Smoking Replacement Products

[Vocalek]

Received an email today from Scott Ballin, a strong voice in the tobacco Harm Reduction community. He suggested "It is time to start referring to these products as Smoking Replacement Products (SRP's), to evaluate each one based on risks and relative risks and to set regulations for each based on those risks and relative risks (and intended use)."

He provided a link to this letter to the editor published in Addiction magazine.
FCTC BACKGROUND REPORT ON SMOKELESS TOBACCO IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH WHO SCIENTIFIC REPORTS - BORLAND - 2010 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

It is coming to the time where users of other smokeless tobacco products need to become as politically active as the e-cigarette enthusiasts. Otherwise we will find a day's protion of snus costing as much as a pack of cigarettes and its use banned in more and more places. Some employers are starting to ban all nicotine products. See this thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...40-tobacco-free-insurance-pledge-disount.html

 

[Stubby]

I have thought about why smokeless tobacco users are not very political active. There is essentially no political activity over at snuson, though a lot more so at snuscentral but that's a much smaller community.

Part of the reason may be that smokeless tobacco is not under immediate threat of being banned. It's a legal tobacco product and is well established. Well...... Swedish snus is not that well established compared to american style smokeless.... but it's still perfectly legal. The worst has already happened in the PACT act which made it illegal to ship snus via USPS, though still legal via UPS. Nearly all of use get our snus via internet shopping so that was a biggie. Of course we now have to pay state and fed taxes...... well okay..... there are a few ways around that...... but you get the idea if your familiar with the PACT act. Without the immediate threat of a ban it's hard to get people politically motivated. With the republican victories in the recent election there is unlikely to be anymore negative action for awhile like we had in the last 2 years. At least on a federal level.

A big part of what I try to do is at the grass roots. We need to spread the word about the concept of harm reduction to the people who actually need the information. We are not getting any help from politicians and most public health advocates. Trying to tell people about smokeless tobacco and snus is a hard road as we are working through decades of disinformation about smokeless. E-cigs are not under the same stigma. Even most e-cig users are misinformed about smokeless..... though that's moving in the right direction at least on this forum. It's not as bad as it was when I first got into this 1 1/2 years ago. I'm afraid the general public, even e-cig users are still badly misinformed.

 

[rothenbj]

The one fear I have is that there will be an effort to make it even harder to get Swedish snus in the US. I feel the anti's and BT have a lot of reason to make it hard on outside players to get any real piece of the game. We's seen it already in the banning of flavors, other than menthol, where the only people affected were outside the big US players. PACT also makes everything harder for us and much easier for RJR and PM since their distribution is already readily available. They may say it's about the children, but the Benjamin's mean a lot to these people.

As Stubby said, smokeless is such a hard battle, even among smokers. The decades of disinformation and the "spit" tobacco image is definitely a hill to climb. I think Camel and Marlboro SNUS will get some people use to the concept, but too strong a move to the better and more than likely safer Swedish products may meet with some major opposition.

 

[Stubby]

I thought about the question as to why there is so little activism on the smokeless tobacco front a bit more and came up with a few ideas. One of the problems with snus/smokeless tobacco is the way the snus forums are set up. The main forum, snuson, was initially set up by icetool. They make the icetool and stainless steal snus containers. It's now been basically taken over by Northerner who is a distributer. The snuson forum is essentially a part of Northerner and is very much intertwined in the forum.

This does not make for any kind of activism. There isn't even a section on the forum dedicated to any snus news/campaigning/or legal activities. It's understandable for a set up like this to distance itself from the politics. It would likely not look good for manufactures/distributors to get to involved in that side of things.

There is just to much conflict of interest as is. Perhaps to much internal politics would be a better way of saying it. What's needed is a clean break from the manufactures and distributors. Perhaps it's time to start up a new snus forum from scratch.



Okay, it's not gonna be me. I don't have the knowledge or time or resources to do it.


Hey Smokey Joe

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

A new forum, maybe one with a specific outreach mentality, is what's needed. SnusOn is good for industry news and tossing the ball around, but falls way short on anything regulatory or even much talk about harm reduction benefits. I've always had the feeling folks in our little section of this forum are better educated (or should I say more interested) in how it works and why it's good compared to the SnusOn crowd. SnusCentral is making a real effort on all our behaves, but their size is prohibitive to dramatic positive results. We need a plan... roth, you're absolutely right about BT. Whatever success they have in SNUS sales rides on the heels of what Swedish snus paved the way for. And their best interest is to keep Swedish snus at bay. If that happens, all snus will have a black eye, since BT SNUS isn't even intended to replace smoking. I'm afraid if snus/SNUS becomes more acceptable to the nay-sawyers, regulations might be imposed that would render anything more potent than Camel to be banned. Between bureaucrats and lobbyists, I'm afraid any good news will still be bad. Oh..and the thoughts keep coming......no no...my eyes are bleeding......somebody stop the voices......aahhhh.......

 

[Stubby]

When I first looked at snuson the basic mentality was...... lay low and hope no one notices us. Lot of good that did. Now it's just ignore it and hope it goes away..... not likely a good approach in todays climate. I'm pretty active on smokeless and ECF is my base of operation. That's not saying much for the snus forums.

TV.... the voices are nice...... really........ they're speaking right now.............


Send Stubby your snus....... yes........ just do it and we will go away.............. Promise.......... really we will.............. just do it.......... it will be much better when you do............

 

[Vocalek]

Would you like for us to set up a Snus Activist forum on the CASAA forum site? Welcome to CASAA - Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

 

[W Axl Rose]

I honestly think staying under the radar could be the safest plan. JMO

 

[WerkIt]

I honestly think staying under the radar could be the safest plan. JMO

Here's the thing. When using snus, you are already under the radar. Snus fixes the problem with cigarettes. Cigs are a very PUBLIC way of tobacco consumption. If you light up, everyone sees and everyone knows you are using. Snus is NOT public. Snus makes tobacco use private again. There is no way anyone would know you are using tobacco when you are snussing, as compared to cigarettes. So by means of consumption, snus IS already 'under the radar' because our consumption is no longer a public act, but a private one. We all know it too. How many non-smoking places do you visit in a week where no one is the wiser you are using?

For that reason, I believe snus will remain under the radar. The overwhelming majority of smokers will not switch to snus, which only serves to guarantee the cigarette taxes keep rolling in. However, I still strongly recommend ALL snusers get some tobacco seed and tinker with growing your own, over several seasons. If you can grow it and dry it and you have a crockpot, it is a very simple matter to make your own snus if the government somehow did decide to go totally nuts with under the radar forms of tobacco consumption. But if you read the threads at Snuson by the user justintempler, you can see how ridiculously simple it can be to both grown your own tobacco and make your own snus.

In the end though, I don't think it will be an issue, because no one has a clue we are snussing, unless we tell them, which was/is never the case with cigarettes. And cigarettes ARE the goose that laid the golden egg as far as taxes. Snus is not even a blip on that screen and still wouldn't be even if the tax on snus was doubled or tripled.

 

[Vocalek]

What if the FDA proposes a ban on flavors in snus to "save the children"?

 

[WerkIt]

What if the FDA proposes a ban on flavors in snus to "save the children"?

Oh I would LOVE to see that debated publically. Could you imagine describing the assorted flavors that children like, such as licorice, berry, apple and orange. Yet, given that ALL of those flavors are LOADED WITH SUGAR when targeted for sale to children and Swedish snus is NOT sweetened, how in the WORLD could anyone take seriously the claim that flavored snus is aimed at kids? How hard would it be to interview workers at convenience stores and dollar stores to determine how many times children requested nonsweetened licorice or nonsweetened apple candy in the past year? What would it tell us when store workers can swear under oath that precisely ZERO children asked them for UNSWEETENED licorice, apple, orange or berry flavored candy in the past year?

The only answers possible would be:

1. The Swedish snus makers are targeting the flavors at kids. They just forgot to put in some sugar, which even cereal makers like Kellogg's know you must do to entice the kiddies. We must therefore ban flavored snus, because it IS aimed at children, but the makers forgot to add the sugar to gain that particular market.

2. The Swedish snus makers are targeting the flavors at kids, but were too dumb to know the snus must have sugar to entice children, therefore flavored snus must be banned.

Of course for me personally, I LOVE plain tobacco flavored snus. I wish there was more of that variety on the market myself, but I could not personally wait to see the illogical hoops the antis would have to jump through to explain how snus is aimed at kids, when precisely zero children per year ask for unsweetened apple, orange, berry, mint and licorice candy in a year, or cereal, or ice cream, or cakes, etc and so on.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Would you like for us to set up a Snus Activist forum on the CASAA forum site? Welcome to CASAA - Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

That might be a good thing. It may never make a difference, but my torch and pitchfork doesn't seem the faze the walking dead of Congress either.....

WerkIt, I agree completely with your point. As a matter of fact, the "stick-it-to-the-man" qualities are one the big attractions for me . However, the anti world seems to be closing in and it advocates cavity searches. My employer has a strict no tobacco policy which was modified from no smoke specifically to address oral 'baccy. The rule is 1 warning for the first offense and dismissal thereafter through the length of employment. They know I use it, but they can't catch me. As much as I enjoy the cat and mouse, the ramifications are serious for someone less devious. Especially with the documented safety of Swedish snus, which should never be a cause for alarm, legal protect is still what we need. Many folks are getting fines or higher premiums from their insurance companies due to "dirty" urinalysis'. Sooner or later the anti's will find us and have us stoned.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

how in the WORLD could anyone take seriously the claim that flavored snus is aimed at kids?

Easy, they make up the "facts" they need and lie through their teeth, like they're already using to attack Camel SNUS. Not that you're wrong, but real facts and common sense aren't allowed in a FDA rebuttal. Rules, ya know .

 

[WerkIt]

Easy, they make up the "facts" they need and lie through their teeth,

Well they can't overcome the FACT that the overwhelming majority of products targeted at kids to be consumed by mouth are loaded with sugar and snus is not. They can't overcome the FACT that children don't herd into candy stores asking for unsweetened licorice or unsweetened apple or unsweetened berry candy.

 

[WerkIt]

My employer has a strict no tobacco policy which was modified from no smoke specifically to address oral 'baccy. The rule is 1 warning for the first offense and dismissal thereafter through the length of employment.

I would so get another job, then turn in my resignation and tell them why and tell them the policy is bull.....

Many folks are getting fines or higher premiums from their insurance companies due to "dirty" urinalysis'. Sooner or later the anti's will find us and have us stoned.

I am not personally opposed to that. I would be if I had only ever used snus. But since I smoked for 28.5 years and it can be scientifically and statistically proven that greater than average health problems can result from that, I would not necessarily be against paying a higher premium, personally.

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Well they can't overcome the FACT.....

Sure they can, they'll ignore it while they direct everyone's attention to sugar laden, fermented dip. To date, they've created an art-form of taking a Swedish snus question and answering with a reference to dip...or sometimes even cigarettes.

I would so get another job, then turn in my resignation and tell them why and tell them the policy is bull.....

I'm sure the day will come when that will also be part of my "exit interview/tirade". Until then, too many mouths to feed.

I am not personally opposed to that. I would be if I had only ever used snus. But since I smoked for 28.5 years and it can be scientifically and statistically proven that greater than average health problems can result from that, I would not necessarily be against paying a higher premium, personally.

I sure am, the majority of the population incurs health problems in later years due to partaking in some form of risky behavior in their youth. Be it smoking, lung cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers while living a missionary life abroad or arthritis and cartilage deterioration from the love of weight lifting. The past doesn't count for insurance companies, only the present and because of the anti-tobacco bull poo, any tobacco is penalized the same as if we're inhaling smoke. Ok, off my soapbox now .

 

[W Axl Rose]

When they test you, (anyone, insurance companies, employees, whoever...) how do they know if you are using an actual tobacco product, and ecig, or pharma nrt's?
I lie. When I fill out something and they ask if I use tobacco products I say no. The most specific any form for me has been (this was when I was in the er cuz I panicked about my heart beating to the beat of its own drummer) was when it actually said 'tobacco products and went on to say "cigarettes, pipes, cigars, chewing tobacco". I justified checking "no" because if they included so many, obviously they were not concerned about snus and didn't count it. Honestly though. If I say I am using nicorette or commit lozenges (which actually COULD attract children except for the crazy prices) how would anyone know the difference? Is there a way to test that?

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

They check for metabolites of nicotine, but can't really differentiate the source from Nicorette gum or Marlboro cigarettes. The amount found is where they draw a conclusion of the source. They can actually test for other metabolites to determine if it was a nicotine only source or was a 'baccy product, but that's costly and usually only used in forensics (like a life insurance company might pay for in the event they wanted to get out of paying a million dollar claim to the deceased's beneficiaries).

 

[Stubby]

Would you like for us to set up a Snus Activist forum on the CASAA forum site? Welcome to CASAA - Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association

I would be inclined to say that would very likely fail....... but I've been wrong before...... at least once that I can remember.....

As I mentioned earlier, the snus people need a place to hangout that is not sponsored by the manufactures and sellers. It just makes for strange politics. That would be the best solution. I'm on the pessimistic side for anything else.

 

[hittman]

I'm not against another forum but honestly don't think that I would spend much time posting on another forum. I have registered with a few others but usually make a few posts, forget about them, and then end up back here.