Smokefree Wisconsin at it again

[kristin]

Complaining about smokeless tobacco:

This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes This product can cause mouth cancer This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss

The implication here is that you can dance the night away with Snus in your mouth and never have to go out for a cigarette and miss you favorite song.

http://smokefreewisconsin.blogspot.com/2010/05/bigbold-warnings.html

My comment (probably won't get approved, though)

"The implication here is that you can dance the night away with Snus in your mouth and never have to go out for a cigarette...."
And WHY that is a bad thing? If they are using snus (which is scientifically shown to be up to 98% less dangerous than smoking tobacco) instead of smoking, wouldn't that be better for the smoker's health? Especially if they would already be smoking?

I understand you want everyone to avoid tobacco products completely, but that isn't going to happen. If offered the choice between deadly tobacco smoke and the far safer smokeless tobacco products, why lie to them and tell them smokeless products are just as bad? All you are doing is discouraging the use of a far deadlier product, because people will think they may as well keep smoking.

Granted, we don't want kids to start using tobacco products, but by misrepresenting the comparative safety of smokeless alternatives, you are exposing actual smokers to far greater risks.

 

[Bobnoxious]

Complaining about smokeless tobacco:

My comment (probably won't get approved, though)

All you are doing is discouraging the use of a far deadlier product, because people will think they may as well keep smoking.

I think you may have reversed this sentence.....

 

[kristin]

Oops - guess I shouldn't type while angry! lol Meant to say "encouraging"

 

[beebopnjazz]

Complaining about smokeless tobacco:





SmokeFree Wisconsin: Big...Bold.... WARNINGS

My comment (probably won't get approved, though)

Kristin - can you edit your comments?

"All you are doing is discouraging the use of a far deadlier product, because people will think they may as well keep smoking."

Shouldn't that be "en"couraging the use of a far deadlier product....? Or discouraging the use of a reduced harm product....?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

 

[beebopnjazz]

Oops - everyone type at once! LOL

 

[kristin]

Kristin - can you edit your comments?

"All you are doing is discouraging the use of a far deadlier product, because people will think they may as well keep smoking."

Shouldn't that be "en"couraging the use of a far deadlier product....? Or discouraging the use of a reduced harm product....?

Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Meh, wish I could! He probably won't post is anyhow. Hopefully, with my last sentence, if he does post it, people will know what I was trying to say!

 

[TropicalBob]

Thanks for the tip off, Kristin. I posted:

Anyone familiar with The Swedish Experience -- more than a decade of snus use by a broad population -- would not agree that warnings appropriate for chew tobacco are equally applicable to snus. They are not, and science says so. I quit cigarettes by moving to snus four years ago. I also use electronic cigarettes, to satisfy the habit part of my smoking past. Both of these alternatives are far, far safer than smoking, and my health improvements documented since I quit cigarettes are testimony to that fact. Note that I tried every FDA-approved NRT product -- every one -- with no success. Don't you think it's better for a person to use a snus at a dance than to take breaks to smoke cigarettes? If you don't, please do some research and change your position before you condemn a valuable way off cigarettes.

 

[Posidon]

Luckily they have a Facebook page which is wide opened (just 'like' the group).
SmokeFree Wisconsin | Facebook

We also have access to 9,407 people who are part of their group. Maybe their followers need to be sent some information?

Looks like they respond to comments as well.

Tobacco Control is a public health issue. The framework of tobacco control is ELIMINATE harm, not lessen suffering, or reduce suffering.
Harm reduction could apply to people who self-injury but tobacco when used as directed causes death and disease.

 

[Vocalek]

I had to (*UGH*) click the Like button in order to post, but I just had to leave a response to that one (My apology to Mike Siegel for borrowing his analogy).

Public Health groups should push to outlaw seat belts, which only reduce, not eliminate, the harm from traffic accidents. Instead, public health should demand that autos be eliminated.

P.S. I know that someone will accuse me of sarcasm, but the above is actually an example of irony.

 

[Posidon]

My first post got deleted. I'm going to post each and every day on their board.

Thousands of people have quit smoking using the electronic cigarette. Many will return to smoking traditional cigarettes if they ban the electronic cigarette. Support the electronic cigarette by signing the petition to help stop the ban.
E-Cigarettes Save Lives - A Petition for Policy Change

 

[Posidon]

I found a Michigan Smoke Free page on Facebook as well. This one has almost 150,000 people in it.

Michigan going smoke-free May 1st, 2010 | Facebook

 

[PlanetScribbles]

"... public health has a duty and responsibility to "do no harm.""

It's not going to happen in the real world. IRL, the best option is to welcome the least harmful substitute available. We don't live in an ideal world, so it is folly to aim for such.

That was my post, for what it's worth. It is stupid to aim for something that is just not going to happen. There will always be smokers, most of which cannot just quit outright.

 

[Stubby]

My first post got deleted. I'm going to post each and every day on their board.

SmokeFree Wisconsin often deletes what I post on there Facebook page. I just keep on reposting and eventually it sticks. For about a year they have not posted anything on their main blog page. That started last April when they had an article claiming PV's where a plot by big tobacco to get children smoking. That got blasted by many comments showing the absurdity of it. Perhaps they have recently changed their policy.

 

[Vocalek]

I saw that! I wondered where it disappeared to.

 

[Vocalek]

This one is good, but I doubt it will last long. It has been up for 20 minutes.

Alan Selk So let me get this straight. SFW doesn't want people who have been unable to quit smoking switching to tobacco/nicotine products that are at least 98% less harmful then smoking. In the process you are misleading and killing millions of people, and you consider this ethical. That appears to be what you're saying.

I would like to know in what alternative universe lying and misleading the public and murdering millions of people is considered ethical behavior?

You rock, Alan.

 

[Stubby]

I found a Michigan Smoke Free page on Facebook as well. This one has almost 150,000 people in it.

Michigan going smoke-free May 1st, 2010 | Facebook

I checked out the Smoke Free Michigan main site and they are not nearly as bad as Wisconsin. Just a two bit site with some links to news stories. No comments on anything. Apparently they don't have the suitcases full of money from pharmaceutical companies that WI has.

 

[Drozd]

I checked out the Smoke Free Michigan main site and they are not nearly as bad as Wisconsin. Just a two bit site with some links to news stories. No comments on anything. Apparently they don't have the suitcases full of money from pharmaceutical companies that WI has.

actually Michigan got about half what Wisconsin did for tobacco settlement monies...AND both states have sold out their tobacco settlement monies (that go to smoking cessasion and prevention measures) and I'd guess that SFW is pissy about it (they get less money(because who runs the stop smoking programs?)) and the state is already getting less than half of what they did last year for anti programs....and since settlement monies are based on tobacco revenues....less smoking means less money for them... though the taxes in WI seem quite skewed against other tobacco products over cigarettes to begin with...

maybe this info will help someone who's following the money:

Tobacco Control Appropriations
Wisconsin allocated $6,850,000 for tobacco prevention and cessation programs in FY2010 (July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010) from the state general fund. This is the first year of the FY2010-FY2011 biennium. In FY2009, $15,250,000 was allocated.

FY2010-FY2011 Biennial Budget (A.B. 75) enacted 6/29/09 and effective 7/1/09 (FY2010) & 7/1/10 (FY2011).



Note: The rights to virtually all of Wisconsin’s Master Settlement Agreement payments have been sold as bonds through non-stock corporations or limited liability companies organized by the state Secretary of Administration to obtain a much smaller lump sum payment up front. See Securitization section below for additional details.

Securitization
The Secretary of Administration is authorized to sell for cash or other consideration the state’s right to receive any of the payments under the tobacco settlement agreement. The secretary may organize one or more non-stock corporations or limited liability companies for any purpose related to the sale of the state’s right to receive any of the payments under the tobacco settlement agreement and may take any action necessary to facilitate and complete the sale.

WIS. STAT. § 16.63 (2001).

Tobacco Excise Tax
Cigarettes
Tax rate per pack of 20: $2.52
Date last changed: September 1, 2009 -- from $1.77 to $2.52
Year first enacted: 1939
WIS. STAT. § 139.31 (2009).

Other Tobacco Products
Moist snuff: 100% of the manufacturer's list price;
Cigars: 71% of the manufacturer's list price, not exceeding 50 cents per cigar;
All other tobacco products: 71% of the manufacturer's list price
WIS. STAT. § 139.76(1) (2009).

Revenue Collected
$455,722,000

 

[kristin]

I got my post on the Smokefree Wisconsin blog and this answer. I replied again (I'll post here in case it doesn't get posted by the moderator.)

His comment:

The studies of which you refer are in reference to Swedish Snus, a product which is entirely unlike American made Snus. Moreover public health has a duty and responsibility to "do no harm." The ethics which guide the profession do not promote "doing less harm."
Thanks for your comment.

My response:

No offense, Erich, but baloney.

If that were the case, public health wouldn't advise people to use low-fat and sugar-free foods - they'd be telling them not to eat it at all. People would be told not to drive at all, because seatbelts would only "do less harm" and aren't 100% safe.

Reduced harm/risk has been around for years in foods and other public health and safety, why not tobacco?

To tell people to just keep smoking, because smokeless tobacco isn't 100% safe make no sense. I know you want people to quit altogether, but that isn't what is happening with over 20% of the U.S. population who still smoke. By making smokers believe that smokeless alternatives are no safer than smoking, they will just keep smoking, while they could have been breaking their habit of smoking and reducing their health risks.

I'm not talking about encouraging non-smokers to use smokeless tobacco - that'd be irresponsible.

I'm talking about COMMITTED SMOKERS, who are already pumping 4,000 toxic chemicals and 60 carcinogens into their bodies and can't or won't quit. If they won't quit smoking, can you really argue that it isn't the duty of public health officials to alert them to the fact that smokeless products lack up to 98% of those chemicals and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke? (And we know it's the SMOKE, otherwise indoor bans would include smokeless tobacco. Or is this "TobaccoFree Wisconsin" now?)

How is that any different from telling someone to use low-fat products, which aren't as good as abstaining altogether, but at least LESS detrimental to their health?

Not informing smokers that many smokeless tobacco products are up to 98% safer than smoking is like telling a morbidly obese person that they may as well eat Ben and Jerry's, because low-fat yogurt still has "some fat."

I haven't checked out the Facebook page yet....

 

[Posidon]

I looked a bit more into the Michigan one. If you go to their information tab, the first link leads you to a site to buy the Blu e-cig.

Electronic Cigarettes For Over 50% Less Than ANYWHERE | LoseTheLighter

 

[kristin]

Don't forget, I usually post about these things on Wisconsin Vapers Blog in case he deletes them. I'd love for WIVapers to come up on Google when people search "Smokefree Wisconsin!"

So, if your comments don't make it on their blog - feel free to post the comment under my post about it! Here's my post in this: Wisconsin Vapers Blog: SmokeFree Wisconsin Doesn't Believe in Reducing Harm for Smokers