Roll your own cigarettes are just as harmful as factory rolled cigarettes, researchers say today.
Many believe they are more "natural" and less dangerous, explains Professor Richard Edwards, University of Otago, New Zealand, in the British Medical Journal.
But the "Wise-Up to Roll-Ups" campaign, based in the south west of England, is highlighting several areas of concern. For example, roll your own cigarettes are much cheaper, which may help smokers to keep smoking despite tobacco control intervention through higher tax.
And new evidence shows that roll your own cigarettes are "at least as hazardous as any other type of cigarette", while animal research suggests increased addictiveness. The concentration of additives is much higher in loose tobacco, which may surprise these smokers.
"Tobacco control interventions need to be formulated with an awareness of the extent of use of roll your own cigarettes," says Professor Edwards, "and where this is substantial, specific interventions targeting their use may be justified."
"Another measure might be tailored mass media campaigns to correct misperceptions that these cigarettes are less hazardous to health or more natural," he adds.
* A further study based in England shows that smoking rates have fallen below 20% for the first time in 80 years. The figures come from a large national surveillance study by researchers led by Professor Robert West at University College London, UK, and also appear in the BMJ.
This achievement may motivate smoking cessation efforts across the country, including making more use of stop smoking services, say the researchers.
But Professor West adds: "Much is still to be done, particularly on the ‘social gradient’ in smoking, which contributes greatly to health inequalities."
Edwards, R. Roll your own cigarettes are less natural and at least as harmful as factory rolled tobacco. BMJ 12 February 2014 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7616 [abstract]
Brown, J. and West, R. Smoking prevalence in England is below 20% for the first time in 80 years. BMJ 12 February 2014 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1378 [abstract]
Leave a Reply