Dissolvable tobacco products appealing to women

[Bill Godshall]

From the front page of yesterday's Winston-Salem Journal.

http://www2.journalnow.com:80/business/2011/nov/20/wsmain01-dissolvable-tobacco-products-appealing-to-ar-1628633/

 

[YKruss]

John Spangler, a professor of family and community medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine:
"...Instead of aiding smokers to quit, smokeless tobacco actually helps users maintain their nicotine addiction ..."

Yes, dissolvables aiding smokers to quit inhaling burning plant matter or at list reduce it.

Is this professor missing a point of harm reduction?

 

[rolygate]

It needs to be flagged up that the main opponents to dissolvables are the pharma companies who market a similar product, and front groups who are funded by pharma. There are no honest opponents to this major step forward in tobacco harm reduction.

 

[Demarko]

"...Instead of aiding fat people to quit eating sweets, splenda actually helps users maintain their dessert addiction ..."

 

[rolygate]

"...Instead of aiding fat people to quit eating sweets, splenda actually helps users maintain their dessert addiction ..."

This is good

Instead of aiding drinkers to quit, low-alcohol beer actually helps users maintain their alcohol addiction.

Instead of aiding coffee drinkers to quit, decaff coffee actually helps users maintain their coffee addiction.

Instead of aiding free-sex fans to quit, condoms actually help users maintain their sex addiction.

Instead of aiding drivers to quit, wearing seatbelts actually helps users maintain their car addiction.

Instead of aiding breathers of city air to quit, air filters actually help users maintain their city-dwelling, breathing addiction.


Hmm, obviously we should ban anything that improves health as it is just helping maintain addiction. Excellent.

 

[jtpjc]

Let me see if I got this right. If I want to improve my health, I have to maintain my addiction? Or does a better maintained addiction lead to better health? Not sure I understand, logic has never been my strongest asset.

 

[rolygate]

.....Not sure I understand, logic has never been my strongest asset.

Ah, well if that is the case, you are an ideal candidate for our 'health services' then

Or perhaps you can become a doctor and prescribe useless, dangerous, expensive rubbish.

 

[Bill Godshall]

YKruss wrote

Is this professor missing a point of harm reduction?

Ironically, John Spangler (who I've known for the past five years) is one of the few folks I know (another is Mike Siegel) who adamantly opposes smokers switching to smokeless tobacco, but who endorses smokers switching to e-cigarettes.

About a year ago, Spangler told me he couldn't understand why anyone would oppose smokers switching to e-cigarettes. I responded by telling him that I couldn't understand why he (or anyone else) would oppose smokers switching to smokeless tobacco products.

 

[rothenbj]

Boy did Jean Calomeni run off quickly. Alan Selk made a few comments about her posts and she was offended that anyone would question her authority.

What I liked most is her contention that smokeless products haven't been tested to determine that they are safer than cigarettes. Then in a further remark, she wants someone other than the tobacco industry to provide that proof. Who does she think will fund it, Santa Claus?

 

[rothenbj]

YKruss wrote



Ironically, John Spangler (who I've known for the past five years) is one of the few folks I know (another is Mike Siegel) who adamantly opposes smokers switching to smokeless tobacco, but who endorses smokers switching to e-cigarettes.

About a year ago, Spangler told me he couldn't understand why anyone would oppose smokers switching to e-cigarettes. I responded by telling him that I couldn't understand why he (or anyone else) would oppose smokers switching to smokeless tobacco products.

I've noticed that about Dr Siegel. Has he ever explained or is it just the Evil Empire in his mind?

 

[Bill Godshall]

As I recall, Siegel's two most recent blog postings about smokeless tobacco were this past spring when he heavily criticized the FDA for determining that Star's Ariva and Stonewall BDL weren't smokeless tobacco products, and about five years ago when he heavily criticized Swedish epidemiologist Lars Rutvquist for going to work for Swedish Match (to advocate tobacco harm reduction).

At least Mike gets it when it comes to electronic cigarettes. But if a tobacco company had first introduced e-cigarettes, I doubt if Mike (or John Spangler) would support e-cigarettes for harm reduction.

Many/most people in tobacco control moralistically and myopically view tobacco companies as bad, drug companies as good, and themselves as saviors.

That's how they rationalize falsely portraying dissolvable tobacco lozenges as "addictive and deadly poison target marketed to innnocent children by predators", while portraying virtually identical dissolvable nicotine lozenges as the "most effective government approved life saving medicine".

Many/most in tobacco control (but not Siegel or Spangler) have similarly simplistic ideological good/bad right/wrong views of FDA approved nicotine inhalers compared to e-cigarettes.

 

[rolygate]

That is interesting about Siegel and Spangler.

I suppose there is one thing to be said about people who support the nicotine inhalers but oppose e-cigarettes: one is made under tight QC and the other is a consumer product with few (if any) controls. It will be interesting to see what they say about e-cigarettes that achieve a pharmaceutical license, as one almost certainly will in 2012. Once one has done it, others will follow.

They will probably have to modify their spiel somewhat when e-cigs are routinely prescribed by doctors as an NRT. This will start in the UK, and then probably move to more EU countries. The US will be some time down the road because of the time and cost of obtaining the pharma license. However, the e-cig company (Intellicig UK) might well do some sort of a licensing deal with a US pharma company in order to progress the matter.

I think that it is better to have a vast number of consumers able to access the product, even if it is lacking in QC, rather than a very few able to obtain it on prescription. The end result will be a much greater reduction in harm. A proportion of those who obtain it on prescription will move up to the 2nd and 3rd-generation consumer models, in any case. There is some evidence that could be up to 92% of them.

 

[Bill Godshall]

rolygate wrote

It will be interesting to see what they say about e-cigarettes that achieve a pharmaceutical license, as one almost certainly will in 2012.

The e-cigarette prohibitionists will respond by demanding that all other e-cigarette products be banned unless/until they too are approved by government as a smoking cessation aid.

I can already read their press releases claiming "If the government approves brand x as a smoking cessation aid, all other brands of e-cigarettes should be held to the same health and safety standard."