Cannabis Use and Perceptions Among Current and Former Military Service Members.

Background: Research indicates separation from the military may result in increased risk of alcohol use. However, there is little data on cannabis use among military service members, particularly when examining the period after separation from military service. This research examines cannabis-related perceptions and use among U.S. Army Reserve/National Guard (USAR/NG) current and former soldiers. Methods: Data come from Operation: SAFETY (Soldiers And Families Excelling Through the Years), an ongoing study examining health among male and female USAR/NG soldiers. The current sample was comprised of 401 current and former USAR/NG soldiers. Logistic regression models examined the associations between past-year cannabis use, military status (i.e., current versus former), attitudes towards recreational cannabis, perceived ease of access, and perceived risk of cannabis use, while controlling for age, problematic alcohol use, and current cigarette smoking. Results: Overall, 7.4% of current and 20.3% of former military service members used cannabis in the past year. Favorable attitudes towards cannabis use and perceived ease of accessing cannabis were associated with increased odds of use among all soldiers. In adjusted models, former military members had greater odds (AOR = 5.28, 95% CI = 2.16, 12.87) of past-year cannabis use compared to current service members. Conclusions: Findings indicate that separation from the military may be an important risk factor to consider when assessing cannabis use in the military. Additional research is needed to examine socioenvironmental factors (e.g., access to post-deployment support services and healthcare, state legalization laws, other behavioral health conditions) that contribute to former service members' cannabis use.

Nicotine Addiction, Maurice Seevers, and the First Surgeon General Report on Cigarette Smoking and Health: Conflicting Terms and Interests.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the role of Maurice Seevers in delaying the United States Surgeon General Reports' judgment that nicotine use is a drug addiction and examined the use of addiction, as applied to nicotine (smoking), from the 1930s to 2013. METHOD: In this narrative review, Truth Tobacco Industry Documents were searched using names of those involved in the 1964 Surgeon General Report; key staff of the American Tobacco Company; and the terms addiction, addictive, dependence, habituation, and habit. Use of "addiction" to smoking was also examined in selected works from 1938 to 2013. RESULTS: Seevers had consulted for the cigarette industry and had been a long-standing advocate for judging nicotine use a drug habituation. He was primarily responsible for cigarettes being judged not addictive in 1964, over objections of other committee members. According to selection rules, he should have been ineligible for committee membership. At the time, multiple sources supported calling smoking an addiction. By the 1980s, "nicotine dependence" or "addiction" became officially accepted. CONCLUSIONS: One expert with financial and intellectual conflicts of interest delayed official judgments that nicotine was addictive. Selection rules for expert committees should be designed to minimize conflicts of interest and should be followed. Although heavy nicotine use may now be classified variously as a tobacco use disorder, addiction, or dependence, depending on the source or audience, "drug habituation" no longer has any currency. The terms used to communicate with the public are important in dealing with the individual and public health costs of tobacco use.

Tribes of Trust or Distrust, "Attitude Roots" and Encouraging Scientific Participation in the Tobacco Harm-Reduction Debate.

Implications This commentary provides an analysis of non-scientific influences on the tobacco harm reduction debate. It makes use of the "attitude roots" model and the issue of misplace trust and distrust. Greater participation in the debate by experts is encouraged, along with efforts to minimize the effects of non-scientific, biasing effects on judgments.

Modes of delivery in concurrent nicotine and cannabis use ("co-use") among youth: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Survey.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is more common among nicotine users than non-users. This study characterized concurrent use of nicotine and cannabis ("co-use") among 12,064 youth aged 16-19 years residing in Canada, the United States, and England in 2017. Methods: Data were from the ITC Youth Tobacco & Vaping Survey (Wave 1). Seven modes of cannabis delivery (MOD) were characterized by country of residence and past 30-day use of combusted tobacco and electronic cigarettes. Weighted multivariable regression models were fitted to assess the correlates of co-use and each cannabis MOD. Results: Seventy percent of cannabis users reported nicotine use. Co-users exhibited behavioral and demographic differences compared to exclusive users of either substance. "Smoking cannabis without tobacco" was the most popular form of use (78%). Use of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes was associated with "using an e-cigarette to vape cannabis oil/liquid" (aOR: 4.96, 95%CI: 2.23-11.06). Combustible tobacco use was associated with "smoking cannabis with tobacco in a joint/blunt" (aOR: 2.93, 95%CI: 1.89-4.56). Country-level differences were detected. Conclusions: Nicotine use is substantial among cannabis users, and associations exist between modes of delivery for both drugs. Results underscore the importance of studying cannabis and nicotine use concurrently, and the need to address the use of both substances in developing interventions for youth users.

How I Learned That Cigarettes Were Addictive--1970s to 1980s: A Personal History.

OBJECTIVE: This is a personal history of how I came to view cigarette smoking as an addiction to nicotine. I discuss working with Stanley Schachter and Murray Jarvik. Although I note the importance of Michael Russell (as do many colleagues), I draw attention to the considerable effect on my work of Edward Brecher through his 1972 book, Licit and Illicit Drugs. I give examples of the influence of the makers and sellers of nicotine-containing gum on my career in Canada and the United States as well as on the careers of several important colleagues. Ted Klein, who did public relations for nicotine-replacement products, is noted as an important figure in the tobacco control movement of the time, especially for those doing behavioral and smoking cessation research.

Effect of e-cigarette flavors on nicotine delivery and puffing topography: results from a randomized clinical trial of daily smokers.

RATIONALE: There is limited understanding regarding how various e-cigarette flavorings may influence the behavior of non-regular e-cigarette users who are regular cigarette smokers. OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in nicotine delivery, puffing topography, subjective effects, and user satisfaction from different flavored e-liquids. METHODS: Eighteen daily smokers (average age, 44.1 ± 7.0; 9 males; average CPD, 13.0 ± 5.8) smoked their tobacco cigarettes during an initial visit and returned five times to try an e-cigarette (eGo type) refilled with a nicotine solution (24 mg/ml) of five different flavors: cherry, tobacco, espresso, menthol, and vanilla (randomized order). Assessments at each visit included puffing topography, blood samples for nicotine analysis, and subjective reports of nicotine effects and flavor satisfaction. RESULTS: Vaping different flavors resulted in different levels of plasma nicotine. The flavor producing the highest plasma nicotine concentration (Cmax) was cherry (median 21.2 ng/ml), which was not significantly different than nicotine delivery from a combustible cigarette (29.2 ng/ml, p > .05). Vanilla e-liquid produced the lowest Cmax (9.7 ng/ml), and participants tended to puff less frequently on vanilla compared to tobacco flavor (p = .013). Flavors did not differ significantly in the speed of nicotine delivery (Tmax). During controlled use, puff duration for all flavors was significantly longer than a combustible cigarette (p < 0.05). After controlling for nicotine delivery, significant differences in flavor enjoyment were detected. Menthol flavored e-liquid was rated as more enjoyable than vanilla and tobacco flavored e-liquids (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Flavors tested in this study yielded different patterns of nicotine delivery and led to differences in reduction in smoking urges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: #NCT02575885.

Correlates of smoker identity among intermittent and light daily young adult smokers: Findings from Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study.

Identifying as a 'smoker' has been associated with many cigarette smoking-related behaviors, including less frequent and intense cigarette use. Additional smoking behaviors (e.g., use of cannabis or cigars) also may contribute to self-identification as a 'smoker'. This study compared correlates of identifying as a 'smoker' and measurement strategies for non-daily cigarette consumption among young-adult intermittent and light daily smokers. Using data from Wave 1 of the PATH Study, different measurements of past 30-day non-daily cigarette use were evaluated. Weighted logistic regression models were used to compare associations with self-identification as a smoker among 18-24 year-old intermittent and light daily smokers (n = 1531). Use of other smoked products (combustible tobacco, cannabis) and other documented correlates of smoker identity were evaluated. As frequency of monthly smoking increased, self-identification as a smoker increased (1-5 days = 24%, 6-19 days = 48%, 20-29 days = 78%, light daily smokers = 93%, daily smokers using >5 cigarettes per day = 99%). Self-reported smoking status 12 months ago significantly contributed to current identification as a smoker. Smoking cigars daily or using cannabis in the past 30 days were each positively associated with smoker identity. Different measurement approaches to non-daily cigarette use offer different advantages in terms of interpretability and granularity of information. Compared to daily smokers, non-daily smokers exhibit significant variability in identifying as a smoker, and systematic correlates of smoker identification are apparent. These findings may serve to enhance understanding of non-daily smokers and potential targets for intervention among this growing subpopulation of tobacco users.

Randomized within-subject trial to evaluate smokers' initial perceptions, subjective effects and nicotine delivery across six vaporized nicotine products.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Vaporized nicotine products (VNPs) can vary in important characteristics including size, shape, flavor and nicotine yield. We examined whether complex interactions among these characteristics could affect smokers' VNP perceptions and usage patterns. DESIGN: A within-subject randomized cross-over trial. SETTING: Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen daily cigarette smokers. MEASUREMENTS: Participants attended eight weekly visits during which they sampled six different VNPs (disposable, rechargeable, eGO, mod, e-Cigar and e-Pipe) with tobacco-flavored e-liquid. Prior to device use, participants completed product-ranking questionnaires. Participants completed controlled puffing sessions during each of the six trials, after which satisfaction questionnaires were completed and blood samples were taken. FINDINGS: Initial perceptions showed that the smallest device (disposable) was ranked as safer compared with a larger device (e-Pipe) (P < 0.05). Participants rated the eGO and mod devices higher on satisfaction and enjoyment from use, taste, pleasantness, harshness ('throat hit') and speed of effect, but lower on perceived health risk and embarrassment from use (P < 0.05). All devices had a lower Cmax than the combustible cigarette (P < 0.05), but there were differences among devices (P < 0.05). The mod, e-Pipe and eGO provided the highest amount of perceived smoking urge relief, and this correlated strongly with Cmax across all devices (R2  = 0.8614, P = 0.007). The perceived speed of urge relief was not correlated with Tmax (R2  = 0.0035, P = 0.911) CONCLUSIONS: Daily cigarette smokers testing six types of vaporized nicotine products (VNPs) reported that they varied in taste, amount of withdrawal relief, harshness, embarrassment from use, perceived health risk and subjective and objective nicotine delivery. The eGO and mod models have properties that may make them most effective for cigarette substitution among smokers who intend to switch to a VNP.

Origins in the USA in the 1980s of the warning that smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarettes: a historical, documents-based assessment with implications for comparative warnings on less harmful tobacco/nicotine products.

BACKGROUND: Before the 1980s in the USA, smokeless tobacco carried no health warnings, was not judged to cause disease, and was a declining practice. In 1986, the federal government passed legislation requiring rotating warnings on "mouth cancer," "gum disease and tooth loss," and "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes." This paper explores the history of the establishment of these warnings with emphasis on the 'not a safe alternative' warning and the bases for claiming that smokeless was 'not safe' (absolute harm) versus 'not safer than cigarettes' (relative harm). METHODS: Results of searches of Truth Tobacco Industry Document archives and transcripts of legislative hearings were analyzed. Critical assessments were made of the evidence-base. RESULTS: New evidence of oral cancer causation emerged along with a much-publicized case of a teenager dying of oral cancer. Public health concerns also arose over a widespread, successful marketing campaign implying smokeless was a safe alternative to cigarettes. Industry wanted pre-emptive federal warnings, to prevent a diversity of pending state warnings. To avoid an addiction warning, the industry accepted a compromise 'not a safe alternative' warning, which had not been initially proposed and which the cigarette industry may have sought in order to constrain the smokeless tobacco industry. The evidence presented supported smokeless only as 'not safe' and not 'as harmful as cigarette smoking.' CONCLUSIONS: The comparative warning was a compromise to prevent an addiction warning and consistent with the preferences of cigarette companies. Prior surveys indicated that the public generally did not view smokeless tobacco as harmless, but they did generally report smokeless as less harmful than cigarettes despite expert interpretations to the contrary. As would not have been appreciated by public health supporters at the outset, subsequent research has shown that the 'not a safe alternative' message is misinterpreted by consumers to indicate that smokeless is 'not safer' than cigarettes-which was not established and has been disconfirmed by subsequent assessments of that question. Though many countries have banned smokeless tobacco (but not cigarettes), where smokeless is legally available accurate information on the nature of harms and differential harms needs to be developed.

Young or adult users of multiple tobacco/nicotine products urgently need to be informed of meaningful differences in product risks.

Previously, it has been argued that health information efforts need to inform the public about meaningful differential risks from tobacco/nicotine products. The fact of multiple product use by the same individual further supports this need. When the majority of youth, for example, who use smokeless tobacco are also current tobacco smokers, it makes little sense to mount a smokeless prevention campaign that fails to include clear messages about the much greater risks from smoking. In April 2016, The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) announced a $36 million campaign for youth that "smokeless doesn't mean harmless." Research shows the public (a) already knows that smokeless tobacco is not harmless, but are (b) also largely unaware that cigarettes are much more harmful than smokeless. Though not harmless, smokeless tobacco has been estimated to be over 90% less harmful than cigarettes. 'Gateway' fears are made moot by current use of multiple tobacco/nicotine products. When multi-tobacco product use is commonplace among users, usable information on significant differences in risk is crucial for both adult and younger users. The FDA and like campaigns and health information websites should follow established ethical principles and accepted communication methods to inform the public of less-harmful tobacco/nicotine products as well as the greater harms of smoking, in keeping with the Surgeon-General's advice that reductions in smoking in particular will bring about the greatest public health advances.

The diverging trajectories of cannabis and tobacco policies in the United States: reasons and possible implications.

AIM: To examine briefly the (i) rationales for two policy proposals in the United States to make it mandatory for cigarettes to contain very low levels of nicotine and to legalize cannabis for recreational use by adults; and (ii) possible lessons that participants in each policy debate may learn from each other. METHOD: We briefly describe the diverging policies towards cannabis and tobacco in the United States, explain and critically analyse their rationales and discuss possible policy lessons. RESULTS: Advocates of cannabis legalization have argued that prohibition has been an ineffective and expensive policy that penalizes ethnic minority users unjustly of a drug that is far less harmful than alcohol. The prohibition of traditional tobacco cigarettes has been advocated as a way to eliminate cigarette smoking. These proposals embody very different attitudes towards the harms of recreational adult drug use. Advocates of nicotine prohibition demand that alternative methods of nicotine delivery must be shown to be completely safe before adults are allowed to use them. Advocates of tobacco prohibition ignore evidence that smokers may not use these products and the likelihood of expanding the illicit tobacco market. Advocates of legalizing and regulating recreational cannabis ignore the need to tax and regulate sales in order to minimize the harms of heavy use. CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear that the prohibition of adult use has a useful role to play in the regulation of either cannabis or tobacco. If both products remain legal, the goals of regulating tobacco and cannabis products should be to restrict youth access, promote the use of the least harmful products, provide users with evidence-based information on both absolute and differential product risks of use and use differential taxes and marketing controls to promote ways of using these products that cause the least harm to their users.

Minors, Moral Psychology, and the Harm Reduction Debate: The Case of Tobacco and Nicotine.

Harm reduction debates are important in health policy. Although it has been established that morality affects policy, this article proposes that perspectives from moral psychology help to explain the challenges of developing evidence-based policy on prohibition-only versus tobacco/nicotine harm reduction for minors. Protecting youth from tobacco is critical, especially since tobacco/nicotine products are legal for adults, who usually begin using when young. Although cigarettes and other combustibles are the deadliest tobacco products, other products such as smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes, though unsafe, are upward of 90 percent less harmful than cigarettes. Disgust at contaminating the "purity" of youth, especially "good," low-risk youth, with any tobacco/nicotine products opposes harm reduction, as does contempt for violating so-called community values and disrespecting authority. Support for harm reduction arises from anger at failing to provide reduced harm to "bad," high-risk individuals and denying them the "liberty" to decide. Fast-thinking, moral-emotional intuitions are supported by rationalizations arising from slow-thinking processes. The recognition of such moral psychological influences and the efforts to minimize their impact may help lead to amelioration and compromise. This example from tobacco control, with divided concerns for low-risk and high-risk youth, can be applied to other harm reduction versus prohibition-only policies directed at minors.

Daily users compared to less frequent users find vape as or more satisfying and less dangerous than cigarettes, and are likelier to use non-cig-alike vaping products.

We assessed the roles of perceived satisfaction and perceived danger and vaping-product-type as correlates of more frequent use of vaping products. In a baseline assessment of a longitudinal study of US Army Reserve/National Guard Soldiers and their partners (New York State, USA, 2014-2016), participants were asked about current use of vaping products (e-cigarettes) and perceived satisfaction and danger in comparison to cigarettes as well as type of product used. Fisher-exact tests and multiple ordinal logistic regressions were used. In multivariable and univariate models, more perceived satisfaction, less perceived danger, and use of non-cig-alike products were associated with more frequent use of vaping products (ps < 0.05, two-tailed). For self-selected, more frequent adult users, e-cigs can be at least as satisfying as cigarettes and often more satisfying and are perceived as less dangerous than cigarettes. Non-cig-alike products were more likely in daily users. Some concern that e-cigs are a gateway to cigarettes arises from assuming that e-cigs may not be as reinforcing and pleasurable as cigarettes. These results indicate that accurate perception of comparative risk and use of more effective-nicotine delivery product can produce for some users a highly-satisfying alternative to cigarettes.

Do brand characteristics contribute significantly to variability in toxicant exposure in smokers? Data from NHANES 2007-2012.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to quantify the difference in serum cotinine and other biomarkers indicative of cigarette smoking in current US cigarette smokers attributable to brand level versus individual level factors. METHODS: A total of 2,558 daily exclusive smokers, 20 years and older in the United States participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2007-2012 and provided biospecimens and cigarette brand information. Biomakers of interest were serum cotinine, and urinary NNAL, PAHs, and heavy metals. Adjustments were made for person-level factors (e.g., sex, age, race, education), smoking behavior (cigarettes per day), brand, tar group (≤ 6mg, >6-15mg, >15mg), and menthol status. RESULTS: The most commonly reported brands of US cigarettes were Marlboro, Newport, Camel, and Pall Mall. Cotinine levels differed by age (p=0.0065), race (p<0.0001), and cigarettes smoked per day (p<0.0001) but not brand, tar or menthol. Brand family was significantly associated with urinary levels of NNAL, 1HP, HFs, and HPHs. For NNAL. Person-level factors accounted for some of these differences. No consistent differences in metal exposure by brand were noted. Overall, brand information accounted for 2-8% of variance depending on the marker. Together, age, sex, race, education, and cigarettes smoked per day accounted for 20% in variance in cotinine levels, and adding the brand information (brand family, tar group, menthol) to the model accounted for an additional 0.5% (p<0.0948). In the full multivariate model, no significant difference in cotinine was seen by brand (p=0.2205), tar (p=0.2987) or menthol (p=0.1583). CONCLUSIONS: Brand to brand differences seen in serum cotinine levels and other biomarkers indicative of cigarette smoking between the top US cigarette brands from 2007-2012 are primarily driven by individual differences among smokers, and to a lesser extent by differences among products.