades, it has been determinedly exterminating feral mink in the Western Isles. Where SWAC may have a point is the dubious practice of 'catch and release.' My own view is that you should only venture out with the rod for fish you can eat and, having caught your salmon and thumped it on the head, you head for home and the deep freeze, rather than hauling in fish after fish, weighing them, measuring them, taking a few snaps for social media and then returning them to the deep. Not forgetting a protracted chat about emotional experiences that really mattered to them. But, in coarse fishing, catch and release is the whole point: we might, perhaps, command barbless hooks, or even the soluble sort decreed in the pursuit of bluefin tuna. The wild Atlantic salmon may not always be with us; the typical Scottish political animal will add to the gaiety of nations for decades to come. Bossy, virtue-signalling, carefully picking its targets, and unconsciously living what Ronald Reagan once mocked as the prevalent tenets in modern statecraft. If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it – and, if it stops moving, subsidise it.
The Independent
02-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Charity warns of disposable vapes ‘ticking time bomb' following ban
A 'ticking time bomb' of disposable vapes is set to enter the waste system this week, risking widespread fires because of the incorrect disposal of the devices' batteries, a charity has warned. Electrical Safety First urged vapers not to 'bin the battery' following the ban on the sale of disposable or single-use vapes from June 1. A survey for the charity found almost three in five vapers (58%) plan on throwing their old vapes into their household's general waste or recycling bin, prompting fears of fires in refuse trucks and waste centres. This is despite 71% of vapers admitting that they are aware that improper disposal of vapes can cause fires. Disposable vapes contain lithium-ion batteries, which if damaged can create explosive and highly toxic fires that are almost impossible to put out – a process known as thermal runaway. However, the incorrect disposal of these vapes in the general waste system can cause bigger issues. When general rubbish or recycling is collected, vapes are often crushed, compacted, punctured or soaked in liquids. This can cause the batteries within them to overheat or ignite, leading to fires that put workers at risk, risking millions of pounds worth of damage and disruption to waste services. Even if they do not start a fire, damaged batteries release harmful chemicals and materials that can damage the environment if not recycled responsibly. Many vape retailers offer take-back services for disposable vapes. Some councils also have recycling points at household recycling centres. Consumers can check their local council's website to find out if this is available in their area. Giuseppe Capanna, product safety engineer at Electrical Safety First, said: 'This week we anticipate many disposable vapes will come to the end of their life following the ban. 'With reports of vapers having stockpiled these devices there is a risk that a large number of them could end up in the waste system if they are thrown out incorrectly in the household bin. 'These devices contain lithium-ion batteries that can explode or catch fire if damaged or crushed if they make their way into bin lorries, creating a ticking time bomb that puts refuse workers and communities at serious risk. 'The safest option is to recycle them properly. You can recycle them through retail take-back schemes or at a local recycling centre that has dedicated facilities.' The crackdown on the sale of the devices now makes it illegal for any retailer – ranging from corner shops to supermarkets – to sell them. The ban applies to both online and in-store sales across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and all disposable vapes whether or not they contain nicotine. Retailers are still allowed to sell reusable vapes. It follows the soaring use of disposable vapes in schools and a flood of plastic rubbish from the discarding of the devices. Rogue traders who continue to sell them risk a fine of £200 in the first instance, followed by an unlimited fine or jail time for repeat offending. Censuswide surveyed 1,003 UK adults who own a disposable vape between May 22-27.
Daily Mail
01-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Study reveals life-threatening risk of vaping ban that comes into force today...as rule breakers face prison
The disposable vape ban imposed today could backfire, putting hundreds of thousands at risk of dementia, heart disease and organ failure, a new study has suggested. According to research involving 750 UK adults, 42 per cent of vapers will consider returning to lethal smoking if all vapes are banned. Over a quarter of participants also admitted that they have no plans to change their vaping habits, even in light of the disposables ban. As of today, 1 July 2025, shops and businesses can no longer sell disposable vapes, in a bid to stop young people engaging in the harmful habit. Breaching the ban could result in a number of penalties across the UK, including a minimum fine of £200 for businesses that sell disposable vapes in England. Repeat offenders will face up to two years in prison. Trading Standards will also be able to seize any single-use vapes they find. But, research commissioned by Vape Shop suggests the move risks undermining the Government's progress towards a smoke-free Britain. An estimated 5million single use vapes are thrown away every week in the UK. The new poll revealed that 44 per cent of vapers said they originally started vaping to quit smoking. Of the 750 vapers surveyed, 27 per cent admitted that they plan to continue vaping, despite the upcoming ban, with 52 per cent already using refillable and chargeable vapes. Chris Price, E-Commerce Manager at Vape Shop said: 'These findings show a real risk that following the disposable ban, we may see thousands pushed back to smoking—the very habit vaping helped them quit. 'With the 2030 smoke-free ambition, it's important that policy decisions don't undermine progress made over the last decade,' he added. The poll comes as a modelling study conducted by the Future Health Research Centre found that while the ban could see up to 378,000 people give up vaping, smoking rates could sky-rocket. The model scenario indicated that between 90,000 and 200,000 more people could pick up smoking following the ban. Richard Sloggett, the report's author and a former government advisor, said: 'The Government has committed welcome and strong action to reduce smoking and tackle youth vaping. 'However these findings show that urgent work is needed to ensure that efforts to reduce youth vaping do not have the unintended consequence of increasing the numbers smoking – particularly amongst younger people. The ban also feels like being a missed opportunity, with hundreds of thousands of people soon to be looking for alternatives to disposable vapes but over half saying they will simply switch to another product. 'With the ban looming, the Government now needs to get on the front foot, commit to a national mass media anti-smoking campaign and set out more clearly how it will use its forthcoming regulatory powers through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to help ensure that those using disposable vapes do not turn to smoking instead.' According to Cancer Research UK, vaping is far less harmful than smoking. This is because, according to the NHS, vaping exposes users to fewer toxins and at lower levels than smoking cigarettes. Smoking has been linked to at least 16 different types of cancer as well as various heart and lung diseases, infertility and a host of other complication, killing over 8million people every year. Analysis by the cancer charity found that on average, nearly 160 cancer cases attributed to smoking were diagnosed every day in 2023. However, research presented by Manchester Metropolitan University earlier this year challenged this, suggesting vapes could pose a similar health threat. Researchers say this is because vapes allow people to inhale nicotine as a vapour—produced by heating a liquid typically containing a mixture of harmful chemicals and flavourings. Experts are concerned this high nicotine content increases heart rate and blood pressure, as it does in smokers, making blood vessels constrict and damage artery walls. In the Manchester study, researchers tracked volunteers, aged 27 on average, all of whom had a similar level of fitness. They were given regular stress tests to measure the elasticity of their blood vessels and the speed of blood flow to their brains. Both smokers and vapers achieved a flat reading, signaling they had damaged artery walls that can no longer dilate—an almost certain sign of future serious cardiovascular problems, the researchers concluded. Further tests proved that the blood flow in smokers and vapers is similarly impaired, making them at risk of developing cognitive dysfunction, including dementia. Last year, MailOnline also discovered the number of adverse side effects linked to vaping reported to UK regulators has now eclipsed 1,000, with five of them fatal. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), more than 8million people die from tobacco use every year.
Daily Mail
26-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Disposable vapes ban could push 200,000 people back to smoking, report warns
The disposable vapes ban could push 200,000 people back to smoking when it comes into effect next month, a report warns. The law is aimed at protecting the environment and tackling a surge in youth vaping rates, which have soared from 0.8 per cent in 2013 to 7.2 per cent last year. But the Future Health Research Centre says the move risks undermining the Government's progress towards a 'smokefree' Britain if vapers are not supported to maintain their 'quit journey' and switch back to smoking. An estimated 5 million single use vapes, which are available to buy at pocket money prices, are thrown away in the UK every week. The research report 'Endgame: managing the disposable vapes ban and the journey to a smokefree future' contains new polling showing 45 per cent of vapers 'always', 'often' or 'sometimes' use a disposable device. The highest rates of disposable vape use are among those aged 18 to 24, the survey of 4,393 British adults reveals. As a result of the ban, 12 per cent of users say they will switch from vaping to smoking. Some 54 per cent plan to switch to another vape, 15 per cent intend to stop vaping altogether, and 9 per cent will try traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches or gum. Modelling scenarios based on the findings indicate the disposable vapes ban will see between 175,000 and 378,000 people stopping vaping, and between 630,000 and 1.36 million people switching to another vaping product. But the smoking rate could increase by between 90,000 and 200,000, adding 0.2 per cent to 0.4 per cent to the overall population smoking rate. Richard Sloggett, the report's author and a former government advisor, said: 'The Government has committed welcome and strong action to reduce smoking and tackle youth vaping. 'However these findings show that urgent work is needed to ensure that efforts to reduce youth vaping do not have the unintended consequence of increasing the numbers smoking – particularly amongst younger people. 'The ban also feels like being a missed opportunity, with hundreds of thousands of people soon to be looking for alternatives to disposable vapes but over half saying they will simply switch to another product. 'With the ban looming, the Government now needs to get on the front foot, commit to a national mass media anti-smoking campaign and set out more clearly how it will use its forthcoming regulatory powers through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to help ensure that those using disposable vapes do not turn to smoking instead.' The report, commissioned by Kenvue, the makers of Nicolette, calls for the Government to use new regulatory powers to limit vape branding, packaging and displays and restrict the of flavour descriptions on the products. It also calls for new targets to monitor and prioritise reductions in youth vaping rates and to re-commit funding to a national mass media anti-smoking campaign. Steve Brine, a former public health minister and previous chair of the Commons Health and Social Care Committee, who has contributed a foreword to the report, said: 'Smoking remains the single leading preventable cause of illness and mortality in the UK. 'The disposable vapes ban and the Government's wider action in tackling smoking present a massive step in the right direction for England in achieving the original smokefree ambition. 'But we are not there yet and as this research from Future Health shows, any complacency will have serious ramifications. 'The Government needs to make sure that those using disposable vapes are aware of the ban, the alternatives to switch to following its introduction and the dangers of taking up or returning to smoking.'
