HeraldScotland: E-cigarettes hamper sales of stop smoking products

[AgentAnia]

Yes, they actually say "hamper"... My reaction: [sarcasm] Oh boo hoo! [/sarcasm]

E-cigarettes hamper sales of stop smoking products | Herald Scotland

Smokers are increasingly turning to e-cigarettes to beat the habit, with the market "booming" by 340% over the past year to reach an estimated £193 million in 2013, according to analysts Mintel.

Meanwhile, products to help smokers quit, such as gum, tablets and patches, have seen growth slow from annual increases of 6% to 10% between 2009 and 2012, to 1.7% last year, to reach a value to £131m.

So naturally the Scottish Public Health Minister says

....that the case for restricting the sale of e-cigarettes "make sense" and the practicalities of any such ban would be worked through.

 

[sebt]

Grrrrrr! That's my local paper!

Added a comment. As I'm a new Disqus user, it's still in moderation.

At least this article makes it clear (to the alert reader) what opposition to e-cigarettes is all about!

 

[Anjaffm]

OMG.... yes.. there is the reason, in black and white:
Protect Big Pharma Sales!

Oh and this a good one:

Mintel senior personal care analyst, Roshida Khanom, said: "Although e-cigarettes are largely marketed as an alternative to smoking, smokers have been using them to cut down or quit smoking.

Use an ecig instead of smoking??? Perish the thought!!!

 

[The Ministry]

Similar story on the Daily Mails website which suggests e-cigs now outstrip NRT in the UK (in terms of turnover - £193million turnover for e-cigs and £131 million for pharma.

*plays the worlds smallest violin*

Good, I say. Shows they work

 

[sebt]

My comment was moderated. I'm HOPING that this is because I signed in with Disqus, which doesn't allow you to specify your full name and location, and the Herald site demands that. It's not very clever to allow Disqus comments if your rules make it impossible!

Anyway, I've tried again using a newly-created Herald account. Let's see what happens. Here's my comment anyway:

The Scottish Public Health minister is wrong. The case for banning e-cigarettes - or even effectively banning the most effective models, as the EU has just voted to do - makes no sense whatsoever.

E-cigarettes are a popular, effective, safe alternative to "stop smoking" products. Millions of people, including myself, have used them and stopped smoking. They are also a popular, effective, safe alternative to smoking, providing similar satisfaction - unlike gums and patches - without the health hazards of inhaling smoke.

"But with the growing popularity of e-cigarettes, there is concern that young people may take up 'vaping' as a less harmful alternative to smoking."

What qualifies a market analyst to make such a judgment is not clear. What "concerns"? (Other than those of the pushers of stop-smoking products, who are seeing their income-base shrinking!)


And if young people do take up vaping, so what? Better that than smoking, which is (at best current estimate) 20-100 times more harmful. I don't see similar "concerns" (why is it that in cases like this, "concerns" just float about in the ether looking concerned, without being attributed to any particular person who might, er, actually have to explain and justify the basis for their "concern" in some rational way?) raised about nicotine gum, which is being heavily advertised round my way in a choice of _flavours_ (Oh My God, they must be targeting children!).

At least the tone of this article clarifies what is in fact the case: that opposition to e-cigarettes is all about protecting the market share of the phamaceutical companies' stop-smoking products, and has no public-health scientific basis whatsoever, apart from vague, never quite-specified, evidence-free "concerns" about young people.

 

[sebt]

Similar story on the Daily Mails website which suggests e-cigs now outstrip NRT in the UK (in terms of turnover - £193million turnover for e-cigs and £131 million for pharma.

*plays the worlds smallest violin*

That's a co-incidence.... I'm playing the world's smallest viola. Just two more people and we can celebrate this with the world's smallest string quartet.

My comment came through this time. It seems to be Disqus's lack of a real name + hometown that the mods don't like.

 

[rothenbj]

God help us if BP didn't get their cut of the booty.

 

[molimelight]

That article's full of gems, like this one:

"E-cigarettes provide a hit of nicotine - a highly addictive drug - and some fear they reinforce the behaviour of smoking, making it harder to give up in the long term."

As if smoking doesn't reinforce the behavior of smoking! And who are these "some" and why are they so fearful? I hope it was a J-School intern who wrote that. I'd hate to think someone actually got paid for producing such drivel.

 

[AgentAnia]

That article's full of gems, like this one:

"E-cigarettes provide a hit of nicotine - a highly addictive drug - and some fear they reinforce the behaviour of smoking, making it harder to give up in the long term."

As if smoking doesn't reinforce the behavior of smoking! And who are these "some" and why are they so fearful? I hope it was a J-School intern who wrote that. I'd hate to think someone actually got paid for producing such drivel.

The statement you quote is typical ANTZ rhetoric. "A hit of nicotine" which is a "highly addictive drug" links vapers to the illegal drug culture. "Some fear" implies a shadowy coterie of people (They want you to assume "experts.") who are in the know and who are looking out for us, whereas in reality the use of "some fear" effectively renders the sentence meaningless and irrelevant.

In most cases of ANTZ rhetoric, you can safely change "some fear" to "we want you to fear (even though we provide no supporting evidence)" and be right on the mark.