The War against Nicotine Addiction

[NorthOfAtlanta]

"No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during
the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the
British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the
major causes of the American Revolution.

But we have representation, they just don't listen to those who vote for them. Instead they follow the golden rule, those who have the gold, rule.

 

[Petrodus]

"Less Hazardous" or "Low Risk"

The correct term to use when comparing e-cigarettes to analogs
is NOT "Less Hazardous" ... The correct term is "Low Risk"

Quoting Elaine (Vocalek)
"Less hazardous" sounds as if we are claiming fewer cases of
disease and death, but implies that there still might be significant
hazards in using the product.

"Low risk" brings to mind that there might be minor problems
such as dry mouth, but that nothing life-threatening is involved.

 

[kristin]

I found FSC to be the motivator in getting me to quit burning tobacco. The problem is that the chemical used in FSC has not been determined to be safe for humans but you can't buy a commercially manufactured cigarette in the US without it (other than the roll-your-own outlets, but that is DIY).

And how ironic that this potentially deadly chemical was put in cigarettes not by "evil Big Tobacco" but the government and ANTZ who are supposed to be concerned about IMPROVING public health. It's not unlike the government poisoning industrial alcohol during Prohibition to get people to stop drinking bootleg liquor. That brilliant move ended up killing an estimated 10,000 people...at least.

The problem with the "war on nicotine addiction" is that even the "experts" cannot agree on a definition. It can range from something as specific as "a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (alcohol, ......., nicotine) or engages in an activity (gambling) that can be pleasurable but the continued use of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work or relationships, even health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others" to something as broad as when a "person is addicted to something they cannot control how they use it, and become dependent on it to cope with daily life."

But most people seem to only have a problem with addiction when it interferes with day-to-day functioning and is detrimental to their health, welfare or harms those around them. So someone who is technically addicted to caffeine is considered "dependent" or even a connoisseur rather than addicted, because the dependency rarely has a negative impact on health or life style. This creates a problem for the ANTZ, because if nicotine use/dependency no longer causes serious adverse consequences for users, can it still be called an addiction? So, they make things up like the "gateway effect" that smoke-free nicotine users will likely "graduate" to more harmful forms to get their "fix." Of course, this is as ridiculous as suggesting everyone who drinks alcohol will become alcoholics or caffeine drinkers will start shooting caffeine straight into their arms.

 

[DC2]

What she said.

 

[Petrodus]

May be true but that doesn't mean corporations (and specifically pharm companies) have the right to lie and profit
by sending people to their death-beds. It's one thing to turn a blind eye- totally different to help them along while
getting paid for it. There should be laws against this with extremely stiff penalties

Good idea ... Ain't goin' to fly
Our elected officials will NEVER support a law against Lying


We have the best government and the best politicians
that money can buy.
Will Rogers

If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life,
the whole system would collapse!
George Carlin

 

[former stinker]

If a man is drinking a gallon of whiskey a day for twenty years and then starts replacing the whiskey with diet soda, would some start telling him that diet soda is bad for him? Yes, yes they would.

 

[Vocalek]

I like this quote:

(E-cigarettes are) clearly less dangerous than smoking a cigarette because you can hardly get more dangerous than smoking cigarettes. -- Dr. Michael Cummings

Medical Myth: Are e-cigarettes safer than regular cigarettes? | WCBD-TV 2

 

[Bill Godshall]

Mike Cummings was an outspoken tobacco harm reduction advocate more than a decade ago (who helped convince me of THR's many public health benefits), but then he flip-flopped on the FSPTCA (urging Congress to oppose it in 2004/05 due to its anti-THR provisions, but then urging Congress to enact it from 2006-2009).

Then, Cummings urged the FDA to ban e-cigarettes in 2009 (which he falsely claimed "regulated" e-cigarettes instead of banning them), while simultaneaously acknowledging that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous than cigarettes.

Similar to Jonathan Foulds, Ken Warner and JF Etter, Mike Cummings is a THR fence sitter who acknowledges that smokefree alternatives are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, while endorsing public policies and regulations that would ban or severely restrict the marketing of smokefree THR products and that misrlead the public about the health risks of smokefree alternatives. But that's what drug industry funding and the desire to be nice to well funded tobacco harm reduction opponents (i.e. CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Legacy) can do to THR fence sitters.