R.J. Reynolds Pulls Dissolvable Smokeless Products from Test Markets; Company Must Stop Pushing Tobacco Products that Entice Kids

[kristin]

These products also have been marketed as an alternative to cigarettes in the growing number of places where smoking is not allowed, which discourages smokers from quitting and truly protecting their health.

R.J. Reynolds Pulls Dissolvable Smokeless Products from Test Markets; Company Must Stop Pushing... -- WASHINGTON, Dec. 20, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

From Snus News: http://snus-news.blogspot.com/2010/12/rj-reynolds-tobacco-confirms-camel.html

From CSP News: http://www.cspnet.com/ME2/Audiences...D76801&AudID=6C81F2B488CE41838BC84AF1AE2AF9CD

 

[Placebo Effect]

Considering the product was produced by R.J. Reynolds, I have no doubt that the products were probably 10x more harmful than Swedish snus, but that's aside from the point.

What a joke Campaign for tobacco Free Kids is. They truly believe in 'Quit or Die' regardless of the consequences.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Consumer and public health will benefit if/when Reynolds begins marketing Camel Orbs nationwide, and if/when Reynolds runs ads urging smokers to switch to them (as Reynolds just did with Camel Snus).

Although I've told him many times, Matt Myers remains in denial that his efforts to demonize and ban the least hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products primarily protects cigarette markets.

 

[t9c]

Rather than reducing the number of smokers, the Monitoring the Future survey indicates that the main consequence of current smokeless tobacco products and marketing is to increase the number of youth who use smokeless tobacco.

But the survey in question also shows that 12th graders who smoke cigarettes has reduced by 1.3% between 2009-2010, while the number of smokeless tobacco users has increased by, you guessed it...1.3%!!

Rather than an increase, I call it a draw. Proof the anti's will slant surveys however they wish to obtain their agenda's goals.

 

[sang k]

2 face fda

they scream nic ecigs are drug products but state rjrenyolds smokeless dissovale chewables are tobacca products. lol

Letter to Industry on Dissolvable Smokeless Tobacco Products (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

 

[rothenbj]

"Although I've told him many times, Matt Myers remains in denial that his efforts to demonize and ban the least hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products primarily protects cigarette markets."

Bill, is that self denial to the effect of his actions or denial to the public? In other words is he naive or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

 

[rothenbj]

But the survey in question also shows that 12th graders who smoke cigarettes has reduced by 1.3% between 2009-2010, while the number of smokeless tobacco users has increased by, you guessed it...1.3%!!

Rather than an increase, I call it a draw. Proof the anti's will slant surveys however they wish to obtain their agenda's goals.

Or stated differently- Smokeless tobacco, which is over 90% safer than smoking, reduced cigarette smoking by 1.3% between 2009-2010. Efforts by ?non-profit?"health" associations had no effect despite spending millions on their efforts.

I see how views of the same situation can be viewed so differently.

 

[t9c]

Yes. Rothenbj, you said it right and I agree with you on the viewpoint.

It will be very interesting to see RJR's report next month. I wonder if they'll just fold under instead of funding actual studies that may very possibly find the opposite of the alphabet soup's view that "children" are inherently attracted to nicotine laced products, even though they can't actually BUY them.

 

[kricket_4]

So, forgive me for not really knowing anything about this, but I haven't ever really heard of snus or these dissolvables before coming here, but wouldn't these items need to be behind the counter where cigarettes are kept? How could a kid mistake them for gum or candy and buy them? They'd have to specifically ask for them, and being they are behind the counter the cashier would know that they are not to be sold to those underage? This garbage about protecting our kids really gets me! Kids are going to smoke, they will find a way, I know I did at 15! I knew the stores that didn't card, and I definately did not look old enough to buy smokes at that age, I was still getting carded in my late 20s consistently. So, if it's protecting our kids were interested in, how does banning these products, that are WAY less dangerous protect them? Shouldn't it be up to the parent to educate their kids on the dangers of smoking (or any other vice for that matter), and the store owners to educate their employees on the laws?

 

[Crumpet]

So, forgive me for not really knowing anything about this, but I haven't ever really heard of snus or these dissolvables before coming here, but wouldn't these items need to be behind the counter where cigarettes are kept? How could a kid mistake them for gum or candy and buy them? They'd have to specifically ask for them, and being they are behind the counter the cashier would know that they are not to be sold to those underage? This garbage about protecting our kids really gets me! Kids are going to smoke, they will find a way, I know I did at 15! I knew the stores that didn't card, and I definately did not look old enough to buy smokes at that age, I was still getting carded in my late 20s consistently. So, if it's protecting our kids were interested in, how does banning these products, that are WAY less dangerous protect them? Shouldn't it be up to the parent to educate their kids on the dangers of smoking (or any other vice for that matter), and the store owners to educate their employees on the laws?

No, Kricket. Being a parent is hard enough without forcing tired moms and dads to have to explain things like danger or to say 'no' to their whining little snowflakes. That's the US government for you. The slogan should be "We say no so you don't have to!".

 

[kristin]

So, forgive me for not really knowing anything about this, but I haven't ever really heard of snus or these dissolvables before coming here, but wouldn't these items need to be behind the counter where cigarettes are kept? How could a kid mistake them for gum or candy and buy them? They'd have to specifically ask for them, and being they are behind the counter the cashier would know that they are not to be sold to those underage? This garbage about protecting our kids really gets me! Kids are going to smoke, they will find a way, I know I did at 15! I knew the stores that didn't card, and I definately did not look old enough to buy smokes at that age, I was still getting carded in my late 20s consistently. So, if it's protecting our kids were interested in, how does banning these products, that are WAY less dangerous protect them? Shouldn't it be up to the parent to educate their kids on the dangers of smoking (or any other vice for that matter), and the store owners to educate their employees on the laws?

A lot of convenience stores just put them in displays by the register. I don't believe it's a federal law to put all tobacco products behind the counter, so many place may not have them there.

Their theory is that kids would never smoke without flavored tobacco products and clever advertising. But tobacco companies are so insidious that they create these smoke-free products not to give adult smokers an alternative to smoking, but as a way to entice kids (with kid-friendly flavors) into becoming nicotine addicts, so they will eventually switch to smoking. Because nicotine is so addictive, kids will stop using a smokeless, pleasant tasting options and move to harsh, foul-tasting cigarettes as soon as they get they get hooked enough.

Yeah - I don't get it, either.

 

[JonnyVapΣ]

Now that the government is raising my kids I can take it easy now. I was happy with the two that I currently have, but now that the burden of parenting has been reduced maybe we should have a few more. It's so easy now!

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's the letter I sent to members of the US Senate Health Committee several hours after Senators Merkley and Brown offered the dissolvable tobacco product study amendment to S. 982 (FSPTCA), and both made false claims about Reynolds' products and called for a ban on these far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com

May 20, 2009

Dear Senator

Many inaccurate and misleading claims were made about the least hazardous
tobacco products (smokefree) by Senators Merkley, Brown, Harkin, Dodd and
others at yesterday's markup session, which primarily benefits the
deadliest tobacco product (cigarettes) and Philip Morris' Marlboro empire,
as would enactment of S. 982 (a deal negotiated by the cigarette giant and
CTFK in 2004). We urge you to support the amendments (below) because they
would improve public health.

Reiterating concerns in my May 7 letter, S. 982 will cause the deaths of
millions of more cigarette smokers (primarily Marlboro smokers) unless
amended to truthfully inform smokers that cigarettes are 100 times deadlier
than smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (including dissolvable tobacco
lozenges, snus and electronic cigarettes) and to allow smokers access to
these less hazardous products. Switching from cigarettes to smokefree
tobacco/nicotine alternatives reduces smoker's health risks nearly as much
as quitting all tobacco/nicotine use, and millions of smokers have already
sharply reduced their health risks by switching to smokefree alternatives.

Dissolvable smokefree tobacco lozenges are nearly identical to
GlaxoSmithKline's dissolvable nicotine lozenges (marketed for smoking
cessation). While some Senators grandstanded yesterday against tobacco
products that comprise less than 1% of the market share and/or are no
longer on the market, nobody expressed concerns that GSK
Nicorette Lozenge - Nicotine Lozenge | To Help You Quit has been marketing nearly
identical nicotine lozenges in Cappuccino, Cherry and Mint flavors.

Claims that tobacco companies still target market to youth ignores the
facts that youth tobacco use has declined by 50% to 65% (depending upon
product and age group) in the past decade, that the Master Settlement
Agreement already prohibits tobacco companies from marketing to youth, and
that all 50 states already ban tobacco sales to youth under 18. In
contrast to claims that S. 982 would protect youth from tobacco marketing
(and Senator Brown's criticism of a cigarette marketed to his 19 year old
daughter), S. 982 would do little to further reduce youth tobacco use
primarily because it prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco marketing to
high school seniors (age 18). The CBO recently estimated that H.R. 1256
(Rep. Waxman's similar bill approved by the House) would only reduce youth
smoking by 11% and adult smoking by 2% during the next DECADE.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco
smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing
to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for tobacco victims, expand
smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree
tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to
cigarettes.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director