“Do bans help or hurt e-cigarettes?” (Kokomo Tribune)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom09

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 22, 2009
504
125
Germany
A local news story from Kokomo, IN (kokomotribune.com, June 16, 2011).
There have been few conclusive studies about what is going into the lungs of electronic cigarette smokers and anyone near them. That has left debates open on whether the government should regulate them as if they were traditional tobacco products.
 
So let's see, Johnson & Johnson, makers of Nicorette products, started the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which gave Americans for Nonsmokers Rights a grant of $3 Million to help wipe out the competition for J&J products. Is that correct?

Not just the competition for the Nicorette products, but smoke-free alternatives could reduce SMOKING that causes diseases that are treated by other Johnson & Johnson products as well. If smokers are truthfully informed that they can eliminate 99% of the harms of tobacco use by switching to a smoke-free alternative, it could be a serious threat to RWJF's stock portfolio reducing available funding for ANR.

 

rothenbj

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2009
8,248
7,647
Green Lane, Pa
You nailed that one. It's truly all about the money. Sell medicine (can you really call NRT or Chantix such) to cure a disease (okay, I realize that smoking/tobacco disease might be a bit of a stretch) that you know keeps 98% of the patients (well, if you've got a "disease" and you're giving someone "medicine", you have to consider the recipient a "patients" now don't you?) in their diseased situation and things are sure to get worse. But they have more therapies for that too. All in the name of public health.
 

Vap0rJay

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 22, 2011
358
224
Maryland
You nailed that one. It's truly all about the money. Sell medicine (can you really call NRT or Chantix such) to cure a disease (okay, I realize that smoking/tobacco disease might be a bit of a stretch) that you know keeps 98% of the patients (well, if you've got a "disease" and you're giving someone "medicine", you have to consider the recipient a "patients" now don't you?) in their diseased situation and things are sure to get worse. But they have more therapies for that too. All in the name of public health.

Reading your post made me think of this short from Red Dead Redemption

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread