The need for an expanded national smokefree law – just got more critical

Friday, October 4th, 2013 | Kate Sloane | No Comments

Associate Professors Nick Wilson & George Thomson

A just released Judicial Review has opened up the question of how “open areas” of buildings (where smoking is permitted in New Zealand) are determined in practice. In this blog post we consider the implications of this ruling and why it heightens the need for an expanded national law on smokefree areas.

Continue reading

Smart party pill law makes tobacco & alcohol regulation look pathetic

Tuesday, September 24th, 2013 | Kate Sloane | 1 Comment

Professor Richard Edwards

Party pills now have stringent government-promulgated rules and processes. All but one MP voted for the new law. The irony is that tobacco – and for that matter alcohol – with orders of magnitude more harm gets the wet bus ticket regulatory treatment. The promise is that if such a wide parliamentary consensus can be achieved on party pills, proportionate action on tobacco should see it sorted out by lunch time.

Continue reading

Does change in income and deprivation change your smoking risk? Yes, but in different directions.

Thursday, September 12th, 2013 | TONY BLAKELY | 5 Comments

Professor Tony Blakely

Everyone knows that lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to smoke.  But why?  Is it because of things like less education or more deprivation actually causing you to smoke?  Or is it other correlated things like personality?  The answer to these questions matter, both for tobacco control policy and political debate.  Moreover, not all is as you might expect, and it differs for deprivation and income. Continue reading

New Zealand E-cigarette trial in Lancet – keeping it in perspective

Monday, September 9th, 2013 | TONY BLAKELY | 9 Comments

Professor Tony Blakely

A New Zealand randomized trial of e-cigarettes just published in the prestigious Lancet journal has been touted in the media as showing how good e-cigarettes are for people wanting to quit smoking.  This is overstating the study findings. And to be fair to the authors, overstating their conclusions too.

So what did the study find?  No statistically significant difference in abstinence at 6 months.

Continue reading