Smokeless attacked; e-cigs next?

[TropicalBob]

Note that when the Wall Street Journal did this Nov. 10 story on the rising interest in smokeless products, e-devices are not even mentioned. As topical as e-smoking might be in England, it's not even a whisper in America. Not on the radar as even the smallest blip.

It will be, of course, and just read between the lines of what the anti's say about smokeless and rest assured they'll say the same about our nicotine delivery system.

Smokeless tobacco becomes a target

[Grenage]

"These smokeless products are likely to discourage smokers from quitting by sustaining their nicotine addiction in the growing number of places where smoking is not allowed"

There was me thinking that the smoking ban was to benefit non-smokers by cutting out passive smoking. I wish these freaks had another bone to run with.

[Bertrand]

There was me thinking that the smoking ban was to benefit non-smokers by cutting out passive smoking. I wish these freaks had another bone to run with.

At least one lobby group involved in smoking bans intended it to make it more difficult to smoke, and therefore more likely to quit. That second hand smoke is dangerous was just an easier sell.

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

[Schroedinger's cat]

In October, NIH at Bethesda became "tobacco-free", which means that one cannot use ANY tobacco product on campus (even outside), and this includes smokeless tobacco. I believe that they have enforced similar bans on some medical campuses.

They are not even trying any longer to pretend that this is to protect others. I do not use smokeless tobacco, but I find this infuriating. The NIH excuse is that NIH is the "steward of health", and this is part of an initiative called "following our own best advice". I call it health fascism, but that's another matter....

Tobacco-Free NIH - National Institutes of Health Tobacco-Free Campus Policy

[dc2k08]

Battle ahead for 'cigarette pack' books | UK news | The Guardian

came across that story on my travels yesterday while i was reading some design blogs. it's also semi-related to e-cigs in so far as it describes how British American Tobacco (BAC) went super-nova on a publishing house who had the idea of packaging some of their titles as a large pack of cigarettes in an attempt to market them to folks who were reeling from the smoking ban. one design was too familiar to one one of BAC's brands (in the picture) so they decided to put their foot in.

e-cig sellers take note: dont play off a ciggie brand in an attempt to be cute. it'll back-fire biggo.

[e-pipeman]

Sadly when Gordon Brown realises that e-cigs are losing him revenue they will be banned. He won't ban tobacco despite the Government's pious priggish pleading about the health of Britain because , if he did, the exchequer would be even emptier.

[dc2k08]

nah, they'll just start taxing your piss.

[Dr. Russell Fell]

Battle ahead for 'cigarette pack' books | UK news | The Guardian

came across that story on my travels yesterday while i was reading some design blogs. it's also semi-related to e-cigs in so far as it describes how British American Tobacco (BAC) went super-nova on a publishing house who had the idea of packaging some of their titles as a large pack of cigarettes in an attempt to market them to folks who were reeling from the smoking ban. one design was too familiar to one one of BAC's brands (in the picture) so they decided to put their foot in.

e-cig sellers take note: dont play off a ciggie brand in an attempt to be cute. it'll back-fire biggo.

I doubt BAC will win that case. Besides, those books are rather brilliant in design.

[dc2k08]

i dont think so doc, big smoke are not likely to start something they could loose. trade-mark law is very strict and im sure they are well versed.

[e-pipeman]

nah, they'll just start taxing your piss.

I'm sure that means something, or was intended to. Please enlighten me.