Retracting My Support (?) for ECA
- Thread starter WillPower
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Jeez, Kate, can't we just look at the merits of someone's argument?
I mean, Bill might own millions of $$s worth of stock in snuss, but we'll never know either way - meanwhile, Bill's arguments lose their force, not because of their logical content, but to doubts sown by pointless questioning.
Fact is though, that his interests or lack thereof mean nothing - it's the arguments that are key here.
I mean, Bill might own millions of $$s worth of stock in snuss, but we'll never know either way - meanwhile, Bill's arguments lose their force, not because of their logical content, but to doubts sown by pointless questioning.
Fact is though, that his interests or lack thereof mean nothing - it's the arguments that are key here.
Sorry Joe, I don't agree, I'd just like to put it to rest if he is biased. Declaring interests is perfectly good practice for someone who seeks to influence the actions of others.
He's written some things that make me think ... 'hang on a minute ... how do you know that's true?'
He's written some things that make me think ... 'hang on a minute ... how do you know that's true?'
I can talk about "merit" as Joe suggested. This may actually apply to other countries as well (outside U.S.), helping you devise your strategies.
U.S. lawmakers does not look at "harm reduction" per se, but more accurately they look at NET harm reduction. All laws and policies have plus side and negative side. They have to look at the net gain or net loss. I assume UK lawmakers would do the same.
Every U.S. law or resolution has a clear definition of what they are referring to, like "modified risk tobacco product". The provisions apply to all products fall into the definition, unless there is a specific inclusion or exclusion is stated.
I will digress a bit, but I will tie all back in. According to Bill (his previous post), he has been pushing and lobbying for smokefree tobacco for the past 20 years. I am pretty sure he hasn't been lobbying for futuristic Swedish snus before they were even invented. He was pushing chewing tobacco. I am also quite certain that when he was referring to Waxman's "fraud", he and Waxman were talking about chewing tobacco, certainly not Swedish snuff.
Sadly, if he or we point to Swedish snuff or e-cig and managed to get the resolution passed by the Senate, it will apply to chewing tobacco and every possible crap that cig companies will come up with. The same resolution that loosen the restriction for e-cigs and Swedish snuff are going to be applied to whole a lot of things that can cause considerable damage. ALL U.S. LAWMAKERS ARE QUITE WELL AWARE OF THIS.
In short, the "harm" from chewing tobacco and other "safe" cigs, such as increased number of smokers, increased addiction to nicotine, etc. can easily wipe out any harm reduction we get from e-cigs or other "legit" harm reduction products. For example, Super-ultra-almost-no-harm cigarettes could increase the number of smokers, more than off-set the e-cigs converts.
Indeed, you should read the Burr/Hagan bill. If it had passed, yes, it would be easier to keep e-cigs on the market. At the same time, you could also sell chewing tobacco to 10 year old kid with little or no restriction through mail-order.
So, we need to think about "harm" net reduction, considering the resolution is applied uniformly, when we are pushing for harm reduction in the US or anywhere else has a similar legistrative process.
Keep in mind this: tobacco companies including chewing tobacco has a very deep pocket. Once the bill is passed, they can easily buy out or crush e-cigs and Swedish snuff, in a heart-beat. Rememer RJR spent $1 billionn (yes billion with B) in developing the premiere.
As for Bill having financial support from chewing tobacco, it should be somewhat evident to at least people in the U.S. Tobacco reward their advocates and employees very well (because frankly many of them get treated badly everywhere else for their job). If Bill pushed for chewing tobacco, calling orgs like American Cancer Society a fraud, for 20 years, and he didn't get paid, I am not sure what to call that or what it says about Bill Godshall. Well actually I know and most American know.
Really? He didn't even get paid? For 20 years of doing that?
You know what I mean...I've put in many years of voluntary work myself - work I believe in that gives me no financial reward. I can believe someone would and could do that.
Assumptions or suggestions are being made without any supporting evidence either way.
Any 'expert' or person in position of influence can be expected to abide by ethical standards and clarify any vested interests. Unconditional support is not wise when so much could be at stake. I hope that Bill feels he can clear this up for us so we can get on with real business.
Assumptions or suggestions are being made without any supporting evidence either way.
Any 'expert' or person in position of influence can be expected to abide by ethical standards and clarify any vested interests. Unconditional support is not wise when so much could be at stake. I hope that Bill feels he can clear this up for us so we can get on with real business.
All I can say is thanks, SmokeyJoe, for posting. I'm really having a hard time believing what I'm reading. I'm sick, actually.
Maybe later I'll come back and have the strength to fight the battle here that I thought we were fighting out there.
Maybe later I'll come back and have the strength to fight the battle here that I thought we were fighting out there.
I may be misunderstanding Bill's posts but what I'm getting is not that he is pushing chewing tobacco as harmless only less harmful than smoking analogs. I don't really care where he gets his funding as long as his information is accurate. FACTS are FACTS regardless of who funded the research. I also don't think there will be a dramatic increase in smoking (as Willpower seems to think) even if Big Tabacco were to come up with a better cig because there is so much social stigma attached to smoking and the schools have been pounding the anti-smoking drum for a long time. Most kids are not wanting to start smoking. The cost is also prohibitive for kids.
Just a coupla quick fact checks: Harm reduction usually refers to smokeless tobacco products, but some advocates include cigars and pipes. All are safer than cigs, although Willpower is more than correct about the devastation of chewing tobacco. I've not only read about it, but seen its oral destruction first hand. Chewing tobacco, however, is a far cry from Swedish snus, which has a 200-year history of safe usage. Check Sweden's cancer stats: Lowest in the EU, with a huge percentage of adults using snus every day. It's not snuff. It's not dip. It's not chew. And it's manufactured to food standards, with terrifically low TSNAs.
Same for nasal snuff. Not one recorded cancer in centuries of use. Not so very long ago, it was the tobacco use of choice among Britain's elite. Snus and nasal snuff are safe, safe cigarette alternatives (while admitting that NO tobacco is good for you).
E-cigs are an unknown. Untested. Unapproved. We all await definitive tests that show what, if any, dangers are posed by repeated daily use by nicotine addicts.
Just wanted to make sure the words "chewing tobacco" and "snus" are never used in the same sentence again! I hope Bill never advocates Skoal Bandit or Redman!
Same for nasal snuff. Not one recorded cancer in centuries of use. Not so very long ago, it was the tobacco use of choice among Britain's elite. Snus and nasal snuff are safe, safe cigarette alternatives (while admitting that NO tobacco is good for you).
E-cigs are an unknown. Untested. Unapproved. We all await definitive tests that show what, if any, dangers are posed by repeated daily use by nicotine addicts.
Just wanted to make sure the words "chewing tobacco" and "snus" are never used in the same sentence again! I hope Bill never advocates Skoal Bandit or Redman!
Sorry if I misused the term. But, my point is whatever works, let's say e-cigs and snuffs get mixed with whatever bad like chewing tobacco and whatever else crappy things that cig vendors claim safe. This makes it difficult for lawmakers to buy into (because no net harm reduction).
Incidentally, I located Bill's "ground-breaking" (?) research paper he referenced in his letter posted here. Not exactly a JAMA article--tha's okay. It happens to be what we refer to as a secondary source article. I will get the original empirical study article and see if we need to notifiy Stockholm for his Nobel Prize. Apparently, his findings contradict the current medical sciences and make them look like a fraud!
It does include chewing tobacco in the smokeless tobacco, especially chewing tobacco from Pennsylvania (like tobacco free pennsylvania). Skoal longleaf, beechnut, redman, etc. are all included with lovely picture of these fine products!
Incidentally, I located Bill's "ground-breaking" (?) research paper he referenced in his letter posted here. Not exactly a JAMA article--tha's okay. It happens to be what we refer to as a secondary source article. I will get the original empirical study article and see if we need to notifiy Stockholm for his Nobel Prize. Apparently, his findings contradict the current medical sciences and make them look like a fraud!
It does include chewing tobacco in the smokeless tobacco, especially chewing tobacco from Pennsylvania (like tobacco free pennsylvania). Skoal longleaf, beechnut, redman, etc. are all included with lovely picture of these fine products!
Last edited:
Are you referring to this: Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers , Willpower?
Yes I was. I got that one in PDF from another website. However, that was the one with just references to empirical analysis (a form of meta analysis) done in other study published in Journal of Oncology, I believe. Rodu and Cole, I think. I am going to have my RA retrieve it for me. Just curious.
Bill is including chewing tobacco in his smokeless tobacco. I don't know much about snuffs. However, no medical establishments in the US think chewing tobacco is safe alternative. Just want to know how he came to the conclusion that chewing tobacco is safe.
Will get back to you in a couple of days for those who are interested... Getting little busy here.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
I just noticed several inaccurate and defamatory posts by someone calling himself/herself WillPower on this thread (as I haven't been monitoring this thread for the past week or so).
Regarding the published epidemiological evidence, daily smoking of cigarettes is 100 deadlier (from cancers, heart and lung diseases) than daily use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff products used in the US, while snus and other low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products are less hazardous. Smokefree nicotine products are even less hazardous than snus and low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products.
Regarding the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579), I have publicly stated Smokefree Pennsylvania's opposition to many different provisions in that bill (e.g. provisions that would perpetuate the safer cigarette myth/fraud, and those that would increase tobacco marketing to youth).
But the Burr/Hagan bill also contains several excellent tobacco harm reduction provisions to allow e-cigarettes and recently introduced smokefree tobacco products to remain on the market, and to inform smokers of the comparable risks of different tobacco/nicotine products.
For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from a tobacco, drug or e-cigarette company.
Regarding the published epidemiological evidence, daily smoking of cigarettes is 100 deadlier (from cancers, heart and lung diseases) than daily use of chewing tobacco and moist snuff products used in the US, while snus and other low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products are less hazardous. Smokefree nicotine products are even less hazardous than snus and low nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products.
Regarding the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579), I have publicly stated Smokefree Pennsylvania's opposition to many different provisions in that bill (e.g. provisions that would perpetuate the safer cigarette myth/fraud, and those that would increase tobacco marketing to youth).
But the Burr/Hagan bill also contains several excellent tobacco harm reduction provisions to allow e-cigarettes and recently introduced smokefree tobacco products to remain on the market, and to inform smokers of the comparable risks of different tobacco/nicotine products.
For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from a tobacco, drug or e-cigarette company.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The first sentence of my last post intended to say that "daily use of cigarettes is 100 times deadlier than daily use of chewing tobacco or moist snuff".
Well I gather Willpower is someone that is trying to stop the forward momentum we have gathered here and seems we are being stalled by him.
I call out to end all discussions with him as he seems a wolf in sheep's clothing to me. Very anti-productive in my opinion and a waste of time to deal with.
Bill Godshall and everyone who has been discussing this for month's stay focused on our task at hand. We can discuss all this bull**** after the fact we have a smoking alternative to protect and posts like this does nothing to help the cause.
Last edited:
I just stumbled across this post...although I am a little confused about the point Mr. Willpower is trying to push here... it seems rather self righteous to me. If you dont like whats happening here...its okay to leave
- Status
