“Cigarette Alternatives Threatening Anti-Smoking Progress” (Oncology Times)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom09

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2009
504
125
Germany
First paragraph:
While indoor-smoking bans encourage smokers to quit, a variety of new, smokeless products threaten to keep them hooked, and to lure young people into nicotine addiction. That's the view of the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and many researchers looking into the newest cigarette alternatives. These products include smokeless tobacco, dissolvable tobacco, and electronic cigarettes. [...]

Full text:
C. Washam (2011): Cigarette Alternatives Threatening Anti-Smoking Progress. Oncology Times 33, 8-11
 

lolady

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 8, 2011
494
1,915
I am on Indian land
Well, they do threaten a multi-billion dollar business of medical industry products and services, right at the time when the spending in that area of the US Baby Boom is moving toward its apex.

People in that demographic changing to e-cigarettes in large numbers would mean a lot of previously practically guaranteed sales dead in the water.
 

xg4bx

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Aug 5, 2010
1,216
403
Phillipsburg, New Jersey
i'm 33 years old. i'm fairly well read and fairly intelligent. i simply can't grasp what the danger of nicotine is. i wouldn't recommend a teen actually go out and pick up a new habit but i'm sure nicotine is less dangerous of a habit to have than those unregulated frankenstein concoctions known as energy drinks flooding the market. i had an energy drink addiction for awhile, it's not fun. yet caffeine, ginseng, etc are in candy, mints, soda, extra caffenated coffee,5 hour energy, etc that kids are buying in droves but thats not a problem?
 

Demarko

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 15, 2010
397
78
47
Seattle, WA
www.twinrosesoftware.com
I love the word twisting. Why do they keep calling using nicotine smoking? It's not smoking without smoke! FFS!

Is it that they're afraid that if the smokeless products do work, and most people quit smoking, they'll be out of a job? That way they can keep saying they are "fighting against smoking" ?
 
Last edited:

QBass

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 1, 2011
2,192
363
56
spooning the Trinity River in Texas
...those unregulated frankenstein concoctions known as energy drinks flooding the market. i had an energy drink addiction for awhile, it's not fun. yet caffeine, ginseng, etc are in candy, mints, soda, extra caffenated coffee,5 hour energy, etc that kids are buying in droves but thats not a problem?

OM:censored:G! Don't even get me started on carbohydrate addiction, especially when paired up with caffeine! :evil::evil::evil:
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,402
ECF Towers
It's hard to find a single paragraph that doesn't contain an outright lie or a severe distortion of the truth. I'm afraid that if medical professionals come out with this kind of stuff it has to qualify as a lie since they must know they have just spoken the opposite of the truth.

Ah, sorry, the paras quoting Siegel and Rodu are truthful. Hard to say why those people are quoted among that load of hogwash - perhaps to give some sort of veneer of respectability to the opinions.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
I've known all of the folks quoted in that article for several decades, and all of them have been on my e-mail list as long as I've known them, during which I've sent all of them hundreds of research articles, surveys, news stories, etc.

Unfortunately for public health, Parascandola, Glynn and Pechachek have always opposed tobacco harm reduction products and policies, and all have long track records of misrepresenting the scientific evidence about smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives.

Also, Oncology Times has lots of financial ties to drug companies.
 
What alternate-nicotine products do is eliminate the end game for the anti-smoking organizations. As long as the end game is a completely nicotine-free world, they have jobs that are sustainable.

Change that end goal to something attainable, and they no longer have secure positions.

Exactly. Why else do you think they would call them Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) and then show that they reduce the desire to smoke even when they don't deliver nicotine, according to Dr. Eissenberg?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread