Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 20, 2025

Generation of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol by a Third-Generation Machine-Vaping Device: Application to Toxicological Studies
Published on: August 25, 2018
A first pass, using pre-history and contemporary history, at understanding why Australia and England have such
Virginia Berridge1, Wayne Hall2, Suzanne Taylor1
1Centre for History in Public Health Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Aims:
The United Kingdom and Australia have developed highly divergent policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). To understand the historical origins of these differences, we describe the history of tobacco control in each country and the key roles played in setting ENDS policy in its early stages by public health regulations and policy networks, anti-smoking organizations, 'vaper' activist networks and advocates of harm reduction policies towards injecting drug use.
Methods:
We analysed key government reports, policy statements from public health bodies and non-government organizations (e.g. cancer councils and medical organizations) on ENDS; submissions to an Australian parliamentary inquiry; media coverage of policy debates in medical journals; and the history of tobacco control policy in Australia and England. Key discourses about ENDS were identified for each country. These were compared across countries during a multi-day face-to-face meeting, where consensus was reached on the key commonalities and divergences in historical approaches to nicotine policy. This paper focuses on England, as different policy responses were apparent in constituent countries of the United Kingdom, and Scotland in particular.
Results:
Policymakers in Australia and England differ markedly in the priority that they have given to using ENDS to promote smoking cessation or restricting smokers' access to prevent uptake among young people. In understanding the origins of these divergent responses, we identified the following key differences between the two countries' approaches to nicotine regulation: an influential scientific network that favoured nicotine harm reduction in the United Kingdom and the absence of such a network in Australia; the success of different types of health activism both in England and in Europe in opposing more restrictive policies; and the greater influence on policy in England of the field of illicit drug harm reduction.
Conclusions:
An understanding of the different policy responses to electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in England and Australia requires an appreciation of how actors within the different policy structures, scientific networks and activist organizations in each country and region have interpreted the evidence and the priority that policymakers have given to the competing goals of preventing adolescent uptake and encouraging smokers to use ENDS to quit smoking.
More Related Videos
10:44Comparing the Effects of Electronic Cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke in a Novel In Vivo Exposure System
Published on: May 24, 2017
09:30A Microcontroller Operated Device for the Generation of Liquid Extracts from Conventional Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarette Aerosol
Published on: January 18, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Stimulants
Cocaine can be administered via snorting, injection, or smoking. It primarily functions by blocking the reuptake of dopamine, resulting in a euphoric high characterized by an intense sensation of happiness and...
Drug Regulation
Drugs Acting on Autonomic Ganglia: Stimulants
Ganglionic stimulants activate NM nicotinic receptors in autonomic ganglia, falling into two categories: nicotine mimetics [e.g., lobeline, dimethylpiperazine, tetramethylammonium] and muscarinic receptor agonists [e.g., muscarine, methacholine]. The first category's action is rapid and blocked by nicotinic receptor antagonists, while the second category's action is delayed and blocked by atropine-like agents. Nicotine, an alkaloid, affects the heart rate by stimulating...
Drug Delivery: Miscellaneous Routes
Oral inhalation and nasal sprays swiftly transfer drugs across the respiratory epithelium's mucosal layer. Inhaled glucocorticoids and bronchodilators directly target lung conditions such as asthma, while fluticasone nasal spray mitigates allergic rhinitis.
Transdermal patches transport drugs...
Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact