Two older studies about clean nicotine - very interesting

[DrMA]

During some discussions on Twitter today, I was linked to a couple interesting studies from a member of the tobacco ConTrol cult. Worth a read.

Consider their publication dates, though. Makes you wonder why the inane opposition to ecigs, when the mainstream TC field was leaning in that direction as early as 2003...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747720/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15730554

 

[Oliver]

I remember the research well. I remember the calls in popular science press to "urgently replace smoking with large doses of clean nicotine." Then radio silence until vaping. In fact, the reason I started ECF was because that call was fresh in my mind and I thought: "well, here we go then...."

The interesting part, for me anyway, is that (according to my well-placed sources) approaches were made to the pharmaceutical industry to develop these products, but they expressed no interest whatsoever.

 

[AndriaD]

I remember the research well. I remember the calls in popular science press to "urgently replace smoking with large doses of clean nicotine." Then radio silence until vaping. In fact, the reason I started ECF was because that call was fresh in my mind and I thought: "well, here we go then...."

The interesting part, for me anyway, is that (according to my well-placed sources) approaches were made to the pharmaceutical industry to develop these products, but they expressed no interest whatsoever.

Typical sour grapes then -- now that the products have been developed and are catching on like wildfire, all they do is repeat all the ridiculous reasons why they were never interested in them. As if anyone intelligent actually cares what they think, at this point. They're the biggest villain in America, worse than lawyers and terrorists.

What a club: BP, lawyers, and terrorists. Too bad Warren Zevon is dead, I bet he could write a catchy song to that effect.

Andria

 

[Oliver]

Honestly, I don't really think BP is our problem - not saying they haven't lobbied against us, but that things wouldn't be much different either way.

The problem is Tobacco Control.

 

[AndriaD]

Honestly, I don't really think BP is our problem - not saying they haven't lobbied against us, but that things wouldn't be much different either way.

The problem is Tobacco Control.

But aren't they mostly on the payroll of BP, under the guise of all the "charitable" orgs?

Andria

 

[Oliver]

No, not the ones who are most influential. They're funded by MSA money.

 

[sofarsogood]

My view, looking at the money and reading a lot of news stories is that tax supported institutions who might be the most vulnerable to decliining State tax revenues seem to feel the most threatened by ecigs. My picks would be local governments, education and an honorable mention for academic research and medical research in particular. They pay a lot of attention to State tax revenues and compete hard for whatever their States are able to appropriate to them. In a lot of states tobacco taxes are earmarked to educatioin to strengthen the support for that tax.

It wasn't until I started DIY that the economics of vaping really hit me. I was spending $60 a week on cigarettes. Now I spend 84 cents a week on eliquid. Most of the $60 was going for taxes. That money is going away, probably sooner rather than later. There is doing to be a lot of financial pain and almost all of it will be felt by governents and their direct beneficiaries. The drug companies will do fine, everybody dies of something. The tobacco companies may decline or they may find a place for themselves in the ecig business. I think the tobacco companies are enjoying the pain of governments over this. I would be if I were them.

 

[Oliver]

@sofarsogood - you're not wrong. Not wrong at all - but the bottom line is that the only reason they have tactical manouvres available to them is because Tobacco Control is opposed to vaping.

If the mainstream scientific consensus said: "vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking, and 2nd hand vape is totally harmless, and people are quitting with e-cigarettes, and there is no gateway effect or renormalisation of smoking", how on earth would punitive taxation be justified?

 

[Oliver]

And, IMO, the reason TC is opposed to vaping is very straightforward and twofold:

1. Because they didn't invent e-cigs (although see the OP), and this represents a reduction in status for them.
2. Because the tobacco industry is a stakeholder

 

[pennysmalls]

Astounding. Here we are a decade after these articles were published with a product these two articles practically begged for which is producing the results they predicted and look where we are. TC has certainly changed it's mind.

 

[Kent C]

from the 2nd link:

"Fortunately, restricted youth access and accurate labeling of nicotine's absolute risks will dissuade many non-smokers from experimenting with it, while accurate depiction of its risks relative to cigarette smoking will encourage many smokers to switch. The FDA could take a series of small steps that might ultimately replace a large proportion of cigarette smoking with equally addictive nicotine products, without risking serious public health setbacks."

Flies in the face of Zeller's comments about 'net effect' to the population.

But yeah, they had a plan and abandoned it.

 

[rico942]

I was spending $60 a week on cigarettes.

Same here, I spent $250 a month on analogs, 3 grand a year, mostly taxes. Now I don't ...

They sneaked it up on us over the years, kind of like boiling the frog slowly, so he doesn't hop out of the pot ...

Its different this time around, for over two years I've been able to enjoy the recreational and health benefits of nicotine, without trashing my budget ...

I'm humming "Won't Get Fooled Again" as I type this ...

 

[AndriaD]

Astounding. Here we are a decade after these articles were published with a product these two articles practically begged for which is producing the results they predicted and look where we are. TC has certainly changed it's mind.

from the 2nd link:

"Fortunately, restricted youth access and accurate labeling of nicotine's absolute risks will dissuade many non-smokers from experimenting with it, while accurate depiction of its risks relative to cigarette smoking will encourage many smokers to switch. The FDA could take a series of small steps that might ultimately replace a large proportion of cigarette smoking with equally addictive nicotine products, without risking serious public health setbacks."

Flies in the face of Zeller's comments about 'net effect' to the population.

But yeah, they had a plan and abandoned it.

I think it's actually a case of, they had NO EARTHLY IDEA that something like this would really ever happen; they were playing "it sure would be great if..." with no belief that it would ever really come to pass -- so it was safe to build those castles in the air. Wouldn't you have loved to see the looks on those faces when they realized their words had come home to bite them in the ....?

Andria

 

[skoony]

"The past 500 years of tobacco control efforts demonstrate that nicotine prohibition is a practical impossibility for numerous reasons, state revenue being one of the most ominous."
From the second link. Right from the horses mouth. This has been all about the money.
500 years ago and now.
"Fortunately, restricted youth access and accurate labeling of nicotine's absolute risks will dissuade many non-smokers from experimenting with it, "
Again from the second link. What are nicotine's absolute risks?
This is from one of the most revered documents of the church of ANTZ.
( The 1964 Surgeon Generals Report On Smoking)
page 41
The habitual use of tobacco is related primarily to psychological and
social drives, reinforced and perpetuated by the pharmacological actions
of nicotine.
Social stimulation appears to play a major role in a young person’s early
and first experiments with smoking. No scientific evidence supports the
popular hypothesis that smoking among adolescents is an expression
rebellion against authority. Individual stress appears to be associated more
with fluctuations in the amount of smoking than with the prevalence of smoking.
The overwhelming evidence indicates that smoking-its beginning,
habituation, and occasional discontinuation-is to a very large extent psychologically
and socially determined.
Nicotine is rapidly changed in the body to relatively inactive substances
with low toxicity. The chronic toxicity of small doses of nicotine is low
in experimental animals. These two facts, when taken in conjunction with
the low mortality ratios of pipe and cigar smokers, indicate that the chronic
toxicity of nicotine in quantities absorbed from smoking and other methods
of tobacco use is very low and probably does not represent an important
health hazard.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/nnbbmq.pdf
I get the impression that those opposed to tobacco and now us are so blinded
by personal bias they believe their there position is so morally and politically
correct as to just rely on the notion tobacco is bad. Its all bad. End of story.
Even though their own research at times points in a different direction they
all sing the same tune. The money aside I am beginning to believe they enjoy
controlling people and jerking them around as a secondary reason for their
zealousness if in fact its not actually the first.

Regards
Mike

 

[sofarsogood]

I get the impression that those opposed to tobacco and now us are so blinded
by personal bias they believe their there position is so morally and politically correct as to just rely on the notion tobacco is bad. Its all bad. End of story. Even though their own research at times points in a different direction they all sing the same tune. The money aside I am beginning to believe they enjoy controlling people and jerking them around as a secondary reason for their
zealousness if in fact its not actually the first.

Regards
Mike

Governments find themselves in the most awkward possible position. Tobacco has become a government business because government takes most of the revenue and they have become very dependent on that revenue. The proper thing for them to do is excuse themselves from deciding about ecigs because of conflict of interest. That should apply to all tax supported institutions. Thanks to FDA procrastination that is what they are doing, for now.

 

[DC2]

No, not the ones who are most influential. They're funded by MSA money.

So you're saying that the MSA funding to such organizations outstrips the BP funding.

Who are the ones who are most influential?
Can you point to any reading material on this subject?

 

[DC2]

But yeah, they had a plan and abandoned it.

No one should ever think they don't have plans, or what some might like to call conspiracies.
I wonder how @stevegmu would chime in on this particular thread.

 

[Kent C]

So you're saying that the MSA funding to such organizations outstrips the BP funding.

Who are the ones who are most influential?
Can you point to any reading material on this subject?

According to the stats I've seen on MSA - unless that money used in 'general funds' are going to BP, most states are not using MSA money for smoking cessation - some of the biggest recipients use it for something else. Without pulling up the actual breakdown.... Ok.. .found a good article that actually speaks to part of what I was saying in the 'other thread':

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/13/233449505/15-years-later-where-did-all-the-cigarette-money-go

Cool for you as it's close to home - some re: Orange County.... but:

"Individual lawsuits by smokers failed because courts held people responsible for their decision to smoke, but Moore argued that Mississippi shouldn't be forced to pay the costs of treating smoking-related diseases.

"Things such as lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, low-birth-weight babies and others, we have to pay," Moore told NPR in a 1994 interview. "The state is obligated to pay for those for our citizens that are not covered in other ways, and we feel like they're caused by the tobacco products."'

wrt to the slippery slope and one step toward the police state. :- )

The MSA part:

"To show the settlement was not just a big money grab, Levin says, there was definitely a feeling that states had a moral obligation to spend at least a sizeable chunk of money on programs to help people quit smoking and to prevent kids from starting.

"So it was understood without being codified into the agreement that states would make a big investment in this," he says. "They haven't.""

and... found this interesting:

""What states have actually done has fluctuated year by year ... but it's never come close to 14 percent," Levin says. "There are some fairly notorious cases of money being used for fixing potholes, for tax relief [and] for financial assistance for tobacco farmers."



That said, while BP might not get much from gov't MSA (SJ can correct me if I'm wrong), they get billions (trillions?) in gov't grants to do their junk science studies.

 

[Kent C]

No one should ever think they don't have plans, or what some might like to call conspiracies.
I wonder how @stevegmu would chime in on this particular thread.

Uh... dunno .... Maybe you should have pm'd him