THR? Is this the best term?

[Scott_Simpson]

The catch-all phrase for vaping is tobacco Harm Reduction, or THR. It's always struck me that this is a poor choice of words for what we do because it implies that we are still using tobacco (but we are reducing the harm of doing so, somehow).

We are not reducing the harm of tobacco; we are avoiding tobacco altogether! Yes, we are still consuming nicotine, but nicotine is the stimulative element in tobacco (and the addictive one, to be sure), not the life-threatening one. In that regard, nicotine—in the amounts we consume—is more properly equivalent to caffine, and has about the same effect on health.

The phrase "Tobacco Harm Reduction" starts off with two negative words, "tobacco" and "harm" ... by the time you get to the word "reduction", the negative impression is already there and weakens the reduction qualifier.

Instead, why should we not refer to this thing we do as what it is, Tobacco Abstinence ... that has a sound that even the ANTZ will hear favorably, since that is ostensibly what they want to encourage? (Yes, yes, I know ... what they really want is the abolition of nicotine, but they know their case there is much weaker, so they choose to demonize tobacco.) Instead of sheepishly letting the ANTZ characterize us as dirty, filthy tobacco users who are trying to excuse their habit behind the weak-kneed claim of "tobacco harm reduction", let's take the initiative away from them. We can quite correctly say, "Hey. we're on your side! We want nothing to do with tobacco, and we're encouraging people to abstain! And people are doing it in large numbers, and willingly, because we offer them an alternative that smokers actually embrace as a matter of choice."

Perhaps we could take it further, and use TATA—Tobacco Abstinance Through Alternatives. Some great marketing possibilites there ... TA TA, Tobacco. I'm a Vaper!

Just some random thoughts from me ... what are yours?

 

[xanderxman]

The entire issue boils down to money. Those in BP making money from selling smokers pills that extend their miserable lives but don't actually cure anything don't want to see a way out of smoking. To them, vaping is very bad. If they can't sell pills then they make no money.

And the US government is run by money. BP gets a lot of officials elected through campaign contributions. The politicians do not want that money to dry up. They therefore cannot support vaping, even if it is in the best interests of smokers. Until the people of the United States wake up and take their Country back from the thieves that are running it nothing is going to change. You can call it whatever you want. If the politicians taking money from BP have to make a choice, you can guess what choice they are going to make.

 

[Drael]

As social policy, it reduces the harm associated with tobacco.

Harm minimisation/reduction is a familiar term that is used with all drugs, not just tobacco.

I guess you could veiw it as misleading on personal scale, as these are "smoking alternatives", but you won't see that term changed - it's too familiar in meaning and intent.

 

[Leatherneck]

Perhaps we could take it further, and use TATA—Tobacco Abstinance Through Alternatives.

Can't do it Scott. We'd end up with threads asking people to show us their TATAs. And while I appreciate TATAs, I don't think it will give the kind of interaction the mods are looking for.

 

[AttyPops]

I think THR predates vaping. It's a general concept, and vaping falls into it too, I guess. While I take your point about vaping not being tobacco use, the nic is extracted from tobacco and the courts have put it into the "tobacco realm" for FDA jurisdiction purposes so....