No place to leave a comment on this part of the story:
Researcher Stanton Glantz, though, defended the federal funding.
"If you want to control cancer, you have to control smoking -- and if you want to control smoking, you have to understand how the tobacco companies operate," he said.
Read more:
Taxpayer dollars used to fund study tying Tea Party to tobacco lobby | Fox News
...so I'll comment here. Hopefully the clipping service will track this down for him.
No, Dr. Glantz. If you want to control smoking, you have to understand what actually
works to get smokers to stop lighting up. To understand what works, you need to
listen to the former smokers who actually achieved smoking abstinence. As Judge Judy says, "Put on your listening ears!"
You keep denying that smokeless tobacco can help smokers quit, ignoring the fact that Sweden has one of the lowest lung cancer mortality rates in the EU, despite having a relatively high rate of tobacco use. But only 12% of adult Swedes smoke. A large percentage of former smokers switched to snus (a type of moist snuff) instead of obeying the "public health" mandate to achieve total abstinence from all tobacco and nicotine products.
You also keep claiming that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit (inhaling smoke)--despite the growing body of evidence that e-cigarettes are far superior in the ability to help smokers quit (inhaling smoke). You derided the 5,000 personal stories left as comments to the FDA's call for comments on Section 918 of the Tobacco Act. Apparently you believe that the "e-cigarette industry" forced us to write those stories. How many personal stories were submitted by former smokers that used FDA-approved products to quit?
You can't succeed in making the public very healthy when you do your best to prohibit smokers from using the products that actually help them quit (inhaling smoke.)
In case you're wondering why I keep adding "(inhaling smoke)" after the word "quit," it's because the so-called public health community has created mass confusion by using a non-standard definition of "quit smoking." When we say it, we mean it literally--to stop the action of inhaling smoke. When you say it, you mean, "to become cured of addiction to nicotine." That's why you believe it is a health claim when someone says these products can help smokers quit, when actually it is merely a statement of obvious fact, based on personal experience and keen observation.
