Smokeless attacked; e-cigs next?

[TropicalBob]

Note that when the Wall Street Journal did this Nov. 10 story on the rising interest in smokeless products, e-devices are not even mentioned. As topical as e-smoking might be in England, it's not even a whisper in America. Not on the radar as even the smallest blip.

It will be, of course, and just read between the lines of what the anti's say about smokeless and rest assured they'll say the same about our nicotine delivery system.

Smokeless tobacco becomes a target

 

[Grenage]

"These smokeless products are likely to discourage smokers from quitting by sustaining their nicotine addiction in the growing number of places where smoking is not allowed"

There was me thinking that the smoking ban was to benefit non-smokers by cutting out passive smoking. I wish these freaks had another bone to run with.

 

[Bertrand]

There was me thinking that the smoking ban was to benefit non-smokers by cutting out passive smoking. I wish these freaks had another bone to run with.

At least one lobby group involved in smoking bans intended it to make it more difficult to smoke, and therefore more likely to quit. That second hand smoke is dangerous was just an easier sell.

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

 

[Schroedinger's cat]

In October, NIH at Bethesda became "tobacco-free", which means that one cannot use ANY tobacco product on campus (even outside), and this includes smokeless tobacco. I believe that they have enforced similar bans on some medical campuses.

They are not even trying any longer to pretend that this is to protect others. I do not use smokeless tobacco, but I find this infuriating. The NIH excuse is that NIH is the "steward of health", and this is part of an initiative called "following our own best advice". I call it health fascism, but that's another matter....

Tobacco-Free NIH - National Institutes of Health Tobacco-Free Campus Policy

 

[dc2k08]

Battle ahead for 'cigarette pack' books | UK news | The Guardian

came across that story on my travels yesterday while i was reading some design blogs. it's also semi-related to e-cigs in so far as it describes how British American Tobacco (BAC) went super-nova on a publishing house who had the idea of packaging some of their titles as a large pack of cigarettes in an attempt to market them to folks who were reeling from the smoking ban. one design was too familiar to one one of BAC's brands (in the picture) so they decided to put their foot in.

e-cig sellers take note: dont play off a ciggie brand in an attempt to be cute. it'll back-fire biggo.

 

[e-pipeman]

Sadly when Gordon Brown realises that e-cigs are losing him revenue they will be banned. He won't ban tobacco despite the Government's pious priggish pleading about the health of Britain because , if he did, the exchequer would be even emptier.

 

[dc2k08]

nah, they'll just start taxing your piss.

 

[Dr. Russell Fell]

Battle ahead for 'cigarette pack' books | UK news | The Guardian

came across that story on my travels yesterday while i was reading some design blogs. it's also semi-related to e-cigs in so far as it describes how British American Tobacco (BAC) went super-nova on a publishing house who had the idea of packaging some of their titles as a large pack of cigarettes in an attempt to market them to folks who were reeling from the smoking ban. one design was too familiar to one one of BAC's brands (in the picture) so they decided to put their foot in.

e-cig sellers take note: dont play off a ciggie brand in an attempt to be cute. it'll back-fire biggo.

I doubt BAC will win that case. Besides, those books are rather brilliant in design.

 

[dc2k08]

i dont think so doc, big smoke are not likely to start something they could loose. trade-mark law is very strict and im sure they are well versed.

 

[e-pipeman]

nah, they'll just start taxing your piss.

I'm sure that means something, or was intended to. Please enlighten me.

 

[dc2k08]

if your .gov feels it need more revenue, they'll just increase taxes elsewhere or invent a new tax (on your piss) thatsall..sorry if i was too crude.

 

[e-pipeman]

Crude can be great - just didn't get your point (too brief for me)

 

[dazzer1975]

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

Absolutely, I have wished that in the u.k. they would just outright ban it.

The trouble then though, is that they would lose billions from the taxation hence they don't... outright hypocrites.

 

[edisme518123]

I say remove the restrictions and let natural selection do the work.

Seriously though, I'm damn tired of other people telling me what I can and can't do with myself. (Without harming others of course).

 

[Schroedinger's cat]

I have no problem with this. I would like to see tobacco banned completely, since it would be easier for me to stay off it.

Well, then alcohol should be banned so as not to tempt alcoholics, and gambling as well. Why not ban all forms of candy and fast food, too? In fact, this would be a slippery slope with no end in sight, with the potential to ban just about everything, the e-cigarettes being among the first....

Personally, just as the previous poster, I would rather that people stopped telling me what to do or not, as long as I only harm myself. I am really tired of this health fascism attitude.

I am pretty healthy, and my only "violation" is smoking (now substantially reduced thank to the e-cigarettes). However, if I had to be forced to live in a world where only healthy things were allowed, I'd be terribly unhappy -and so would most people, I believe.

 

[dazzer1975]

The point is that while lobby groups and governments persecute smokers, where we can smoke, who with, when etc they are marginalising a legal to buy and use product.

The fact of the matter is they won't ban it until smokers are so few in number that tax revenue wont be affected.

At the moment while it is still legally available to buy and use, yet is heavily restricted where it can be used (there are even some outdoor spaces where smoking can not occur) then they are showing themselves to be the hypocrites that they are.

If they really wanted to take a principled stand on tobacco smoking as a result of its long proven disastrous effects on health then they would just ban the substance outright.

The fact that they don't should be pissing you off too as obviously the social castigation of smokers is derived as a result of a fear of losing tax revenue and the arguments they use to justify the almost criminalisation of smokers are false and meaningless.

I would rather they did things motivated by principles and follow it out to the logical conclusion than spout a load of tripe about health but put tax revenue first.

Politics should be about beliefs and convictions, not wishy washy self serving crap. Just ban it if that's what they want.

 

[Bertrand]

Well, then alcohol should be banned so as not to tempt alcoholics, and gambling as well. Why not ban all forms of candy and fast food, too? In fact, this would be a slippery slope with no end in sight, with the potential to ban just about everything, the e-cigarettes being among the first....

hehe. Was speaking purely selfishly. Better than recent actual encroachments on free speech and habeas corpus, though. Probably people would get more upset if you took away their McDonalds.

 

[e-pipeman]

If they really wanted to take a principled stand on tobacco smoking as a result of its long proven disastrous effects on health then they would just ban the substance outright.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Schroedinger's cat]

hehe. Was speaking purely selfishly. Better than recent actual encroachments on free speech and habeas corpus, though. Probably people would get more upset if you took away their McDonalds.

I agree with you. There have been some worse things going on, using the excuse of national security. I sure hope we'll see the end of that with the next administration.

 

[Schroedinger's cat]

Several years ago in Italy they had a strike of the people who put the little "state monopoly" stamp on the cigarette packs (you can't sell cigarettes legally wihtout them). There was a shortage of cigarettes for a few days, and some smokers were getting really antsy. However, a special interruption in the strike was organized to prepare shipments to prisons and psychiatric hospitals, as the situation in those two types of institution was getting really really tense....

Beyond the lost revenue aspect, banning things really is not a good solution for something so widespread (see prohibitionism), even if it is done to show principle and coherence. On the other hand, the kind of war of attrition waged against smokers (which infuriates me) may end up having a very similar impact, without all the bad side effects of making tobacco outright illegal. Maybe there is method in this strategy....