examples ? of antz against big pharma interests

[trying]

I am curious if anyone has examples of news stories of antz groups taking positions
that oppose the interests of big pharma in regard to nicotine related products.
I do not think there would to to many since I don't expect the antz would ever bite the hand that feeds them

 

[DC2]

I've never seen it happen, as they have never had any reason to in the past.

But there is a new development that should really shake things up going forwards...
And that is the desire for Big Pharma to get their NRT products approved for long term use.

This is going to make the ANTZ change their playbooks a bit, because it conflicts with their current song and dance.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I've never seen it happen, as they have never had any reason to in the past.

But there is a new development that should really shake things up going forwards...
And that is the desire for Big Pharma to get their NRT products approved for long term use.

This is going to make the ANTZ change their playbooks a bit, because it conflicts with their current song and dance.

This can do nothing but help e-cigs, BP is admitting that nicotine by itself is not the problem. Quit or die will no longer be the only option.

 

[trying]

I've never seen it happen, as they have never had any reason to in the past.

But there is a new development that should really shake things up going forwards...
And that is the desire for Big Pharma to get their NRT products approved for long term use.

This is going to make the ANTZ change their playbooks a bit, because it conflicts with their current song and dance.

I was thinking along the lines of an ANTZ group using their favorite tag line "marketing to kids" to describe flavored nicotine gum which is , in concept, far more attractive to kids than any other nicotine content product.

 

[DC2]

I personally have never heard of an ANTZ objecting to any flavored NRT products.

 

[Bill Godshall]

For nearly a decade, abstinence-only (i.e. no nicotine use) advocate John Polito at WhyQuit.com http://whyquit.com/whyquit/LinksCAids.html (see many other postings on this issue at end of that article) has been criticizing drug industry smoking cessation products, and has exposed lots of drug industry funding conflicts of interest for most authors of the US PHS tobacco Treatment Guidelines at
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf

Several months ago, Greg Connolly and Hillel Alpert (at Harvard) published an article finding that NRT products were not effective for smoking cessation, and urged FDA to only approve smoking cessation drugs that are effective (i.e. ban the sale of NRT).

There are also many anti tobacco extremists in CA who do not support NRT (because they also believe NRT keeps smokers addicted to nicotine, and prevents/delays them from quitting smoking).

It is important to realize tobacco harm reduction advocates are fighting two distinctly different entities (abstinence-only prohibitionists and NRT/Chantix lobbyists/researchers/promoters that are funded by the drug industry), although many/most executives/staff at these drug industry funded groups (CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, ADA, ATTUD, Legacy, etc.) are also abstinence-only tobacco prohibitonists.

But while some abstinence-only prohibitionists oppose NRT products/use, many more abstinence-only prohibitionists have had a marriage of convenience with the drug companies (because the latter funds the former).