BT lied

[Jman8]

Really not sure where to put this thread. Tried doing a quick forum search for similar thread but didn't find it.

Anyway, on ECF and pretty much all over, people are always bringing up how Big Tobacco (BT) lied in the past. I do not deny that BT was engaged in deception, and will be posting that info here. But I do question the magnitude of that deception, especially after a certain time period (circa 1980's).

I believe this relates to vaping issues, and kind of want to explore this topic because I think it relates to THR (a little bit) and vaping politics, in that some of those 'lies' told by BT were arguably similar to messages to what vaping vendors were saying early on (and are no longer able to say) or what even us vapers will say but don't really know, other than anecdotally.

To me, a prime example of this is the common BT deception that claimed doctors approve of smokes. This based, I think, on fact that doctors way back when did smoke, and so BT could then seek out those that did with idea of getting endorsements, which obviously would sway portions of the public into thinking, well if a doctor says it is okay, then they must be okay. Likewise, there is plenty of info found on vaping forums whereby people's personal doctors either are okay with person switching from smoking to vaping, or even being the entity that suggests making the switch. This would be the THR claim from doctors as I'm thinking there isn't a doctor around who knows someone doesn't smoke, but says go ahead and try vaping. Yet, the possible deception is that doctors don't really know for sure that it is harm reduction and more to the point that people who hear of this information, are acting on anecdotal data. The general perception, I would say, is that a portion of today's medical community are very okay with people vaping. Though, it is fair to stipulate that assertion with idea that medical approval only comes with those making a switch.

Anyway, I'd love to have dialogue on this topic and wish to state yet again (perhaps I'll have to state it many times) that I do see BT engaging in deception, plus a bunch of denial about that, and that they have broken trust with many who used to be loyal customers. But also wish to say that I think the magnitude of their deception has been way blown out of proportion to what those lies actually entail. And perhaps there is a debate to be had on that point. I dunno. But I am compelled to explore that in a thread here on ECF, because I think it is relevant to vaping, and THR.

I will note that I am a dual user. And that I think my smoking in moderation is part of THR ideology. Or perhaps put another way, I see great benefit in moderate smoking when compared to normal usage (which I believe is heavy use / abuse of the product).

 

[Jman8]

Rather than making one big post to start with, I wanted to have a separate one here for listing the lies that BT told. The ones I feel aware of without even doing research are:

- doctors approve smoking/particular brands of smokes
- tobacco companies manipulated nicotine intake (from smokes) to be more addictive and then denied that they did this

After that, not so sure of what others are. Have some ideas, but rather just pull those from research. If it is one that I think needs a source, I'll add that information, otherwise I will note it here as if it is common knowledge.

- the adverse health effects of smoking
- the addictiveness of smoking and nicotine
- the lack of any significant health benefit from smoking “low tar,” “light,” “ultralight,” “mild,” and “natural” cigarettes
- the adverse health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke
- smoking is not an addiction and all it takes to quit is willpower

Perhaps there are others. But even in the above I see overlap or saying the same thing in another way. So, going to end this post with idea that I've captured the main ones. If not, I'm thinking someone will let me know.

 

[Jman8]

And in this next post, I just wish to note my general take on all this.

Just as in vaping culture we have the story we tell ourselves about benefits of vaping, we also have very visible opposition that is telling a different story that is diametrically opposed to the one that vaping enthusiasts tell. And we have scientific data (albeit based on the short term) to support the story we are telling. We can make claims and then if someone doubts what we are saying, we can find scientific research to support our claims. I think, likewise, my general take on this BT topic has another side that I believe can be backed up, to some degree from the non-ANTZ perspective, which clearly permeates smoking culture and the data available to the public. Plus, I think there is common sense and or good old fashioned reasoning that helps put "BT lies" in perspective, rather than the inflationary claims by ANTZ. I further believe (and really don't have doubt on this) that the counter movement to BT deception has engaged in deception themselves to bolster their position.

My general take often wonders how smokers, and general public, a hundred years ago could ever believe that smoking is "healthy." It often seems to me that smokers at one point actually thought smoking is a healthy activity, which I reckon came from notion that if doctors do it, then it must be healthy. I dunno know what to make of this exactly, as my general take thinks it is ludicrous that there ever was a time in human history when smoking was considered healthy. So, perhaps "healthy" isn't the best word here, but it does seem to be what the magnitude of the 'larger deception' stems from. As in, general public didn't have any idea what was truth about smoking, until sometime in the 1980's when tobacco companies (prompted by antis) started telling another story that wasn't all about promoting product for massive profit. And my general take on this always wonders how that could be. Or put more bluntly, how could you be alive in say 200 BC, or later, and not realize that smoking is not in some way leading to harm of the human body?

My general take also tends to deal squarely with personal responsibility. That smokers/users are partially, to perhaps mostly, responsible for damaged caused to them regardless of what BT was up to (via massive deception). In essence, I see lots of scapegoating being done by (ex)smokers to absolve themselves of any responsibility in the adverse health effects that may come from smoking. To me, this is at the heart of 'biggest deception' on this topic. I can, rather easily, see similar thing happening with vapers/vaping community, though not anytime real soon. But, a time coming when vapers (or ex vapers) claim "we didn't know" and therefore are not at all responsible for harm caused by vaping to own body because of (then known) damage caused from vaping.

And my general take includes the politics of smoking ever since BT was caught in lie of manipulating product to be more addictive, and how that plays out to point where whatever BT now says cannot be trusted whereas whatever ANTZ reports is to be fully trusted. Such as 1200 people die a day from smoking related illnesses (or about a half a million a year). The whole "smoking kills" meme is item I take issue with and when realizing extent of that deception that still seems to be float right on by as if we don't need to check out that data, I think it hurts credibility (big time) of anti's. I often feel ANTZ overplay their hand when it comes to vaping, and that it stems from no one really calling them out on their anti-smoking propaganda, which serves as basis for FSPTCA and why vaping is now met with potentially harsh regulatory framework.

 

[AndriaD]

Good thread, Jman.

My biggest issue with "BT lies" is -- why MAOIs? Why the hell put those in there at all? And not tell us? That's lying by omission, and every bit as deceptive as telling a blatant lie. And those are serious drugs; a lot of OTC medications say not to take them if you're taking MAOIs, but how are smokers supposed to know those things are in their CIGARETTES???

And your thinking on vaping being harm reduction, and vapers going around thinking/saying that it's "harmless", is also extremely well taken; it's not even "harmless" for former smokers! Nicotine hasn't harmed me, other than a little nausea at first when I didn't yet know that I needed very little of it, but those carriers, PG and VG, have harmed me tremendously, to the point that I've had to return temporarily to light smoking, just so I'm not making my dehydration/electrolyte problems worse with constant vaping -- and no, I really don't have a choice in that, because for me it's vape or smoke, period; if I'm not vaping as much as I feel I need to, then something else must take up the slack, and that something is cigarettes, because I learned a long time ago that no other NRT works at all for me. My point is that "tobacco harm reduction" is utterly useless if you end up smothering yourself with VG, or giving yourself a heart attack because your electrolytes are so out of whack from dehydration. You can die from both smothering and heart attacks, and usually a whole faster than from lung cancer or COPD.

I do think smoking is a devastating health problem, and can often *lead to* cancer, but as we've covered in other threads, it's nearly always NOT the sole factor that led to it; I think it's just a particularly heavy straw on the poor camel's back, when it's already loaded down with other chemical exposures, daily solar radiation, family history of cancer, and other conditions that can "lead to" cancer.

Andria

 

[edyle]

Well first of all:

There is no person that can be identified as "BT", therefore the statement "BT lied" is not logical.

 

[Jman8]

Took me awhile to find this link as I knew I had seen it, but wasn't coming up on search regardless of terms I entered. Anyway, this to me is one of the better reports I've seen for why the industry chose to increase nicotine levels. Still has a bit of ANTZ bias in the reporting, but not sure how to get around that without dealing solely with tobacco industry take on things.

Hideous Tobacco Company Efforts To Addict People To Cigarettes Revealed

 

[Jman8]

Good thread, Jman.

My biggest issue with "BT lies" is -- why MAOIs? Why the hell put those in there at all?

Can you cite where you are getting info that these were added by BT (industry) to cigarettes, please. Would then be able to address your other points better, I think.

I do think smoking is a devastating health problem, and can often *lead to* cancer, but as we've covered in other threads, it's nearly always NOT the sole factor that led to it; I think it's just a particularly heavy straw on the poor camel's back, when it's already loaded down with other chemical exposures, daily solar radiation, family history of cancer, and other conditions that can "lead to" cancer.

Andria

Thanks for contributing this point to this thread.

 

[AndriaD]

Can you cite where you are getting info that these were added by BT (industry) to cigarettes, please. Would then be able to address your other points better, I think.

No, I'm afraid I can't; I'm going simply on what I've learned here in the forum, regarding the 3 days/3wks/3mo trouble spots -- that these are primarily due to the body purging certain percentages of the MAOIs from cigarettes, around those particular lengths of time since quitting. It strikes me that making cigarettes more addictive, as BT is reputed to have done, may be more related to these MAOIs than to nicotine, which, as we've seen in several studies, is really not terribly addictive. I've smoked for 39 yrs, but I actually require very little nicotine -- but I'm as hardcore a cigarette addict as anyone you're ever likely to meet. Maybe because I've always tended to depression, and cigarettes are a form of self-medication for me.

Andria

 

[Stubby]

No, I'm afraid I can't; I'm going simply on what I've learned here in the forum, regarding the 3 days/3wks/3mo trouble spots -- that these are primarily due to the body purging certain percentages of the MAOIs from cigarettes, around those particular lengths of time since quitting. It strikes me that making cigarettes more addictive, as BT is reputed to have done, may be more related to these MAOIs than to nicotine, which, as we've seen in several studies, is really not terribly addictive. I've smoked for 39 yrs, but I actually require very little nicotine -- but I'm as hardcore a cigarette addict as anyone you're ever likely to meet. Maybe because I've always tended to depression, and cigarettes are a form of self-medication for me.

Andria

MOAI's are a natural product of combustion of tobacco. They are not added. Besides MOAI's tobacco also has minor alkaloids. These are not a product of combustion and are in all whole tobacco products as in smokeless tobacco.

I never developed a hatred of tobacco companies. There is no doubt tobacco companies have lied in the past about cigarettes, but that was a long time ago. Compared to what the tobacco control industry has been doing in the last few decades, in the same period of time BT have been saints. The lies that the tobacco control industry have been telling about the dangers of smokeless tobacco are at least as bad as anything BT has ever done.

 

[Jman8]

Just adding here what I've been saying elsewhere on ECF.

The "BT Lied" claim, especially the one where people are convinced BT put things into cigarettes to make them more addictive (and therefore more deadly), but didn't admit to this, is IMO similar to what is occurring with vaping right now on the diacetyl issue. That issue is that vendors either allowed that to be in there or possibly put it in, to enhance flavoring (huge draw for vaping in general) despite knowing it may have issues. And then denied this or advertised their products as 'diacetyl-free.'

Which only skims the surface of that issue because it isn't just diacetyl that is an issue (also acetoin, possibly other flavoring agents), which has lead a whole bunch of vapers, myself included (even now) to say that vaping isn't all that harmful and the flavors are great. Plus, this is already something that previously came up in the vaping market as 'big deal' a couple years ago, but now is as big of a deal, maybe even more, than it already was.

I'd really like to hear the non-sound bite version of "BT made cigarettes more addictive" from the BT-hater. And the non BT-hater. For perspective. As, I have posted link to that in this thread, I think it is actually understandable why that industry did what it did, but in reality had to deal with already huge base of population that hated on BT. And so, whatever the rationale for that, it doesn't meet up with some people's desire to forgive and/or move on. Instead, it is popular sound bite version that is repeated ad nauseam, with overriding desire to establish that regardless of what BT does going forward, they (the whole industry) cannot be trusted with anything health related.

Yet, again, this is 2nd time vaping industry is caught up in this (little) scandal, but I'm feeling confident there won't be the same reaction anytime soon from the ex-smoking vaper. Instead, a whole lot of rationalizing for why to understand the longer explanation and to treat this as if ongoing vaping is still a reasonable position, even while vaping industry has been caught in a lie.

I'll also just add that I believe just about every industry where product equals something that is taken into the body, is likely subject to this same predicament, where something is found to be (abundantly) harmful, the industry reacts, and part of that reactions amounts to systemic or partial deception to keep the industry train rolling and downplay the perceived harm.

IOW, I am saying the "BT Lied" meme is a rather convenient way to take a somewhat regular societal occurrence, and attach an unbalanced perspective to it. Or the exact goal of what ANTZ has for BT.

 

[OCD]

Good thread, one thought on the blame thing though.

I wholeheartedly agree that any rational adult from any period in time would come to the quick conclusion that smoking could in no way be healthy. Key word here being adult.

A ten year old smoking for the cool factor or whatever reason is certainly not going to consider health impact of long term use of cigarettes and after years of smoking the addiction in both chemical and habit are well established.

This lead to a near 40 year career of smoking for myself and yes I would lay blame squarely on BT. This is not to say I had no part in that I could have quit, later in life I became aware of the harm to the extent of failing health because of it. I always felt there was some kind of self destruction tie in smoking. Many folks feel that either they have already done the deed and the damage is done at some point so why bother or they are actively harming themselves, not as graphic on the surface as something like cutting but probably deep down something similar off whack in the neuron network.

The question to me is did these corporations actively promote a product they knew to be harmful and did they even increase that level of harm in an attempt to further promote their product without regard to human lives? If an auto maker could design in some feature to a car that attracted folks to buy it but it caused even a miniscule number of deaths per year such as 1,000 could they continue to develop and produce cars with this attractive feature?

 

[Bobbilly]

Good thread, one thought on the blame thing though.

I wholeheartedly agree that any rational adult from any period in time would come to the quick conclusion that smoking could in no way be healthy. Key word here being adult.

A ten year old smoking for the cool factor or whatever reason is certainly not going to consider health impact of long term use of cigarettes and after years of smoking the addiction in both chemical and habit are well established.

This lead to a near 40 year career of smoking for myself and yes I would lay blame squarely on BT. This is not to say I had no part in that I could have quit, later in life I became aware of the harm to the extent of failing health because of it. I always felt there was some kind of self destruction tie in smoking. Many folks feel that either they have already done the deed and the damage is done at some point so why bother or they are actively harming themselves, not as graphic on the surface as something like cutting but probably deep down something similar off whack in the neuron network.

The question to me is did these corporations actively promote a product they knew to be harmful and did they even increase that level of harm in an attempt to further promote their product without regard to human lives? If an auto maker could design in some feature to a car that attracted folks to buy it but it caused even a miniscule number of deaths per year such as 1,000 could they continue to develop and produce cars with this attractive feature?

Alcohol/gambling?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OCD]

Guilty

 

[Jman8]

Good thread, one thought on the blame thing though.

I wholeheartedly agree that any rational adult from any period in time would come to the quick conclusion that smoking could in no way be healthy. Key word here being adult.

A ten year old smoking for the cool factor or whatever reason is certainly not going to consider health impact of long term use of cigarettes and after years of smoking the addiction in both chemical and habit are well established.

So, tobacco companies are responsible for vendors, parents and other adults who allow people under 18 to smoke? Does this same reasoning apply to vaping manufacturers, that they are (most) responsible for people under 18 who vape?

This lead to a near 40 year career of smoking for myself and yes I would lay blame squarely on BT. This is not to say I had no part in that I could have quit, later in life I became aware of the harm to the extent of failing health because of it. I always felt there was some kind of self destruction tie in smoking. Many folks feel that either they have already done the deed and the damage is done at some point so why bother or they are actively harming themselves, not as graphic on the surface as something like cutting but probably deep down something similar off whack in the neuron network.

The question to me is did these corporations actively promote a product they knew to be harmful and did they even increase that level of harm in an attempt to further promote their product without regard to human lives? If an auto maker could design in some feature to a car that attracted folks to buy it but it caused even a miniscule number of deaths per year such as 1,000 could they continue to develop and produce cars with this attractive feature?

I was wondering earlier today if tobacco ads at some point said, "smoke 20 of these a day and you'll be good to go" or something similar. I'm thinking that is possible at some point. But, to the degree that it can be shown otherwise, and instead ads that simply say, "smoke our brand for the smooth flavor" or similar, then who is responsible for the abuse of the product that is occurring? With alcohol, it seems alcoholics take on a majority of the responsibility for their abuse, whereas with tobacco, it seems many die-hards (or addicts) think BT is mostly to blame.

It would be interesting to see the data on how harmful tobacco corporations actually view their products. I'm thinking nowadays, with the move to new products (a la eCigs), that they might readily concede degree of harm in those traditional products that they didn't readily concede back in the day. But, I'm really getting at the awareness of significant harm and how much this really came up? I feel like there is some information around regarding this, but also a general idea of them thinking it isn't as bad as their opposition claims it to be, or similar to the vaping situation currently. Many vapers, especially inside the industry, concede a level of harm. Yet, most seem to see it as insignificant, and even promote it in this way.

Of all the products that were really popular when I was growing up (i.e. cigarettes, coffee, candy/junk food, alcohol, and processed foods), all of them strike me today as perceived as harmful. The opposition to them has spawned various industries of themselves and who take whatever concerns one might have about these products and make it seem like it is a really really serious health concern. Read as monumental. Which then makes it seem like all these industries are heartless monsters who have no regard for human lives, especially when you see them getting even more wealthy in the last quarter or fiscal year.

I also can't think of any (less popular) foods/substances that are considered harmless, but that is perhaps a philosophic tangent for another post or thread.

But I do think that tobacco manufacturers are paying a rather high price for what is, at best, a collective mistake in judgment about allowing a product to become so widespread and popular. At same time, they appear to be doing quite well financially, and whatever price is still being paid seems to be spread out among that collective who are pretty much still making the same error, but changing the goal posts, so as to save a little face.

 

[OCD]

I can certainly see where you are coming from, deception is deception and for an industry to knowingly decieve in order to promote sales is inherently wrong.

Apples to oranges though we are comparing an industry that had billions of dollars, research laboratories and full knowledge before crafting recipes to grab a larger audience to an emerging industry that is barely coming into its own. This new industry is powered by folks of limited resources and of course without rigorous testing behind it in large part. What it does have in its corner though is a fairly solid recognition of the scientific community that yes there is still harm present but it is orders of magnitude less than a smoker continuing to smoke.

This is where we lost the battle, if we concede that vaping is dangerous at whatever particular level without considering the options for most and then the world is pretty much going to give up and go back to smoking. This is THR, not a magic bullet. I would imagine there would be some very happy folks around several industries (BT, BP, ANTZ) that all thrive on a balanced percentage that has been status quo for decades now. Along comes vaping in a way that popularizes it to the masses and all of the sudden bottom lines are affected across the board. Governments from city to state and federal all are at risk of losing massive amounts of easy green, this makes them all too happy to at the very least channel this new direction towards those who they have worked closely with in the past.

And no, I dont think tobacco companies pay a high price and it is my belief that those other entities who are in their support system should be paying some bills too like the politicians who craft legislation for them and the supposed health/for the children organizations who have slowed the adoption of vaping at the risk of how many lives?

As far as the eliquid manufacturers, I agree 100% that they should be doing everything possible to provide what they know to be the safest ingredients for our use. There should be regulatory guidelines and licensing to provide these products. We are beginning to get some of that information and it will surely build as this industry matures. Till then take comfort in your vape being a THR at whatever level that might be.