Reynolds targets quitters

[Bill Godshall]

Here's a news article about RJ Reynolds' new ad campaign urging smokers to quit smoking by switching to Camel Snus.
Includes my comment pointing out that FDA claimed similar "switching" claims by e-cigarette companies violated the FDCA and made their products unapproved drug devices.

Reynolds targets quitters
Reynolds targets quitters | JournalNow.com

 

[kristin]

Matt Myers said. "If a smoker does that, switch to smokeless, they'll be worse off than if they had quit."

And that's NOT an "insidious" manipulation of the facts? Let's completely ignore the fact that people switching most likely WEREN'T going to quit using tobacco in the first place and they would be 1,000 times worse off if they continued to smoke. And they'd only be very slightly worse off if they switch to smokeless than if they quit - increasing their health risks by maybe 1/2 to 1%. He makes it sound like they'd be no better off at all - that deception is much more insidious than what the tobacco companies are doing!

 

[rothenbj]

"Matt Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said that Reynolds should "stop its insidious marketing of tobacco products in ways that seek to discourage smokers from quitting and keep them hooked on nicotine."

"The ads are trying to take advantage of people trying to end all uses of tobacco," Myers said. "If a smoker does that, switch to smokeless, they'll be worse off than if they had quit.""

I wondered how long the ?non-profit?"health" organizations would take to attack this marketing. Funny, I don't feel worse off than when I was smoking. Yet, then again, I'm using the real snus products as opposed to SNUS. Maybe he understands that. NOT

Sorry Kristin, some overlap in thought.

 

[t9c]

"Matt Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said that Reynolds should "stop its insidious marketing of tobacco products in ways that seek to discourage smokers from quitting and keep them hooked on nicotine."

"The ads are trying to take advantage of people trying to end all uses of tobacco," Myers said. "If a smoker does that, switch to smokeless, they'll be worse off than if they had quit.""

"Hooked on Nicotine". One has to wonder how many ounces of caffeine that guy drinks every day. Ignorance is the enemy.

Just saw this story on the local news. They ended by saying, "let's not forget that nicotine is STILL dangerous."

 

[Vocalek]

Left this comment:

Let's look at what we do know about "tobacco-related disease". Between 98 and 99% of the cancers, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease caused by tobacco are actually caused by inhaling smoke. Nicotine does not cause these diseases. Other elements in smoke do the damage: tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created when tobacco is burned. In Sweden, snus products have been treated to greatly reduce the tobacco-specific nitrosamines. A large percentage of Swedish smokers have switched to this type of snus and research shows that they live just as long as people who gave up using all tobacco, despite the fact that they are still taking in as much, if not more, nicotine than when they smoked. Switching to any form of smoke-free nicotine, whether from smokeless tobacco products, medicinal nicotine ("NRT" products), or vaporized nicotine ("e-cigarettes"), reduces smoking-related disease risks dramatically. When you consider the extent by which the disease risk is reduced, even if every adult in the U.S. took up the use of smokeless tobacco, there would still be less disease than if 46 million adults continue to smoke. So Matt Myers can rest easy.

 

[D103]

I really hope this is not RJ Reynolds "backdoor" way of actually helping the FDA in it's fight against the e-cig by demonstrating what the FDA hopes to show- that the current court ruling opens the door, much wider than Congress intended, for a plethora of nicotine products to be marketed under the Tobacco Products guidelines rather than under FSPCA. Seriously, they had to know that the FDA would jump on the "quit smoking" claim and if it does help the FDA to eventually prevail against e-cigs it would solve RJ Reynold's concerns of effective competition.

 

[rothenbj]

D, I can't see where it would make a difference. SNUS is a tobacco product without question. What I'm wondering is if they're challenging the FDA to a battle. Smoking is not a disease, supposedly nicotine addiction is. They may want to exploit that fact. As it gets more and more difficult to sell cigarettes to a tax burdened customer, the tobacco industry needs smokeless products to keep their customer base. I can't believe they wouldn't want PVs legal. They have the ability and the finances to extract the nicotine from tobacco and potentially other tobacco specific alkaloids that would enhance their products.

I'm more concerned with BT working with the FDA to get limitations in place that make it difficult for these startup operations in the PV world to compete. They've conveniently gotten legislation through in the name of protecting the children that basically handcuffs the lesser players in taking market share. The PACT act makes it very difficult to get any tobacco products that don't come from a local retail store and we know whose products dominate those locations.

 

[D103]

Jim, you are probably right - I too am concerned about BT working with the FDA re: regulations, it is a pretty good bet that they will be involved in that process. There's no telling what kind of "backroom deals" will be made as this all plays out.

 

[IOU]

What I would love to see is RJ, and all the other Tobacco Producers, jump on the e-cig bandwagon and start producing their own version of pv's.
Just think of the money they could dump into the industry and the fight they could put up against the FDA.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's today's AP story that's a take-off on Richard Craver's article in yesterday's Winston-Salem Journal, which was prompted by my e-mail to him last week.
The Associated Press: RJ Reynolds' ads urge tobacco pouches for smokers

Unfortunately, the AP story deleted my comments in support of Reynolds ads, but kept an opposing comment by Matt Myers.

D103 wrote:

I really hope this is not RJ Reynolds "backdoor" way of actually helping the FDA in it's fight against the e-cig

As one who has been urging Reynolds to run these ads (urging smokers to switch to Camel Snus) since 2007, and as one who has urged UST to run similar ads since 2004, I strongly disagree. Reynolds is simply trying to increase sales of Camel Snus, and Marlboro smokers are their target market.

 

[kristin]

I like how they ended it though -

The CDC says smokeless tobacco contains 28 cancer-causing agents and is not a safe substitute for smoking cigarettes. But a 2007 report from the United Kingdom's Royal College of Physicians suggests that some smokeless tobacco products are less harmful than cigarettes.

"Since tobacco smoking is driven primarily by addiction to nicotine, but the harm from smoking is caused by other smoke constituents, the rational next-best option is to reduce the harm arising from nicotine use by providing it in a form that does not involve inhaling smoke," the report said

Awesome to see reduced harm getting into the conversation!

Here's today's AP story that's a take-off on Richard Craver's article in yesterday's Winston-Salem Journal, which was prompted by my e-mail to him last week.
The Associated Press: RJ Reynolds' ads urge tobacco pouches for smokers

Unfortunately, the AP story deleted my comments in support of Reynolds ads, but kept an opposing comment by Matt Myers.

D103 wrote:


As one who has been urging Reynolds to run these ads (urging smokers to switch to Camel Snus) since 2007, and as one who has urged UST to run similar ads since 2004, I strongly disagree. Reynolds is simply trying to increase sales of Camel Snus, and Marlboro smokers are their target market.