Tobacco Harm Reduction Resolution in Kansas legislature

[Bill Godshall]

Smokeless tobacco Study Weighed By Kansas Lawmakers In R.J. Reynolds-Backed Resolution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...eynolds_n_1465533.html?ref=chronic-conditions

Interestingly, when you click on this link, the first thing that appears is a three and a half minute video entitled "Big tobacco Looks to E-Cigarettes", which is an interview with Wall Street Journal reporter Mike Esterl last week about e-cigarettes and harm reduction. And after that video is done, the next video is a several month old 2 minute NEWSY video discusses e-cigarettes.

 

[Placebo Effect]

It's unfortunate that the writer couldn't be bothered to use the word snus, Sweden, or e-cigarette anywhere in his piece, and that he used "smokeless" and "chewing tobacco" interchangeably.

The resolution itself is about "tobacco harm reduction," so e-cigarettes should also be considered when talking about this policy http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=ht...wEDAMM&usg=AFQjCNF_94rKdFteMQ8wPuJRB4dwuaTF2w [PDF]

 

[Placebo Effect]

The resolution passed out of committee today

Health groups pan committee's tobacco votes | CJOnline.com

 

[DC2]

It's unfortunate that the writer couldn't be bothered to use the word snus, Sweden, or e-cigarette anywhere in his piece, and that he used "smokeless" and "chewing tobacco" interchangeably.

The resolution itself is about "tobacco harm reduction," so e-cigarettes should also be considered when talking about this policy http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=ht...wEDAMM&usg=AFQjCNF_94rKdFteMQ8wPuJRB4dwuaTF2w [PDF]

After reading that article I was actually convinced that they were only looking into chewing tobacco.
Thankfully, after reading the PDF I can see that you are correct, and that the writer is terrible at his job.

 

[DC2]

And after reading the comments I am convinced that the public at large is completely and thoroughly brainwashed.
I need to calm down for awhile before I even think about trying to respond to some of those comments.

 

[DC2]

This is the comment I left...

Reading these comments is scary, and the level of ignorance being displayed is even more scary. Here are some facts for you folks, and for the person who wrote the article: (1) "smokeless tobacco" is not equivalent to "chewing tobacco" as there are many kinds of smokeless tobacco, (2) smokeless tobacco products most definitely carry different degrees of risk, with many of them posing no more risk than Big Pharma's nearly useless quit-smoking products, (3) people who can not or will not quit smoking for whatever reason should be encouraged to switch to much less harmful smokeless alternatives, and it is unbelievable that anyone could think otherwise.

If any of you reading this do not agree with any of the facts I just stated above, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what you think, or what your reason for not agreeing is, you are simply wrong. And what's worse, not only are you wrong, but your beliefs are contributing to the early death of people who can not or will not quit smoking. You may not care whether or not a smoker dies, but at least be honest with yourself and admit that you could care less about their lives and the lives of those around them.

I doubt it will get posted.

 

[Bill Godshall]

ACSH urged the KS legislature to support the tobacco harm reduction resolution

ACSH - Smoked-out: Science obscurred by public policy on quitting
Smoked-out: Science obscured by public policy on quitting > Facts & Fears > ACSH

 

[Bill Godshall]

The news article at
Health groups pan committee's tobacco votes | CJOnline.com
is about two distinctly different measures that were approved by the KS Federal and State Committee.

One bill would allow smoking in hundreds of thousands of workplaces where smoking is currently banned, and the other measure was the nonbinding Tobacco Harm Reduction Resolution, which simply urges the State's Health Dept to study tobacco harm reduction.

 

[KevNewEngland]

I doubt it will get posted.

I hope it does. Very well said, and to the point. I wish I could write like that.

 

[Vocalek]

"I don't see an incentive in doing this," Gatewood told HuffPost. "My largest objection is that if there is a reduced risk, what is the state going to do? Are we going to encourage people to switch to chew?"

Sarcasm alert!


Of course not, Sean. We're going to encourage the State Health Department to continue to hide this information from smokers. Think of the children! How are we going to pay for health care for them if too many smokers switch?

 

[Vocalek]

They published yours, DC!

 

[DC2]

I just wish I had gotten it in sooner.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Brad Rodu testified to the KS legislature in support of the Tobacco Harm Reduction Resolution. This is an excellent analysis of FDA's absurd guidance policy for MRTP.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/regulatory-purgatory-tobacco-harm.html

 

[nerofiend]

I have lived in Kansas all 36 years of my life. This state is absolutely terrifying on how things get ruled on. They have banned many things here simply from evidence they seen on a youtube video. The politicians here are hell bent on impressing the rest of the country and hoping they will see Kansas senators and the like as something more important than they are. They are all about there own self importance. If they see that some other state or big organization has decided that ecigs are bad then more than likely they will go with that. Kansas is a prime place to use scare tactics as they are either to stupid or to concerned with being like NY or CA to care or even consider any other evidence.

If the banwagon gets to Kansas then i can say with almost 100% certainty that no matter how much fighting we do they will not listen to anything but the ANTZ.

Hate being like this but unfortunatly its very true here.