NYT: E-Cigarette Makers’ Ads Echo Tobacco’s Heyday

[Frankenmizer]

From the New York Times: E-Cigarette Makers’ Ads Echo Tobacco’s Heyday

 

[CRkfx1]

Saw this in my inbox this morning. I got physically sick after reading many of the anti-ecig comments, I had to write my own so I could feel a little better.

Here's what I posted:

I'm flabbergasted by the ignorance exposed by many the commenters here. E-cigarettes DO NOT MAKE SMOKE! They create a vapor, that is all. Prejudice and misinformation are quite prevalent around this issue. I find it surprising the normally intelligent and critically thinking readership of the Times cannot see past ingrained prejudices and do a little research before making blanketed false claims about a product they do not use or understand.

While disheartening that there is a lack of studies on the long-term effects of inhaling vaporized propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, the two primary chemicals used in the vapor solutions, common sense affirms these are FAR LESS HARMFUL than the 3800 chemicals inhaled through via combusted tobacco, which include arsenic, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, benzene, polonium 210, hydrogen cyanide, just to name a few. The list is long, having over 70 known cancer causing chemicals, toxic metals, and poison gases.

Up till two months ago, I was a life-long, 27 year, pack-a-day smoker. I have easily quit the combustion (smoking) habit and I'm steadily reducing the nicotine content of solutions I vaporize. I owe my life to this technology.

 

[DC2]

Saw this in my inbox this morning. I got physically sick after reading many of the anti-ecig comments, I had to write my own so I could feel a little better.

Fantastic comment!

This is why I stopped reading comment sections (for the most part) about a year ago.
I have reached saturation with respect to my ability to keep my blood pressure in check amidst all the garbage some folks spew.

It doesn't show on this forum, but I have a quick temper, and I don't suffer fools very well.
I have switched my efforts to other areas of this fight, and leave commenting to those who can still deal with it.

I think "burnout" is the technical term for this phenomenon.

 

[Vocalek]

My comment:

If e-cigarettes were a person, this article would be considered character assassination. This is not the first time, nor the first way that anti-harm reduction people have tried to draw a parallel between tobacco cigarettes and electronic substitutes for tobacco cigarettes (e-cigarettes).

The products were invented by a pharmacist who had tried unsuccessfully for years to quit smoking and was looking for a way to deal with the main obstacle to quitting: nicotine abstinence. Not invented by big tobacco.

In fact, it wasn't until the tobacco companies began to notice big drops in their sales of regular cigarettes that they figured it would be smart to get involved in the manufacture and sale of the substitutes. Tobacco did not become involved until late in 2012. The products have been sold in the US since 2007.

Nicotine does not cause the smoking-related lung diseases, heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. It's the SMOKE. Nicotine abstinence is the #1 cause of relapses, and it isn't necessary for achieving smoking abstinence.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you remove most of the harmful substances from something, it's less harmful than the original. This would explain why people who switch from inhaling smoke to inhaling vapor are reporting that their coughing and wheezing are reduced or even eliminated and that they have more energy and stamina. In other words, they are experiencing the same health gains experienced by any other former smoker.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This NY Times article (and the headline) promotes CTFK’s defamation of e-cigarette companies (as cigarette companies from many decades ago) and of e-cigarettes (as cigarettes), but fails to reveal CTFK has received more than a $100 million from drug company competitors, has urged FDA to ban e-cigarettes since 2009, and falsely claimed they’re target marketed to kids.

But then again, the NY Times has already urged the FDA to impose regulations on e-cigarettes "to protect the children", and from 2003-2009 the NY Times repeatedly urged Congress to enact the FSPTCA to "protect children from Big Tobacco" without ever mentioning that Philip Morris negotiated and agreed to the legislaition with CTFK's Matt Myers (and GSK/Pinney's Mitch Zeller), or that PM aggressively lobbied to enact it into law.

 

[Bill Godshall]

ACSH posted a sharp criticism of the NY Times article

N.Y.Times attacks e-cigarette marketing for...marketing e-cigarettes, successfully | American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)

 

[AgentAnia]

Excellent commentary from ACSH; thanks for posting this. Had my first big laugh of the day over this:

The “news” article featured quotes from the omnipresent foe of this technology and harm reduction, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids’ Matt Myers, who never met a cylindrical object he could trust.

 

[kristin]

From the article - I fixed it for them:
"...e-cigarette makers are opening their wallets wide, spending growing sums on television commercials with celebrities, catchy slogans and sports sponsorships. Those tactics can no longer be used to sell tobacco cigarettes, but are readily available to the (PHARMACEUTICAL) industry (that funds us) because it is not covered by the laws or regulations that affect the tobacco cigarette industry."

What about all of those DRUG COMPANY television commercials with celebrities, catchy slogans and sports sponsorships?

 

[Vocalek]

From the article - I fixed it for them:
"...e-cigarette makers are opening their wallets wide, spending growing sums on television commercials with celebrities, catchy slogans and sports sponsorships. Those tactics can no longer be used to sell tobacco cigarettes, but are readily available to the (PHARMACEUTICAL) industry (that funds us) because it is not covered by the laws or regulations that affect the tobacco cigarette industry."

What about all of those DRUG COMPANY television commercials with celebrities, catchy slogans and sports sponsorships?

--Especially the ones that tout the nicotine patch and nicotine gum.

And speaking of the NRT ads, why all the antagonism from the tobacco control industry directed at "dual use" of tobacco products and e-cigarettes, but not at the Nicorette slogan, "Quit smoking, one cigarette at a time"? To me that implies a message of, "Sometimes instead of lighting up, chew a piece of our gum instead."

Not that there is anything wrong with that. But if it's OK for nicotine gum, it's also OK for nicotine vapor.