I dont know where you are getting your info. But neither dip or especialy snus is near as bad a smokeing tobacco.. Do some research..
PM & Reynolds urge FDA to support harm reduction
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I dont know where you are getting your info. But neither dip or especialy snus is near as bad a smokeing tobacco.. Do some research..
I think you're exactly right about their thought process. Anyone with a hint of foresight can see that analogues are dying ("You don't have to be a weatherman. . . "), albeit slowly (and good riddance!). Frankly, I think smokeless tobacco alternatives are the only way that the tobacco industry can survive. Adapt or become extinct (here's looking at you, RIAA and MPAA).
While I'm sure some people will like the snus and other things like it, people still want the feel of smoking, and the e-cigarette is as good as it gets in that department. I'm honestly somewhat astonished that BT didn't jump on this before. They were probably waiting to see if the FDA would kill it, but, despite our entrenched mentality here, word is getting out about vaping. Usually just as "those things at the mall," but average people are becoming more familiar with it anyhow; I turned on 10 or so smokers to vaping last night, hehe. Word spreads, and BT is anything but dull.
At this point, the longer they wait to jump into vaping, the less of a stranglehold they can have on the market because of all the smaller internet options we currently enjoy. I'll get out my crystal ball and say we won't go more than a year or so before we see their take on it, at least as a prototype.
Would this be good? I could see it that way, if it means the technology becomes more efficient and more accessible. Also, competition between the companies could drive costs down. But I could also see them trying their old tricks and go for a "planned obsolescence" model to try to leach as much money as possible from us replacing parts. And regardless, I'd be very surprised if some kind of taxes weren't levied to make up the revenue lost from analogues, no matter how healthy they are. Such would be the price of success, I suppose.
Or maybe I'm crazy and none of this will happen, haha!
Last edited:
Elsewhere you stated that the total nicotine consumption in the US in the early 90's from smokeless tobacco/nicotine products was 10%, while today it is up to 20%, and in Sweden, because of the popularity of snus, its over 50%. The trend is clearly moving in the direction of reduced harm smokeless products. It's not surprising that US BT companies are also moving in that direction.
I for one applaud BT's move into smokeless products and hope they are very successful. Now if they could only make an American snus as good as the Swedes instead of the somewhat ineffective camel SNUS I would be happy.
Last edited:
If thats true someone needs to teach them how to make good snus cus that camel stuff is terrible compared to the sweedish stuff. I actually think if Bt gets in on pvs they will be of the disposable non fillable type and only tob flavor maybe menthol and regulated nic levels.
Last edited:
BT is always in it to stay alive. BT may be siding with the e-cig industry for two reasons.
1.) They have every intention of monopolizing the e-cig industry.
2.) If someone, say me, were to bring a lawsuit against them for a disease caused by my years of smoking their tobacco products they will have another defense to argue to a jury because I vaped e-cigs, which of course they will argue caused my disease.
Signed,
Skeptical me
1.) They have every intention of monopolizing the e-cig industry.
2.) If someone, say me, were to bring a lawsuit against them for a disease caused by my years of smoking their tobacco products they will have another defense to argue to a jury because I vaped e-cigs, which of course they will argue caused my disease.
Signed,
Skeptical me
Good article in the Chicago Tribune that mentions the letter to the FDA from the US BT companies.
Tobacco truth goes up in smoke - chicagotribune.com
Someone in the media actually telling the truth about smokeless tobacco.
Just as a side note, I have seen no evidence that BT is interested in PV's. They have a much greater interest in smokeless tobacco. Just look at the aggressive marketing of camel SNUS by R. J. R to see where there headed. It is highly unlikely that BT is going to be messing around with e-cigs.
Tobacco truth goes up in smoke - chicagotribune.com
Someone in the media actually telling the truth about smokeless tobacco.
Just as a side note, I have seen no evidence that BT is interested in PV's. They have a much greater interest in smokeless tobacco. Just look at the aggressive marketing of camel SNUS by R. J. R to see where there headed. It is highly unlikely that BT is going to be messing around with e-cigs.
There is quite a bit of evidence that BT is interested in e-cigs, if the negotiations with Ruyan are any indication. (Some have said that this story is a hoax and was propagated as a "pump-and-dump" scheme). If this is not a hoax, then BT may have a case to argue that, as long as they extract their e-liquids from real tobacco, that the e-cig can be sold/marketed as a "smokeless tobacco" device.
I've seen a lot of people say similar things, some even going so far as to speculate that BT is trying to gun down e-cigs(of fear/greed/etc).
I truly wonder about that though.
BT might be somewhat ethically challenged, but they aren't exactly stupid. I'm sure PM and RJR are well aware of the new interest in PV's, as well as the fact there is no true dominant-brand PV/Juice. I think given the taxes/legislation passed against BT, PM and RJR could easily cut their losses and convert their tobacco plants into nicotine juice/snus/whatever else. (Potentially they could clean up in the market, ALL over again, and I'm sure they can see that.)
I'm far more convinced the pharmaceuticals are the new "BT" as far as political sway goes(and has been for about 20 years), and as such, I'm more worried about them nuking PV's than anyone else.
Personally, I'm somewhat happy to see BT getting involved, someone has to speak for the little guys, and right now; nobody's voice is (potentially) louder than PM/RJR's
Your on the mark about the pharmaceuticals. They have basically bought out the not-for-profit public health advocates, as in The American Cancer Society, American Lung association, American Heart association, Smoke Free Wisconsin and others. These groups have become little more then the PR division of BP. Not one of them even mentions tobacco harm reduction except to be critical of it, and that through misinformation and lies.
At the same time I also don't have a hugh amont of faith in BT. The snus that US BT have come out with isn't up to speed with what the Swedes are doing. They haven't proven to me that they are really serious about getting people off cigarettes and on to reduced harm products.
Stubby, I havent seen you around in quite a while. The problem with Americian snus is it is not very good so I dont think it will sell very well. For snus to be taken seriously I would think the target market would be people that want to quit smoking and the selling point would be all the nic, less harmful and no need to spit. People who chew prob will not switch to snus. As a snus user I like the fact that I get a good nic hit without having to spit or swallow a bunch of nasty juice. To me Sweedish snus tastes very good.
I've been around. Hanging out on the South side of town. Mostly in the nicotine and smokeless section. I don't get up here much.
That's been the main complaint with the camel SNUS as it seems to be made as a supplement to smoking instead of a replacement. It's weak enough that it would be very difficult for most people to completely quit smoking with it. The Swedes approach it very differently. There snus has all the goods you need to completely quit smoking and replace it with snus. It's unfortunate RJR hasn't done a better job, but I fear it was by design.
There has been talk around here about BT wanting to do that with e-cigs as well (if they ever do take the market over): reduce the nicotine level to the point where they become a supplement to smoking analogs rather than a replacement. That scheme would fit right into BT's agenda.
I fully agree, as BT is all about profit, not quality. Mass-market e-cigs (if produced) would be a cheaply made inferior product. Oh they would work (no one would buy them if they didn't!), but if the production costs were too high there would be no interest for BT.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Notes on this blog that speculate about (or profess) conspiracy theories by the tobacco or pharmacuetical industries to be counterproductive and inaccurate. Each tobacco, drug and e-cigarette company makes its own decisions.
Philip Morris not only competes against Reynolds and Lorillard, but also GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmacia, Smoking Everywhere and N-Joy.
Nicotine consumers make their own decisions as well, and there is plenty of room in the nicotine delivery market for many different product alternatives.
Philip Morris not only competes against Reynolds and Lorillard, but also GlaxoSmithKline, Pharmacia, Smoking Everywhere and N-Joy.
Nicotine consumers make their own decisions as well, and there is plenty of room in the nicotine delivery market for many different product alternatives.
I have a whole lot of respect for you Mr. Godshall. You have been in the forefront of tobacco reduced harm. Having said that, we could probably agree to disagree on the motives of pharmaceutical companies, but there are good reasons why I bring up the ineffectiveness of camel SNUS.
Its well known within the snus community that camel SNUS is not up to speed compared to Swedish snus. With the wide availability of camel SNUS in the US market it's important for us consumers to understand that. For most smokers it just doesn't deliver enough nicotine to quit smoking. RJR even advertises there snus as a product to use "For those times when you can't smoke". Many in the snus community have come to the conclusion that it was not designed to replace smoking but as a supplement to cigarettes. I haven't tried the PM snus but from everything I've heard its even worse in that regard then the RJR product.
For people trying to replace smoking with reduced harm products understanding the differences between camel SNUS and Swedish snus is very important. It can very easily be the difference between success and failure.
Its well known within the snus community that camel SNUS is not up to speed compared to Swedish snus. With the wide availability of camel SNUS in the US market it's important for us consumers to understand that. For most smokers it just doesn't deliver enough nicotine to quit smoking. RJR even advertises there snus as a product to use "For those times when you can't smoke". Many in the snus community have come to the conclusion that it was not designed to replace smoking but as a supplement to cigarettes. I haven't tried the PM snus but from everything I've heard its even worse in that regard then the RJR product.
For people trying to replace smoking with reduced harm products understanding the differences between camel SNUS and Swedish snus is very important. It can very easily be the difference between success and failure.
This could and should be true, sadly the FDA and the US govt are trying their hardest to make sure its not. The FDA trying to ban or regulate eni to the point its worthless like all the other smoking cess prods are. The US govt with PACT which will shut down Sweedish SNUS. Cigs are the best engineered nic delivery device known to man so are you telling me its beyond BT capabilities to produce a good SNUS?
I believe he is saying that there is no singular Big Tobacco. Or Big Pharma. There are individual companies with executives who look into the future and make plans to profit on the direction consumers move. These competing executives never, ever all get together around a table and conspire to follow some "agenda."
They also do not spend millions on development costs with the idea of marketing a product that will not win consumer acceptance. Yet, it happens. The thought behind Camel Snus is that Americans have a taste for sweet -- which Swedish snus is most often not. So Americans might take to a spitless tobacco product that tasted like a treat -- between cigs, of course.
If that is wrong, the market will correct that notion.
But remember that snus users in America are a minute fraction of the tobacco users. I saw one estimate that there are 2,000 harecore snus users. All the snusers in America could sit in an end-zone at a mid-size college football game.
Companies driven by capitalism, as Philip Morris and Reynolds are, have already tried their versions of e-cigs, by the way. Google the Premier, Heatbar, Accord, Eclipse, Aria. Smokers weren't ready for those products -- or the taste wasn't pleasant. But times change and products evolve. It's no secret that development continues on electronic smoking products by tobacco companies.
And it won't be those companies that set limits on nicotine strength or whether the products will be refillable and rechargable. The government will determine that, taking into consideration the general welfare of the population. You might not agree with what comes in regulations, but there won't an import choice once a decision is made.
Bill is trying to steer discussion away from futile "conspiracy" theories into what we need to do to assure our products become legal now and for the future.
They also do not spend millions on development costs with the idea of marketing a product that will not win consumer acceptance. Yet, it happens. The thought behind Camel Snus is that Americans have a taste for sweet -- which Swedish snus is most often not. So Americans might take to a spitless tobacco product that tasted like a treat -- between cigs, of course.
If that is wrong, the market will correct that notion.
But remember that snus users in America are a minute fraction of the tobacco users. I saw one estimate that there are 2,000 harecore snus users. All the snusers in America could sit in an end-zone at a mid-size college football game.
Companies driven by capitalism, as Philip Morris and Reynolds are, have already tried their versions of e-cigs, by the way. Google the Premier, Heatbar, Accord, Eclipse, Aria. Smokers weren't ready for those products -- or the taste wasn't pleasant. But times change and products evolve. It's no secret that development continues on electronic smoking products by tobacco companies.
And it won't be those companies that set limits on nicotine strength or whether the products will be refillable and rechargable. The government will determine that, taking into consideration the general welfare of the population. You might not agree with what comes in regulations, but there won't an import choice once a decision is made.
Bill is trying to steer discussion away from futile "conspiracy" theories into what we need to do to assure our products become legal now and for the future.
Hi Bob, I hope you or anyone else didnt think I was attacking what Bill was saying. I really wish the world Bill presented was true and it really is how it should be. The nic user should be able to decide for themselves if they want to smoke cigs, use Eni, use Americian snus, use Sweedish snus and the market should be big enough to support all of these choices.
SNUS use is low here in the US because most nic users dont have a clue to how good it can be. I think a lot of smokers would switch if they knew how good snus can be but for some reason people who chew arent really that impressed with snus. I dont know why maybe chew does have more nic but I cant handle spitting or swallowing that horrid juice. Snus has replaced smoking in huge numbers in Sweeden. The market potential could be huge here as well if they made ones that tastes good and had a good nic hit.
Bob I totally respect everything you say, you and Stubby are the ones that showed me my new way of life(eni +snus=happiness) so if the numbers of people who use snus are so low how does getsnus generate enough buisness to stay in buisness?
Last edited:
While this is obviously true, it doesn't disprove the notion that, when economic times get tough, organized business interests don't sometimes get together to discuss common strategies for continuing to make the money that they are used to making. This kind of business-interest repositioning can have either beneficial OR disastrous consequences.
What I am getting at, essentially, is that during times of economic uncertainty and/or societal upheaval (which I think we're in right now), SIMILAR competitive business interests often converge rather than continuing to compete at the regular level, in order to maintain as much of a monopoly on a particular way of making money as possible. We can see a mirror reflection of this if we look at our own community activism in trying to do something to keep e-cigs legal. In our case it's not strictly about money but about maintaining a way of life that we like. Only we are individual voices, they are corporations. Guess which side usually wins?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
