SHARE
Gérard Dubois is one of five authors of the report at the origin of the French Evin law against smoking, in 1991.

In a plain page article, the Pr Gerard Dubois, former President of the French National Committee against Smoking, and Honorary President of the Alliance against tobacco, explains to his readers that the e-cigarette is “useful for the reduction of mortality and morbidity caused by tobacco”, evaluated 95% less dangerous than the latter by England and “acclaimed by smokers.”

[ Electronic cigarette ] does not participate in a smoking initiation of children and adolescents.
Dismissing the gateway to smoking effect, he stressed that the e-cigarette is “almost exclusively used by smokers or former smokers who fear of relapsing” and contributed “in France and in England, to a decline in tobacco sales”.

 

Questionings publicized but unfounded.
The “toxicity of the e-cigarette is much lower than that of the tobacco smoke” but legislation and implementation of current regulations, however, are necessary to ensure the safety of a product praised by smokers and to adjust its use.

 

The fear of an incentive to not comply with smoking bans

The use in public could lead to not to respect smoking bans imposed by the Evin law, dreads Gérard Dubois, who claims a broad consensus of public health actors to request the prohibition of vaping where smoking is also prohibited.

Recent advertising campaigns, including on television, hit “smokers, non-smokers, children and adolescents”, he writes. Any advertising and promotion of this product should be banned, he wrote again, “except in its use as stopping method if it is recognized”.

“The final and complete abstinence”

Despite the reserves expressed in the article published on Monday, the apprehension of the Emeritus Professor of Public Health appears to be changing with time. In 2013, he was concerned about the presence of flavorings that “may constitute an additional attraction means”, he stated. In March 2015, the interest of the e-cigarette was to tend to the “complete and final abstinence”. Today it appears useful to former smokers who are afraid to relapse.

Thoughts and positions of experts and advocates will be debated on May 9, 2016 at the Vape Summit that will be held in Paris at the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers (CNAM) with many public health actors, and that we will follow with great interest.

  • Daniel Hammond

    Ecigs are a simple way for smokers to beat the bans and that’s it. If tobacco sales dropped as is hard to believe as they just increased in America by 15% year over year according to RJR sales figures reported in October meaning more smokers now that ever. We have t focus on bootleg sales all over France and that is not even countable. So no ecigs don’t reduce smoking rates nor do they reduce sales of tobacco,what they do is give smokers a edge over the bans at work or when they are forced into the indoors.

  • Daniel Hammond

    ……………OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  • Daniel Hammond

    Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5.
    [Environmental somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu syndrome?].
    [Article in Swedish]
    Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin C.
    SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge Sjukhus.

    Abstract
    Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster. Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a., arsenic, carbon monoxide (“generator gas poisoning”), mercury (“oral galvanism”), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields (“electric allergy”) and repetitive movements (“repetition strain injury”, RSI). The typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology.

    The community is often placed in difficult positions by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems