a thesis statement about smoking

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Craft an Engaging Persuasive Essay About Smoking: Examples & Tips

Published on: Jan 25, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

Persuasive Essay-Defined

A persuasive essay is a form of academic writing that presents an argument in favor of a particular position, opinion, or viewpoint.

It is usually written to convince the audience to take a certain action or adopt a specific viewpoint.

The primary purpose of this type of essay is to provide evidence and arguments that support the writer's opinion.

In persuasive writing, the writer will often use facts, logic, and emotion to convince the reader that their stance is correct.

The writer can persuade the reader to consider or agree with their point of view by presenting a well-researched and logically structured argument.

The goal of a persuasive essay is not to sway the reader's opinion. It is to rather inform and educate them on a particular topic or issue.

Check this free downloadable example of a persuasive essay about smoking!

Simple Persuasive essay about smoking

Read our extensive guide on persuasive essays to learn more about crafting a masterpiece every time.

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Are you a student looking for some useful tips to write an effective persuasive essay about the dangers of smoking?

Look no further! Here are several great examples of persuasive essays that masterfully tackle the subject and persuade readers creatively.

Persuasive speech on the smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

For more examples about persuasive essays, check out our blog on persuasive essay examples .

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Our examples can help you find the points that work best for your style and argument.

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

10 Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Here are a few tips and tricks to make your persuasive essay about smoking stand out:

1. Do Your Research

Before you start writing, make sure to do thorough research on the topic of smoking and its effects.

Look for primary and secondary sources that provide valuable information about the issue.

2. Create an Outline

An outline is essential when organizing your thoughts and ideas into a cohesive structure. This can help you organize your arguments and counterarguments.

Read our blog about creating a persuasive essay outline to master your next essay.

Check out this amazing video here!

3. Clearly Define the Issue

Make sure your writing identifies the problem of smoking and why it should be stopped.

4. Highlight Consequences

Show readers the possible negative impacts of smoking, like cancer, respiratory issues, and addiction.

5. Identity Solutions

Provide viable solutions to the problem, such as cessation programs, cigarette alternatives, and lifestyle changes.

6. Be Research-Oriented

Research facts about smoking and provide sources for those facts that can be used to support your argument.

7. Aim For the Emotions

Use powerful language and vivid imagery to draw readers in and make them feel like you do about smoking.

8. Use Personal Stories

Share personal stories or anecdotes of people who have successfully quit smoking and those negatively impacted by it.

9. Include an Action Plan

Offer step-by-step instructions on how to quit smoking, and provide resources for assistance effectively.

10. Reference Experts

Incorporate quotes and opinions from medical professionals, researchers, or other experts in the field.

These tips can help you write an effective persuasive essay about smoking and its negative effects on the body, mind, and society.

When your next writing assignment has you feeling stuck, don't forget that essay examples about smoking are always available to break through writer's block.

And if you need help getting started, our expert essay writer at CollegeEssay.org is more than happy to assist.

Just give us your details, and our persuasive essay writer will start working on crafting a masterpiece.

We provide top-notch essay writing service online to help you get the grades you deserve and boost your career.

Try our AI writing tool today to save time and effort!

Frequently Asked Questions

What would be a good thesis statement for smoking.

A good thesis statement for smoking could be: "Smoking has serious health risks that outweigh any perceived benefits, and its use should be strongly discouraged."

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include the effects of smoking on health, the dangers of second-hand smoke, the economic implications of tobacco taxes, and ways to reduce teenage smoking.

These topics can be explored differently to provide a unique and engaging argument.

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

Privacy Policy
Cookies Policy
Terms of Use
Refunds & Cancellations
Our Writers
Success Stories
Our Guarantees
Affiliate Program
Referral Program
AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Buy Custom Assignment
Custom College Papers
Buy Dissertation
Buy Research Papers
Buy Custom Term Papers
Cheap Custom Term Papers
Custom Courseworks
Custom Thesis Papers
Custom Expository Essays
Custom Plagiarism Check
Cheap Custom Essay
Custom Argumentative Essays
Custom Case Study
Custom Annotated Bibliography
Custom Book Report
How It Works
+1 (888) 398 0091
Essay Samples
Essay Topics
Research Topics
Writing Tips

How To Create A Thesis Statement For An Academic Essay About Smoking In The Us

August 10, 2017

A thesis statement is not supposed to be something that you have to worry about. This is actually one of the easiest things that you need to think about. There are a number of students who struggle to learn how to frame a really good statement, and bearing that in mind, it will be important to at least try and make sure that you are in a good position to address the issue at hand, and then from there you can think about how to frame this and make a really good paper in the process.

The following are some ideas that you need to think about when you are looking to write the thesis statement for your essay on smoking in the US:

What do you want to tell the reader?

What idea do you want the reader to have?

How do your ideas fit in with the topic.

If at all there is something that you need to know when working on this particular idea for your research essay , it is the fact that you need to figure out beforehand the message that you want to share with the reader of your paper. This is one of the most important things that will help you determine how to frame this statement the way you want it to come out.

If you can do this well, rest assured that your statement will blend in perfectly with the reader, and you will have the best experience so far when you are working on this.

Other than what you want to tell the audience, you also need to think in terms of the perception that you want them to have of your topic . You should think about how you would want them to react when you are discussing your ideas on smoking within the US, and then frame your statement based on the same concept.

A good thesis statement has to blend in well with the topic of your essay .

This is mandatory. Someone should read it and see the connection between it and your topic and nod in appreciation. If you are able to do this, you will have made the first and most important step towards writing one of the best papers ever.

Write my essay for me ? With our service that is the best custom writing service , it's easy! Ask support for help.

Sociology Research Topics Ideas

Importance of Computer in Nursing Practice Essay

History Research Paper Topics For Students

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related emails.

Latest Articles

In today’s digital era, the fusion of artificial intelligence (AI) with academic writing has revolutionized how students approach essay composition....

Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education is changing how things are taught and learned in standard ways. With its ability...

The advancement of artificial intelligence has made it increasingly common for essays and articles to be written by AI. But...

I want to feel as happy, as your customers do, so I'd better order now

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Arguments in favor of smoking in campus, arguments against smoking in campus, reconciliation of the two positions, campus smoking: conclusion of the essay, works cited.

The idea of smoking in colleges and campuses has developed a mixed reaction in the USA and in many other parts of the world such that it has posed a very hot and contentious universal debate.

Several campuses and colleges have tried to impose a total ban on smoking within their environs, some of them succeeding while others failing to do so. For instance, colleges like Santa Ana and Fullerton have managed to ban smoking completely within their environs, while others such as Huntington Beach and Golden West College still allow smoking in prescribed places such as in parking lots.

Fullerton College was the first to successfully impose a smoking ban in the year 2007 (Bates 57). Nevertheless, many colleges and campuses have not managed to follow suit because of some state laws which assert that smoking is only proscribed inside buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses. These laws continue to give students the right to smoke within certain areas of their campuses.

As aforementioned, section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed only in public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36).Therefore, the opponents of this subject believe that since it is the right of every citizen to do anything that is recognized as legal, it is very wrong to impose a total ban on smoking, especially in campuses.

The most important thing is to ensure that students follow the laid down rules and regulations such as the strict use of the recommended areas of smoking. In deed, it is very unfair to send students off campus to smoke.

In addition, the opponents of this argument believe that smoking should not be banned because it helps students to relax whenever they are in stressful situations. Concerning the health risks that are brought about by smoking, they assert that every mature citizen should be in a position to separate good behavior from wrong behavior.

They say that since there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, by the time a student reaches campus, he/she must be in a position to understand the risks that cigarette smoking poses to their health and therefore they should be able to make informed decisions about smoking. They also argue that it is very unfair to impose an immediate ban on cigarette smoking in campus yet it is clearly understood that smoking is an additive activity which can not be stopped at once.

Even though campus students have the right to smoke within some prescribed areas whenever they wish to do so, as mandated by some state laws, they ought to realize the fact that cigarette smoking has got very serious and detrimental effects on human health. Smoking of cigarettes can bring about lung infections to both first-hand and second-hand smokers. Therefore, smokers need to recognize that their right to smoke may greatly infringe on the rights of their non-smoking counterparts.

It is obvious that students know the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. For instance, it is expensive for them and it may also reduce their lifetime. Generally speaking, cigarette smoking is just bad. Currently, at least forty three colleges in the USA have imposed a total ban on cigarette smoking in their campuses and this trend is increasing especially among commuter schools and community colleges (Merrill 40).

However, it is hard to impose such a ban in some colleges because of the mixed reactions that are held by different stakeholders about the issue of smoking, and the existing campus policies which give the smokers the right to smoke in prescribed areas. According to the research that was carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, 31% of college students smoke cigarettes. This figure exceeds the national general average of 25% (Longmire 15).

It is also worth to note that even though there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, cigarette smoking has continued to attract many youths and this continues to raise a lot of alarm about their future. This is because cigarette smoking is the major contributor of the cases of lung cancer in the entire world.

Research indicates that close to eighty percent of men who die from lung cancer, and seventy five percent of women who die from the same disease do so because of smoking tobacco. Research also indicates that the risk of lung cancer increases when a person starts smoking at an early age, and with an increase in the number of cigarettes that a person smokes in a day (Robicsek 56).

Scientific research has proved that cigarette smoking is harmful to the body. The smoke that comes out of a burning cigarette is a compound mixture of several chemicals which are produced when tobacco is burned.

This smoke contains a deadly compound called tar, which consists of more than four thousand chemicals which are very poisonous, and a majority of them have been clearly identified to be the main cause of cancer. Most of these chemicals are also known to cause lung diseases and heart problems. Some of these chemicals include cyanide, benzene, methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde and acetylene (Merrill 45).

Other deadly substances that are found in cigarettes include carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide gases which are very poisonous. The most active component of a cigarette is nicotine. Nicotine is a very addictive compound. Cigarette smoking can cause several problems such as cancer, lung damage and heart infections among many other diseases.

Research also indicates that more than thirty percent of the deaths that result in the United States occur due to the use of tobacco. Cigarette smoking also causes eighty seven percent of the deaths that result due to lung cancer. Other types of tobacco-related cancers include mouth cancer, cancer of the larynx, cancer of the throat and esophagus and cancer of the bladder. There is also a very close connection between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of the cancers of the kidney, pancreas, stomach and the cervix.

Cigarette smoking can also cause lung damage which begins at the early stages of smoking. Cigarette smokers encounter many problems with their lungs as compared to non-smokers and this situation gets worse when an individual increases his/her capacity to smoke. Smoking is linked to many dangerous lung infections which are just as perilous as lung cancer. These infections include emphysema and chronic bronchitis which cause difficulties in breathing and may even cause death.

Cigarette smoking also augments the risk of heart infections which stand out as the major causes of deaths in the U.S. Out of all the risk factors of heart infections, i.e. excess cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical lethargy and high blood pressure, cigarette smoking remains the leading risk factor for impulsive deaths that result from heart attacks (Bates 78).

In addition, low levels of cigarette smoking which may not be able to cause lung infections are capable of damaging the heart. Therefore, second-hand smokers also stand a very high chance of getting heart infections.

As stated earlier, Section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed in all public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36). Even though this ruling is good, it is not sufficient because it seems to discriminate the innocent second-hand smokers who continue to suffer from cigarette smoke which pollutes the air around them.

Cigarette smoking has also very detrimental effects to the real smokers and therefore they should be able to accept this ban because it is meant for their own good. Though it is very hard to ban citizens from doing something which is legally right, smoking should be gradually banned in campuses so as to protect the non-smokers. This is because campuses are public places which consist of both smokers and non-smokers.

My stand on this issue differs significantly from my opponents who believe that smoking should be allowed in some prescribed areas in campuses. My stand is that cigarette smoking should be banned in campuses because it impacts negatively on the non-smokers. Banning of cigarette smoking in campuses would enable the non-smoking citizens to enjoy the delight of breathing unpolluted air.

Nevertheless, my stand does not include cigarette smoking in private places such as in homes. At the same time, cigarette smokers should understand that the non-smokers are not trying to be intolerant when they keep on complaining about them. Rather, they are doing it for the sake of their own health.

In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.

In addition, a very short exposure by a non-smoker to secondhand smoke may have abrupt severe effects on his/her cardiovascular system thus escalating the risk for lung and heart infections. This makes the non-smoker to have a higher risk of catching infections from cigarette smoke than the real smoker yet he/she is very innocent. A more effective way of reducing smoking in campuses would be to provide tobacco termination counseling programs in the campuses.

Bates, Tim & Gordon Mangan. Smoking and Raven IQ. New York: Pocket Books, 2007.

Longmire, Wilkinson, & Torok Edgar. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Melo, Maurice. Cigarette Smoking and Reproductive Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merrill, David. How Cigarettes are made. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Robicsek, Francis. Ritual Smoking in Central America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Understanding Advertising: Second-Hand Smoking
Ethical Problem of Smoking
Smoking Ban in the United States of America
American History: The Problem of Education in American Culture
Education in Afghanistan Before the Taliban
Time Management: Lesson Pacing
Truancy in Schools
Drug Test for Teachers and Athletes in Schools
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 29). Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/

"Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." IvyPanda , 29 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay'. 29 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." June 29, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." June 29, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." June 29, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Essay on Smoking

500 words essay on smoking.

One of the most common problems we are facing in today’s world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress , personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them. It has many ill-effects on the human body which we will go through in the essay on smoking.

Ill-Effects of Smoking

Tobacco can have a disastrous impact on our health. Nonetheless, people consume it daily for a long period of time till it’s too late. Nearly one billion people in the whole world smoke. It is a shocking figure as that 1 billion puts millions of people at risk along with themselves.

Cigarettes have a major impact on the lungs. Around a third of all cancer cases happen due to smoking. For instance, it can affect breathing and causes shortness of breath and coughing. Further, it also increases the risk of respiratory tract infection which ultimately reduces the quality of life.

In addition to these serious health consequences, smoking impacts the well-being of a person as well. It alters the sense of smell and taste. Further, it also reduces the ability to perform physical exercises.

It also hampers your physical appearances like giving yellow teeth and aged skin. You also get a greater risk of depression or anxiety . Smoking also affects our relationship with our family, friends and colleagues.

Most importantly, it is also an expensive habit. In other words, it entails heavy financial costs. Even though some people don’t have money to get by, they waste it on cigarettes because of their addiction.

How to Quit Smoking?

There are many ways through which one can quit smoking. The first one is preparing for the day when you will quit. It is not easy to quit a habit abruptly, so set a date to give yourself time to prepare mentally.

Further, you can also use NRTs for your nicotine dependence. They can reduce your craving and withdrawal symptoms. NRTs like skin patches, chewing gums, lozenges, nasal spray and inhalers can help greatly.

Moreover, you can also consider non-nicotine medications. They require a prescription so it is essential to talk to your doctor to get access to it. Most importantly, seek behavioural support. To tackle your dependence on nicotine, it is essential to get counselling services, self-materials or more to get through this phase.

One can also try alternative therapies if they want to try them. There is no harm in trying as long as you are determined to quit smoking. For instance, filters, smoking deterrents, e-cigarettes, acupuncture, cold laser therapy, yoga and more can work for some people.

Always remember that you cannot quit smoking instantly as it will be bad for you as well. Try cutting down on it and then slowly and steadily give it up altogether.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

Thus, if anyone is a slave to cigarettes, it is essential for them to understand that it is never too late to stop smoking. With the help and a good action plan, anyone can quit it for good. Moreover, the benefits will be evident within a few days of quitting.

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Question 1: What are the effects of smoking?

Answer 1: Smoking has major effects like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and more. It also increases the risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems with the immune system .

Question 2: Why should we avoid smoking?

Answer 2: We must avoid smoking as it can lengthen your life expectancy. Moreover, by not smoking, you decrease your risk of disease which includes lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and more.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Read each question and choose the best thesis statement.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 10 October 2022

Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study

Xiaochen Dai ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0289-7814 1 , 2 ,
Gabriela F. Gil 1 ,
Marissa B. Reitsma 1 ,
Noah S. Ahmad 1 ,
Jason A. Anderson 1 ,
Catherine Bisignano 1 ,
Sinclair Carr 1 ,
Rachel Feldman 1 ,
Simon I. Hay ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0611-7272 1 , 2 ,
Jiawei He 1 , 2 ,
Vincent Iannucci 1 ,
Hilary R. Lawlor 1 ,
Matthew J. Malloy 1 ,
Laurie B. Marczak 1 ,
Susan A. McLaughlin 1 ,
Larissa Morikawa ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9749-8033 1 ,
Erin C. Mullany 1 ,
Sneha I. Nicholson 1 ,
Erin M. O’Connell 1 ,
Chukwuma Okereke 1 ,
Reed J. D. Sorensen 1 ,
Joanna Whisnant 1 ,
Aleksandr Y. Aravkin 1 , 3 ,
Peng Zheng 1 , 2 ,
Christopher J. L. Murray ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4930-9450 1 , 2 &
Emmanuela Gakidou ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-591X 1 , 2

Nature Medicine volume 28 , pages 2045–2055 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

25k Accesses

43 Citations

168 Altmetric

Metrics details

Risk factors

Matters Arising to this article was published on 14 April 2023

As a leading behavioral risk factor for numerous health outcomes, smoking is a major ongoing public health challenge. Although evidence on the health effects of smoking has been widely reported, few attempts have evaluated the dose–response relationship between smoking and a diverse range of health outcomes systematically and comprehensively. In the present study, we re-estimated the dose–response relationships between current smoking and 36 health outcomes by conducting systematic reviews up to 31 May 2022, employing a meta-analytic method that incorporates between-study heterogeneity into estimates of uncertainty. Among the 36 selected outcomes, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of an association with smoking, 21 had weak-to-moderate evidence of association and 7 had no evidence of association. By overcoming many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses, our approach provides comprehensive, up-to-date and easy-to-use estimates of the evidence on the health effects of smoking. These estimates provide important information for tobacco control advocates, policy makers, researchers, physicians, smokers and the public.

The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk

Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study

Health effects associated with chewing tobacco: a Burden of Proof study

Among both the public and the health experts, smoking is recognized as a major behavioral risk factor with a leading attributable health burden worldwide. The health risks of smoking were clearly outlined in a canonical study of disease rates (including lung cancer) and smoking habits in British doctors in 1950 and have been further elaborated in detail over the following seven decades 1 , 2 . In 2005, evidence of the health consequences of smoking galvanized the adoption of the first World Health Organization (WHO) treaty, the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in an attempt to drive reductions in global tobacco use and second-hand smoke exposure 3 . However, as of 2020, an estimated 1.18 billion individuals globally were current smokers and 7 million deaths and 177 million disability-adjusted life-years were attributed to smoking, reflecting a persistent public health challenge 4 . Quantifying the relationship between smoking and various important health outcomes—in particular, highlighting any significant dose–response relationships—is crucial to understanding the attributable health risk experienced by these individuals and informing responsive public policy.

Existing literature on the relationship between smoking and specific health outcomes is prolific, including meta-analyses, cohort studies and case–control studies analyzing the risk of outcomes such as lung cancer 5 , 6 , 7 , chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 8 , 9 , 10 and ischemic heart disease 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 due to smoking. There are few if any attempts, however, to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the landscape of evidence on smoking risk across a diverse range of health outcomes, with most current research focusing on risk or attributable burden of smoking for a specific condition 7 , 15 , thereby missing the opportunity to provide a comprehensive picture of the health risk experienced by smokers. Furthermore, although evidence surrounding specific health outcomes, such as lung cancer, has generated widespread consensus, findings about the attributable risk of other outcomes are much more heterogeneous and inconclusive 16 , 17 , 18 . These studies also vary in their risk definitions, with many comparing dichotomous exposure measures of ever smokers versus nonsmokers 19 , 20 . Others examine the distinct risks of current smokers and former smokers compared with never smokers 21 , 22 , 23 . Among the studies that do analyze dose–response relationships, there is large variation in the units and dose categories used in reporting their findings (for example, the use of pack-years or cigarettes per day) 24 , 25 , which complicates the comparability and consolidation of evidence. This, in turn, can obscure data that could inform personal health choices, public health practices and policy measures. Guidance on the health risks of smoking, such as the Surgeon General’s Reports on smoking 26 , 27 , is often based on experts’ evaluation of heterogenous evidence, which, although extremely useful and well suited to carefully consider nuances in the evidence, is fundamentally subjective.

The present study, as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Risk Factors, and Injuries Study (GBD) 2020, re-estimated the continuous dose–response relationships (the mean risk functions and associated uncertainty estimates) between current smoking and 36 health outcomes (Supplementary Table 1 ) by identifying input studies using a systematic review approach and employing a meta-analytic method 28 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 cardiovascular diseases (CVDs: ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fractures). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 . We conducted a separate systematic review for each risk–outcome pair with the exception of cancers, which were done together in a single systematic review. This approach allowed us to systematically identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022, and we extracted relevant data on risk of smoking, including study characteristics, following a pre-specified template (Supplementary Table 2 ). The meta-analytic tool overcomes many of the limitations of traditional meta-analyses by incorporating between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, accounting for small numbers of studies, relaxing the assumption of log(linearity) applied to the risk functions, handling differences in exposure ranges between comparison groups, and systematically testing and adjusting for bias due to study designs and characteristics. We then estimated the burden-of-proof risk function (BPRF) for each risk–outcome pair, as proposed by Zheng et al. 29 ; the BPRF is a conservative risk function defined as the 5th quantile curve (for harmful risks) that reflects the smallest harmful effect at each level of exposure consistent with the available evidence. Given all available data for each outcome, the risk of smoking is at least as harmful as the BPRF indicates.

We used the BPRF for each risk–outcome pair to calculate risk–outcome scores (ROSs) and categorize the strength of evidence for the association between smoking and each health outcome using a star rating from 1 to 5. The interpretation of the star ratings is as follows: 1 star (*) indicates no evidence of association; 2 stars (**) correspond to a 0–15% increase in risk across average range of exposures for harmful risks; 3 stars (***) represent a 15–50% increase in risk; 4 stars (****) refer to >50–85% increase in risk; and 5 stars (*****) equal >85% increase in risk. The thresholds for each star rating were developed in consultation with collaborators and other stakeholders.

The increasing disease burden attributable to current smoking, particularly in low- and middle-income countries 4 , demonstrates the relevance of the present study, which quantifies the strength of the evidence using an objective, quantitative, comprehensive and comparative framework. Findings from the present study can be used to support policy makers in making informed smoking recommendations and regulations focusing on the associations for which the evidence is strongest (that is, the 4- and 5-star associations). However, associations with a lower star rating cannot be ignored, especially when the outcome has high prevalence or severity. A summary of the main findings, limitations and policy implications of the study is presented in Table 1 .

We evaluated the mean risk functions and the BPRFs for 36 health outcomes that are associated with current smoking 30 (Table 2 ). Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines 31 for each of our systematic reviews, we identified studies reporting relative risk (RR) of incidence or mortality from each of the 36 selected outcomes for smokers compared with nonsmokers. We reviewed 21,108 records, which were identified to have been published between 1 May 2018 and 31 May 2022; this represents the most recent time period since the last systematic review of the available evidence for the GBD at the time of publication. The meta-analyses reported in the present study for each of the 36 health outcomes are based on evidence from a total of 793 studies published between 1970 and 2022 (Extended Data Fig. 1 – 5 and Supplementary Information 1.5 show the PRISMA diagrams for each outcome). Only prospective cohort and case–control studies were included for estimating dose–response risk curves, but cross-sectional studies were also included for estimating the age pattern of smoking risk on cardiovascular and circulatory disease (CVD) outcomes. Details on each, including the study’s design, data sources, number of participants, length of follow-up, confounders adjusted for in the input data and bias covariates included in the dose–response risk model, can be found in Supplementary Information 2 and 3 . The theoretical minimum risk exposure level used for current smoking was never smoking or zero 30 .

Five-star associations

When the most conservative interpretation of the evidence, that is, the BPRF, suggests that the average exposure (15th–85th percentiles of exposure) of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by >85% (that is, ROS > 0.62), smoking and that outcome are categorized as a 5-star pair. Among the 36 outcomes, there are 5 that have a 5-star association with current smoking: laryngeal cancer (375% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 1.56 ROS), aortic aneurysm (150%, 0.92), peripheral artery disease (137%, 0.86), lung cancer (107%, 0.73) and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer) (92%, 0.65).

Results for all 5-star risk–outcome pairs are available in Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.1 . In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 5-star association: current smoking and lung cancer. We extracted 371 observations from 25 prospective cohort studies and 53 case–control studies across 25 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 5 , 6 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to >112 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure being 50.88 pack-years (Fig. 1a ).

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

We found a very strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and the RR of lung cancer (Fig. 1b ). The mean RR of lung cancer at 20 pack-years of smoking was 5.11 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) inclusive of between-study heterogeneity = 1.84–14.99). At 50.88 pack-years (85th percentile of exposure), the mean RR of lung cancer was 13.42 (2.63–74.59). See Table 2 for mean RRs at other exposure levels. The BPRF, which represents the most conservative interpretation of the evidence (Fig. 1a ), suggests that smoking in the 15th–85th percentiles of exposure increases the risk of lung cancer by an average of 107%, yielding an ROS of 0.73.

The relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of lung cancer is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of smoking, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. 1b ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for more than five confounders, including age and sex, because they were the significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm 29 (Supplementary Table 7 ). The reported RRs across studies were very heterogeneous. Our meta-analytic method, which accounts for the reported uncertainty in both the data and between-study heterogeneity, fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 1c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for lung cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 5-star pairs.

Four-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 50–85% (that is, ROS > 0.41–0.62), smoking is categorized as having a 4-star association with that outcome. We identified three outcomes with a 4-star association with smoking: COPD (72% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 0.54 ROS), lower respiratory tract infection (54%, 0.43) and pancreatic cancer (52%, 0.42).

In the present study, we provide detailed results for one example 4-star association: current smoking and COPD. We extracted 51 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 36 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 78 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 . Exposure ranged from 1 pack-year to 100 pack-years, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 49.75 pack-years.

We found a strong and significant harmful relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of COPD (Fig. 2b ). The mean RR of COPD at 20 pack-years was 3.17 (1.60–6.55; Table 2 reports RRs at other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of COPD was 6.01 (2.08–18.58). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of COPD by an average of 72%, yielding an ROS of 0.54. The results for the other health outcomes that have an association with smoking rated as 4 stars are shown in Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.2 .

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on th e x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and COPD is nonlinear, with diminishing impact of further pack-years of current smoking on risk of COPD, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels (Fig. 2a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that did not account for age and sex and/or were generated for individuals aged >65 years 116 , because they were the two significant bias covariates identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was large heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 2b ). Although we trimmed 10% of outliers, publication bias was still detected in the results for COPD. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for reported RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining health outcomes that have a 4-star association with smoking.

Three-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of a health outcome by 15–50% (or, when protective, decreases the risk of an outcome by 13–34%; that is, ROS >0.14–0.41), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as having a 3-star rating. We identified 15 outcomes with a 3-star association: bladder cancer (40% increase in risk, 0.34 ROS); tuberculosis (31%, 0.27); esophageal cancer (29%, 0.26); cervical cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis (each 23–24%, 0.21); lower back pain (22%, 0.20); ischemic heart disease (20%, 0.19); peptic ulcer and macular degeneration (each 19–20%, 0.18); Parkinson's disease (protective risk, 15% decrease in risk, 0.16); and stomach cancer, stroke, type 2 diabetes and cataracts (each 15–17%, 0.14–0.16).

We present the findings on smoking and type 2 diabetes as an example of a 3-star risk association. We extracted 102 observations from 24 prospective cohort studies and 4 case–control studies across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to 60 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 26.25 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a moderate and significant harmful relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of type 2 diabetes (Fig. 3b ). The mean RR of type 2 diabetes at 20 cigarettes smoked per day was 1.49 (1.18–1.90; see Table 2 for other exposure levels). At the 85th percentile of exposure, the mean RR of type 2 diabetes was 1.54 (1.20–2.01). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of type 2 diabetes by an average of 16%, yielding an ROS of 0.15. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.3 for results for the additional health outcomes with an association with smoking rated as 3 stars.

a , The log(RR) function. b , RR function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x axis and the estimated s.d. that includes the reported s.d. and between-study heterogeneity on the y axis.

The relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. 3a ). We adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was moderate heterogeneity in the observed RR data across studies and our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals extremely well (Fig. 3b,c ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for type 2 diabetes. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 3-star pairs.

Two-star associations

When the BPRF suggests that the average exposure of smoking increases the risk of an outcome by 0–15% (that is, ROS 0.0–0.14), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as a 2-star rating. We identified six 2-star outcomes: nasopharyngeal cancer (14% increase in risk, 0.13 ROS); Alzheimer’s and other dementia (10%, 0.09); gallbladder diseases and atrial fibrillation and flutter (each 6%, 0.06); lip and oral cavity cancer (5%, 0.05); and breast cancer (4%, 0.04).

We present the findings on smoking and breast cancer as an example of a 2-star association. We extracted 93 observations from 14 prospective cohort studies and 9 case–control studies across 14 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 84 , 87 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 . The exposure ranged from 1 cigarette to >76 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 34.10 cigarettes smoked per day.

We found a weak but significant relationship between pack-years of current smoking and RR of breast cancer (Extended Data Fig. 6 ). The mean RR of breast cancer at 20 pack-years was 1.17 (1.04–1.31; Table 2 reports other exposure levels). The BPRF suggests that average smoking exposure raises the risk of breast cancer by an average of 4%, yielding an ROS of 0.04. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.4 for results on the additional health outcomes for which the association with smoking has been categorized as 2 stars.

The relationship between smoking and breast cancer is nonlinear, particularly for high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Extended Data Fig. 6a ). To reduce the effect of bias, we adjusted observations that were generated in subpopulations, because it was the only significant bias covariate identified by the bias covariate selection algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). There was heterogeneity in the reported RRs across studies, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals (Extended Data Fig. 6b ). After trimming 10% of outliers, we did not detect publication bias in the results for breast cancer. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 2-star pairs.

One-star associations

When average exposure to smoking does not significantly increase (or decrease) the risk of an outcome, once between-study heterogeneity and other sources of uncertainty are accounted for (that is, ROS < 0), the association between smoking and that outcome is categorized as 1 star, indicating that there is not sufficient evidence for the effect of smoking on the outcome to reject the null (that is, there may be no association). There were seven outcomes with an association with smoking that rated as 1 star: colorectal and kidney cancer (each –0.01 ROS); leukemia (−0.04); fractures (−0.05); prostate cancer (−0.06); liver cancer (−0.32); and asthma (−0.64).

We use smoking and prostate cancer as examples of a 1-star association. We extracted 78 observations from 21 prospective cohort studies and 1 nested case–control study across 15 locations (Supplementary Table 3 ) 157 , 160 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 . The exposure among the exposed group ranged from 1 cigarette to 90 cigarettes smoked per day, with the 85th percentile of exposure in the exposed group being 29.73 cigarettes smoked per day.

Based on our conservative interpretation of the data, we did not find a significant relationship between cigarettes smoked per day and the RR of prostate cancer (Fig. 4B ). The exposure-averaged BPRF for prostate cancer was 0.94, which was opposite null from the full range of mean RRs, such as 1.16 (0.89–1.53) at 20 cigarettes smoked per day. The corresponding ROS was −0.06, which is consistent with no evidence of an association between smoking and increased risk of prostate cancer. See Table 2 and Supplementary Information 4.5 for results for the additional outcomes that have a 1-star association with smoking.

The relationship between smoking and prostate cancer is nonlinear, particularly for middle-to-high exposure levels where the mean risk curve becomes flat (Fig. 4a ). We did not adjust for any bias covariate because no significant bias covariates were selected by the algorithm (Supplementary Table 7 ). The RRs reported across studies were very heterogeneous, but our meta-analytic method fit the data and covered the estimated residuals well (Fig. 4b,c ). The ROS associated with the BPRF is −0.05, suggesting that the most conservative interpretation of all evidence, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, indicates an inconclusive relationship between smoking exposure and the risk of prostate cancer. After trimming 10% of outliers, we still detected publication bias in the results for prostate cancer, which warrants further studies using sample populations. See Supplementary Tables 4 and 7 for study bias characteristics and selected bias covariates, Supplementary Fig. 5 for results without 10% trimming and Supplementary Table 8 for observed RR data and alternative exposures across studies for the remaining 1-star pairs.

Age-specific dose–response risk for CVD outcomes

We produced age-specific dose–response risk curves for the five selected CVD outcomes ( Methods ). The ROS associated with each smoking–CVD pair was calculated based on the reference risk curve estimated using all risk data regardless of age information. Estimation of the BPRF, calculation of the associated ROS and star rating of the smoking–CVD pairs follow the same rules as the other non-CVD smoking–outcome pairs (Table 1 and Supplementary Figs. 2 – 4 ). Once we had estimated the reference dose–response risk curve for each CVD outcome, we determined the age group of the reference risk curve. The reference age group is 55–59 years for all CVD outcomes, except for peripheral artery disease, the reference age group for which is 60–64 years. We then estimated the age pattern of smoking on all CVD outcomes (Supplementary Fig. 2 ) and calculated age attenuation factors of the risk for each age group by comparing the risk of each age group with that of the reference age group, using the estimated age pattern (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). Last, we applied the draws of age attenuation factors of each age group to the dose–response risk curve for the reference age group to produce the age group-specific dose–response risk curves for each CVD outcome (Supplementary Fig. 4 ).

Using our burden-of-proof meta-analytic methods, we re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes that had previously been demonstrated to be associated with smoking 30 , 186 . Using these methods, which account for both the reported uncertainty of the data and the between-study heterogeneity, we found that 29 of the 36 smoking–outcome pairs are supported by evidence that suggests a significant dose–response relationship between smoking and the given outcome (28 with a harmful association and 1 with a protective association). Conversely, after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the available evidence of smoking risk on seven outcomes (that is, colon and rectum cancer, kidney cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, fractures, liver cancer and asthma) was insufficient to reject the null or draw definitive conclusions on their relationship to smoking. Among the 29 outcomes that have evidence supporting a significant relationship to smoking, 8 had strong-to-very-strong evidence of a relationship, meaning that, given all the available data on smoking risk, we estimate that average exposure to smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by >50% (4- and 5-star outcomes). The currently available evidence for the remaining 21 outcomes with a significant association with current smoking was weak to moderate, indicating that smoking increases the risk of those outcomes by at least >0–50% (2- and 3-star associations).

Even under our conservative interpretation of the data, smoking is irrefutably harmful to human health, with the greatest increases in risk occurring for laryngeal cancer, aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, lung cancer and other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), which collectively represent large causes of death and ill-health. The magnitude of and evidence for the associations between smoking and its leading health outcomes are among the highest currently analyzed in the burden-of-proof framework 29 . The star ratings assigned to each smoking–outcome pair offer policy makers a way of categorizing and comparing the evidence for a relationship between smoking and its potential health outcomes ( https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof ). We found that, for seven outcomes in our analysis, there was insufficient or inconsistent evidence to demonstrate a significant association with smoking. This is a key finding because it demonstrates the need for more high-quality data for these particular outcomes; availability of more data should improve the strength of evidence for whether or not there is an association between smoking and these health outcomes.

Our systematic review approach and meta-analytic methods have numerous benefits over existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the same topic that use traditional random effects models. First, our approach relaxes the log(linear) assumption, using a spline ensemble to estimate the risk 29 . Second, our approach allows variable reference groups and exposure ranges, allowing for more accurate estimates regardless of whether or not the underlying relative risk is log(linear). Furthermore, it can detect outliers in the data automatically. Finally, it quantifies uncertainty due to between-study heterogeneity while accounting for small numbers of studies, minimizing the risk that conclusions will be drawn based on spurious findings.

We believe that the results for the association between smoking and each of the 36 health outcomes generated by the present study, including the mean risk function, BPRF, ROS, average excess risk and star rating, could be useful to a range of stakeholders. Policy makers can formulate their decisions on smoking control priorities and resource allocation based on the magnitude of the effect and the consistency of the evidence relating smoking to each of the 36 outcomes, as represented by the ROS and star rating for each smoking–outcome association 187 . Physicians and public health practitioners can use the estimates of average increased risk and the star rating to educate patients and the general public about the risk of smoking and to promote smoking cessation 188 . Researchers can use the estimated mean risk function or BPRF to obtain the risk of an outcome at a given smoking exposure level, as well as uncertainty surrounding that estimate of risk. The results can also be used in the estimation of risk-attributable burden, that is, the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years due to each outcome that are attributable to smoking 30 , 186 . For the general public, these results could help them to better understand the risk of smoking and manage their health 189 .

Although our meta-analysis was comprehensive and carefully conducted, there are limitations to acknowledge. First, the bias covariates used, although carefully extracted and evaluated, were based on observable study characteristics and thus may not fully capture unobserved characteristics such as study quality or context, which might be major sources of bias. Second, if multiple risk estimates with different adjustment levels were reported in a given study, we included only the fully adjusted risk estimate and modeled the adjustment level according to the number of covariates adjusted for (rather than which covariates were adjusted for) and whether a standard adjustment for age and sex had been applied. This approach limited our ability to make full use of all available risk estimates in the literature. Third, although we evaluated the potential for publication bias in the data, we did not test for other forms of bias such as when studies are more consistent with each other than expected by chance 29 . Fourth, our analysis assumes that the relationships between smoking and health outcomes are similar across geographical regions and over time. We do not have sufficient evidence to quantify how the relationships may have evolved over time because the composition of smoking products has also changed over time. Perhaps some of the heterogeneity of the effect sizes in published studies reflects this; however, this cannot be discerned with the currently available information.

In the future, we plan to include crude and partially adjusted risk estimates in our analyses to fully incorporate all available risk estimates, to model the adjusted covariates in a more comprehensive way by mapping the adjusted covariates across all studies comprehensively and systematically, and to develop methods to evaluate additional forms of potential bias. We plan to update our results on a regular basis to provide timely and up-to-date evidence to stakeholders.

To conclude, we have re-estimated the dose–response risk of smoking on 36 health outcomes while synthesizing all the available evidence up to 31 May 2022. We found that, even after factoring in the heterogeneity between studies and other sources of uncertainty, smoking has a strong-to-very-strong association with a range of health outcomes and confirmed that smoking is irrefutably highly harmful to human health. We found that, due to small numbers of studies, inconsistency in the data, small effect sizes or a combination of these reasons, seven outcomes for which some previous research had found an association with smoking did not—under our meta-analytic framework and conservative approach to interpreting the data—have evidence of an association. Our estimates of the evidence for risk of smoking on 36 selected health outcomes have the potential to inform the many stakeholders of smoking control, including policy makers, researchers, public health professionals, physicians, smokers and the general public.

For the present study, we used a meta-analytic tool, MR-BRT (metaregression—Bayesian, regularized, trimmed), to estimate the dose–response risk curves of the risk of a health outcome across the range of current smoking levels along with uncertainty estimates 28 . Compared with traditional meta-analysis using linear mixed effect models, MR-BRT relaxes the assumption of a log(linear) relationship between exposure and risk, incorporates between-study heterogeneity into the uncertainty of risk estimates, handles estimates reported across different exposure categories, automatically identifies and trims outliers, and systematically tests and adjusts for bias due to study designs and characteristics. The meta-analytic methods employed by the present study followed the six main steps proposed by Zheng et al. 28 , 29 , namely: (1) enacting a systematic review approach and data extraction following a pre-specified and standardized protocol; (2) estimating the shape of the relationship between exposure and RR; (3) evaluating and adjusting for systematic bias as a function of study characteristics and risk estimation; (4) quantifying between-study heterogeneity while adjusting for within-study correlation and the number of studies; (5) evaluating potential publication or reporting biases; and (6) estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF, calculating the ROS and categorizing smoking–outcome pairs using a star-rating scheme from 1 to 5.

The estimates for our primary indicators of this work—mean RRs across a range of exposures, BRPFs, ROSs and star ratings for each risk–outcome pair—are not specific to or disaggregated by specific populations. We did not estimate RRs separately for different locations, sexes (although the RR of prostate cancer was estimated only for males and of cervical and breast cancer only for females) or age groups (although this analysis was applied to disease endpoints in adults aged ≥30 years only and, as detailed below, age-specific estimates were produced for the five CVD outcomes).

The present study complies with the PRISMA guidelines 190 (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10 and Supplementary Information 1.5 ) and Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) recommendations 191 (Supplementary Table 11 ). The study was approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (study no. 9060). The systematic review approach was not registered.

Selecting health outcomes

In the present study, current smoking is defined as the current use of any smoked tobacco product on a daily or occasional basis. Health outcomes were initially selected using the World Cancer Research Fund criteria for convincing or probable evidence as described in Murray et al. 186 . The 36 health outcomes that were selected based on existing evidence of a relationship included 16 cancers (lung cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, lip and oral cavity cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, other pharynx cancer (excluding nasopharynx cancer), pancreatic cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer and prostate cancer), 5 CVDs (ischemic heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation and flutter, aortic aneurysm and peripheral artery disease) and 15 other diseases (COPD, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis, asthma, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, gallbladder diseases, low back pain, peptic ulcer disease, rheumatoid arthritis, macular degeneration and fracture). Definitions of the outcomes are described in Supplementary Table 1 .

Step 1: systematic review approach to literature search and data extraction

Informed by the systematic review approach we took for the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ), for the present study we identified input studies in the literature using a systematic review approach for all 36 smoking–outcome pairs using updated search strings to identify all relevant studies indexed in PubMed up to 31 May 2022 and extracted data on smoking risk estimates. Briefly, the studies that were extracted represented several types of study design (for example, cohort and case–control studies), measured exposure in several different ways and varied in their choice of reference categories (where some compared current smokers with never smokers, whereas others compared current smokers with nonsmokers or former smokers). All these study characteristics were catalogued systematically and taken into consideration during the modeling part of the analysis.

In addition, for CVD outcomes, we also estimated the age pattern of risk associated with smoking. We applied a systematic review of literature approach for smoking risk for the five CVD outcomes. We developed a search string to search for studies reporting any association between binary smoking status (that is, current, former and ever smokers) and the five CVD outcomes from 1 January 1970 to 31 May 2022, and included only studies reporting age-specific risk (RR, odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR)) of smoking status. The inclusion criteria and results of the systematic review approach are reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines 31 . Details for each outcome on the search string used in the systematic review approach, refined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction template and PRISMA diagram are given in Supplementary Information 1 . Title and/or abstract screening, full text screening and data extraction were conducted by 14 members of the research team and extracted data underwent manual quality assurance by the research team to verify accuracy.

Selecting exposure categories

Cumulative exposure in pack-years was the measure of exposure used for COPD and all cancer outcomes except for prostate cancer, to reflect the risk of both duration and intensity of current smoking on these outcomes. For prostate cancer, CVDs and all the other outcomes except for fractures, we used cigarette-equivalents smoked per day as the exposure for current smoking, because smoking intensity is generally thought to be more important than duration for these outcomes. For fractures, we used binary exposure, because there were few studies examining intensity or duration of smoking on fractures. The smoking–outcome pairs and the corresponding exposures are summarized in Supplementary Table 4 and are congruent with the GBD 2019 (refs. 30 , 186 ).

Steps 2–5: modeling dose–response RR of smoking on the selected health outcomes

Of the six steps proposed by Zheng et al. 29 , steps 2–5 cover the process of modeling dose–response risk curves. In step 2, we estimated the shape (or the ‘signal’) of the dose–response risk curves, integrating over different exposure ranges. To relax the log(linear) assumption usually applied to continuous dose–response risk and make the estimates robust to the placement of spline knots, we used an ensemble spline approach to fit the functional form of the dose–response relationship. The final ensemble model was a weighted combination of 50 models with random knot placement, with the weight of each model proportional to measures of model fit and total variation. To avoid the influence of extreme data and reduce publication bias, we trimmed 10% of data for each outcome as outliers. We also applied a monotonicity constraint to ensure that the mean risk curves were nondecreasing (or nonincreasing in the case of Parkinson’s disease).

In step 3, following the GRADE approach 192 , 193 , we quantified risk of bias across six domains, namely, representativeness of the study population, exposure, outcome, reverse causation, control for confounding and selection bias. Details about the bias covariates are provided in Supplementary Table 4 . We systematically tested for the effect of bias covariates using metaregression, selected significant bias covariates using the Lasso approach 194 , 195 and adjusted for the selected bias covariates in the final risk curve.

In step 4, we quantified between-study heterogeneity accounting for within-study correlation, uncertainty of the heterogeneity, as well as small number of studies. Specifically, we used a random intercept in the mixed-effects model to account for the within-study correlation and used a study-specific random slope with respect to the ‘signal’ to capture between-study heterogeneity. As between-study heterogeneity can be underestimated or even zero when the number of studies is small 196 , 197 , we used Fisher’s information matrix to estimate the uncertainty of the heterogeneity 198 and incorporated that uncertainty into the final results.

In step 5, in addition to generating funnel plots and visually inspecting for asymmetry (Figs. 1c , 2c , 3c and 4c and Extended Data Fig. 6c ) to identify potential publication bias, we also statistically tested for potential publication or reporting bias using Egger’s regression 199 . We flagged potential publication bias in the data but did not correct for it, which is in line with the general literature 10 , 200 , 201 . Full details about the modeling process have been published elsewhere 29 and model specifications for each outcome are in Supplementary Table 6 .

Step 6: estimating the mean risk function and the BPRF

In the final step, step 6, the metaregression model inclusive of the selected bias covariates from step 3 (for example, the highest adjustment level) was used to predict the mean risk function and its 95% UI, which incorporated the uncertainty of the mean effect, between-study heterogeneity and the uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimate accounting for small numbers of studies. Specifically, 1,000 draws were created for each 0.1 level of doses from 0 pack-years to 100 pack-years or cigarette-equivalents smoked per day using the Bayesian metaregression model. The mean of the 1,000 draws was used to estimate the mean risk at each exposure level, and the 25th and 95th draws were used to estimate the 95% UIs for the mean risk at each exposure level.

The BPRF 29 is a conservative estimate of risk function consistent with the available evidence, correcting for both between-study heterogeneity and systemic biases related to study characteristics. The BPRF is defined as either the 5th (if harmful) or 95th (if protective) quantile curve closest to the line of log(RR) of 0, which defines the null (Figs. 1a , 2b , 3a and 4a ). The BPRF represents the smallest harmful (or protective) effect of smoking on the corresponding outcome at each level of exposure that is consistent with the available evidence. A BPRF opposite null from the mean risk function indicates that insufficient evidence is available to reject null, that is, that there may not be an association between risk and outcome. Likewise, the further the BPRF is from null on the same side of null as the mean risk function, the higher the magnitude and evidence for the relationship. The BPRF can be interpreted as indicating that, even accounting for between-study heterogeneity and its uncertainty, the log(RR) across the studied smoking range is at least as high as the BPRF (or at least as low as the BPRF for a protective risk).

To quantify the strength of the evidence, we calculated the ROS for each smoking–outcome association as the signed value of the log(BPRF) averaged between the 15th and 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels for each outcome. The ROS is a single summary of the effect of smoking on the outcome, with higher positive ROSs corresponding to stronger and more consistent evidence and a higher average effect size of smoking and a negative ROS, suggesting that, based on the available evidence, there is no significant effect of smoking on the outcome after accounting for between-study heterogeneity.

For ease of communication, we further classified each smoking–outcome association into a star rating from 1 to 5. Briefly, 1-star associations have an ROS <0, indicating that there is insufficient evidence to find a significant association between smoking and the selected outcome. We divided the positive ROSs into ranges 0.0–0.14 (2-star), >0.14–0.41 (3-star), >0.41–0.62 (4-star) and >0.62 (5-star). These categories correspond to excess risk ranges for harmful risks of 0–15%, >15–50%, >50–85% and >85%. For protective risks, the ranges of exposure-averaged decreases in risk by star rating are 0–13% (2 stars), >13–34% (3 stars), >34–46% (4 stars) and >46% (5 stars).

Among the 36 smoking–outcome pairs analyzed, smoking fracture was the only binary risk–outcome pair, which was due to limited data on the dose–response risk of smoking on fracture 202 . The estimation of binary risk was simplified because the RR was merely a comparison between current smokers and nonsmokers or never smokers. The concept of ROS for continuous risk can naturally extend to binary risk because the BPRF is still defined as the 5th percentile of the effect size accounting for data uncertainty and between-study heterogeneity. However, binary ROSs must be divided by 2 to make them comparable with continuous ROSs, which were calculated by averaging the risk over the range between the 15th and the 85th percentiles of observed exposure levels. Full details about estimating mean risk functions, BPRFs and ROSs for both continuous and binary risk–outcome pairs can be found elsewhere 29 .

Estimating the age-specific risk function for CVD outcomes

For non-CVD outcomes, we assumed that the risk function was the same for all ages and all sexes, except for breast, cervical and prostate cancer, which were assumed to apply only to females or males, respectively. As the risk of smoking on CVD outcomes is known to attenuate with increasing age 203 , 204 , 205 , 206 , we adopted a four-step approach for GBD 2020 to produce age-specific dose–response risk curves for CVD outcomes.

First, we estimated the reference dose–response risk of smoking for each CVD outcome using dose-specific RR data for each outcome regardless of the age group information. This step was identical to that implemented for the other non-CVD outcomes. Once we had generated the reference curve, we determined the age group associated with it by calculating the weighted mean age across all dose-specific RR data (weighted by the reciprocal of the s.e.m. of each datum). For example, if the weighted mean age of all dose-specific RR data was 56.5, we estimated the age group associated with the reference risk curve to be aged 55–59 years. For cohort studies, the age range associated with the RR estimate was calculated as a mean age at baseline plus the mean/median years of follow-up (if only the maximum years of follow-up were reported, we would halve this value and add it to the mean age at baseline). For case–control studies, the age range associated with the OR estimate was simply the reported mean age at baseline (if mean age was not reported, we used the midpoint of the age range instead).

In the third step, we extracted age group-specific RR data and relevant bias covariates from the studies identified in our systematic review approach of age-specific smoking risk on CVD outcomes, and used MR-BRT to model the age pattern of excess risk (that is, RR-1) of smoking on CVD outcomes with age group-specific excess RR data for all CVD outcomes. We modeled the age pattern of smoking risk on CVDs following the same steps we implemented for modeling dose–response risk curves. In the final model, we included a spline on age, random slope on age by study and the bias covariate encoding exposure definition (that is, current, former and ever smokers), which was picked by the variable selection algorithm 28 , 29 . When predicting the age pattern of the excess risk of smoking on CVD outcomes using the fitted model, we did not include between-study heterogeneity to reduce uncertainty in the prediction.

In the fourth step, we calculated the age attenuation factors of excess risk compared with the reference age group for each CVD outcome as the ratio of the estimated excess risk for each age group to the excess risk for the reference age group. We performed the calculation at the draw level to obtain 1,000 draws of the age attenuation factors for each age group. Once we had estimated the age attenuation factors, we carried out the last step, which consisted of adjusting the risk curve for the reference age group from step 1 using equation (1) to produce the age group-specific risk curves for each CVD outcome:

We implemented the age adjustment at the draw level so that the uncertainty of the age attenuation factors could be naturally incorporated into the final adjusted age-specific RR curves. A PRISMA diagram detailing the systematic review approach, a description of the studies included and the full details about the methods are in Supplementary Information 1.5 and 5.2 .

Estimating the theoretical minimum risk exposure level

The theoretical minimum risk exposure level for smoking was 0, that is, no individuals in the population are current or former smokers.

Model validation

The validity of the meta-analytic tool has been extensively evaluated by Zheng and colleagues using simulation experiments 28 , 29 . For the present study, we conducted two additional sensitivity analyses to examine how the shape of the risk curves was impacted by applying a monotonicity constraint and trimming 10% of data. We present the results of these sensitivity analyses in Supplementary Information 6 . In addition to the sensitivity analyses, the dose–response risk estimates were also validated by plotting the mean risk function along with its 95% UI against both the extracted dose-specific RR data from the studies included and our previous dose–response risk estimates from the GBD 2019 (ref. 30 ). The mean risk functions along with the 95% UIs were validated based on data fit and the level, shape and plausibility of the dose–response risk curves. All curves were validated by all authors and reviewed by an external expert panel, comprising professors with relevant experience from universities including Johns Hopkins University, Karolinska Institute and University of Barcelona; senior scientists working in relevant departments at the WHO and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and directors of nongovernmental organizations such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Statistical analysis

Analyses were carried out using R v.3.6.3, Python v.3.8 and Stata v.16.

Statistics and reproducibility

The study was a secondary analysis of existing data involving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. No statistical method was used to predetermine sample size. As the study did not involve primary data collection, randomization and blinding, data exclusions were not relevant to the present study, and, as such, no data were excluded and we performed no randomization or blinding. We have made our data and code available to foster reproducibility.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The findings from the present study are supported by data available in the published literature. Data sources and citations for each risk–outcome pair can be downloaded using the ‘download’ button on each risk curve page currently available at https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof . Study characteristics and citations for all input data used in the analyses are also provided in Supplementary Table 3 , and Supplementary Table 2 provides a template of the data collection form.

Code availability

All code used for these analyses is publicly available online ( https://github.com/ihmeuw-msca/burden-of-proof ).

Doll, R. & Hill, A. B. Smoking and carcinoma of the lung. Br. Med. J. 2 , 739–748 (1950).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Di Cicco, M. E., Ragazzo, V. & Jacinto, T. Mortality in relation to smoking: the British Doctors Study. Breathe 12 , 275–276 (2016).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 36 (WHO, 2003).

Dai, X., Gakidou, E. & Lopez, A. D. Evolution of the global smoking epidemic over the past half century: strengthening the evidence base for policy action. Tob. Control 31 , 129–137 (2022).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Dikshit, R. P. & Kanhere, S. Tobacco habits and risk of lung, oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer: a population-based case-control study in Bhopal, India. Int. J. Epidemiol. 29 , 609–614 (2000).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Liaw, K. M. & Chen, C. J. Mortality attributable to cigarette smoking in Taiwan: a 12-year follow-up study. Tob. Control 7 , 141–148 (1998).

Gandini, S. et al. Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Int. J. Cancer 122 , 155–164 (2008).

Deng, X., Yuan, C. & Chang, D. Interactions between single nucleotide polymorphism of SERPINA1 gene and smoking in association with COPD: a case–control study. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 12 , 259–265 (2017).

Leem, A. Y., Park, B., Kim, Y. S., Jung, J. Y. & Won, S. Incidence and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a Korean community-based cohort. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 13 , 509–517 (2018).

Forey, B. A., Thornton, A. J. & Lee, P. N. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence relating smoking to COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. BMC Pulmon. Med. 11 , 36 (2011).

Article Google Scholar

Tan, J. et al. Smoking, blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease mortality in a large cohort of Chinese men with 15 years follow-up. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15 , E1026 (2018).

Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J. & Sutherland, I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years’ observations on male British doctors. Br. Med. J. 328 , 1519 (2004).

Huxley, R. R. & Woodward, M. Cigarette smoking as a risk factor for coronary heart disease in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet 378 , 1297–1305 (2011).

Hbejan, K. Smoking effect on ischemic heart disease in young patients. Heart Views 12 , 1–6 (2011).

Chao, H. et al. A meta-analysis of active smoking and risk of meningioma. Tob. Induc. Dis. 19 , 34 (2021).

Shi, H., Shao, X. & Hong, Y. Association between cigarette smoking and the susceptibility of acute myeloid leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Rev. Med Pharm. Sci. 23 , 10049–10057 (2019).

CAS Google Scholar

Macacu, A., Autier, P., Boniol, M. & Boyle, P. Active and passive smoking and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 154 , 213–224 (2015).

Pujades-Rodriguez, M. et al. Heterogeneous associations between smoking and a wide range of initial presentations of cardiovascular disease in 1 937 360 people in England: lifetime risks and implications for risk prediction. Int. J. Epidemiol. 44 , 129–141 (2015).

Kanazir, M. et al. Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-control study in Belgrade (Serbia). Tumori 96 , 911–917 (2010).

Pytynia, K. B. et al. Matched-pair analysis of survival of never smokers and ever smokers with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J. Clin. Oncol. 22 , 3981–3988 (2004).

Barengo, N. C., Antikainen, R., Harald, K. & Jousilahti, P. Smoking and cancer, cardiovascular and total mortality among older adults: the Finrisk Study. Prev. Med. Rep. 14 , 100875 (2019).

Guo, Y. et al. Modifiable risk factors for cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Mov. Disord. 34 , 876–883 (2019).

Aune, D., Vatten, L. J. & Boffetta, P. Tobacco smoking and the risk of gallbladder disease. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 31 , 643–653 (2016).

Qin, L., Deng, H.-Y., Chen, S.-J. & Wei, W. Relationship between cigarette smoking and risk of chronic myeloid leukaemia: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Hematology 22 , 193–200 (2017).

Petrick, J. L. et al. Tobacco, alcohol use and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the Liver Cancer Pooling Project. Br. J. Cancer 118 , 1005–1012 (2018).

United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health to the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/index.htm (US DHEW, 1964).

United States Public Health Service Office of the Surgeon General & National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General . (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2020).

Zheng, P., Barber, R., Sorensen, R. J. D., Murray, C. J. L. & Aravkin, A. Y. Trimmed constrained mixed effects models: formulations and algorithms. J. Comput. Graph Stat. 30 , 544–556 (2021).

Zheng, P. et al. The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk. Nat. Med. in press (2022).

Reitsma, M. B. et al. Spatial, temporal, and demographic patterns in prevalence of smoking tobacco use and attributable disease burden in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 397 , 2337–2360 (2021).

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. & Altman, D. G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br. Med. J. 339 , b2535 (2009).

Liu, Z. Y., He, X. Z. & Chapman, R. S. Smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer in Xuanwei, China. Int. J. Epidemiol. 20 , 26–31 (1991).

Brownson, R. C., Reif, J. S., Keefe, T. J., Ferguson, S. W. & Pritzl, J. A. Risk factors for adenocarcinoma of the lung. Am. J. Epidemiol. 125 , 25–34 (1987).

Marugame, T. et al. Lung cancer death rates by smoking status: comparison of the Three-Prefecture Cohort study in Japan to the Cancer Prevention Study II in the USA. Cancer Sci. 96 , 120–126 (2005).

Dosemeci, M., Gokmen, I., Unsal, M., Hayes, R. B. & Blair, A. Tobacco, alcohol use, and risks of laryngeal and lung cancer by subsite and histologic type in Turkey. Cancer Causes Control 8 , 729–737 (1997).

Freedman, N. D. et al. Impact of changing US cigarette smoking patterns on incident cancer: risks of 20 smoking-related cancers among the women and men of the NIH-AARP cohort. Int. J. Epidemiol. 45 , 846–856 (2016).

Bae, J.-M. et al. Lung cancer incidence by smoking status in Korean men: 16 years of observations in the Seoul Male Cancer Cohort study. J. Korean Med. Sci. 28 , 636–637 (2013).

Everatt, R., Kuzmickienė, I., Virvičiūtė, D. & Tamošiūnas, A. Cigarette smoking, educational level and total and site-specific cancer: a cohort study in men in Lithuania. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 23 , 579–586 (2014).

Nordlund, L. A., Carstensen, J. M. & Pershagen, G. Are male and female smokers at equal risk of smoking-related cancer: evidence from a Swedish prospective study. Scand. J. Public Health 27 , 56–62 (1999).

Siemiatycki, J., Krewski, D., Franco, E. & Kaiserman, M. Associations between cigarette smoking and each of 21 types of cancer: a multi-site case–control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 24 , 504–514 (1995).

Chyou, P. H., Nomura, A. M. & Stemmermann, G. N. A prospective study of the attributable risk of cancer due to cigarette smoking. Am. J. Public Health 82 , 37–40 (1992).

Potter, J. D., Sellers, T. A., Folsom, A. R. & McGovern, P. G. Alcohol, beer, and lung cancer in postmenopausal women. The Iowa Women’s Health Study. Ann. Epidemiol. 2 , 587–595 (1992).

Chyou, P. H., Nomura, A. M., Stemmermann, G. N. & Kato, I. Lung cancer: a prospective study of smoking, occupation, and nutrient intake. Arch. Environ. Health 48 , 69–72 (1993).

Pesch, B. et al. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer–relative risk estimates for the major histological types from a pooled analysis of case–control studies. Int. J. Cancer 131 , 1210–1219 (2012).

Jöckel, K. H. et al. Occupational and environmental hazards associated with lung cancer. Int. J. Epidemiol. 21 , 202–213 (1992).

Jöckel, K. H., Ahrens, W., Jahn, I., Pohlabeln, H. & Bolm-Audorff, U. Occupational risk factors for lung cancer: a case-control study in West Germany. Int. J. Epidemiol. 27 , 549–560 (1998).

Lei, Y. X., Cai, W. C., Chen, Y. Z. & Du, Y. X. Some lifestyle factors in human lung cancer: a case-control study of 792 lung cancer cases. Lung Cancer 14 , S121–S136 (1996).

Pawlega, J., Rachtan, J. & Dyba, T. Evaluation of certain risk factors for lung cancer in Cracow (Poland)—a case–control study. Acta Oncol. 36 , 471–476 (1997).

Mao, Y. et al. Socioeconomic status and lung cancer risk in Canada. Int. J. Epidemiol. 30 , 809–817 (2001).

Barbone, F., Bovenzi, M., Cavallieri, F. & Stanta, G. Cigarette smoking and histologic type of lung cancer in men. Chest 112 , 1474–1479 (1997).

Matos, E., Vilensky, M., Boffetta, P. & Kogevinas, M. Lung cancer and smoking: a case–control study in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Lung Cancer 21 , 155–163 (1998).

Simonato, L. et al. Lung cancer and cigarette smoking in Europe: an update of risk estimates and an assessment of inter-country heterogeneity. Int. J. Cancer 91 , 876–887 (2001).

Risch, H. A. et al. Are female smokers at higher risk for lung cancer than male smokers? A case–control analysis by histologic type. Am. J. Epidemiol. 138 , 281–293 (1993).

Sankaranarayanan, R. et al. A case–control study of diet and lung cancer in Kerala, south India. Int. J. Cancer 58 , 644–649 (1994).

Band, P. R. et al. Identification of occupational cancer risks in British Columbia. Part I: methodology, descriptive results, and analysis of cancer risks, by cigarette smoking categories of 15,463 incident cancer cases. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 41 , 224–232 (1999).

Becher, H., Jöckel, K. H., Timm, J., Wichmann, H. E. & Drescher, K. Smoking cessation and nonsmoking intervals: effect of different smoking patterns on lung cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control 2 , 381–387 (1991).

Brockmöller, J., Kerb, R., Drakoulis, N., Nitz, M. & Roots, I. Genotype and phenotype of glutathione S-transferase class mu isoenzymes mu and psi in lung cancer patients and controls. Cancer Res. 53 , 1004–1011 (1993).

PubMed Google Scholar

Vena, J. E., Byers, T. E., Cookfair, D. & Swanson, M. Occupation and lung cancer risk. An analysis by histologic subtypes. Cancer 56 , 910–917 (1985).

Cascorbi, I. et al. Homozygous rapid arylamine N -acetyltransferase (NAT2) genotype as a susceptibility factor for lung cancer. Cancer Res. 56 , 3961–3966 (1996).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Chiazze, L., Watkins, D. K. & Fryar, C. A case–control study of malignant and non-malignant respiratory disease among employees of a fiberglass manufacturing facility. Br. J. Ind. Med 49 , 326–331 (1992).

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ando, M. et al. Attributable and absolute risk of lung cancer death by smoking status: findings from the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study. Int. J. Cancer 105 , 249–254 (2003).

De Matteis, S. et al. Are women who smoke at higher risk for lung cancer than men who smoke? Am. J. Epidemiol. 177 , 601–612 (2013).

He, Y. et al. Changes in smoking behavior and subsequent mortality risk during a 35-year follow-up of a cohort in Xi’an, China. Am. J. Epidemiol. 179 , 1060–1070 (2014).

Nishino, Y. et al. Cancer incidence profiles in the Miyagi Cohort Study. J. Epidemiol. 14 , S7–S11 (2004).

Papadopoulos, A. et al. Cigarette smoking and lung cancer in women: results of the French ICARE case–control study. Lung Cancer 74 , 369–377 (2011).

Shimazu, T. et al. Alcohol and risk of lung cancer among Japanese men: data from a large-scale population-based cohort study, the JPHC study. Cancer Causes Control 19 , 1095–1102 (2008).

Tindle, H. A. et al. Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: results from the Framingham Heart Study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110 , 1201–1207 (2018).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Yong, L. C. et al. Intake of vitamins E, C, and A and risk of lung cancer. The NHANES I epidemiologic followup study. First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146 , 231–243 (1997).

Hansen, M. S. et al. Sex differences in risk of smoking-associated lung cancer: results from a cohort of 600,000 Norwegians. Am. J. Epidemiol. 187 , 971–981 (2018).

Boffetta, P. et al. Tobacco smoking as a risk factor of bronchioloalveolar carcinoma of the lung: pooled analysis of seven case-control studies in the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO). Cancer Causes Control 22 , 73–79 (2011).

Yun, Y. D. et al. Hazard ratio of smoking on lung cancer in Korea according to histological type and gender. Lung 194 , 281–289 (2016).

Suzuki, I. et al. Risk factors for lung cancer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a case–control study. Lung Cancer 11 , 179–190 (1994).

De Stefani, E., Deneo-Pellegrini, H., Carzoglio, J. C., Ronco, A. & Mendilaharsu, M. Dietary nitrosodimethylamine and the risk of lung cancer: a case–control study from Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 5 , 679–682 (1996).

Google Scholar

Kreuzer, M. et al. Risk factors for lung cancer in young adults. Am. J. Epidemiol. 147 , 1028–1037 (1998).

Armadans-Gil, L., Vaqué-Rafart, J., Rosselló, J., Olona, M. & Alseda, M. Cigarette smoking and male lung cancer risk with special regard to type of tobacco. Int. J. Epidemiol. 28 , 614–619 (1999).

Kubík, A. K., Zatloukal, P., Tomásek, L. & Petruzelka, L. Lung cancer risk among Czech women: a case–control study. Prev. Med. 34 , 436–444 (2002).

Rachtan, J. Smoking, passive smoking and lung cancer cell types among women in Poland. Lung Cancer 35 , 129–136 (2002).

Thun, M. J. et al. 50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 368 , 351–364 (2013).

Zatloukal, P., Kubík, A., Pauk, N., Tomásek, L. & Petruzelka, L. Adenocarcinoma of the lung among women: risk associated with smoking, prior lung disease, diet and menstrual and pregnancy history. Lung Cancer 41 , 283–293 (2003).

Hansen, M. S., Licaj, I., Braaten, T., Lund, E. & Gram, I. T. The fraction of lung cancer attributable to smoking in the Norwegian Women and Cancer (NOWAC) Study. Br. J. Cancer 124 , 658–662 (2021).

Zhang, P. et al. Association of smoking and polygenic risk with the incidence of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study. Br. J. Cancer 126 , 1637–1646 (2022).

Weber, M. F. et al. Cancer incidence and cancer death in relation to tobacco smoking in a population-based Australian cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 149 , 1076–1088 (2021).

Guo, L.-W. et al. A risk prediction model for selecting high-risk population for computed tomography lung cancer screening in China. Lung Cancer 163 , 27–34 (2022).

Mezzoiuso, A. G., Odone, A., Signorelli, C. & Russo, A. G. Association between smoking and cancers among women: results from the FRiCaM multisite cohort study. J. Cancer 12 , 3136–3144 (2021).

Hawrysz, I., Wadolowska, L., Slowinska, M. A., Czerwinska, A. & Golota, J. J. Adherence to prudent and mediterranean dietary patterns is inversely associated with lung cancer in moderate but not heavy male Polish smokers: a case–control study. Nutrients 12 , E3788 (2020).

Huang, C.-C., Lai, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-H., Wang, J.-Y. & Wong, R.-H. Combined effects of cigarette smoking, DNA methyltransferase 3B genetic polymorphism, and DNA damage on lung cancer. BMC Cancer 21 , 1066 (2021).

Viner, B., Barberio, A. M., Haig, T. R., Friedenreich, C. M. & Brenner, D. R. The individual and combined effects of alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking on site-specific cancer risk in a prospective cohort of 26,607 adults: results from Alberta’s Tomorrow Project. Cancer Causes Control 30 , 1313–1326 (2019).

Park, E. Y., Lim, M. K., Park, E., Oh, J.-K. & Lee, D.-H. Relationship between urinary 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and lung cancer risk in the general population: a community-based prospective cohort study. Front. Oncol. 11 , 611674 (2021).

De Stefani, E., Deneo-Pellegrini, H., Mendilaharsu, M., Carzoglio, J. C. & Ronco, A. Dietary fat and lung cancer: a case–control study in Uruguay. Cancer Causes Control 8 , 913–921 (1997).

Wünsch-Filho, V., Moncau, J. E., Mirabelli, D. & Boffetta, P. Occupational risk factors of lung cancer in São Paulo, Brazil. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 24 , 118–124 (1998).

Hu, J. et al. A case-control study of diet and lung cancer in northeast China. Int. J. Cancer 71 , 924–931 (1997).

Jia, G., Wen, W., Massion, P. P., Shu, X.-O. & Zheng, W. Incorporating both genetic and tobacco smoking data to identify high-risk smokers for lung cancer screening. Carcinogenesis 42 , 874–879 (2021).

Rusmaully, J. et al. Risk of lung cancer among women in relation to lifetime history of tobacco smoking: a population-based case–control study in France (the WELCA study). BMC Cancer 21 , 711 (2021).

Jin, K. et al. Tobacco smoking modifies the association between hormonal factors and lung cancer occurrence among post-menopausal Chinese women. Transl. Oncol. 12 , 819–827 (2019).

Tse, L. A., Wang, F., Wong, M. C.-S., Au, J. S.-K. & Yu, I. T.-S. Risk assessment and prediction for lung cancer among Hong Kong Chinese men. BMC Cancer 22 , 585 (2022).

Huang, C.-C. et al. Joint effects of cigarette smoking and green tea consumption with miR-29b and DNMT3b mRNA expression in the development of lung cancer. Genes 13 , 836 (2022).

Hosseini, M. et al. Environmental risk factors for lung cancer in Iran: a case–control study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 38 , 989–996 (2009).

Naghibzadeh-Tahami, A. et al. Is opium use associated with an increased risk of lung cancer? A case–control study. BMC Cancer 20 , 807 (2020).

Shimatani, K., Ito, H., Matsuo, K., Tajima, K. & Takezaki, T. Cumulative cigarette tar exposure and lung cancer risk among Japanese smokers. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 50 , 1009–1017 (2020).

Lai, C.-Y. et al. Genetic polymorphism of catechol- O -methyltransferase modulates the association of green tea consumption and lung cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 28 , 316–322 (2019).

Schwartz, A. G. et al. Hormone use, reproductive history, and risk of lung cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative studies. J. Thorac. Oncol. 10 , 1004–1013 (2015).

Kreuzer, M., Gerken, M., Heinrich, J., Kreienbrock, L. & Wichmann, H.-E. Hormonal factors and risk of lung cancer among women? Int. J. Epidemiol. 32 , 263–271 (2003).

Sreeja, L. et al. Possible risk modification by CYP1A1, GSTM1 and GSTT1 gene polymorphisms in lung cancer susceptibility in a South Indian population. J. Hum. Genet. 50 , 618–627 (2005).

Siemiatycki, J. et al. Are the apparent effects of cigarette smoking on lung and bladder cancers due to uncontrolled confounding by occupational exposures? Epidemiology 5 , 57–65 (1994).

Chan-Yeung, M. et al. Risk factors associated with lung cancer in Hong Kong. Lung Cancer 40 , 131–140 (2003).

Lawania, S., Singh, N., Behera, D. & Sharma, S. Xeroderma pigmentosum complementation group D polymorphism toward lung cancer susceptibility survival and response in patients treated with platinum chemotherapy. Future Oncol. 13 , 2645–2665 (2017).

De Stefani, E. et al. Mate drinking and risk of lung cancer in males: a case-control study from Uruguay. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 5 , 515–519 (1996).

Pérez-Padilla, R. et al. Exposure to biomass smoke and chronic airway disease in Mexican women. A case-control study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 154 , 701–706 (1996).

Zhang, X.-R. et al. Glucosamine use, smoking and risk of incident chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a large prospective cohort study. Br. J. Nutr . https://doi.org/10.1017/S000711452100372X (2021).

Johannessen, A., Omenaas, E., Bakke, P. & Gulsvik, A. Incidence of GOLD-defined chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a general adult population. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 9 , 926–932 (2005).

Fox, J. Life-style and mortality: a large-scale census-based cohort study in Japan. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 45 , 173 (1991).

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Thomson, B. et al. Low-intensity daily smoking and cause-specific mortality in Mexico: prospective study of 150 000 adults. Int. J. Epidemiol. 50 , 955–964 (2021).

van Durme, Y. M. T. A. et al. Prevalence, incidence, and lifetime risk for the development of COPD in the elderly: the Rotterdam study. Chest 135 , 368–377 (2009).

Li, L. et al. SERPINE2 rs16865421 polymorphism is associated with a lower risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Uygur population: a case–control study. J. Gene Med. 21 , e3106 (2019).

Ganbold, C. et al. The cumulative effect of gene-gene interactions between GSTM1 , CHRNA3 , CHRNA5 and SOD3 gene polymorphisms combined with smoking on COPD risk. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 16 , 2857–2868 (2021).

Omori, H. et al. Twelve-year cumulative incidence of airflow obstruction among Japanese males. Intern. Med. 50 , 1537–1544 (2011).

Manson, J. E., Ajani, U. A., Liu, S., Nathan, D. M. & Hennekens, C. H. A prospective study of cigarette smoking and the incidence of diabetes mellitus among US male physicians. Am. J. Med. 109 , 538–542 (2000).

Lv, J. et al. Adherence to a healthy lifestyle and the risk of type 2 diabetes in Chinese adults. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46 , 1410–1420 (2017).

Waki, K. et al. Alcohol consumption and other risk factors for self-reported diabetes among middle-aged Japanese: a population-based prospective study in the JPHC study cohort I. Diabet. Med. 22 , 323–331 (2005).

Meisinger, C., Döring, A., Thorand, B. & Löwel, H. Association of cigarette smoking and tar and nicotine intake with development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in men and women from the general population: the MONICA/KORA Augsburg Cohort Study. Diabetologia 49 , 1770–1776 (2006).

Huh, Y. et al. Association of smoking status with the risk of type 2 diabetes among young adults: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea. Nicotine Tob. Res. 24 , 1234–1240 (2022).

Sawada, S. S., Lee, I.-M., Muto, T., Matuszaki, K. & Blair, S. N. Cardiorespiratory fitness and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: prospective study of Japanese men. Diabetes Care 26 , 2918–2922 (2003).

Will, J. C., Galuska, D. A., Ford, E. S., Mokdad, A. & Calle, E. E. Cigarette smoking and diabetes mellitus: evidence of a positive association from a large prospective cohort study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 30 , 540–546 (2001).

Nakanishi, N., Nakamura, K., Matsuo, Y., Suzuki, K. & Tatara, K. Cigarette smoking and risk for impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes in middle-aged Japanese men. Ann. Intern. Med. 133 , 183–191 (2000).

Sairenchi, T. et al. Cigarette smoking and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among middle-aged and elderly Japanese men and women. Am. J. Epidemiol. 160 , 158–162 (2004).

Hou, X. et al. Cigarette smoking is associated with a lower prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes screened by OGTT than non-smoking in Chinese men with normal weight. PLoS ONE 11 , e0149234 (2016).

Hu, F. B. et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. N. Engl. J. Med. 345 , 790–797 (2001).

Teratani, T. et al. Dose-response relationship between tobacco or alcohol consumption and the development of diabetes mellitus in Japanese male workers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 125 , 276–282 (2012).

Kawakami, N., Takatsuka, N., Shimizu, H. & Ishibashi, H. Effects of smoking on the incidence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Replication and extension in a Japanese cohort of male employees. Am. J. Epidemiol. 145 , 103–109 (1997).

Patja, K. et al. Effects of smoking, obesity and physical activity on the risk of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged Finnish men and women. J. Intern. Med. 258 , 356–362 (2005).

White, W. B. et al. High-intensity cigarette smoking is associated with incident diabetes mellitus in Black adults: the Jackson Heart Study. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7 , e007413 (2018).

Uchimoto, S. et al. Impact of cigarette smoking on the incidence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus in middle-aged Japanese men: the Osaka Health Survey. Diabet. Med . 16 , 951–955 (1999).

Rimm, E. B., Chan, J., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A. & Willett, W. C. Prospective study of cigarette smoking, alcohol use, and the risk of diabetes in men. Br. Med. J. 310 , 555–559 (1995).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hilawe, E. H. et al. Smoking and diabetes: is the association mediated by adiponectin, leptin, or C-reactive protein? J. Epidemiol. 25 , 99–109 (2015).

InterAct, Consortium et al. Smoking and long-term risk of type 2 diabetes: the EPIC-InterAct study in European populations. Diabetes Care 37 , 3164–3171 (2014).

Jee, S. H., Foong, A. W., Hur, N. W. & Samet, J. M. Smoking and risk for diabetes incidence and mortality in Korean men and women. Diabetes Care 33 , 2567–2572 (2010).

Rasouli, B. et al. Smoking and the risk of LADA: results from a Swedish population-based case-control study. Diabetes Care 39 , 794–800 (2016).

Wannamethee, S. G., Shaper, A. G. & Perry, I. J., British Regional Heart Study. Smoking as a modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes in middle-aged men. Diabetes Care 24 , 1590–1595 (2001).

Radzeviciene, L. & Ostrauskas, R. Smoking habits and type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. Women Health 58 , 884–897 (2018).

Carlsson, S., Midthjell, K. & Grill, V., Nord-Trøndelag Study. Smoking is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes but a decreased risk of autoimmune diabetes in adults: an 11-year follow-up of incidence of diabetes in the Nord-Trøndelag study. Diabetologia 47 , 1953–1956 (2004).

Akter, S. et al. Smoking, smoking cessation, and the risk of type 2 diabetes among Japanese adults: Japan Epidemiology Collaboration on Occupational Health Study. PLoS ONE 10 , e0132166 (2015).

Pirie, K. et al. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet 381 , 133–141 (2013).

Park, C.-H. et al. [The effect of smoking status upon occurrence of impaired fasting glucose or type 2 diabetes in Korean men]. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 41 , 249–254 (2008).

Doi, Y. et al. Two risk score models for predicting incident Type 2 diabetes in Japan. Diabet. Med. 29 , 107–114 (2012).

van den Brandt, P. A. A possible dual effect of cigarette smoking on the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 32 , 683–690 (2017).

Dossus, L. et al. Active and passive cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: results from the EPIC cohort. Int. J. Cancer 134 , 1871–1888 (2014).

Kawai, M., Malone, K. E., Tang, M.-T. C. & Li, C. I. Active smoking and the risk of estrogen receptor-positive and triple-negative breast cancer among women ages 20 to 44 years. Cancer 120 , 1026–1034 (2014).

Reynolds, P. et al. Active smoking, household passive smoking, and breast cancer: evidence from the California Teachers Study. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 96 , 29–37 (2004).

Ellingjord-Dale, M. et al. Alcohol, physical activity, smoking, and breast cancer subtypes in a large, nested case-control study from the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 26 , 1736–1744 (2017).

Arthur, R. et al. Association between lifestyle, menstrual/reproductive history, and histological factors and risk of breast cancer in women biopsied for benign breast disease. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 165 , 623–631 (2017).

Luo, J. et al. Association of active and passive smoking with risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women: a prospective cohort study. Br. Med. J. 342 , d1016 (2011).

White, A. J., D’Aloisio, A. A., Nichols, H. B., DeRoo, L. A. & Sandler, D. P. Breast cancer and exposure to tobacco smoke during potential windows of susceptibility. Cancer Causes Control 28 , 667–675 (2017).

Gram, I. T. et al. Breast cancer risk among women who start smoking as teenagers. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 14 , 61–66 (2005).

Gammon, M. D. et al. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk among young women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 9 , 583–590 (1998).

Magnusson, C., Wedrén, S. & Rosenberg, L. U. Cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk: a population-based study in Sweden. Br. J. Cancer 97 , 1287–1290 (2007).

Chu, S. Y. et al. Cigarette smoking and the risk of breast cancer. Am. J. Epidemiol. 131 , 244–253 (1990).

Lemogne, C. et al. Depression and the risk of cancer: a 15-year follow-up study of the GAZEL cohort. Am. J. Epidemiol. 178 , 1712–1720 (2013).

Morabia, A., Bernstein, M., Héritier, S. & Khatchatrian, N. Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke. Am. J. Epidemiol. 143 , 918–928 (1996).

Conlon, M. S. C., Johnson, K. C., Bewick, M. A., Lafrenie, R. M. & Donner, A. Smoking (active and passive), N -acetyltransferase 2, and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 34 , 142–149 (2010).

Ozasa, K., Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer. Smoking and mortality in the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study for Evaluation of Cancer (JACC). Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 8 , 89–96 (2007).

Jones, M. E., Schoemaker, M. J., Wright, L. B., Ashworth, A. & Swerdlow, A. J. Smoking and risk of breast cancer in the Generations Study cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 19 , 118 (2017).

Bjerkaas, E. et al. Smoking duration before first childbirth: an emerging risk factor for breast cancer? Results from 302,865 Norwegian women. Cancer Causes Control 24 , 1347–1356 (2013).

Gram, I. T., Little, M. A., Lund, E. & Braaten, T. The fraction of breast cancer attributable to smoking: the Norwegian women and cancer study 1991–2012. Br. J. Cancer 115 , 616–623 (2016).

Li, C. I., Malone, K. E. & Daling, J. R. The relationship between various measures of cigarette smoking and risk of breast cancer among older women 65–79 years of age (United States). Cancer Causes Control 16 , 975–985 (2005).

Xue, F., Willett, W. C., Rosner, B. A., Hankinson, S. E. & Michels, K. B. Cigarette smoking and the incidence of breast cancer. Arch. Intern. Med. 171 , 125–133 (2011).

Parker, A. S., Cerhan, J. R., Putnam, S. D., Cantor, K. P. & Lynch, C. F. A cohort study of farming and risk of prostate cancer in Iowa. Epidemiology 10 , 452–455 (1999).

Sawada, N. et al. Alcohol and smoking and subsequent risk of prostate cancer in Japanese men: the Japan Public Health Center-based prospective study. Int. J. Cancer 134 , 971–978 (2014).

Hiatt, R. A., Armstrong, M. A., Klatsky, A. L. & Sidney, S. Alcohol consumption, smoking, and other risk factors and prostate cancer in a large health plan cohort in California (United States). Cancer Causes Control 5 , 66–72 (1994).

Cerhan, J. R. et al. Association of smoking, body mass, and physical activity with risk of prostate cancer in the Iowa 65+ Rural Health Study (United States). Cancer Causes Control 8 , 229–238 (1997).

Watters, J. L., Park, Y., Hollenbeck, A., Schatzkin, A. & Albanes, D. Cigarette smoking and prostate cancer in a prospective US cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 18 , 2427–2435 (2009).

Butler, L. M., Wang, R., Wong, A. S., Koh, W.-P. & Yu, M. C. Cigarette smoking and risk of prostate cancer among Singapore Chinese. Cancer Causes Control 20 , 1967–1974 (2009).

Lotufo, P. A., Lee, I. M., Ajani, U. A., Hennekens, C. H. & Manson, J. E. Cigarette smoking and risk of prostate cancer in the physicians’ health study (United States). Int. J. Cancer 87 , 141–144 (2000).

Hsing, A. W. et al. Diet, tobacco use, and fatal prostate cancer: results from the Lutheran Brotherhood Cohort Study. Cancer Res. 50 , 6836–6840 (1990).

Veierød, M. B., Laake, P. & Thelle, D. S. Dietary fat intake and risk of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 25,708 Norwegian men. Int. J. Cancer 73 , 634–638 (1997).

Meyer, J., Rohrmann, S., Bopp, M. & Faeh, D. & Swiss National Cohort Study Group. Impact of smoking and excess body weight on overall and site-specific cancer mortality risk. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev . 24 , 1516–1522 (2015).

Putnam, S. D. et al. Lifestyle and anthropometric risk factors for prostate cancer in a cohort of Iowa men. Ann. Epidemiol. 10 , 361–369 (2000).

Taghizadeh, N., Vonk, J. M. & Boezen, H. M. Lifetime smoking history and cause-specific mortality in a cohort study with 43 years of follow-up. PLoS ONE 11 , e0153310 (2016).

Park, S.-Y. et al. Racial/ethnic differences in lifestyle-related factors and prostate cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. Cancer Causes Control 26 , 1507–1515 (2015).

Nomura, A. M., Lee, J., Stemmermann, G. N. & Combs, G. F. Serum selenium and subsequent risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 9 , 883–887 (2000).

Rodriguez, C., Tatham, L. M., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E. & Heath, C. W. Smoking and fatal prostate cancer in a large cohort of adult men. Am. J. Epidemiol. 145 , 466–475 (1997).

Rohrmann, S. et al. Smoking and risk of fatal prostate cancer in a prospective U.S. study. Urology 69 , 721–725 (2007).

Giovannucci, E. et al. Smoking and risk of total and fatal prostate cancer in United States health professionals. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 8 , 277–282 (1999).

Rohrmann, S. et al. Smoking and the risk of prostate cancer in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Br. J. Cancer 108 , 708–714 (2013).

Lund Nilsen, T. I., Johnsen, R. & Vatten, L. J. Socio-economic and lifestyle factors associated with the risk of prostate cancer. Br. J. Cancer 82 , 1358–1363 (2000).

Hsing, A. W., McLaughlin, J. K., Hrubec, Z., Blot, W. J. & Fraumeni, J. F. Tobacco use and prostate cancer: 26-year follow-up of US veterans. Am. J. Epidemiol. 133 , 437–441 (1991).

Murray, C. J. L. et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396 , 1223–1249 (2020).

Bero, L. A. & Jadad, A. R. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann. Intern. Med. 127 , 37–42 (1997).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cigarette smoking among adults and trends in smoking cessation—United States, 2008. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 58 , 1227–1232 (2009).

Prochaska, J. O. & Goldstein, M. G. Process of smoking cessation: implications for clinicians. Clin. Chest Med. 12 , 727–735 (1991).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 372 , n71 (2021).

Stevens, G. A. et al. Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting: the GATHER statement. Lancet 388 , e19–e23 (2016).

BMJ Best Practice. What is GRADE? https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade (BMJ, 2021).

The GRADE Working Group. GRADE handbook . https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html (The GRADE Working Group, 2013).

Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I. & Tibshirani, R. Least angle regression. Ann. Stat. 32 , 407–499 (2004).

Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 58 , 267–288 (1996).

von Hippel, P. T. The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 15 , 35 (2015).

Kontopantelis, E., Springate, D. A. & Reeves, D. A re-analysis of the Cochrane Library data: the dangers of unobserved heterogeneity in meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 8 , e69930 (2013).

Biggerstaff, B. J. & Tweedie, R. L. Incorporating variability in estimates of heterogeneity in the random effects model in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 16 , 753–768 (1997).

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315 , 629–634 (1997).

Lee, P. N., Forey, B. A. & Coombs, K. J. Systematic review with meta-analysis of the epidemiological evidence in the 1900s relating smoking to lung cancer. BMC Cancer 12 , 385 (2012).

Rücker, G., Carpenter, J. R. & Schwarzer, G. Detecting and adjusting for small-study effects in meta-analysis. Biometr. J. 53 , 351–368 (2011).

Wu, Z.-J., Zhao, P., Liu, B. & Yuan, Z.-C. Effect of cigarette smoking on risk of hip fracture in men: a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies. PLoS ONE 11 , e0168990 (2016).

Thun, M. J. et al. in Cigarette Smoking Behaviour in the United States: changes in cigarette-related disease risks and their implication for prevention and control (eds Burns, D.M. et al.) Tobacco Control Monograph No. 8 Ch. 4 (National Cancer Institute, 1997).

Tolstrup, J. S. et al. Smoking and risk of coronary heart disease in younger, middle-aged, and older adults. Am. J. Public Health 104 , 96–102 (2014).

Jonas, M. A., Oates, J. A., Ockene, J. K. & Hennekens, C. H. Statement on smoking and cardiovascular disease for health care professionals. American Heart Association. Circulation 86 , 1664–1669 (1992).

Khan, S. S. et al. Cigarette smoking and competing risks for fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease subtypes across the life course. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 10 , e021751 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders. The study funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the final report or the decision to publish.

We thank the Tobacco Metrics Team Advisory Group for their valuable input and review of the work. The members of the Advisory Group are: P. Allebeck, R. Chandora, J. Drope, M. Eriksen, E. Fernández, H. Gouda, R. Kennedy, D. McGoldrick, L. Pan, K. Schotte, E. Sebrie, J. Soriano, M. Tynan and K. Welding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Xiaochen Dai, Gabriela F. Gil, Marissa B. Reitsma, Noah S. Ahmad, Jason A. Anderson, Catherine Bisignano, Sinclair Carr, Rachel Feldman, Simon I. Hay, Jiawei He, Vincent Iannucci, Hilary R. Lawlor, Matthew J. Malloy, Laurie B. Marczak, Susan A. McLaughlin, Larissa Morikawa, Erin C. Mullany, Sneha I. Nicholson, Erin M. O’Connell, Chukwuma Okereke, Reed J. D. Sorensen, Joanna Whisnant, Aleksandr Y. Aravkin, Peng Zheng, Christopher J. L. Murray & Emmanuela Gakidou

Department of Health Metrics Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Xiaochen Dai, Simon I. Hay, Jiawei He, Peng Zheng, Christopher J. L. Murray & Emmanuela Gakidou

Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Aleksandr Y. Aravkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

X.D., S.I.H., S.A.M., E.C.M., E.M.O., C.J.L.M. and E.G. managed the estimation or publications process. X.D. and G.F.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. X.D. and P.Z. had primary responsibility for applying analytical methods to produce estimates. X.D., G.F.G., N.S.A., J.A.A., S.C., R.F., V.I., M.J.M., L.M., S.I.N., C.O., M.B.R. and J.W. had primary responsibility for seeking, cataloguing, extracting or cleaning data, and for designing or coding figures and tables. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., N.S.A., H.R.L., C.O. and J.W. provided data or critical feedback on data sources. X.D., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. developed methods or computational machinery. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., S.I.H., J.H., R.J.D.S., A.Y.A., P.Z., C.J.L.M. and E.G. provided critical feedback on methods or results. X.D., G.F.G., M.B.R., C.B., S.I.H., L.B.M., S.A.M., A.Y.A. and E.G. drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. X.D., S.I.H., L.B.M., E.C.M., E.M.O. and E.G. managed the overall research enterprise.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaochen Dai .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Frederic Sitas and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Jennifer Sargent and Ming Yang, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 prisma 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the smoking and tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer risk-outcome pair..

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 3 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Diabetes mellitus type 2 risk- outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and type 2 diabetes conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 4 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Breast cancer risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and breast cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 5 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for an updated systematic review of the Smoking and Prostate cancer risk-outcome pair.

The PRISMA flow diagram of an updated systematic review on the relationship between smoking and prostate cancer conducted on PubMed to update historical review from previous cycles of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Template is from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ .

Extended Data Fig. 6 Smoking and Breast Cancer.

a , log-relative risk function. b , relative risk function. c , A modified funnel plot showing the residuals (relative to 0) on the x-axis and the estimated standard deviation (SD) that includes reported SD and between-study heterogeneity on the y-axis.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Information 1: Data source identification and assessment. Supplementary Information 2: Data inputs. Supplementary Information 3: Study quality and bias assessment. Supplementary Information 4: The dose–response RR curves and their 95% UIs for all smoking–outcome pairs. Supplementary Information 5: Supplementary methods. Supplementary Information 6: Sensitivity analysis. Supplementary Information 7: Binary smoking–outcome pair. Supplementary Information 8: Risk curve details. Supplementary Information 9: GATHER and PRISMA checklists.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dai, X., Gil, G.F., Reitsma, M.B. et al. Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study. Nat Med 28 , 2045–2055 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2022

Accepted : 28 July 2022

Published : 10 October 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01978-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Estimating effects of whole grain consumption on type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease: a burden of proof study.

Nutrition Journal (2024)

Gabriela F. Gil
Jason A. Anderson
Emmanuela Gakidou

Nature Communications (2024)

A multi-ancestry cerebral cortex transcriptome-wide association study identifies genes associated with smoking behaviors

Xiaohang Xu

Molecular Psychiatry (2024)

Luisa S. Flor

Nature Medicine (2024)

Metabolic profiling of smoking, associations with type 2 diabetes and interaction with genetic susceptibility

Sofia Carlsson

European Journal of Epidemiology (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics

Smoking can be viewed as one of the trendy habits. Numerous teenagers try it since they think that it is cool or can help them socialize. Often students start smoking due to stress or mental illnesses. But is it okay?

Educators tend to give different written assignments, which may disclose this topic. If you have to develop a teenage smoking essay, you should learn the effects and harm that this habit causes.

That’s when our Custom-writing.org writers can help you!In the article, you’ll see how to deal with writing about smoking students. We’ve gathered tips for different paper types and prompts that can inspire you to start. In the end, you’ll find some smoking essay topics as well.

🚬 Argumentative
📈 Cause and Effect
🚭 Persuasive
🔥 Topics & Prompts

🔗 References

✍️ how to write a teenage smoking essay.

Just like any other academic paper, a teen smoking essay should be organized according to its type. You are probably familiar with the following writing ones:

argumentative essay;
cause and effect essay;
persuasive essay.

Below, you can find insightful tips on how to compose a teenage smoking essay, fulfilling the requirements of each type.

🚬 Argumentative Essay on Smoking

An argumentative essay on teenage smoking should give the reader a rational discussion of a specific issue. The ideas are expected to be well-structured and solidified with valid evidence.

Below, you can find the most useful tips for writing an argumentative teen smoking essay. Don’t hesitate to use them!

Catch the reader’s attention. In the introduction, explain the significance and relatability of the chosen issue. Provide general background and make the reader continue exploring your essay through attention-grabbing elements (impressive statistics, personal stories, etc.).
Express your position clearly. Compose a concise thesis statement , so the reader can quickly get your position. Be as precise as possible! For example, your thesis might look like this: Teenage smoking leads to poor health, psychological and social issues.
The most vivid adverse ramification of teenage smoking is the development of health problems like heart or lung diseases and cancer.
Another disruptive effect of smoking at a young age is the risk of psychological disorders such as anxiety or depression.
The last negative consequence of teenage smoking is the conflict with social norms.
Support your arguments. Your ideas will become stronger if you support them with proof from other sources. But be careful here! Use only reliable sources (academic journals, scholarly articles, books, etc.).
Finish your essay dynamically. In your essay conclusion, restate your thesis statement and synthesize all of your arguments. Motivate your readers on further investigation of your topic. To make your paper even more impressive, finish it with the final memorable thought that would be stuck in your readers’ minds.

📈 Cause and Effect Essay on Smoking

A cause and effect of the teenage smoking essay should answer two questions:

Why do teenagers smoke? (Causes).
What are the consequences of teenage smoking? (Effects).

How to create an excellent cause and effect paper? You can start by checking successful teen smoking essay examples . Then, learn some useful tips here:

Get an idea. The first step of creating a causes effects of teenage smoking essay is brainstorming topics. Think of the common reasons for teens smoking and analyze the possible outcomes. Here are some ideas for you:
Outline your paper. This step helps structure your ideas properly. Create a well-organized plan and add there all the proof and examples. Make sure that everything is logical, and start writing your teenage smoking essay.
Form a clear thesis. In your thesis statement, state your position and introduce the chosen cause and effect of smoking. Here is an example of the thesis for this type of smoking among teenagers essay: Caused by peer pressure, smoking negatively affects teenagers’ health and appearance.
The key cause of teenage nicotine addiction is peer pressure and the fear of becoming an outsider among the friends-smokers.
One of the detrimental effects of cigarettes on teenagers is health problems.
Another adverse consequence of teenage smoking is negative changes in appearance .
Polish your piece of writing. After you finished your first draft, revise and edit your essay. Ensure the absence of grammar and punctuation mistakes and double-check if your paper is coherent.

🚭 Persuasive Essay on Smoking

A persuasive essay about teenage smoking resembles an argumentative one but has a different purpose. Here, you have to convince your reader in your opinion, using evidence and facts. Moreover, in some papers, you have to call your reader to action. For example, to quit or ban smoking . So, see how to do so:

Grab the reader’s attention. To do so, you should know your audience and their preferences. Start your smoking essay by proving to the reader your credibility and the significance of your topic. For example, if you are writing about smoking students, introduce the shocking statistics at the beginning of your paper and convince them to stop smoking.
Show your empathy. An emotional appeal is a powerful tool for gaining the readers’ trust and influencing their opinions. Demonstrate that you understand their emotions and, at the same time, convince them to change their beliefs. To make it more clear, see an example: Although smoking might help teenagers be on the same wavelength as their friends, nicotine has a detrimental effect on health and leads to cancer development.
Include rhetoric questions. This is a useful persuasive trick that makes readers change their minds. For instance, in your smoking essay, you may ask this question: Smoking helps me to relieve stress, but will I be able to overcome lung cancer later?
Highlight your position. In a persuasive essay, you should be incredibly convincing. So, don’t be afraid of exaggeration or even repeating yourself. These tricks may help you to deliver your message to the reader more quickly and effectively.

You have a lot of ways of creating fantastic teen smoking essays. You should just turn around and gather material. Sometimes it lies near your foot.

To smoke or not to smoke? – This is the question! You should decide what is for you: To be yourself or follow the fashion! It is not difficult to do!

🔥 Smoking Essay Topics

Do you know what the critical secret of a successful essay is? A well-chosen topic!

If you find something you are passionate about, your essay writing process will be much easier. So, take a look at our smoking essay topics. Select one of them or use some to come up with your idea.

Smoking among teenagers: an exaggerated problem or a real threat to the generation?
The influence of nicotine on teenagers’ brain activity.
How smoking parents develop smoking habits in their children.
Vaping : a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes or just another dangerous teenagers’ passion?
Is smoking still a problem among teenagers today – an essay to highlight the issue of cigarette addiction.
The danger of smoking for immature teenagers’ organisms.
If smoking in public places was banned, teenagers would be predisposed to cigarettes less.
Social problems caused by teenage smoking.
The role of parents in dealing with teenage cigarette addiction.
Useful tips to stop smoking .
Why teenagers are influenced by peer pressure , and how to overcome it.
Teenage smoking: a matter of real nicotine addiction or a case of psychological processes inside immature minds?
The danger of smoking and second-hand smoke.
Is e-cigarette a threat or solution?
Analyze the connection between vaping and dental health.
Is it necessary to ban cigarette manufacturers?
Is it possible to prevent teenagers from smoking using anti-smoking posters ?
What are the best ways to persuade young adults to stop smoking?
Discuss the possibility of the global ban on tobacco and its potential outcomes.
Pros and cons of anti-smoking adverts.
Explore the connection between smoking cessation and depression .
Describe the link between smoking and heart disease.
Explain how smoking cessation can improve teenagers’ life.
How to reduce smoking among youth.
What are the different types of cigarette smokers?
Analyze the challenges of each stage of smoking cessation and how to overcome them.
Is smoking an effective method of weight control?
Discuss the impact of smoke on health of primary and secondary smokers.
Do you support the idea of lowering the smoking age in the USA ?
Effect of tobacco use on our body.
Explore the efficiency of the acupuncture method for smoking cessation.
Will the complete prohibition of smoking in cities help to preserve teenagers’ health?
Examine how smoking in movies influences teenagers’ desire to start smoking.
Are nicotine replacement medications necessary for successful smoking cessation?
Reasons to prohibit tobacco products and cigarettes.
Describe the reasons that prevent teenagers from smoking cessation .
Analyze the public image of smoking in the USA.
Discuss the issues connected with the smoking ban.
Antismoking ads and their influence on youth smoking prevalence.
What factors determine the success of anti-smoking persuasive campaigns among teenagers?
Explore the impact of smoking on teenagers’ physical and mental health.
What can you do to motivate your teenage friend to quit smoking?
Why do teenagers start smoking?
Analyze the rates of tobacco smoking among adolescents.
Compare the peculiarities of smoking cessation methods and motivation for teenagers and adolescents.
Examine whether raising cigarette pricing is an effective way to lower smoking rates.

Teenage Smoking Essay Prompts

Here are some writing prompts that you can use for your smoking essay:

What does the data on smoking in different countries say? Compare the age limitations for smoking, attitude to smoking in America and Europe, for example. Where the situation is worst, whether the government tries to fight against this, etc.
The distribution of cigarettes and other types of tobacco. Is it okay that tobacco machines are available all over the world (especially in Europe)? Any child can buy a cigarette and start smoking. You could investigate this problem in your teen smoking essays.
Opinion essay: present your ideas and attitude to smoking. Explain whether you like to see people smoking around you, or you cannot stand when people are gazing at you while you are smoking.
How does media influence teens’ decision-making? When teenagers see their favorite characters getting pleasure from smoking, they may want to try it. Is it a reason to start? In what other ways does mass media affect the problem?

Effects of Teenage Smoking Essay Prompt

Smoking among teenagers is a serious problem that has long-term consequences for their physical and mental health. In your essay, you can dwell on the following ideas:

Analyze the health consequences of tobacco use among young people. In your paper, you can study how tobacco affects youths’ health. Focus on the most widespread problems, such as heart and lung diseases, cancer risk, and others.
Estimate the role of smoking in promoting antisocial behavior among teenagers . Does smoking really encourage aggression and vandalism among teenagers? Use psychological theories and recent research findings to prove your point.
Explain why teenage smoking is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and urges. To prove your point, you may discuss how nicotine causes depression and neurotransmitter imbalances. Make sure to illustrate your essay with relevant studies and statistical data.
Investigate the economic and social consequences of smoking among young people. Besides high cigarette prices, you can consider lost productivity and healthcare costs. Additionally, write about social issues, such as stigmatization and reduced life opportunities.

Smoking in School Essay Prompt

Despite the implementation of smoke-free policies, a large percentage of teenagers start smoking during their school years. You can write an essay advocating for more effective initiatives to address not only students’ access to cigarettes but also the core causes of teen smoking.

Check out some more ideas for your “Smoking in School” essay:

Explain why educators should prohibit smoking on school grounds. Smoking is a dangerous habit that damages students’ health and the overall school environment. Even secondhand smoke exposure has harmful consequences. Your essay could provide evidence that proves the effectiveness of smoke-free policies in reducing teenage smoking rates and improving general well-being.
Analyze the effectiveness of school smoking policies in your educational institution. What smoking policies are accepted in your school? Do students comply with them? What disciplinary measures are used? Use student surveys and disciplinary records to prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of current policies.
Describe the issue of smoking in schools in your country. Answer the questions: how widespread is this problem? How does it manifest itself? What causes smoking in schools, and how do schools fight it?
Investigate the role of schools in reducing youth smoking. How can schools prevent and reduce smoking among students? Are their programs and campaigns effective? What can families and communities do to support schools in their efforts? Study these questions in your essay.

Peer Pressure Smoking Essay Prompt

Peer pressure is a common reason why teenagers start smoking. Friends, romantic attachments, or other social circles — all have significant effects on teens’ smoking intentions and possible tobacco addiction.

Here are some practical ideas that can help you highlight the role of peer pressure in teenage smoking :

Analyze why adolescents tend to be powerful in influencing their friends to start smoking. Peer pressure often impacts teenagers’ decisions more than parents’ disapproval. To explain this phenomenon, you can examine theories like social contagion and recent studies on peer dynamics.
Provide your own experience of resisting peer pressure to smoke. Have you ever faced peer pressure inducing you to smoke? What helped you to withstand? Try to share some advice for students in a similar situation.
Investigate how social media can amplify peer pressure through online portrayals of smoking as glamorous. We recommend studying images, videos, advertisements, and influencers that depict smoking as stylish and sophisticated. What can be done to prevent smoking glamorization on social media?
Estimate the role of peers in normalizing smoking behavior. Peer influence is more than just direct pressure. Your essay could explain how factors like observational learning and group identity induce teenagers to smoke.

Causes of Smoking Essay Prompt

There are many reasons why people start smoking, ranging from simple curiosity to complicated social and psychological factors, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and domestic violence.

Check out several ideas for an essay about the causes of smoking:

Analyze tobacco or e-cigarette ads that emphasize weight control benefits and explain how these ads encourage teenagers to smoke. Your paper may discuss how tobacco and e-cigarette companies make use of teenagers’ insecurities and social norms regarding body image. Include studies that prove the impact of advertising on youths’ behavior.
Explore why the rising popularity of fashionable electronic “vaping” devices is one of the key causes of teen smoking. Why is vaping so popular among teenagers? How does it appeal to youths’ preferences and lifestyles? What role do sleek design and social media influence play in the devices’ popularity? Answer the questions in your paper.
Describe your or your friend’s experience that forced you to try cigarettes. Have you or your friend ever tried smoking? Share your story in your essay. Reflect on the circumstances and emotions involved. What conclusions did you make from the experience?

Smoking Is Bad for Health Essay Prompt

Cigarette smoking impacts nearly every organ in the body, causes a variety of diseases, and worsens smokers’ overall health.

In your essay, you can expand on the following ideas to show the severe consequences of smoking on human well-being:

Analyze why cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Here, you can examine factors like addiction and chronic diseases cigarettes provoke. Add statistical data and emphasize the preventable nature of smoking-related illnesses and deaths.
Examine passive smoking as a serious threat to health, especially for children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases. Your essay could analyze research and case studies proving that secondhand smoke is as dangerous to human health as smoking itself. Underline its harm to vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases.
Investigate the impact of cigarettes on mental health, including their contribution to the development of depression and anxiety. In this paper, you can examine nicotine’s effect on neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation, such as dopamine and serotonin. Support your point with evidence from peer-reviewed studies.
Research the possible diseases that smoking can provoke, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory illnesses. How does smoking contribute to the development and progress of these diseases? Use epidemiological data and medical research to answer this question.

Is Smoking Still a Problem Among Teenagers: Argumentative Essay Prompt

According to the CDC, in 2023, 1 out of every 100 middle school students and nearly 2 out of every 100 high school students had smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days . Public health experts are especially concerned about e-cigarettes since flavorings in tobacco products can make cigarettes more appealing to teenagers.

To evaluate the current situation with smoking among teens, dwell on the following ideas in your essay:

Analyze your country’s or world’s statistics on teen smoking in recent decades. Do you see any changes? Why did they happen? What do these changes mean in terms of public health? Examine these questions in your essay.
Describe your own observations of teenagers’ smoking habits. Contrast what you witnessed in the past with the current situation. Do you think teenagers’ smoking habits changed? What makes you think so? Provide real-life examples to back up your opinion.
Examine data on e-cigarette use among teenagers. Your essay could compare ordinary cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use trends among teenagers. Which type prevails, and why? What impact does it have on teenagers’ health? What can be done to lower smoking and vaping rates among teenagers?

Thanks for reading till the end! Make sure to leave your opinion about the article below. Send it to your friends who may need our tips.

The roles of personality and genetics in smoking behavior

Both genes and personality traits have been implicated in cigarette smoking. This study examined the role of a dopamine transporter gene polymorphism (SLC6A3-9) and of the personality trait of Novelty Seeking in the smoking behavior of a population of 124 current, former and non-smokers. Individuals with SLC6A3-9 were more likely to have been able to quit smoking than were individuals without this allele. In addition, using the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) as a measure of personality, a low score in Novelty Seeking was associated with allele 9. These results could have future significance for the design of smoking cessation programs.

Access statement

Usage metrics.

Navigating the Thesis Statement to the Viewer-Base

What thesis statement state.

Let’s know the understanding of a thesis statement and why should one commence it during their journey toward a degree.

It is thereby important to study and mention the thesis statement in your assignment or the dissertation format. However, the Thesis statement is a strong focal point sanctioned by the students which usually falls under the introductory part of the written work. Its critical role is to lead the main point or argument of your drafted piece of manuscript. Acknowledging the importance of a thesis statement helps to draw the reader’s attention and their understanding by demonstrating the integrity of the academic.

Whereby, one needs to look and make sure that the passed thesis statement is related to the topic, must be concise and clear, and should draft a roadmap to what it is about to address. However, your thesis must be an objective statement and not a question. Your literature review must draw the attention of the readers and should hold uniqueness and transparency, followed by the rules that are adhered to by academics.

There are certain pieces of advice mentioned to which one can craft their thesis writing easily:

Your thesis help must highlight its motive.

Make sure the dissertation help is beneficial and works on today’s date.

The thesis statement must be very clear and to the point, and is highly recommended to refuse unnecessary arguments.

It is also essential that the thesis help UK go through a mixture of editing and proofreading so that it holds a refined manner.

Guide of tips and tricks on How to write a thesis statement:

1. Selecting the topic: The thesis writing service must always work on a topic that pulls out attention and interest, this is to do because if the chosen topic inspires you it will help you to stay motivated and work on it with full focus.

2. Critical Analysis of Data: Once the selection is done, make sure that it carries good references and analyse and figure out the missing details and gaps in the existing thesis.

3. Relevancy of data: When drafting make sure your thesis holds relevant information and facts and figures, and if not, then the thesis help seems to be of no use.

4. Search for your arguments: This is the most crucial part of your written work. The arguments must be strong and positive so that it helps the thesis statement to be competitive, also it is recommended to avoid statements that are lengthy as people do lack interest in reading such forms.

5. Deal with the scope and pathways: Custom thesis writing services need to mark the position of the thesis so that it is easy for the readers to differentiate it and align it to the right path.

6. Revise and Polish: To revise and refine your thesis is very essential and significant as it helps to identify the errors or spot the missing outsources, we know that the thesis is a lengthy process, and missing out on some sort of information is not a big task.

7. Feedback: Gaining feedback from your superiors or academic advisors is one necessary part as it helps to meet the inclinations and requirements of your thesis writing services.

Finding an end to your discussion is very difficult, but as your thesis is a lengthy process several pointers should be followed while designing your written work. The above-highlighted tips help one to deal with a good and supportive thesis statement while dealing with the guidelines too. If your thesis has a true and good impact then it helps you to further discover and encourages you to work on it, but make sure to revise and refine your thesis as it helps you to discover areas that are missed out.

So, it is highly recommended to draw a good thesis statement as it helps you to stand out among the available and holds a worthwhile writing capability which helps others too.

What thesis statement state? Let’s know the understanding of a thesis statement and why should one commence it during t

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2016.

Cover of E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults

E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet].

Chapter 1 introduction, conclusions, and historical background relative to e-cigarettes.

Introduction

Although conventional cigarette smoking has declined markedly over the past several decades among youth and young adults in the United States ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 2012 ), there have been substantial increases in the use of emerging tobacco products among these populations in recent years ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2015c ). Among these increases has been a dramatic rise in electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among youth and young adults. It is crucial that the progress made in reducing cigarette smoking among youth and young adults not be compromised by the initiation and use of e-cigarettes. This Surgeon General’s report focuses on the history, epidemiology, and health effects of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults; the companies involved with marketing and promoting these products; and existing and proposed public health policies regarding the use of these products by youth and young adults.

E-cigarettes include a diverse group of devices that allow users to inhale an aerosol, which typically contains nicotine, flavorings, and other additives. E-cigarettes vary widely in design and appearance, but generally operate in a similar manner and are composed of similar components ( Figure 1.1 ). A key challenge for surveillance of the products and understanding their patterns of use is the diverse and nonstandard nomenclature for the devices ( Alexander et al. 2016 ). These devices are referred to, by the companies themselves, and by consumers, as “e-cigarettes,” “e-cigs,” “cigalikes,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.” In this report, the term “e-cigarette” is used to represent all of the various products in this rapidly diversifying product category. The terms may differ by geographic region or simply by the prevailing preferences among young users. For example, some refer to all cigarette-shaped products as “e-cigarettes” or as “cigalikes,” and some may refer to the pen-style e-cigarettes as “hookah pens” or “vape pens” ( Richtel 2014 ; Lempert et al. 2016 ).

Diversity of e-cigarette products. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

This report focuses on research conducted among youth and young adults because of the implications of e-cigarette use in this population, particularly the potential for future public health problems. Understanding e-cigarette use among young persons is critical because previous research suggests that about 9 in 10 adult smokers first try conventional cigarettes during adolescence ( USDHHS 2012 ). Similarly, youth e-cigarette experimentation and use could also extend into adulthood; however, e-cigarette use in this population has not been examined in previous reports of the Surgeon General. The first Surgeon General’s report on the health consequences of smoking was published in 1964; of the subsequent reports, those published in 1994 and 2012 focused solely on youth and young adults ( USDHHS 1994 , 2012 ). More recently, the 2012 report documented the evidence regarding tobacco use among youth and young adults, concluding that declines in cigarette smoking had slowed and that decreases in the use of smokeless tobacco had stalled. That report also found that the tobacco industry’s advertising and promotional activities are causal to the onset of smoking in youth and young adults and the continuation of such use as adults ( USDHHS 2012 ). However, the 2012 report was prepared before e-cigarettes were as widely promoted and used in the United States as they are now. Therefore, this 2016 report documents the scientific literature on these new products and their marketing, within the context of youth and young adults. This report also looks to the future by examining the potential impact of e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, while also summarizing the research on current use, health consequences, and marketing as it applies to youth and young adults.

Evidence for this report was gathered from studies that included one or more of three age groups. We defined these age groups to be young adolescents (11–13 years of age), adolescents (14–17 years of age), and young adults (18–24 years of age). Some studies refer to the younger groups more generally as youth. Despite important issues related to e-cigarette use in adult populations, clinical and otherwise (e. g ., their potential for use in conventional smoking cessation), that literature will generally not be included in this report unless it also discusses youth and young adults ( Farsalinos and Polosa 2014 ; Franck et al. 2014 ; Grana et al. 2014 ).

Given the recency of the research that pertains to e-cigarettes, compared with the decades of research on cigarette smoking, the “precautionary principle” is used to guide actions to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults. This principle supports intervention to avoid possible health risks when the potential risks remain uncertain and have been as yet partially undefined ( Bialous and Sarma 2014 ; Saitta et al. 2014 ; Hagopian et al. 2015 ). Still, the report underscores and draws its conclusions from the known health risks of e-cigarette use in this age group.

Organization of the Report

This chapter presents a brief introduction to this report and includes its major conclusions followed by the conclusions of the chapters, the historical background of e-cigarettes, descriptions of the products, a review of the marketing and promotional activities of e-cigarette companies, and the current status of regulations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ). Chapter 2 (“Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults”) describes the epidemiology of e-cigarette use, including current use (i.e., past 30 day); ever use; co-occurrence of using e-cigarettes with other tobacco products, like cigarettes; and psychosocial factors associated with using e-cigarettes, relying on data from the most recent nationally representative studies available at the time this report was prepared. Chapter 3 (“Health Effects of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults”) documents the evidence related to the health effects of e-cigarette use, including those that are associated with direct aerosol inhalation by users, the indirect health effects of e-cigarette use, other non-aerosol health effects of e-cigarette use, and secondhand exposure to constituents of the aerosol. Chapter 4 (“Activities of the E-Cigarette Companies”) describes e-cigarette companies’ influences on e-cigarette use and considers manufacturing and price; the impact of price on sales and use; the rapid changes in the industry, particularly the e-cigarette companies; and the marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes. Chapter 5 (“E-Cigarette Policy and Practice Implications”) discusses the implications for policy and practice at the national, state, and local levels. The report ends with a Call to Action to stakeholders—including policymakers, public health practitioners and clinicians, researchers, and the public—to work to prevent harms from e-cigarette use and secondhand aerosol exposure among youth and young adults.

Preparation of this Report

This Surgeon General’s report was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC , which is part of USDHHS . The initial drafts of the chapters were written by 27 experts who were selected for their knowledge of the topics addressed. These contributions are summarized in five chapters that were evaluated by approximately 30 peer reviewers. After peer review, the entire manuscript was sent to more than 20 scientists and other experts, who examined it for its scientific integrity. After each review cycle, the drafts were revised by the report’s scientific editors on the basis of reviewers’ comments. Subsequently, the report was reviewed by various institutes and agencies within USDHHS.

Scientific Basis of the Report

The statements and conclusions throughout this report are documented by the citation of studies published in the scientific literature. Publication lags have prevented an up-to-the-minute inclusion of all recently published articles and data. This overall report primarily cites peer-reviewed journal articles, including reviews that integrate findings from numerous studies and books that were published through December 2015. However, selected studies from 2016 have been added during the review process that provide further support for the conclusions in this report. When a cited study has been accepted for publication, but the publication has not yet occurred because of the delay between acceptance and final publication, the study is referred to as “in press.” This report also refers, on occasion, to unpublished research, such as presentations at a professional meeting, personal communications from a researcher, or information available in various media. These references are employed when acknowledged by the editors and reviewers as being from reliable sources, which add to the emerging literature on a topic.

Major Conclusions
E-cigarettes are a rapidly emerging and diversified product class. These devices typically deliver nicotine, flavorings, and other additives to users via an inhaled aerosol. These devices are referred to by a variety of names, including “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.”
E-cigarette use among youth and young adults has become a public health concern. In 2014, current use of e-cigarettes by young adults 18–24 years of age surpassed that of adults 25 years of age and older.
E-cigarettes are now the most commonly used tobacco product among youth, surpassing conventional cigarettes in 2014. E-cigarette use is strongly associated with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, including combustible tobacco products.
The use of products containing nicotine poses dangers to youth, pregnant women, and fetuses. The use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth, including in e-cigarettes, is unsafe.
E-cigarette aerosol is not harmless. It can contain harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including nicotine. Nicotine exposure during adolescence can cause addiction and can harm the developing adolescent brain.
E-cigarettes are marketed by promoting flavors and using a wide variety of media channels and approaches that have been used in the past for marketing conventional tobacco products to youth and young adults.
Action can be taken at the national, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults. Actions could include incorporating e-cigarettes into smokefree policies, preventing access to e-cigarettes by youth, price and tax policies, retail licensure, regulation of e-cigarette marketing likely to attract youth, and educational initiatives targeting youth and young adults.
Chapter Conclusions

Chapter 1. Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes

E-cigarettes are devices that typically deliver nicotine, flavorings, and other additives to users via an inhaled aerosol. These devices are referred to by a variety of names, including “e-cigs,” “e-hookahs,” “mods,” “vape pens,” “vapes,” and “tank systems.”
E-cigarettes represent an evolution in a long history of tobacco products in the United States, including conventional cigarettes.
In May 2016, the Food and Drug Administration issued the deeming rule, exercising its regulatory authority over e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.

Chapter 2. Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults

Among middle and high school students, both ever and past-30-day e-cigarette use have more than tripled since 2011. Among young adults 18–24 years of age, ever e-cigarette use more than doubled from 2013 to 2014 following a period of relative stability from 2011 to 2013.
The most recent data available show that the prevalence of past-30-day use of e-cigarettes is similar among high school students (16% in 2015, 13.4% in 2014) and young adults 18–24 years of age (13.6% in 2013–2014) compared to middle school students (5.3% in 2015, 3.9% in 2014) and adults 25 years of age and older (5.7% in 2013–2014).
Exclusive, past-30-day use of e-cigarettes among 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students (6.8%, 10.4%, and 10.4%, respectively) exceeded exclusive, past-30-day use of conventional cigarettes in 2015 (1.4%, 2.2%, and 5.3%, respectively). In contrast—in 2013–2014 among young adults 18–24 years of age—exclusive, past-30-day use of conventional cigarettes (9.6%) exceeded exclusive, past-30-day use of e-cigarettes (6.1%). For both age groups, dual use of these products is common.
E-cigarette use is strongly associated with the use of other tobacco products among youth and young adults, particularly the use of combustible tobacco products. For example, in 2015, 58.8% of high school students who were current users of combustible tobacco products were also current users of e-cigarettes.
Among youth—older students, Hispanics, and Whites are more likely to use e-cigarettes than younger students and Blacks. Among young adults—males, Hispanics, Whites, and those with lower levels of education are more likely to use e-cigarettes than females, Blacks, and those with higher levels of education.
The most commonly cited reasons for using e-cigarettes among both youth and young adults are curiosity, flavoring/taste, and low perceived harm compared to other tobacco products. The use of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit conventional cigarettes is not reported as a primary reason for use among youth and young adults.
Flavored e-cigarette use among young adult current users (18–24 years of age) exceeds that of older adult current users (25 years of age and older). Moreover, among youth who have ever tried an e-cigarette, a majority used a flavored product the first time they tried an e-cigarette.
E-cigarette products can be used as a delivery system for cannabinoids and potentially for other illicit drugs. More specific surveillance measures are needed to assess the use of drugs other than nicotine in e-cigarettes.

Chapter 3. Health Effects of E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Youth and Young Adults

Nicotine exposure during adolescence can cause addiction and can harm the developing adolescent brain.
Nicotine can cross the placenta and has known effects on fetal and postnatal development. Therefore, nicotine delivered by e-cigarettes during pregnancy can result in multiple adverse consequences, including sudden infant death syndrome, and could result in altered corpus callosum, deficits in auditory processing, and obesity.
E-cigarettes can expose users to several chemicals, including nicotine, carbonyl compounds, and volatile organic compounds, known to have adverse health effects. The health effects and potentially harmful doses of heated and aerosolized constituents of e-cigarette liquids, including solvents, flavorants, and toxicants, are not completely understood.
E-cigarette aerosol is not harmless “water vapor,” although it generally contains fewer toxicants than combustible tobacco products.
Ingestion of e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine can cause acute toxicity and possibly death if the contents of refill cartridges or bottles containing nicotine are consumed.

Chapter 4. Activities of the E-Cigarette Companies

The e-cigarette market has grown and changed rapidly, with notable increases in total sales of e-cigarette products, types of products, consolidation of companies, marketing expenses, and sales channels.
Prices of e-cigarette products are inversely related to sales volume: as prices have declined, sales have sharply increased.
E-cigarette products are marketed in a wide variety of channels that have broad reach among youth and young adults, including television, point-of-sale, magazines, promotional activities, radio, and the Internet.
Themes in e-cigarette marketing, including sexual content and customer satisfaction, are parallel to themes and techniques that have been found to be appealing to youth and young adults in conventional cigarette advertising and promotion.

Chapter 5. E-Cigarette Policy and Practice Implications

The dynamic nature of the e-cigarette landscape calls for expansion and enhancement of tobacco-related surveillance to include (a) tracking patterns of use in priority populations; (b) monitoring the characteristics of the retail market; (c) examining policies at the national, state, local, tribal, and territorial levels; (d) examining the channels and messaging for marketing e-cigarettes in order to more fully understand the impact future regulations could have; and (e) searching for sentinel health events in youth and young adult e-cigarette users, while longer-term health consequences are tracked.
Strategic, comprehensive research is critical to identify and characterize the potential health risks from e-cigarette use, particularly among youth and young adults.
The adoption of public health strategies that are precautionary to protect youth and young adults from adverse effects related to e-cigarettes is justified.
A broad program of behavioral, communications, and educational research is crucial to assess how youth perceive e-cigarettes and associated marketing messages, and to determine what kinds of tobacco control communication strategies and channels are most effective.
Health professionals represent an important channel for education about e-cigarettes, particularly for youth and young adults.
Diverse actions, modeled after evidence-based tobacco control strategies, can be taken at the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels to address e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, including incorporating e-cigarettes into smoke-free policies; preventing the access of youth to e-cigarettes; price and tax policies; retail licensure; regulation of e-cigarette marketing that is likely to attract youth and young adults, to the extent feasible under the law; and educational initiatives targeting youth and young adults. Among others, research focused on policy, economics, and the e-cigarette industry will aid in the development and implementation of evidence-based strategies and best practices.
Historical Background

Understanding the role of e-cigarettes requires understanding the long history of tobacco use in the United States, including the role of nicotine delivery, the multiple examples of “reduced-harm” products and associated health claims, and the impact of using tobacco products on the public’s health. Since the late nineteenth century, when the “modern” cigarette came into use, scientists and public health officials have linked cigarette smoking to a remarkable number of adverse effects, and it is now recognized as the primary cause of premature death in the United States ( USDHHS 2014 ). Correspondingly, for a century, manufacturers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and public health leaders have promoted or recommended product changes that might remove some of the harmful elements in cigarette smoke. E-cigarettes are among the latest products.

E-cigarettes are designed for users to inhale nicotine, flavorings, and other additives through an aerosol. The claims and marketing strategies employed by the e-cigarette companies, and the efforts made by others to develop scientific and regulatory tools to deal with these new products, both contribute to the current discourse on e-cigarettes. Many lessons for assessing the potential (and future) consequences of these products can be learned from examining the relevant experiences of the past century, especially the introduction of novel products (including e-cigarettes as well as other tobacco and nicotine products) and the claims of reduced exposure to toxins made by the industry and elsewhere.

Early Efforts to Modify Cigarettes

In the 1880s and 1890s, entrepreneurs promoted novel products that allegedly blocked nicotine and other constituents of conventional cigarettes believed to be poisonous. Dr. Scott’s Electric Cigarettes, advertised in Harper’s Weekly, claimed not only to light without matches but also to contain a cotton filter that “strains and eliminates the injurious qualities from the smoke,” including nicotine ( Harper’s Weekly 1887 ). Nicotine delivery was essential to the development of the modern cigarette in the twentieth century; early on, this substance was thought to be addicting and thus vital to retaining customers. In 1913, the Camel brand was a new kind of cigarette that introduced high-nicotine content by using burley tobacco, which was generally too harsh to inhale into the lungs, but was made more inhalable through the addition of casings (e. g ., sugars, licorice) ( Tindall 1992 ; Proctor 2011 ). In 1916, American Tobacco introduced its Lucky Strike blended cigarette, and in 1918 Liggett & Myers ( L &M) reformulated its Chesterfield brand to make it more palatable to users. As the market grew, advertisements for major brands routinely included health-related statements and testimonials from physicians. During the 1930s and 1940s, prominent advertising campaigns included claims like “Not a cough in a carload” (Old Gold) ( Federal Trade Commission [FTC] 1964 , p. LBA-5); “We removed from the tobacco harmful corrosive ACRIDS (pungent irritants) present in cigarettes manufactured in the old-fashioned way” (Lucky Strike) ( FTC 1964 , p. LBA-2); and “Smoking Camels stimulates the natural flow of digestive fluids … increases alkalinity” (Camel) ( FTC 1964 , p. LBA-1a). Thus, early modifications to the cigarette were made so that it was more palatable, had a higher nicotine delivery and uptake, and could be marketed as “safe” ( FTC 1964 ; Calfee 1985 ).

Filters, Tar Reduction, and Light and Low-Tar Cigarettes

The landmark 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking and health concluded that cigarette smoking contributed substantially to mortality from certain specific diseases, including lung cancer ( U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1964 ). Although the 1964 report considered the topic, it found the evidence insufficient to assess the potential health benefits of cigarette filters. Cigarettes with filters became the norm by the 1960s, and marketing them with an overt message about harm reduction became the standard ( National Cancer Institute [NCI] 1996 ). However, the Surgeon General convened another group of experts on June 1, 1966, to review the evidence on the role played by the tar and nicotine content in health. The group concluded that “[t]he preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the lower the ‘tar’ and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful are the effects” ( Horn 1966 , p. 16,168). Subsequent studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate health benefits of smoking light and low-tar cigarettes versus full-flavor cigarettes ( Herning et al. 1981 ; Russell et al. 1982 ; Benowitz et al. 1983 , NCI 2001 ).

Over the years, the tobacco industry used multiple methods to reduce the machine-tested yields of tar and nicotine in cigarettes as a way to claim “healthier” cigarettes. Beginning in the 1970s, tobacco companies advertised the tar and nicotine levels for their cigarettes, which encouraged smokers to believe, without substantiation, they could reduce their risk of exposure to these constituents ( Cummings et al. 2002 ; Pollay and Dewhirst 2002 ). In 1996, the FTC issued a statement that it would allow cigarette companies to include statements about tar and nicotine content in their advertising as long as they used a standardized machine-testing method ( Peeler 1996 ).

The Role of Nicotine and Nicotine Delivery

Although the public health community understood early on that nicotine was the primary psycho-active ingredient in cigarette smoke, before the 1980s, little was known about the importance of nicotine in the addiction process beyond what the cigarette manufacturers had learned from their own research. Some scientists warned that due to nicotine addiction, a reduction in nicotine yields, along with decreases in tar, could lead smokers to change their smoking behavior, such as by smoking a greater number of cigarettes to maintain their nicotine intake or changing their behavior in more subtle ways, such as varying the depth of inhalation or smoking more of the cigarette ( Jarvis et al. 2001 ; National Cancer Institute 2001 ; Thun and Burns 2001 ). Not until the 1970s and 1980s, as researchers studying other forms of drug abuse began to apply their research methods to cigarette smoking, did it become apparent that nicotine was similar in its addictive capability to other drugs of abuse, such as heroin and cocaine ( USDHHS 1981 , 1988 ). As described in the 1988 Surgeon General’s report and in subsequent research, symptoms associated with nicotine addiction include craving, withdrawal, and unconscious behaviors to ensure consistent intake of nicotine ( USDHHS 1988 ; al’Absi et al. 2002 ; Hughes 2007 ).

Although the tobacco industry has long understood the importance of nicotine to maintain long-term cigarette smokers through addiction, public health officials did not fully appreciate this in a broad sense until the 1988 Surgeon General’s report, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction ( USDHHS 1988 ).

FDA and Nicotine Regulation

In 1988 (and again in 1994), the Coalition on Smoking OR Health and other public-interest organizations petitioned FDA to classify low-tar and nicotine products as drugs and to classify Premier, the short-lived “smokeless cigarette product” from R.J. Reynolds, as an alternative nicotine-delivery system ( Stratton et al. 2001 ). The Coalition on Smoking OR Health cited indirect claims made through advertising and marketing as evidence of R. J. Reynolds’s intent to have the product used for the mitigation or prevention of disease ( Slade and Ballin 1993 ). Meanwhile, FDA launched an investigation into the practices of the tobacco industry, including the manipulation of nicotine delivery. FDA asserted its jurisdiction over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and issued certain rules governing access to and promotion of these products ( Federal Register 1996 ). On March 21, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress had not yet given FDA the necessary statutory authority to issue any rules pertaining to tobacco products ( Gottleib 2000 ; FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 2000 ). The subsequent debate over control of nicotine products, including their potential impact on youth, ultimately led to the passage of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gave FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Thus, discussions about the introduction of novel nicotine-containing tobacco products in the market during the 1980s and 1990s helped shape the current regulation of tobacco and nicotine products.

New products introduced in the 1990s or later included modified tobacco cigarettes (e. g ., Advance, Omni); cigarette-like products, also called cigalikes (e.g., Eclipse, Accord); and smokeless tobacco products (e.g., Ariva, Exalt, Revel, snus). Advance, made by Brown and Williamson, was test-marketed with the slogan “All of the taste … Less of the toxins.” Vector launched a national advertising campaign for its Omni cigarette with the slogan “Reduced carcinogens. Premium taste.” In addition to the question of whether the claims were supported by sufficient evidence, scientists and tobacco control leaders raised concerns about the potential for adverse consequences associated with novel nicotine and tobacco products marketed for harm reduction, such as a reduction in cessation rates or increased experimentation by children ( Warner and Martin 2003 ; Joseph et al. 2004 ; Caraballo et al. 2006 ). Studies have shown that smokers are interested in trying novel “reduced-exposure” products and perceive them to have lower health risks, even when advertising messages do not make explicit health claims ( Hamilton et al. 2004 ; O’Connor et al. 2005 ; Caraballo et al. 2006 ; Choi et al. 2012 ; Pearson et al. 2012 ).

At FDA ’s request, the Institute of Medicine ( IOM [now the National Academy of Medicine]) convened a committee of experts to formulate scientific methods and standards by which potentially reduced-exposure products (PREPs), whether the purported reduction was pharmaceutical or tobacco related, could be assessed. The committee concluded that “[f]or many diseases attributable to tobacco use, reducing risk of disease by reducing exposure to tobacco toxicants is feasible” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 232). However, it also cautioned that “PREPs have not yet been evaluated comprehensively enough (including for a sufficient time) to provide a scientific basis for concluding that they are associated with a reduced risk of dis ease compared to conventional tobacco use” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 232). The committee added that “the major concern for public health is that tobacco users who might otherwise quit will use PREPs instead, or others may initiate smoking, feeling that PREPs are safe. That will lead to less harm reduction for a population (as well as less risk reduction for that individual) than would occur without the PREP , and possibly to an adverse effect on the population” ( Stratton et al. 2001 , p. 235). Subsequently, in 2006, Judge Kessler cited these findings in her decision which demanded the removal of light and low-tar labeling due to the misleading nature of these claims ( United States v. Philip Morris 2006 ).

The E-Cigarette

Invention of the E-Cigarette

An early approximation of the current e-cigarette appeared in a U.S. patent application submitted in 1963 by Herbert A. Gilbert and was patented in August 1965 (U.S. Patent No. 3,200,819) ( Gilbert 1965 ). The application was for a “smokeless nontobacco cigarette,” with the aim of providing “a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking” by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air. A battery-powered heating element would heat the flavor elements without combustion ( Gilbert 1965 ). The Favor cigarette, introduced in 1986, was another early noncombustible product promoted as an alternative nicotine-containing tobacco product ( United Press International 1986 ; Ling and Glantz 2005 ).

The first device in the recent innovation in e-cigarettes was developed in 2003 by the Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik, a former deputy director of the Institute of Chinese Medicine in Liaoning Province. Lik’s patent application described a kind of electronic atomizing cigarette ( Hon 2013 ). With support from Chinese investors, in 2004 the product was introduced on the Chinese market under the company name Ruyan ( Sanford and Goebel 2014 ). The product gained some attention among Chinese smokers early on as a potential cessation device or an alternative cigarette product.

The e-cigarette was part of the U.S. market by the mid-2000s, and by 2010 additional brands started to appear in the nation’s marketplace, including Ruyan and Janty ( Regan et al. 2013 ). Ruyan gained a U.S. patent for its product with the application stating that the product is “an electronic atomization cigarette that functions as substitutes (sic) for quitting smoking and cigarette substitutes.” (U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628 B2, 2013). In August 2013, Imperial Tobacco Group purchased the intellectual property behind the Ruyan e-cigarette for $75 million. As of 2014 an estimated 90% of the world’s production of e-cigarette technology and products came from mainland China, mainly Guangdong Province and Zhejiang Province ( Barboza 2014 ).

Sales of e-cigarettes in the United States have risen rapidly since 2007. Widespread advertising via television commercials and through print advertisements for popular brands, often featuring celebrities, has contributed to a large increase in e-cigarette use by both adults and youth since 2010 ( Felberbaum 2013 ; King et al. 2013 ; Regan et al. 2013 ). Additionally, marketing through social media, as well as other forms of Internet marketing, has been employed to market these devices ( Huang et al. 2014 ; Kim et al. 2014 ).

In 2013, an estimated 13.1 million middle school and high school students were aware of e-cigarettes ( Wang et al. 2014 ). According to data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, in 2011 the prevalence of current e-cigarette use (defined as use during at least 1 day in the past 30 days) among high school students was 1.5%; prevalence increased dramatically, however, to 16% by 2015, surpassing the rate of conventional-cigarette use among high school students ( CDC 2016b ; see Chapter 2 ). This equates to 2.4 million high school students and 620,000 middle school students having used an e-cigarette at least one time in the past 30 days in 2015 ( CDC 2016b ).

These trends have led to substantial concern and discussion within public health communities, including state and national public health agencies, professional organizations, and school administrators and teachers. A primary concern is the potential for nicotine addiction among nonsmokers, especially youth and young adults, and that this exposure to nicotine among youth and young adults is harmful. The diversity and novelty of e-cigarette products on the market and ongoing product innovations make assessments of the biological effects of current e-cigarettes under actual conditions of use—such as their long-term harmfulness—difficult to measure. Unanswered questions remain about the risk profile of these devices, their potential use by young people as a first step to other nicotine products, and their total impact on public health. There are diverging opinions about the potential public health impact of these new products. Some public health scientists have highlighted the potential for alternative nicotine products to serve as a substitute for conventional cigarettes and thus a harm reduction tool ( Henningfield et al. 2003 ; Abrams 2014 ). Others have cautioned that the use of alternative nicotine products might become a bridge that may lead to greater tobacco product use—including dual- or multiple-product use—or initiate nicotine addiction among nonsmokers, especially youth ( Cobb et al. 2010 ; Wagener et al. 2012 ; Benowitz and Goniewicz 2013 ; Britton 2013 ; Chapman 2013 ; Etter 2013 ; USDHHS 2014 ). Current evidence is insufficient to reject either of these hypotheses.

E-Cigarette Products

Components and devices.

E-cigarette devices are composed of a battery, a reservoir for holding a solution that typically contains nicotine, a heating element or an atomizer, and a mouthpiece through which the user puffs ( Figure 1.2 ). The device heats a liquid solution (often called e-liquid or e-juice) into an aerosol that is inhaled by the user. E-liquid typically uses propylene glycol and/or glycerin as a solvent for the nicotine and flavoring chemicals

Parts of an e-cigarette device. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

Flavors and E-Cigarettes

The e-liquids in e-cigarettes are most often flavored; a study estimated that 7,700 unique flavors exist ( Zhu et al. 2014 ) and that most of them are fruit or candy flavors ( Figure 1.3 ). A content analysis of the products available via online retail websites documented that tobacco, mint, coffee, and fruit flavors were most common, followed by candy (e. g ., bubble gum), unique flavors (e.g., Belgian waffle), and alcoholic drink flavors (e.g., strawberry daiquiri) ( Grana and Ling 2014 ). Some retail stores are also manufacturers that create custom flavors, which increases the variety of flavors available.

Examples of e-liquid flavors. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

The widespread availability and popularity of flavored e-cigarettes is a key concern regarding the potential public health implications of the products. The concern, among youth, is that the availability of e-cigarettes with sweet flavors will facilitate nicotine addiction and simulated smoking behavior—which will lead to the use of conventional tobacco products ( Kong et al. 2015 ; Krishnan-Sarin et al. 2015 ). Flavors have been used for decades to attract youth to tobacco products and to mask the flavor and harshness of tobacco ( USDHHS 2012 ). Industry documents show that tobacco companies marketed flavored little cigars and cigarillos to youth and to African Americans to facilitate their uptake of cigarettes ( Kostygina et al. 2014 ). Companies also intended flavored smokeless tobacco products to facilitate “graduation” to unflavored products that more easily deliver more nicotine to the user ( USDHHS 2012 ). Various studies have shown that youth are more likely than adults to choose flavored cigarettes and cigars ( CDC 2015b ). Concern over these findings led Congress to include a ban on characterizing flavors for cigarettes, other than tobacco or menthol, in the Tobacco Control Act. A similar concern exists about e-cigarettes, and this concern is supported by studies indicating that youth and young adults who have ever used e-cigarettes begin their use with sweet flavors rather than tobacco flavors ( Kong et al. 2015 ; Krishnan-Sarin et al. 2015 ). Notably, 81.5% of current youth e-cigarette users said they used e-cigarettes “because they come in flavors I like” ( Ambrose et al. 2015 ).

E-Cigarette Devices

First-generation e-cigarettes were often similar in size and shape to conventional cigarettes, with a design that also simulated a traditional cigarette in terms of the colors used (e. g ., a white body with tan mouthpiece). These devices were often called cigalikes, but there were other products designed to simulate a cigar or pipe. Other cigalikes were slightly longer or narrower than a cigarette; they may combine white with tan or may be black or colored brightly. These newer models use a cartridge design for the part of the device that holds the e-liquid, which is either prefilled with the liquid or empty and ready to be filled. The user then squeezes drops of the e-liquid onto a wick (or bit of cotton or polyfil) connected to the heating element and atomizer ( Figure 1.4 ). As e-cigarettes have become more popular, their designs have become more diverse, as have the types of venues where they are sold ( Noel et al. 2011 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ).

E-liquids being poured into an e-cigarette device. Source: Photo by Mandie Mills, CDC.

Second-generation devices include products that are shaped like pens, are comparatively larger and cylindrical, and are often referred to as “tank systems” in a nod to the transparent reservoir that holds larger amounts of e-liquid than previous cartridge-containing models. Third- and fourth-generation devices represent a diverse set of products and, aesthetically, constitute the greatest departure from the traditional cigarette shape, as many are square or rectangular and feature customizable and rebuildable atomizers and batteries. In addition, since the beginning of the availability of e-cigarettes and their component parts, users have been modifying the devices or building their own devices, which are often referred to as “mods.” The differences in design and engineering of the products are key factors in the size, distribution, and amount of aerosol particles and the variability in levels of chemicals and nicotine present in the e-liquid/aerosol and delivered to the user ( Brown and Cheng 2014 ).

E-Cigarette Product Components and Risks

One of the primary features of the more recent generation of devices is that they contain larger batteries and are capable of heating the liquid to a higher temperature, potentially releasing more nicotine, forming additional toxicants, and creating larger clouds of particulate matter ( Bhatnagar et al. 2014 ; Kosmider et al. 2014 ). For instance, one study demonstrated that, at high temperatures (150°C), exceedingly high levels of formaldehyde—a carcinogen (found to be 10 times higher than at ambient temperatures)—are present that are formed through the heating of the e-liquid solvents (propylene glycol and glycerin), although the level of tolerance of actual users to the taste of the aerosol heated to this temperature is debated ( Kosmider et al. 2014 ; CDC 2015a ; Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States 2015 ; Pankow et al. 2015 ). There is also concern regarding the safety of inhaling e-cigarette flavorings. Although some manufacturers have claimed their flavorants are generally recognized as safe for food additives (i.e., to be used in preparing foods for eating), little is known about the long-term health effects of inhaling these substances into the lungs ( CDC 2015a ).

Many devices can be readily customized by their users, which is also leading to the concern that these devices are often being used to deliver drugs other than nicotine ( Brown and Cheng 2014 ). Most commonly reported in the news media, on blogs, and by user anecdote is the use of certain types of e-cigarette-related products for delivering different forms of marijuana ( Morean et al. 2015 ; Schauer et al. 2016 ). The tank systems, for example, have been used with liquid tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) or hash oil. Some personal vaporizer devices can be used with marijuana plant material or a concentrated resin form of marijuana called “wax.” One study describes the use, in Europe, of e-cigarette devices to smoke marijuana ( Etter 2015 ).

The various e-cigarette products, viewed as a group, lack standardization in terms of design, capacity for safely holding e-liquid, packaging of the e-liquid, and features designed to minimize hazards with use ( Yang et al. 2014 ). All of these design features may have implications for the health impact of e-cigarette use. Notably, from 2010 to 2014, calls to poison control centers in the United States about exposures related to e-cigarettes increased dramatically. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (2015) , 271 cases were reported in 2011, but 3,783 calls were reported in 2014. Among all calls, 51% involved exposure among children younger than 5 years of age ( CDC 2014 ). Most poisonings appear to have been caused by exposure to nicotine-containing liquid ( CDC 2014 ). The lack of a requirement for child-resistant packaging for e-liquid containers may have contributed to these poisonings. Since these data were released, one death in the United States has been confirmed in a child who drank e-liquid containing nicotine ( Mohney 2014 ). Additionally, serious adverse reactions, including at least two deaths, have been reported to FDA in cases that could be attributed to the use of e-cigarettes ( FDA 2013 ). This increase in poisonings prompted the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 (2016) , which was enacted in January 2016. This law requires any container of liquid nicotine that is sold, manufactured, distributed, or imported into the United States to be placed in packaging that is difficult to open by children under 5 years of age.

Secondary risks are also of concern regarding e-cigarettes, including passive exposure to nicotine and other chemicals, and adverse events due to device malfunction. Nicotine is a neuroteratogen, and its use by pregnant women exposes a developing fetus to risks that are well documented in the 50th-anniversary Surgeon General’s report on smoking ( USDHHS 2014 ) and include impaired brain development ( England et al. 2015 ) and other serious consequences. Finally, another consequence of the lack of device regulation is the occurrence of battery failures and subsequent explosions. Explosions have typically occurred during charging, resulting in house and car fires, and sometimes causing injuries to those involved. From 2009 to late 2014, 25 incidents of explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes occurred in the United States ( Chen 2013 ; U.S. Fire Administration 2014 ; FDA 2013 ).

E-Cigarette Companies

E-cigarette companies include manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, retailers, distributors, and some other groups that overlap with these entities ( Barboza 2014 ; Whelan 2015 ). Currently, most of the products are manufactured in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China ( Cobb et al. 2010 ; Grana et al. 2014 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ). One study placed the number of brands at 466 in January 2014 and found a net increase of 10.5 brands per month ( Zhu et al. 2014 ). All the major tobacco companies (e. g ., Reynolds American, Altria; Table 1.1 ) and many smaller, independent companies are now in the business. When e-cigarettes first entered the U.S. market, they were sold primarily by independent companies via the Internet and in shopping malls at kiosks where those interested could sample the products. A unique feature of the e-cigarette industry, compared to other tobacco and nicotine products, is the recruitment of visitors to their websites as “affiliates” or distributors to help market the products and, in turn, receive commissions on sales ( Grana and Ling 2014 ; Cobb et al. 2015 ). For example, some companies offer a way for users to earn a commission by advertising the products (e.g., a banner ad is placed on one’s website, and when someone clicks on the link and subsequently purchases a product, the website owner gets a percentage commission). Some companies also offer rewards programs for recruiting new customers or for brand loyalty, with web-site users earning points for free or reduced-price products ( Richardson et al. 2015 ).

Multinational tobacco companies with e-cigarette brands.

E-cigarettes are now in widespread national distribution through convenience stores, tobacco stores, pharmacies, “big box” retail chains such as Costco, online retailers, and shops devoted to e-cigarette products (often called “vape shops”) ( Giovenco et al. 2015 ; Public Health Law Center 2015 ). The “vape shops” offer a place to buy customizable devices and e-liquid solutions in many flavors and sometimes include a café or other elements that promote socializing, essentially making such places like a lounge. With the rapid increase in distribution and marketing in the industry, sales have increased rapidly and were projected to reach $2.5 billion in 2014 and $3.5 billion in 2015, including projections for retail and online channels, as well as “vape shops” ( Wells Fargo Securities 2015 ).

The advertising and marketing of e-cigarette products has engendered skepticism among public health professionals and legislators, who have noted many similarities to the advertising claims and promotional tactics used for decades by the tobacco industry to sell conventional tobacco products ( Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 2013 ; CDC 2016a ). Indeed, several of the e-cigarette marketing themes have been reprised from the most memorable cigarette advertising, including those focused on freedom, rebellion, and glamor ( Grana and Ling 2014 ). E-cigarette products are marketed with a variety of unsubstantiated health and cessation messages, with some websites featuring videos of endorsements by physicians (another reprisal of old tobacco industry advertising) ( Grana and Ling 2014 ; Zhu et al. 2014 ). Unlike conventional cigarettes, for which advertising has been prohibited from radio and television since 1971, e-cigarette products are advertised on both radio and television, with many ads featuring celebrities. E-cigarettes also are promoted through sports and music festival sponsorships, in contrast to conventional cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, which have been prohibited from such sponsorships since the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998. E-cigarettes also appear as product placements in television shows and movies ( Grana et al. 2011 ; Grana and Ling 2014 ).

Another key avenue for e-cigarette promotion is social media, such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. As is true in the tobacco industry, the e-cigarette industry organizes users through advocacy groups ( Noel et al. 2011 ; Harris et al. 2014 ; Saitta et al. 2014 ; Caponnetto et al. 2015 ). The extensive marketing and advocacy through various channels broadens exposure to e-cigarette marketing messages and products; such activity may encourage nonsmokers, particularly youth and young adults, to perceive e-cigarette use as socially normative. The plethora of unregulated advertising is of particular concern, as exposure to advertising for tobacco products among youth is associated with cigarette smoking in a dose-response fashion ( USDHHS 2012 ).

Federal Regulation of E-Cigarettes

A “Two-Pronged” Approach to Comprehensive Tobacco Control

Since the passage of the Tobacco Control Act in 2009, FDA has had the authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products sold in the United States. FDA had immediate jurisdiction over cigarettes, roll-your-own cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. In May 2016, FDA asserted jurisdiction over products that meet the statutory definition of a tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, except accessories of these products ( Federal Register 2016 ). That regulation is currently under litigation.

The IOM ’s 2007 report, Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation, established a “two-pronged” strategy for comprehensive tobacco control: (1) full implementation of proven, traditional tobacco control measures such as clean indoor air laws, taxation, and countermarketing campaigns; and (2) “strong federal regulation of tobacco products and their marketing and distribution” ( Bonnie et al. 2007 , p. 1).

Included in FDA ’s broad authority are the restriction of marketing and sales to youth, requiring disclosure of ingredients and harmful and potentially harmful constituents, setting product standards (e. g ., requiring the reduction or elimination of ingredients or constituents), requiring premarket approval of new tobacco products and review of modified-risk tobacco products, and requiring health warnings. The standard for FDA to use many of its regulatory authorities is whether such an action is appropriate for the protection of public health ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 907(a)(3)(A)). The public health standard in the Tobacco Control Act also requires FDA to consider the health impact of certain regulatory actions at both the individual and population levels, including their impact on nonusers, and on initiation and cessation ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 907(a)(3)(B)).

Importantly, the Tobacco Control Act preserves the authority of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to enact any policy “in addition to, or more stringent than” requirements established under the Tobacco Control Act “relating to or prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, exposure to, access to, advertising and promotion of, or use of tobacco products by individuals of any age” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(1)). This preservation of state and local authority ensures the continuation of more local-level, comprehensive tobacco control. However, the statute expressly preempts states and localities from establishing or continuing requirements that are different from or in addition to FDA requirements regarding standards for tobacco products, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing practices, or modified-risk tobacco products ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(2)(A)). But this express preemption provision does not apply to state and local authority to impose requirements relating to the “sale, distribution, possession, information reporting to the State, exposure to, access to, the advertising and promotion of, or use of, tobacco products by individuals of any age …” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , § 916(a)(2)(b)). The interaction of these complex provisions related to federal preemption of state law has been the subject of challenges by the tobacco industry to state and local laws. Thus far, courts have upheld certain local ordinances restricting the sale of flavored tobacco products ( National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence 2013 ; U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. City of New York 2013 ).

Legal Basis for Regulating E-Cigarettes as Tobacco Products

In the United States, e-cigarettes can be regulated either as products marketed for therapeutic purposes or as tobacco products. Since the advent of e-cigarettes in the United States around 2007, manufacturers have had the option to apply to FDA ’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ( CDER ) or Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) for approval to market e-cigarettes for therapeutic purposes; as of August 2016, no e-cigarette manufacturers have received approval through this avenue.

In 2008 and early 2009, FDA detained multiple shipments of e-cigarettes from overseas manufacturers and denied them entry into the United States on the grounds that e-cigarettes were unapproved drug-device combination products ( FDA 2011 ). Sottera, Inc., which now does business as NJOY, challenged that determination ( Smoking Everywhere, Inc. and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al. 2010 ; Bloomberg Business 2015 ). Between the filing of the lawsuit and a decision on the motion for preliminary injunction, Congress passed the Tobacco Control Act and the President signed it into law. The Tobacco Control Act defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product, including component parts or accessories, “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or “combination product” as defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)) ( Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 2009 , § 101(a)). The District Court subsequently granted a preliminary injunction relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown and Williamson (1996) and the recently enacted Tobacco Control Act. FDA appealed the decision and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that e-cigarettes and, therefore, other products “made or derived from tobacco” are not drug/device combinations unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes, but can be regulated by FDA as tobacco products under the Tobacco Control Act ( Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration 2010 ).

On September 25, 2015, FDA proposed regulations to describe the circumstances in which a product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption will be subject to regulation as a drug, device, or a combination product. The comment period for this proposed regulation closed on November 24, 2015.

Most e-cigarettes marketed and sold in the United States today contain nicotine made or derived from tobacco. Although some e-cigarettes claim that they contain nicotine not derived from tobacco, or that they contain no nicotine at all ( Lempert et al. 2016 ), there may be reason to doubt some of these claims. Currently, synthetic nicotine and nicotine derived from genetically modified, nontobacco plants are cost-prohibitive for e-cigarette manufacturers, although technological advances could eventually increase the cost-effectiveness of using nicotine that was not derived from tobacco ( Lempert et al. 2016 ). The health effects of passive exposure to e-cigarettes with no nicotine, as well as their actual use and the extent of exposure to these products, have just begun to be studied ( Hall et al. 2014 ; Marini et al. 2014 ; Schweitzer et al. 2015 ) and some states and localities are taking steps to regulate e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine or tobacco ( Lempert et al. 2016 ).

Deeming Rule

The Tobacco Control Act added a new chapter to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , which provides FDA with authority over tobacco products. The new chapter applied immediately to all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco; and the law included “any other tobacco products that the Secretary of Health and Human Services by regulation deems to be subject to this chapter” ( Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , §901 (b)). Therefore, to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products, FDA was required to undertake a rulemaking process to extend its regulatory authority to include e-cigarettes.

Prohibitions on adulterated and misbranded products;
Required disclosure of existing health information, including lists of ingredients and documents on health effects;
Required registration of manufacturers;
Required disclosure of a list of all tobacco products, including information related to labeling and advertising;
Premarket review of new tobacco products (i.e., those not on the market on February 15, 2007);
Restrictions on products marketed with claims about modified risk.
Minimum age restrictions to prevent sales to minors;
Requirements to include a nicotine warning; and
Prohibitions on vending machine sales, unless in a facility that never admits youth.

Future Regulatory Options

Product standards, including restrictions on flavors;
Restrictions on promotion, marketing, and advertising, and prohibitions on brand-name sponsorship of events;
Minimum package sizes;
Prohibitions on self-service displays;
Child-resistant packaging and the inclusion of health warnings; and
Regulation of nicotine levels in products.

Despite this broad authority, FDA is prohibited from certain regulatory actions, even if those actions may be appropriate for the protection of public health. Specifically, FDA generally cannot restrict tobacco use in public places, levy taxes on tobacco products, prohibit sales by a specific category of retail outlet (e. g ., pharmacies), completely eliminate nicotine in tobacco products, require prescriptions for tobacco products unless it is marketed for therapeutic purposes, or establish a federal minimum age of sale for tobacco products above 18 years of age. Thus, even if FDA fully exercises all of its existing authority over e-cigarettes, regulation will still need to be complemented at the state and local levels, including efforts previously shown to be effective for conventional tobacco products, such as comprehensive smokefree laws at the state and local levels, pricing strategies, raising the minimum age of sales to minors to 21, and high-impact countermarketing campaigns. In the current context of rising rates of use by youth, localities and states can also implement policies and programs that minimize the individual- and population-level harms of e-cigarettes (see Chapter 5 ).

This chapter presents the major conclusions of this Surgeon General’s report and the conclusions of each chapter. E-cigarettes are presented within their historical context, with an overview of the components of these devices and the types of products. In 2016, FDA announced its final rule to regulate e-cigarettes under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The chapter outlines options for the regulation of e-cigarettes, particularly as they relate to youth and young adults, based on successful smoking policies. The need to protect youth and young adults from initiating or continuing the use of nicotine-containing products forms a strong basis for the need to regulate e-cigarettes at the local, state, and national levels in the future.

Abrams DB. Promise and peril of e-cigarettes: can disruptive technology make cigarettes obsolete? JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2014;311(2):135–6. [ PubMed : 24399548 ]
al’Absi M, Amunrud T, Wittmers LE. Psychophysiological effects of nicotine abstinence and behavioral challenges in habitual smokers. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 2002;72(3):707–16. [ PubMed : 12175468 ]
Alexander JP, Coleman BN, Johnson SE, Tesseman GK, Tworek C, Dickinson DM. Smoke and vapor: exploring the terminology landscape among electronic cigarette users. Tobacco Regulation Science 2016;2(3):201–13. [ PMC free article : PMC4944844 ] [ PubMed : 27430008 ]
Ambrose BK, Day HR, Rostron B, Conway KP, Borek N, Hyland A, Villanti AC. Flavored tobacco product use among U.S. youth aged 12–17 years, 2013–2014. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2015;314(17):1871–3. [ PMC free article : PMC6467270 ] [ PubMed : 26502219 ]
American Association of Poison Control Centers. Electronic Cigarettes and Liquid Nicotine Data, 2015; < https://aapcc .s3.amazonaws .com/files/library /E-cig__Nicotine_Web_Data_through_3 .2015.pdf >; accessed: April 30, 2015.
Barboza D. China’s e-cigarette boom lacks oversight for safety. New York Times, December 13, 2014; < http://nyti .ms/1zNA4da >; accessed: October 28, 2015.
Benowitz NL, Goniewicz ML. The regulatory challenge of electronic cigarettes. JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association 2013;310(7):685–6. [ PubMed : 23856948 ]
Benowitz NL, Hall SM, Herning RI, Jacob III P, Jones RT, Osman AL. Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. New England Journal of Medicine 1983;309(3):139–42. [ PubMed : 6866013 ]
Bhatnagar A, Whitsel LP, Ribisl KM, Bullen C, Chaloupka F, Piano MR, Robertson RM, McAuley T, Goff D, Benowitz N. Electronic cigarettes: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014;130(16):1418–36. [ PMC free article : PMC7643636 ] [ PubMed : 25156991 ]
Bialous SA, Sarma L. Electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation: a quandary? Lancet 2014;383(9915):407–8. [ PubMed : 24485576 ]
Bloomberg Business. Company overview of Sottera, Inc, 2015; < http://www .bloomberg .com/research/stocks/private/snapshot .asp?privcapId=52089038 >; accessed: June 22, 2015.
Bonnie RJ, Stratton KR, Wallace RB, editors. Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation . Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2007.
Britton J. Electronic cigarettes. Thorax 2013;68(10):904–5. [ PubMed : 23939400 ]
Brown CJ, Cheng JM. Electronic cigarettes: product characterisation and design considerations. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 2): ii4–ii10. [ PMC free article : PMC3995271 ] [ PubMed : 24732162 ]
Calfee JE. Cigarette Advertising, Health Information and Regulation Before 1970 . Working Paper No. 134. Washington (DC): Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, 1985.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 7 ways e-cigarette companies are copying big tobacco’s playbook, October 2, 2013; < http://www .tobaccofreekids .org/tobacco_unfiltered /post/2013_10_02_ecigarettes >; accessed: April 20, 2016.
Caponnetto P, Saitta D, Sweanor D, Polosa R. What to consider when regulating electronic cigarettes: pros, cons and unintended consequences. International Journal on Drug Policy 2015;26(6):554–9. [ PubMed : 25857204 ]
Caraballo RS, Pederson LL, Gupta N. New tobacco products: do smokers like them? Tobacco Control 2006;15(1):39–44. [ PMC free article : PMC2563627 ] [ PubMed : 16436404 ]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes—United States, September 2010–February 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2014;63(13):292–3. [ PMC free article : PMC5779356 ] [ PubMed : 24699766 ]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: Key Facts, 2015a; < http://www .cdc.gov/tobacco /stateandcommunity /pdfs/ends-key-facts2015.pdf >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flavored tobacco product use among middle and high school students—United States, 2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015b;64(38):1066–70. [ PubMed : 26421418 ]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2015c;64(14):381–5. [ PMC free article : PMC5779546 ] [ PubMed : 25879896 ]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students, January 5, 2016a; < http://www .cdc.gov/media /releases/2016/p0105-e-cigarettes .html >; accessed: April 20, 2016.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use among middle and high school students—United States, 2011–2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2016b;65(14):361–7. [ PubMed : 27077789 ]
Chapman S. Should electronic cigarettes be as freely available as tobacco cigarettes? BMJ 2013;346:f3840. [ PubMed : 23771038 ]
Chen IL. FDA summary of adverse events on electronic cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(2):615–6. [ PubMed : 22855883 ]
Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015 , Public Law 114–116, 130 U.S. Statutes at Large 3 (2016).
Choi K, Fabian L, Mottey N, Corbett A, Forster J. Young adults’ favorable perceptions of snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes: findings from a focus group study. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(11):2088–93. [ PMC free article : PMC3469759 ] [ PubMed : 22813086 ]
Cobb NK, Brookover J, Cobb CO. Forensic analysis of online marketing for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tobacco Control 2015;24(2):128–31. [ PubMed : 24038037 ]
Cobb NK, Byron MJ, Abrams DB, Shields PG. Novel nicotine delivery systems and public health: the rise of the “e-cigarette”. American Journal of Public Health 2010;100(12):2340–2. [ PMC free article : PMC2978165 ] [ PubMed : 21068414 ]
Cummings KM, Morley CP, Hyland A. Failed promises of the cigarette industry and its effect on consumer misperceptions about the health risks of smoking. Tobacco Control 2002;11:(Suppl 1):i110–i117. [ PMC free article : PMC1766060 ] [ PubMed : 11893821 ]
England LJ, Bunnell RE, Pechacek TF, Tong VT, McAfee TA. Nicotine and the developing human: a neglected element in the electronic cigarette debate. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2015;49:286. [ PMC free article : PMC4594223 ] [ PubMed : 25794473 ]
Etter JF. Commentary on Dawkins et al. (2013): the current legislation on nicotine causes millions of deaths—it has to change. Addiction 2013;108(6):1126. [ PubMed : 23659845 ]
Etter JF. Electronic cigarettes and cannabis: an exploratory study. European Addiction Research 2015;21(3):124–30. [ PubMed : 25613866 ]
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Public Law 111–31, 123 U.S. Statutes at Large 1776 (2009).
Farsalinos KE, Polosa R. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 2014;5(2):67–86. [ PMC free article : PMC4110871 ] [ PubMed : 25083263 ]
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp ., 120 S. Ct. 1291 (2000).
Federal Register . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Restrictions on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products. 81 Fed. Reg . 28974 (2016); < https: //federalregister.gov/a/2016-10685 >; accessed: May 16, 2016. [ PubMed : 27192730 ]
Federal Register . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents (21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 804, 807, 820, and 897), 61 Fed. Reg . 44396–5318 (1996).
Federal Trade Commission. A Report on Cigarette Advertising and Output: Staff Report of the Bureau of Economics. Federal Trade Commission. 1964. RJ Reynolds Collection. Bates No. 515698078–515698370. < http://legacy .library .ucsf.edu/tid/ywm92d00 >.
Felberbaum MF. Old tobacco playbook gets new use by e-cigarettes, 2013; < http://bigstory .ap.org /article/old-tobacco-playbook-gets-new-use-e-cigarettes >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States. The Safety Assessment and Regulatory Authority to Use Flavors—Focus on E-Cigarettes , 2015; < http://www .femaflavor .org/sites/default/files /FEMAGRAS_Ecig_March_3_2015.pdf >; accessed: May 21, 2015.
Franck C, Budlovsky T, Windle SB, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Electronic cigarettes in North America: history, use, and implications for smoking cessation. Circulation 2014;129(19):1945–52. [ PubMed : 24821825 ]
Gilbert AH. U.S. Patent No. 3,200,819. 1965. Brown & Williamson Collection. Bates No. 570328916–570328920. < http: //industrydocuments .library.ucsf.edu /tobacco/docs/hzxb0140 >.
Giovenco DP, Hammond D, Corey CG, Ambrose BK, Delnevo CD. E-cigarette market trends in traditional U.S. retail channels, 2012–2013. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(10):1279–83. [ PMC free article : PMC4683368 ] [ PubMed : 25542918 ]
Gottleib S. Supreme Court rules that FDA cannot regulate tobacco industry. BMJ 2000;320(7239):894. [ PubMed : 10787253 ]
Grana RA, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation 2014;129(19):1972–86. [ PMC free article : PMC4018182 ] [ PubMed : 24821826 ]
Grana RA, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Electronic nicotine delivery systems in the hands of Hollywood. Tobacco Control 2011;20(6):425–6. [ PMC free article : PMC3184316 ] [ PubMed : 21659450 ]
Grana RA, Ling PM. “Smoking revolution:” a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;46(4):395–403. [ PMC free article : PMC3989286 ] [ PubMed : 24650842 ]
Hagopian A, Halperin A, Atwater P, Fradkin N, Gilroy JH, Medeiros E. E-Cigarettes: Evidence and Policy Options for Washington State . Seattle (WA): University of Washington, School of Public Health, Department of Health Services, January 2015; < http://www .governor.wa .gov/sites/default /files/documents/ECigWhitePaper.PDF >; accessed: October 20, 2015.
Hall BJ, Wells C, Allenby C, Lin MY, Hao I, Marshall L, Rose JE, Levin ED. Differential effects of non-nicotine tobacco constituent compounds on nicotine self-administration in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 2014;120:103–8. [ PMC free article : PMC4000725 ] [ PubMed : 24560911 ]
Hamilton WL, Norton G, Ouellette TK, Rhodes WM, Kling R, Connolly GN. Smokers’ responses to advertisements for regular and light cigarettes and potential reduced-exposure tobacco products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2004;6:(Suppl 3):S353–S362. [ PubMed : 15799598 ]
Harper’s Weekly . A remarkable invention! Dr. Scott’s electric cigarettes [advertisement]. Harper’s Weekly , 1887;Sect 48 (col 1–2); < http://tobacco .harpweek .com/hubpages/CommentaryPage .asp?Commentary=References >; accessed: July 7, 2015.
Harris JK, Moreland-Russell S, Choucair B, Mansour R, Staub M, Simmons K. Tweeting for and against public health policy: response to the Chicago Department of Public Health’s electronic cigarette Twitter campaign. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(10):e238. [ PMC free article : PMC4210950 ] [ PubMed : 25320863 ]
Henningfield JE, Moolchan ET, Zeller M. Regulatory strategies to reduce tobacco addiction in youth. Tobacco Control 2003;12:(Suppl 1):i14–i24. [ PMC free article : PMC1766091 ] [ PubMed : 12773782 ]
Herning RI, Jones RT, Bachman J, Mines AH. Puff volume increases when low-nicotine cigarettes are smoked. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1981;283(6285):187–9. [ PMC free article : PMC1506678 ] [ PubMed : 6789957 ]
Hon L. U.S. Patent 8393331 B2 Electronic Atomization Cigarette, 2013; < https://docs .google.com /viewer?url=patentimages .storage.googleapis .com/pdfs/US8393331.pdf >; accessed: November 2, 2015.
Horn D. [Memo from Daniel Horn to Surgeon General William Stewart regarding meeting of June 1, 1966, on tar-nicotine content of cigarettes]. In: Congressional Record—Senate . 1966. British American Tobacco Collection. Bates No. 105618259–105618266. < http://legacy .library .ucsf.edu/tid/ajd94a99 >.
Huang J, Kornfield R, Szczypka G, Emery SL. A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 3):iii26–iii30. [ PMC free article : PMC4078681 ] [ PubMed : 24935894 ]
Hughes JR. Effects of abstinence from tobacco: valid symptoms and time course. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2007;9(3):315–27 [ PubMed : 17365764 ]
Japan Tobacco Inc. JT acquires leading e-cigarette brand E-Lites, 2014; < http://www .jti.com/media /news-releases/jt-acquires-leading-e-cigarette-brand-e-lites >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
Japan Tobacco Inc. JTI acquires “Ploom” intel-lectual property rights from Ploom, Inc., 2015; < http://www .jti.com/media /news-releases/jti-acquires-ploom-intellectual-property-rights-ploom-inc >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
Jarvis MJ, Boreham R, Primatesta P, Feyerabend C, Bryant A. Nicotine yield from machine-smoked cigarettes and nicotine intakes in smokers: evidence from a representative population survey. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001;93(2):134–8. [ PubMed : 11208883 ]
Joseph AM, Hennrikus D, Thoele MJ, Krueger R, Hatsukami D. Community tobacco control leaders’ perceptions of harm reduction. Tobacco Control 2004;13(2):108–13. [ PMC free article : PMC1747850 ] [ PubMed : 15175521 ]
Kim AE, Arnold KY, Makarenko O. E-cigarette advertising expenditures in the U.S., 2011–2012. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;46(4):409–12. [ PubMed : 24650844 ]
King BA, Alam S, Promoff G, Arrazola R, Dube SR. Awareness and ever use of electronic cigarettes among U.S. adults, 2010–2011. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2013;15(9):1623–7. [ PMC free article : PMC4570561 ] [ PubMed : 23449421 ]
Kong G, Morean ME, Cavallo DA, Camenga DR, Krishnan-Sarin S. Reasons for electronic cigarette experimentation and discontinuation among adolescents and young adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(7):847–54. [ PMC free article : PMC4674436 ] [ PubMed : 25481917 ]
Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, Knysak J, Zaciera M, Kurek J, Goniewicz ML. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2014;16(10):1319–26. [ PMC free article : PMC4838028 ] [ PubMed : 24832759 ]
Kostygina G, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Tobacco industry use of flavours to recruit new users of little cigars and cigarillos. Tobacco Control 2014. [ PMC free article : PMC4414663 ] [ PubMed : 25354674 ]
Krishnan-Sarin S, Morean ME, Camenga DR, Cavallo DA, Kong G. E-cigarette use among high school and middle school adolescents in Connecticut. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2015;17(7):810–8. [ PMC free article : PMC4674435 ] [ PubMed : 25385873 ]
Lempert LK, Grana R, Glantz SA. The importance of product definitions in U.S. e-cigarette laws and regulations. Tobacco Control 2016;25(e1):e44–e51. [ PMC free article : PMC4466213 ] [ PubMed : 25512432 ]
Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes Tobacco Control 2005;14(5):e3–e3. [ PMC free article : PMC1748101 ] [ PubMed : 16183968 ]
Marini S, Buonanno G, Stabile L, Ficco G. Short-term effects of electronic and tobacco cigarettes on exhaled nitric oxide. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2014;278(1):9–15. [ PubMed : 24732441 ]
Mohney G. First child’s death from liquid nicotine reported as “vaping” gains popularity, 2014; < http://abcnews .go.com /Health/childs-death-liquid-nicotine-reported-vaping-gains-popularity /story?id=27563788 >.
Morean ME, Kong G, Camenga DR, Cavallo DA, Krishnan-Sarin S. High school students’ use of electronic cigarettes to vaporize cannabis. Pediatrics 2015;136(4):611–6. [ PMC free article : PMC4586732 ] [ PubMed : 26347431 ]
National Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence , 731 F.3d 71, 83 (1st Cir. 2013).
National Cancer Institute. The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields of U.S. Cigarettes . Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996.
National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated With Smoking Cigarettes With Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine . Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2001. NIH Publication No. 02-5047.
Noel JK, Rees VW, Connolly GN. Electronic cigarettes: a new “tobacco” industry? Tobacco Control 2011;20(1):81. [ PubMed : 20930060 ]
O’Connor RJ, Hyland A, Giovino GA, Fong GT, Cummings KM. Smoker awareness of and beliefs about supposedly less-harmful tobacco products. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005;29(2):85–90. [ PubMed : 16005803 ]
Pankow JF, Strongin RM, Peyton DH. More on hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosols. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;372(16):1576–7. [ PubMed : 25875273 ]
Pearson JL, Richardson A, Niaura RS, Vallone DM, Abrams DB. e-Cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in U.S. adults. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(9):1758–66. [ PMC free article : PMC3474361 ] [ PubMed : 22813087 ]
Peeler C. Cigarette testing and the Federal Trade Commission: a historical overview. In: The FTC Cigarette Test Method for Determining Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Yields for U.S. Cigarettes: Report of the NCI Expert Committee . Tobacco Control Monograph No. 7. Bethesda (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 1996:1–8.
Philip Morris International. Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) hosts investor day: revises 2014 full-year reported diluted EPS forecast for estimated restructuring costs in the Netherlands; announces acquisition of U.K.-based e-vapor company; reviews business outlook and strategies, 2014; < http://investors .pmi .com/phoenix.zhtml?c =146476&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1942860 >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact. Tobacco Control 2002;11:(Suppl 1):i18–i31. [ PMC free article : PMC1766068 ] [ PubMed : 11893811 ]
Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition . Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 2011.
Public Health Law Center. U.S. e-cigarette regulations—50 state review (2015), 2015; < http: //publichealthlawcenter .org/resources /us-e-cigarette-regulations-50-state-review >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
Regan AK, Promoff G, Dube SR, Arrazola R. Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the “e-cigarette” in the U.S.A. Tobacco Control 2013;22(1):19–23. [ PubMed : 22034071 ]
Richardson A, Ganz O, Vallone D. Tobacco on the web: surveillance and characterisation of online tobacco and e-cigarette advertising. Tobacco Control 2015;24(4):341–7. [ PubMed : 24532710 ]
Richtel M. E-cigarettes, by other names, lure young and worry experts. New York Times , March 4, 2014; < http://www .nytimes.com /2014/03/05/business /e-cigarettes-under-aliases-elude-the-authorities .html?_r=0 >; accessed: July 27, 2015.
Russell MAH, Sutton SR, Iyer R, Feyerabend C, Vesey CJ. Long-term switching to low-tar low-nicotine cigarettes. British Journal of Addiction 1982;77(2):145–58. [ PubMed : 6810910 ]
Saitta D, Ferro GA, Polosa R. Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes. Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 2014;5(2):50–61. [ PMC free article : PMC3926346 ] [ PubMed : 24587890 ]
Sanford Z, Goebel L. E-cigarettes: an up to date review and discussion of the controversy. West Virginia Medical Journal 2014;110(4):10–5. [ PubMed : 25322582 ]
Schauer GL, King BA, Bunnell RE, Promoff G, McAfee TA. Toking, vaping, and eating for health or fun: marijuana use patterns in adults, U.S., 2014. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2016;50(1):1–8. [ PubMed : 26277652 ]
Schweitzer KS, Chen SX, Law S, Van Demark M, Poirier C, Justice MJ, Hubbard WC, Kim ES, Lai X, Wang M, et al. Endothelial disruptive proinflammatory effects of nicotine and e-cigarette vapor exposures. American Journal of Physiology: Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology 2015;309(2):L175–87. [ PMC free article : PMC4504977 ] [ PubMed : 25979079 ]
Slade J, Ballin S. Who’s minding the tobacco store? It’s time to level the regulatory playing field. In: Houston T, editor. Tobacco Use: An American Crisis. Final Conference Report and Recommendations from America’s Health Community . Washington (DC): American Medical Association, 1993:52–8.
Smoking Everywhere, Inc. and Sottera, Inc., d/b/a NJOY v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration , et al., 680 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.C. 2010).
Sottera, Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration , No. 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Stratton K, Shetty P, Wallace R, Bondurant S, editors. Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction . Washington (DC): National Academies Press, 2001. [ PubMed : 25057541 ]
Thun MJ, Burns DM. Health impact of “reduced yield” cigarettes: a critical assessment of the epidemiological evidence. Tobacco Control 2001;10:(Suppl 1):i4–i11. [ PMC free article : PMC1766045 ] [ PubMed : 11740038 ]
Tindall JE. Cigarette Market History and Interpretation and Consumer Research . 1992. Philip Morris Collection. Bates No. 2057041153–2057041196. < https://www .industrydocumentslibrary .ucsf .edu/tobacco/docs/glbn0130 >.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service . Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, 1964. PHS Publication No. 1103.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: The Changing Cigarette. A Report of the Surgeon General . Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office on Smoking and Health, 1981. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 81-50156.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction. A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8406.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. [ PubMed : 22876391 ]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General . Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.
U.S. Fire Administration. Electronic Cigarette Fires and Explosions , 2014; < https://www .usfa.fema .gov/downloads/pdf/publications /electronic_cigarettes.pdf >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Stakeholder letter: regulation of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, 2011; < http://www .fda.gov/NewsEvents /PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360 .htm >; accessed: May 5, 2015.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Deeming tobacco products to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , as amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act , 2016; < http://www .fda.gov/TobaccoProducts /Labeling /RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm394909 .htm >; accessed: May 16, 2016. [ PubMed : 27192730 ]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. E-cigarette adverse events, 2013; < http://www .fda.gov/downloads /AboutFDA/CentersOffices /OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco /AbouttheCenterforTobaccoProducts /UCM361437.pdf >; accessed: August 23, 2016.
U.S. Patent No. 8,490,628 B2. Electronic atomization cigarette, 2013; < http://www .google.com/patents/US8490628 >; accessed: July 22, 2015.
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. City of New York , 708 F.3d 428, 434 (2d Cir. 2013).
United Press International. Company sniffs profits from a smokeless cigarette. Chicago Tribune , May 27, 1986; < http://articles .chicagotribune .com/1986-05-27 /business/8602070938 _1_smokeless-cigarette-tobacco-smoke-nicotine >; accessed: June 22, 2015.
United States v. Philip Morris , 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006).
Vape Ranks. Phillip Morris launches new type of smokeless cigarette, 2014; < http://vaperanks .com /phillip-morris-launches-new-type-of-smokeless-cigarette/ >; accessed: July 10, 2015.
Wagener TL, Siegel M, Borrelli B. Electronic cigarettes: achieving a balanced perspective. Addiction 2012;107(9):1545–8. [ PubMed : 22471757 ]
Wang B, King BA, Corey CG, Arrazola RA, Johnson SE. Awareness and use of non-conventional tobacco products among U.S. students, 2012. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2014;47(2 Suppl 1):S36–S52. [ PMC free article : PMC4519346 ] [ PubMed : 25044194 ]
Warner KE, Martin EG. The U.S. tobacco control community’s view of the future of tobacco harm reduction. Tobacco Control 2003;12(4):383–90. [ PMC free article : PMC1747785 ] [ PubMed : 14660773 ]
Wells Fargo Securities. Nielsen: Tobacco “All Channel” Data Cig Pricing Remains Strong; E-Cig $ Sales Growth Re-Accelerates . Equity Research. San Francisco (CA): Wells Fargo Securities, March 31, 2015.
Whelan R. E-cigarettes maker models supply chain on electronics industry: VMR Products says the Apple Inc. manufacturing strategy will help the company watch its control quality more closely. The Wall Street Journal , June 12, 2015; < http://www .wsj.com/articles /e-cigarettes-maker-models-supply-chain-on-electronics-industry-1434119233 >; accessed: November 3, 2015.
Yang L, Rudy SF, Cheng JM, Durmowicz EL. Electronic cigarettes: incorporating human factors engineering into risk assessments. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 2):ii47–ii53. [ PMC free article : PMC3995290 ] [ PubMed : 24732164 ]
Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, Cummins SE, Gamst A, Yin L, Lee M. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tobacco Control 2014;23:(Suppl 3):iii3–iii9. [ PMC free article : PMC4078673 ] [ PubMed : 24935895 ]
Cite this Page National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General [Internet]. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2016. Chapter 1, Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes.
PDF version of this title (8.4M)
Disable Glossary Links

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

Publications and Reports of the Surgeon General

Related information

PMC PubMed Central citations
PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes - ... Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E-Cigarettes - E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Language selection

Français fr

Statement from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health on World No Tobacco Day

From: Health Canada

Today marks World No Tobacco Day, a day to raise awareness of the harmful and deadly effects of tobacco use.

May 31, 2024 │Ottawa, ON │Health Canada

Tobacco use continues to be the leading preventable cause of illness and premature death in Canada, killing approximately 46,000 Canadians each year. And, every year in Canada, exposure to second-hand smoke causes nearly 1000 deaths from lung cancer and heart disease in people who do not smoke. Second-hand smoke contains the same chemicals that are inhaled by the person smoking and is especially dangerous for babies and children.

This year's theme – Protecting children from tobacco industry interference – highlights the life saving importance of protecting young people from the harmful effects of tobacco and preventing dependency. We will continue to work alongside our partners in Canada and internationally to keep people safe and healthy. The federal government acknowledges that traditional tobacco has long been sacred and important to many First Nations and Métis People, whose uses differ from those of commercial tobacco. Today, we are raising awareness of the harms of commercial tobacco use and the benefits of quitting smoking.

Our government has strengthened the packaging and labelling requirements of tobacco products, becoming the first country in the world to require health warnings directly on individual cigarettes. This increases the reach of health warnings, especially among youth who often use individual cigarettes in social situations and may not see the health hazards information printed on the package.

Today, we announced $9,548,880 through the Healthy Canadians and Communities Fund for three organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the University of Toronto and McMaster University. The funding will help create supportive social environments for tobacco prevention and cessation for at-risk populations.

The Government of Canada has resources available to help people quit smoking. The " I Quit for Me " guide equips youth with practical information to help them quit smoking or vaping. Additionally, the Tools for a Smoke-Free Life campaign encourages individuals who smoke to learn more about the array of tools and supports that can help them quit.

Quitting smoking is possible. Building a quit plan around your needs is the first step to success. Canadians can contact the pan-Canadian toll-free quitline where trained specialists can help them develop a plan, provide support, answer questions and provide referrals to programs and services in their community. The quitline can be reached at 1-866-366-3667 or online at Gosmokefree.gc.ca/quit . For more information and resources to help quit smoking, visit Canada.ca/quit-smoking .

The Honourable Mark Holland, P.C., M.P. The Honourable Ya'ara Saks, P.C., M.P.

Christopher Aoun Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Mark Holland Minister of Health 613-291-4176

Yuval Daniel Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Ya'ara Saks Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health 819-360-6927

Media Relations Health Canada 613-957-2983 [email protected]

Page details

The Words That Defined Closing Arguments in Donald Trump’s Trial

Defense lawyers and prosecutors deployed their best lines to win jurors to their side. The panel of 12 New Yorkers then went behind closed doors.

Share full article

By Wesley Parnell

Reporting from the courthouse

May 30, 2024

After more than six taxing weeks of Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial on felony charges of falsifying business records, lawyers presented their closing arguments on Tuesday and the case was moved into the hands of 12 jurors the next day.

Prosecutors worked meticulously on Tuesday to remind the jury of documents and evidence they maintain support their case that the former president falsified 34 financial records to conceal a hush money payment to a porn star before the 2016 election. A lawyer for Mr. Trump argued there wasn’t a “shred of evidence” that tied Mr. Trump to the scheme, which prosecutors said was meant to conceal an extramarital tryst from voters.

Both parties, in a court day that stretched well into the evening, focused on Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer, who became the prime witness against him.

Mr. Trump has denied the charges and the sexual encounter, and said money paid to Mr. Cohen was not reimbursement for the hush payment but legitimate legal expenses. If convicted, Mr. Trump faces probation or prison.

Here are the most memorable words uttered during the summations:

‘Michael Cohen is the G.L.O.A.T.’

Todd Blanche, one of Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers, spent a substantial portion of his closing argument attacking the credibility of Mr. Cohen, who had been the defendant’s former personal attorney.

“He’s the human embodiment of reasonable doubt,” said Mr. Blanche in his nearly three-hour summation. “An M.V.P. of liars,” he added.

The defense has tried to cast Mr. Cohen as a jaded employee bent on exacting revenge from the man he once called “ the boss .”

Mr. Blanche presented jurors with the sports-world acronym of G.O.A.T., saying that quarterback Tom Brady was the “greatest of all time.”

He paused. “Michael Cohen is the G.L.O.A.T. He’s literally the Greatest Liar of All Time!” said Mr. Blanche, his voice rising.

“It doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy.”

Prosecutors have argued that Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen plotted alongside David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, to boost flattering stories about Mr. Trump and quash those that made him look bad.

But Mr. Blanche revived an argument from opening statements last month: There is nothing wrong with influencing an election. Mr. Blanche impressed upon jurors the realpolitik idea that it is common for candidates to bend public opinion to help them win.

“Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to try to win an election.”

‘The smoking guns’

For more than five hours, Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, made his case to the jury.

Mr. Steinglass flipped through business records from the Trump Organization that contained handwritten notes from two of Mr. Trump’s top moneymen, which prosecutors said outlined the mechanism to reimburse Mr. Cohen.

“They are the smoking guns,” Mr. Steinglass said.

The documents “completely blow out of the water the claim the money paid to Cohen was for legal services,” he added.

Mr. Steinglass also named former and current employees of Mr. Trump who had testified.

“These people like the defendant. If anything, they have an incentive to skew their testimony in a way that would help the defendant,” said Mr. Steinglass . “Yet, each of them provides critical pieces of the puzzle, building blocks that help establish the defendant’s guilt.”

‘He made his bed.’

In attempts to shore up Mr. Cohen’s credibility, Mr. Steinglass crafted an image of him as a product of the Trump Organization who provided a crucial look into its inner workings.

“We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn’t pick him up at the witness store,” said Mr. Steinglass. “The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer, because he was willing to lie and cheat on Mr. Trump’s behalf.”

The prosecutor said that Mr. Trump hired Mr. Cohen precisely because he was willing to behave in unscrupulous ways.

“Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities that his attorneys now urge you to reject his testimony because of,” said Mr. Steinglass.

He told jurors they did not have to feel sympathetic to Mr. Cohen to believe him. “I’m not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen,” Mr. Steinglass said. “He made his bed.”

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

Guilty Verdict : Donald Trump was convicted on all 34 counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened his bid for the White House in 2016, making him the first American president to be declared a felon .

What Happens Next: Trump’s sentencing hearing on July 11 will trigger a long and winding appeals process , though he has few ways to overturn the decision .

Reactions: Trump’s conviction reverberated quickly across the country and around the world . Here’s what voters , New Yorkers , Republicans , Trump supporters and President Biden had to say.

The Presidential Race : The political fallout of Trump’s conviction is far from certain , but the verdict will test America’s traditions, legal institutions and ability to hold an election under historic partisan tension .

Making the Case: Over six weeks and the testimony of 20 witnesses, the Manhattan district attorney’s office wove a sprawling story of election interference and falsified business records.

Legal Luck Runs Out: The four criminal cases that threatened Trump’s freedom had been stumbling along, pleasing his advisers. Then his good fortune expired .

International

Hunter Biden's trial on federal gun charges

By Holmes Lybrand, Marshall Cohen and Kate Grise, CNN

Our live coverage of the Hunter Biden trial has moved here.

White House says Hunter Biden trial will not interfere with president's abilities to do his job

From CNN's Nikki Carvajal

President Joe Biden boards Air Force One at Delaware Air National Guard Base in New Castle, Delaware, on Monday, June 3.

The trial against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden will “absolutely not” interfere with the president's ability to do his job, the White House said Monday.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden is “the President of the United States and he always puts the American people first and is capable of doing his job.”

Jean-Pierre said she had “nothing to share” when asked how the president was monitoring the proceedings and if he spoke to his son after the court concluded on Monday.

Earlier Monday, Biden released a statement in support of his son, writing in part: “I am the president, but I am also a dad.”

Jean-Pierre read the statement in full and said that outside of the statement, she didn’t “have anything else to share.”

See courtroom sketches from Hunter Biden's trial

From Bill Hennessy

No cameras are allowed inside the Delaware courtroom where Hunter Biden's trial is underway, but sketch artist Bill Hennessy captured the scene.

This sketch from court shows the scene inside the courtroom where Hunter Biden's trial is underway.

Tuesday: Opening statements then an FBI agent testifies

Opening statements will begin Tuesday morning in the Hunter Biden trial in Wilmington, Delaware.

Afterwards, the first witness from the special counsel's office will be an FBI agent who worked on the investigation.

Hunter Biden leaves court after jury is selected

From CNN's Kit Maher

Hunter Biden leaves federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, on Monday, June 3.

Hunter Biden departed the J. Caleb Boggs federal building after court has adjourned for the first day in his gun trial and a jury was selected.

He walked out with his wife Melissa Cohen Biden.

First lady Jill Biden exited the building about 15 minutes prior.

The jury: 6 men, 6 women

Judge Maryellen Noreika is reading the preliminary jury instructions to the newly minted jury, which was sworn in Monday afternoon.

The judge has confirmed that opening statements will happen Tuesday morning.

The jury includes six men and six women, the majority of whom are Black.

The seated jurors include a woman who said she has lost many friends to drug addiction, as well as gun owners including one who believes people who smoke marijuana should still be allowed to own firearms.

Correction: This post has been updated to correctly reflect the breakdown of the jury.

Jury is seated in Hunter Biden trial

The jury that will hear the gun case against Hunter Biden in Delaware has been selected.

The panel includes twelve jurors along with four alternates. Opening statements are expected Tuesday.

One potential Hunter Biden juror used to play squash with Joe Biden’s late son Beau

As jury selection moves into the final phase in the Hunter Biden gun trial, one man told the judge he knows the Biden family “fairly well” and couldn’t be impartial.

The man added that he had played squash with Joe Biden’s late son Beau, and he was dismissed.

Many potential jurors said they know about the case generally but not details.

“I live in Delaware,” one person told the judge. “You can’t swing a cat without hearing something.”

Another woman quipped: “Wilmington is a small place.”

Historian says this trial is an "albatross around President Biden's neck"

From CNN's Marshall Cohen

President Joe Biden delivers remarks at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 31.

This is a historic moment for the United States and the history of the presidency. No president has ever tried to run the country while watching his own child go on trial.

Over the decades, there are plenty of examples of presidential family members getting in trouble. George H. W. Bush’s son faced civil penalties for violating banking laws while his father was serving in the White House. Jimmy Carter’s brother was scrutinized for his foreign lobbying. But nothing has sunk to the level of a criminal trial.

CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley said “there’s always somebody considered a black sheep in the presidential family,” but says Hunter Biden’s sprawling legal debacles “cut unusually close to the bone because it’s the President’s son.”

“This trial is an albatross around President Biden’s neck and weighs very heavily on his psyche,” Brinkley said.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

IMAGES

Essay on Smoking in English for Students
Sample Argumentative Essay On Smoking
Research Paper Cigarette Smoking
Argumentative Essay-Smoking
Pin on essay
Thesis statement Smoking cigarettes is harmful to your health Topic

VIDEO

Essay on smoking in public places should be banned || Essay writing in English|| essay writing
Essay On Harmful Effects Of Smoking In English// Harmful Effects Of Smoking Essay In English
OUTFIT💄+ PERFUME🌸
essay on smoking in english/dhumrapan per nibandh
Pcb Reaction on Imad wasim Smoking in Dressing Room
Police Are Looking Medikal For The Statement He Made About Smoking Weed

COMMENTS

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places? Essay
Thesis statement. Smoking in public places poses health risks to non smokers and should be banned. This paper will be discussing whether cigarette smoking should not be allowed in public places. First the paper will explore dangers associated with smoking in public and not on those who smoke, but on non-smokers.
235 Smoking Essay Topics & Titles for Smoking Essay + Examples
In your essay about smoking, you might want to focus on its causes and effects or discuss why smoking is a dangerous habit. Other options are to talk about smoking prevention or to concentrate on the reasons why it is so difficult to stop smoking. Here we've gathered a range of catchy titles for research papers about smoking together with ...
Thesis Statement On Smoking
Thesis statement: Trying to stop smoking can be the hardest thing a person can do. Couple that with the fact that there are 101 ways to stop smoking, those that are not 100% dedicated to quitting can find this a very daunting task. However, there is one way that can make the path to quitting clearer and easier.
1 Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions
Tobacco use is a global epidemic among young people. As with adults, it poses a serious health threat to youth and young adults in the United States and has significant implications for this nation's public and economic health in the future (Perry et al. 1994; Kessler 1995). The impact of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use on chronic disease, which accounts for 75% of American spending ...
10+ Top Persuasive essay about smoking examples
Aim For the Emotions. Use powerful language and vivid imagery to draw readers in and make them feel like you do about smoking. 8. Use Personal Stories. Share personal stories or anecdotes of people who have successfully quit smoking and those negatively impacted by it. 9. Include an Action Plan.
PDF Writing a Thesis Statement
What a thesis statement is NOT A topic - quitting smoking A title - Why I Quit Smoking An announcement - This essay will explain why I quit smoking. ===== The thesis statement mentions the TOPIC and makes a POINT about the topic. Topic - quitting smoking Point about topic - it is good for your health THESIS STATEMENT: Quitting smoking ...
Writing A Thesis Statement In An Essay On Smoking
A good thesis statement has to blend in well with the topic of your essay. This is mandatory. Someone should read it and see the connection between it and your topic and nod in appreciation. If you are able to do this, you will have made the first and most important step towards writing one of the best papers ever. Write my essay for me?
Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned
Campus Smoking: Conclusion of the Essay. In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.
1 Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions
The topic of passive or involuntary smoking was first addressed in the 1972 U.S. Surgeon General's report (The Health Consequences of Smoking, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [USDHEW] 1972), only eight years after the first Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of active smoking (USDHEW 1964). Surgeon General Dr. Jesse Steinfeld had raised concerns about ...
PDF Cause and Effect Essay Smoking Outline| PDF Sample
Hook sentence: Smoking calms as it kills- nice and slowly. Thesis Statement: There are six primary causes of smoking and six main effects. one of which is common to both sides- addiction. Body paragraph (causes): Topic sentence: Despite knowledge of the damage and dangers of 'smoking it remains widespread and largely sociality acceptable.
Essay on Smoking in English for Students
500 Words Essay On Smoking. One of the most common problems we are facing in today's world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress, personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them.
PDF Writing Effective Thesis Statements
A thesis statement includes three main parts: the topic, the position, and (often) the main points of the argument. See how the examples of good thesis statements from this handout break down into parts below. The problem can be solved by increasing taxes on cigarettes and banning smoking in public places.
Identifying a Good Thesis Statement
Read each question and choose the best thesis statement. 1: ... Although smoking has many negative health effects, making smoking illegal would not solve the problem. B) Teenagers should be allowed to smoke if they choose to. C) Smoking is a leading cause of death in the United States. 2:
Health effects associated with smoking: a Burden of Proof study
We identified three outcomes with a 4-star association with smoking: COPD (72% increase in risk based on the BPRF, 0.54 ROS), lower respiratory tract infection (54%, 0.43) and pancreatic cancer ...
Cigarette smoke and adverse health effects: An overview of research
Cigarette smoking is regarded as a major risk factor in the development of lung cancer, which is the main cause of cancer deaths in men and women in the United States and the world. Major advances have been made by applying modern genetic technologies to examine the relationship between exposure to tobacco smoke and the development of diseases ...
Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics
Form a clear thesis. In your thesis statement, state your position and introduce the chosen cause and effect of smoking. Here is an example of the thesis for this type of smoking among teenagers essay: Caused by peer pressure, smoking negatively affects teenagers' health and appearance. Effectively develop your points.
PDF Dissertation Smoking Patterns, Attitudes, and Motives of College
2010; CDC, 2012). Even smoking at lower rates is associated with health problems such as cardiovascular disease, shortness of breath, lower lung capacity, and pulmonary infections (An et al., 2009; CDC, 2012). In addition, smoking rates in the U.S. remain a public health problem, especially for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 (CDC ...
Effect Of Smoking Essay
Instead of my initial topic thesis statement which was "Smoking cigarettes can be prevented and there are various tools to help quit smoking." My final thesis statement for the this specific final project is now "Smoking can lead to various diseases although a nicotine patch, nasal spray, and vaporizers are the best tools to help ...
Smoke: Smoking Thesis Statement
a. Short Term (external body problems). Long Term (internal body problems) Transition Statement: Smoking affects others just as well as yourself. 2. Secondhand Smoke. a. Affects non-smokers greatly (about 3,000 deaths every year) Transition Statement: The time is now to quit smoking permanently.
Thesis Statement Quitting Smoking Essay
Secondhand Smoke Essay. Thesis: Smokers usually move through five stages to quit smoking, and non-smokers have to help them constantly and carefully. Credibility Statement: In high school health class, we have been taught about how smoking cigarettes affects our body. But my school had a different program compared to other schools.
The roles of personality and genetics in smoking behavior
The roles of personality and genetics in smoking behavior. Download (1.69 MB) thesis. posted on 2023-08-04, 07:27 authored by Mark Leslie Nelson. Both genes and personality traits have been implicated in cigarette smoking. This study examined the role of a dopamine transporter gene polymorphism (SLC6A3-9) and of the personality trait of Novelty ...
Thesis Statement Of Smoking
Thesis Statement: Business establishments within Dumaguete City should strictly implement the smoking ban in order to prevent lung cancer, to lessen environmental pollution and to avoid nuisance to the society. I. Introduction. 1.1 Cigarette smoking is one of …show more content…. Most commonly, the substance are the dried leaves of the ...
Outline
Thesis statement: Research has shown that smoking is addictive, with terrible effects on the mind and body, and people are still unaware of exactly how bad it is. I. Nicotine, one of the main ingredients in a cigarette, is a huge reason that smoking is so addictive. A. Nicotine is the reason people become hooked on cigarettes. 1.
Navigating the Thesis Statement to the Viewer-Base
Guide of tips and tricks on How to write a thesis statement: 1. Selecting the topic: The thesis writing service must always work on a topic that pulls out attention and interest, this is to do ...
Introduction, Conclusions, and Historical Background Relative to E
Introduction. Although conventional cigarette smoking has declined markedly over the past several decades among youth and young adults in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 2012), there have been substantial increases in the use of emerging tobacco products among these populations in recent years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2015c).
Statement from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health
For more information and resources to help quit smoking, visit Canada.ca/quit-smoking. The Honourable Mark Holland, P.C., M.P. The Honourable Ya'ara Saks, P.C., M.P. Contacts. Christopher Aoun Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Mark Holland Minister of Health 613-291-4176. Yuval Daniel Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Ya'ara Saks
Biden's attorney stresses the term "knowingly" in opening statement
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell highlighted the word "knowingly" in the charges brought against Hunter Biden as he began his opening statement Tuesday. Lowell said that prosectors had "left out ...
The Words That Defined Closing Arguments in Donald Trump's Trial
Todd Blanche, one of Mr. Trump's defense lawyers, spent a substantial portion of his closing argument attacking the credibility of Mr. Cohen, who had been the defendant's former personal ...
Prosecutors Destroy Hunter Biden in Opening Statement, Tell Court He
Prosecutors on Tuesday told the court that Hunter Biden bought the firearm while he was smoking crack every 15 minutes. NBC News reported: During opening statements, prosecutor Derek Hines told jurors that they would hear from a witness who had a romantic relationship with Hunter and observed him smoking crack "every 15 minutes."
Day 1 of Hunter Biden gun trial
Hunter Biden departed the J. Caleb Boggs federal building after court has adjourned for the first day in his gun trial and a jury was selected. He walked out with his wife Melissa Cohen Biden ...