{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038408779149519894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010973936899862825, 'mean_word_length': 5.186440677966102, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
E-Cigarettes: The Extent and Impact of Complementary Dual-Use

The highly controversial e-cigarette industry has generated considerable policy debate and mixed regulatory responses worldwide. Surprisingly, an issue that has been largely ignored is the categorisation of e-cigarettes as substitutes or (dynamic) complements for conventional smoking. We conduct an online survey of US participants finding that 37% of e-cigarette users view them primarily as complementary. We use this result along-side publicly available data to calibrate a cost-benefit analysis, estimating that complementarity reduces the potential cost-savings of e-cigarettes by as much as 57% (or $3.3-4.9bn p.a.) relative to case with zero complementarity.