Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A new survey from a public health charity called ASH Scotland has tracked the surprisingly rapid growth of the electronic cigarette market there. The group found that from 2010 to 2014 e-cig use by adults jumped from 3% to 17%. That’s more than 5 times as much in four years.

This isn’t entirely surprising. Electronic cigarettes have taken off like no one ever expected all over the world. But this survey found something else common to e-cig markets all over that further supports defense of the products. Only about 1% of those that had tried electronic cigarettes were individuals that had never smoked before. And of current users of electronic cigaretts, nearly 0% were individuals that had never smoked before.

More information on the study from ASH Scotland can be found right here.

This further supports arguments that electronic cigarettes are not, for the most part, making their way into non-smoker. There will always be individuals that try electronic cigarettes without having been or currently being a smoker. However, those that stick with e-cig use beyond initial trial appear to be predominantly (99% or more) current or ex-smokers.

Scotland has been having a significant amount of trouble combating smoking. As recently as 2012 the smoking rate in Scotland among adults was found to be 25%. This isn’t helped by the fact that these figures include anyone age 16 or up (rather than 18 as we do in the states).

ASH Scotland’s Chief Executive, Sheila Duffy, said of the study, “These new figures emphasise the growing popularity of e-cigarettes and we believe there needs to be a vigorous public debate about their use.” She goes on to carefully word her statements about electronic cigarettes to say that although they appear less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, they probably aren’t harmless.

“However, including e-cigarettes in the smoke-free enclosed public spaces legislation would require scientific evidence that harm from ‘second-hand’ e-cigarette emissions is likely,” says Duffy. “This is not the situation to date.”

It is good to see a public health official suggest that evidence is required to enact regulation rather than arguing that a lack of evidence demands regulation just in case. the latter is something we’ve been seeing a lot of here in the states.