Big Tobacco strategy

[Mohave]

Umm, well here's a really novel radical suggestion which may make some heads explode or get me flamed on this site: Maybe, just maybe, the actual primary most important source of the opposition to e-cigs is coming not so much from a mysterious conspiratorial boogeyman hiding over beyond yonder tree, but is in fact who it appears to be, standing right in front of y'all proudly announcing it to your face. Ya know, those folks filled to delerium with zealous passion for promoting their social crusade of mandating their vision of "public health," the ones who held a joint news conference saying so, and sent out a press releases to announce it, and continue to say so on their websites and in their lobbying campaigns. D'ya spose that could be remotely possible? Nah, I guess not, nevermind, it just has to be a conspiricy somewhere, it couldn't really be that:

Statement of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids

WASHINGTON, March 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids applaud Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey's call for the Food and Drug Administration to exert its authority and immediately remove e-cigarettes from the market.

<SNIP>
​

Our organizations thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership in urging the FDA to remove these products from the market and echo his call that the FDA move quickly to remove these products from the marketplace.

<SNIP>
​

SOURCE American Lung Association (press release)

 

[Mohave]

The Waxman bill was drafted from negotiations between PM and tobacco free kids. If its not the definition of a deal with the devil I don't know what is.

I don't see it quite that way; I think it's a deal between the devil and the devil. And I personally find the CFTFK devil the most frightening demon in the room.

And "big tobacco" as a whole doesn't benefit; one specific company (Altria/P.M.) does. It gets a guaranteed dominant share of a reduced and gradually declining market, while it's competitors get crushed, which is why Philip Morris/Altria supports it while the rest of the industry vigorously opposes it. Altria will in essence become very much like a public utility monopoly, with a guaranteed margin which cannot expand, but also is forvever protected by force of law from any others who might try to compete for its customers, who will have no other choices available in the marketplace, just like your gas or electric company, only this gas and electric utility's regulated territory will be downtown Detroit. Owning a share of Altria will be like owning a bond, carrying a guaranteed rate of return without growth (international is a separate company), but RJ Reynolds, UST, and all others will be destroyed in the US market.

 

[Smokingfreely]

Abram_J,
most if not all e-juice on the market today has synthetic nicotine. No tobacco required.

That's the marketing claim here in the states. I have yet to find an ingredient list that doesn't contain tobacco-derived niccotine.

 

[Smokingfreely]

Waxman’s anti-smoking bill may do more harm than good By From Jeff Stier, associate director, American Council on Science and Health Posted: 04/16/07 08:23 PM [ET] (Regarding op-ed “Why I’m backing the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” March 27, by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.) Perhaps the notion that members don’t read the legislation they vote on is an outside-the-Beltway myth. But if you were asked to vote on tobacco legislation without having the opportunity to read it — knowing only that the bill was supported by Altria (Philip Morris) and opposed by the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), how would you vote?

I hope you won’t vote with Rep. Henry Waxman, whose bill could be a casebook study of the law of unintended consequences.

By treating all tobacco products equally, Rep. Waxman promotes the fallacy that all tobacco is equally dangerous. Just about every expert agrees that smokeless tobacco, which can be used as a method of harm-reduction for addicted smokers, is significantly less harmful than smoking cigarettes. So instead of giving smokers tools to quit, the bill hinders innovative approaches. No wonder the leading cigarette marketer supports this bill.

Additionally, giving the FDA authority to require lower levels of nicotine in cigarettes could actually harm public health. After all, it is the thousands of harmful chemicals that are burned and inhaled that make tobacco so deadly. Nicotine, while highly addictive, is among the least harmful elements of a cigarette. So reducing nicotine will cause smokers to inhale more of the bad stuff, just to get the same amount of nicotine they crave.

Further, just as the surgeon general’s warning label did decades ago, this type of FDA authority would give Big Tobacco a powerful piece of armor in its quest for immunity from lawsuits.

It is no wonder the FDA’s Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach doesn’t want Rep. Waxman telling the FDA to put a stamp of semi-approval on tobacco products.

Proponents of this legislation are right to target smoking — they just go about it the wrong way.

New York City

 

[Mohave]

Nice op-ed from Mr. Stier. Too bad Dr. von Eschenbach won't have much influence on the legislation now, since he is only the acting FDA director left from the previous administration, and he is now in the process of being replaced.