(Singapore) Ban on new tobacco products
- Thread starter ezmoose
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"If I had been using one of these products, instead of inhaling tobacco smoke," he continued, "I might not have needed heart bypass surgery. We must outlaw all the safer products so that only the deadliest product is left available. That way, all the smokers will be required to suffer as much as I did. Why should we let them off the hook?"
Well, OK, I made up that quote. But...even if he doesn't realize it, that's the message he is sending.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The anti tobacco activists I know in Singapore are abstinence-only prohibitionists who stauncly oppose tobacco harm reduction products. I've been corresponding with them for several years about this issue (trying to convince them of the many benefits of smokless tobacco and e-cigarettes for smokers), but they just want to ban any tobacco product they can (but won't go after cigarettes).
I sent the following e-mail to the reporter who wrote this news article. Perhaps there will be a followup.
Your article at Ban on new tobacco products about Singapore's new ban on smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarettes (which are 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarette smoking, which have been used my millions of smokers worldwide to quit smoking and/or significantly reduce cigarette usage, and which pose no risks to others because they are smokefree) failed to inquire about (or expose) that the new ban on these products PROTECTS CIGARETTE MARKETS and will keep many cigarette smokers smoking (and dying).
So why does Singapore's Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan and MPs want to protect cigarette markets and kill more smokers (by denying them access to far far less hazardous alternatives)?
Comprehensive reports finding that smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and that many smokers have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco are at:
Switching to Snus Sharply Reduced Smoking among Swedish Men
Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on smoking and public health in Sweden -- Foulds et al. 12 (4): 349 -- Tobacco Control
Tobacco Harm Reduction - An Alternative Cessation Strategy for Inveterate Smokers
Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers
New Zealand - Report on Health Risks/Benefits of Smokeless Tobacco
http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/smokeless_tobacco.pdf
Royal College of Physicians (London) - Tobacco Harm Reduction
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf
American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco Harm Reduction
http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/20081026HarmReductionResolutionAsPassedl.pdf
And a new study at The use of snus for quitting smoking compared with medicinal products -- Lund et al., 10.1093/ntr/ntq105 -- Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that far more Norwegian men quit smoking by switching to snus than by using nicotine gums, lozenges, patches, telephone quit lines and smoking cessation services.
Similarly, in just the past several years, more than a million smokers have quit smoking by switching to electronic cigarettes, which emit no smoke (just a tiny amount of nicotine vapor). And there have been no reports of anyone being harmed by e-cigarette usage.
American Association of Public Health Physicians Petition to US FDA to Not Ban E-cigarettes and to Regulated them as Tobacco
Regulations.gov
Amici Curiae Brief filed by US Public Health Advocates Urging DC Court of Appeals to Not Ban E-cigarettes and to Regulate them as Tobacco
http://www................/Ouramicusbrief.pdf
This outrageous action by the Singapore government will kill smokers instead of helping them.
Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA, 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
I sent the following e-mail to the reporter who wrote this news article. Perhaps there will be a followup.
Your article at Ban on new tobacco products about Singapore's new ban on smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarettes (which are 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarette smoking, which have been used my millions of smokers worldwide to quit smoking and/or significantly reduce cigarette usage, and which pose no risks to others because they are smokefree) failed to inquire about (or expose) that the new ban on these products PROTECTS CIGARETTE MARKETS and will keep many cigarette smokers smoking (and dying).
So why does Singapore's Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan and MPs want to protect cigarette markets and kill more smokers (by denying them access to far far less hazardous alternatives)?
Comprehensive reports finding that smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and that many smokers have quit smoking by switching to smokeless tobacco are at:
Switching to Snus Sharply Reduced Smoking among Swedish Men
Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on smoking and public health in Sweden -- Foulds et al. 12 (4): 349 -- Tobacco Control
Tobacco Harm Reduction - An Alternative Cessation Strategy for Inveterate Smokers
Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers
New Zealand - Report on Health Risks/Benefits of Smokeless Tobacco
http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/smokeless_tobacco.pdf
Royal College of Physicians (London) - Tobacco Harm Reduction
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf
American Association of Public Health Physicians - Tobacco Harm Reduction
http://www.aaphp.org/special/joelstobac/20081026HarmReductionResolutionAsPassedl.pdf
And a new study at The use of snus for quitting smoking compared with medicinal products -- Lund et al., 10.1093/ntr/ntq105 -- Nicotine & Tobacco Research found that far more Norwegian men quit smoking by switching to snus than by using nicotine gums, lozenges, patches, telephone quit lines and smoking cessation services.
Similarly, in just the past several years, more than a million smokers have quit smoking by switching to electronic cigarettes, which emit no smoke (just a tiny amount of nicotine vapor). And there have been no reports of anyone being harmed by e-cigarette usage.
American Association of Public Health Physicians Petition to US FDA to Not Ban E-cigarettes and to Regulated them as Tobacco
Regulations.gov
Amici Curiae Brief filed by US Public Health Advocates Urging DC Court of Appeals to Not Ban E-cigarettes and to Regulate them as Tobacco
http://www................/Ouramicusbrief.pdf
This outrageous action by the Singapore government will kill smokers instead of helping them.
Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA, 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com
This is a doctor saying this, right? Doctor of what I have no idea, certainly not medicine surely?
Fighting this kind of bull is going to make our task difficult.
Last edited:
RE: Singapore - once again, 'follow the money!!' It would be very interesting to know how much the government profits from traditional cigarette tax revenue and how much the annual retail sales of cigarettes are in relation to their overall budget. I would guess that they too really have NO financial incentive to want their citizenry to quit smoking - and again, the zealots want people to quit, so much so they are easy to manipulate into thinking that harm reduction alternatives will simply "lure people" into cigarette smoking, especially young people. I would also love to know what "incentives and price deals" Big Tobacco has made with Singapore and other countries in exchange for their banning of harm reduction alternatives to traditional cigarette smoking.
With respect to this Singapore issue I believe it's much like beating a dead horse.
This is a society where chewing gum in public or spitting on the sidewalk will get you a ticket. At least thats the way it was when I was there in 1984 and I have no reason to believe it would be any differnt now.
The reason chewing gum in public is prohibited stems from the terrible problem they were having with ABC gum turning up under tables and chairs.
I also recall a pitcher of beer costing $12.00 U.S. at that time. I wouldn't know if a good portion of that was some kind of sin tax. One can only speculate.
This is a society where chewing gum in public or spitting on the sidewalk will get you a ticket. At least thats the way it was when I was there in 1984 and I have no reason to believe it would be any differnt now.
The reason chewing gum in public is prohibited stems from the terrible problem they were having with ABC gum turning up under tables and chairs.
I also recall a pitcher of beer costing $12.00 U.S. at that time. I wouldn't know if a good portion of that was some kind of sin tax. One can only speculate.
I was there in '84 too but "legal" wasn't an issue on my mind.
I just remember seeing the 19th century architecture being demolished daily like so much debris to make way for high-rise buildings.
I had a Singapore Sling poured out of a plastic pitcher at the Long Bar. It was that bad even then.
Great food!
Last edited:
My memory is a bit hazy but wasn't the Long Bar where the Singapore Sling was Invented? In any case I witnessed the same thing and remember enjoying a Sling or two in that beatuful courtyard of that old hotel where it was. In my case it was a Port of Call off the USS Midway. I recall people talking about the eminant razing of that hotel to make way for a new hotel tower. If we are talking about the same place you'd have to admit the rooms were in shambles but by the same token it's sad to see a part of history gone forever.
I may have to Google it..... My recollection is the old was out and the new was in.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
