Philip Morris

[kiwivap]

I'm kinda Confused. What, exactly, is PMI doing that is causing Confusion?

Seems like they have a Product that they Don't feel falls under the Statutory Interpretation of a Smoke-Free piece of Legislation. Much like we have a Product which is/was in the Same Boat here in the USA.

Don't get me wrong. I have no great love for PMI or BT. But if there is No Smoke, why is OK for Us to argue Our Case? And Not OK for PMI to argue theirs?

It's taken some time to get vaping accepted here. When I started vaping there were literally only a handful of vapers and we were scattered around the country. Now I often see people vaping and it has become accepted. There are more vape products for sale here too, and people don't have to order from overseas for decent mods and juice like us early adopters did.

The confusion is caused because I don't think we're far enough down the vaping road in terms of people understanding the difference in these products. I'm not convinced Heets are a form of harm reduction. And I don't think NZ needs them. We have strict tobacco laws here - cigarettes are now packaged in plain packaging by law. It took time for the govt to appreciate that vaping was not smoking. I wrote the original post thinking very much about how vaping has finally become ok to do. I feel protective of that. I'm concerned by how Philip Morris work to shut down independent study of their product too.

 

[CMD-Ky]

"The Swiss study compared the harmful compounds in the air generated by IQOS with those of regular cigarettes. The study found that although IQOS generated many toxic chemicals at lower rates, some were much higher than Philip Morris claimed. It also found that IQOS produced 295 percent more of one hazardous compound than traditional cigarettes."
Big tobacco's new cigarette is sleek, smokeless — but is it actually healthier?

This can't possibly be true, PM using deceptive practices? Perish the thought.

 

[Letitia]

IQOS are far from perfect but are likely less harmful than cigs. The fact is vaping is not for everyone. We love it but it is simply not the solution for all smokers.

 

[zoiDman]

It's taken some time to get vaping accepted here. When I started vaping there were literally only a handful of vapers and we were scattered around the country. Now I often see people vaping and it has become accepted. There are more vape products for sale here too, and people don't have to order from overseas for decent mods and juice like us early adopters did.

The confusion is caused because I don't think we're far enough down the vaping road in terms of people understanding the difference in these products. I'm not convinced Heets are a form of harm reduction. And I don't think NZ needs them. We have strict tobacco laws here - cigarettes are now packaged in plain packaging by law. It took time for the govt to appreciate that vaping was not smoking. I wrote the original post thinking very much about how vaping has finally become ok to do. I feel protective of that. I'm concerned by how Philip Morris work to shut down independent study of their product too.

I agree to an extent.

I don't think we are Far Enough down the acceptance road to make Purely Scientific evaluations on Harm Reduction products.

So Much of this is still Clouded by BT pulling One Way, while Policy Makers with Tax Revenue and Voter Bases considerations pull another way, while Pharmaceutical Companies pulling thing theirs way.

And then there is the Average Media Outlets representations of "Studies". Where FUD and Half-Truths seem to generate More Clicks than Balanced, Factual, Unbiased Reporting. And just about Every study is Funded by someone with a Financial Interest in the Results.

As for something like that Naked 295% Statistic being True or Not? Or under what conditions this might Occur? No Clue. I'm not even Exactly sure what the Toxin is supposed to be? I haven't seen the Study referenced. It's just I have seen Similar Statistics used to describe e-Cigarettes in some Way, Shape or Form.

Like I said earlier, I have No Great Love for BT. But I do believe in HRT's. So I guess it is a Catch-22 if they come from BT. But are Less Harmful than the Normal BT Product Line.

 

[stols001]

I'm on the fence also, but I have heard from people who feel the IQOS could give them what vaping "lacked" for them, anyway. While I'd never be likely to purchase the device, I do think it's on the harm reduction continuum, and early testing, well, it is very early testing. But, I do kind of see it as a device that could be "transitional" to vaping. Messy, expensive, hard to use, maybe more harmful than vaping, but less harmful than smoking.

Gosh, if Chantix is on the market I don't see why the IQOS shouldn't be, and I would expect to see more products along this line (hopefully with "more" harm reduction attached) from tobacco makers, and it does point to the fact that there is more interest in harm reduction generally.

I would be surprised if someone other than BT could necessarily come up with such types of devices, as they do have more funding than many vape designers, it's just this is a tough market to be in at the moment. Period. No one knows what will really be happening moving forward including BT, I genuinely believe this, and genuinely believe they were "shocked" that their device was not embraced by the US. We should kind of "take heed" of that, because BT is a much more powerful lobby than "vaping" even aggregated, most probably.

Anna