Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: The Conversation - Is big tobacco abandoning smokes for e-cigarettes?

  1. #1
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144

    The Conversation - Is big tobacco abandoning smokes for e-cigarettes?

    The S1mon Cheepman mouthpiece Sydney uni blog spewed this today. I did comment

    Code:
    Its a shame that Ms Freeman has to regurgitate the Sydney Uni PH party line
    on current innovations in harm reduction. This might as well have been
    written by Mr Chapman himself.
    
    Once again an attempt is made to conflate the vaping industry with big tobacco
    demons (BT only has a very small percentage of the market) so as to justify proposals
    for stifling restrictions on something that could save lives (just like was done
    with Snus). 
    
    The idea that BT has invested in harm reduction to encourage/sustain dual-use needs
    to be proved otherwise its just an opinion (and a pretty cynical one at that).
    
    Its been said that the take-up for Snus in countries outside of Sweden has been 
    very low and that is used as a reason for Snus restrictions, a kind of 'it wouldn't
    have worked anyway, so might as well ban it' reasoning. This I'm afraid cannot be applied
    to e-cigs.
    
    Over and over it becomes clear that the PH industry obsession with denormalisation supercedes
    any concerns over the positive effects that e-cigs may have on the population..if 
    it goes in your mouth it must be heavily regulated or banned because it just doesn't
    fit with our paradigm.
    
    "Pushing to allow e-cigarette use in pubs and restaurants means there is no need to quit..."
    
    You'll find that most people use e-cigs to cut down and then quit/quit immediately/drastically
    cut down tobacco use. You need to prove that people use e-cigs as a convenient replacement for 
    tobacco and that as soon as they get the opportunity they'll light up. The more people see
    vaping out and about the more will give it a try and the more people will be helped.
    
    I'd really like to see a piece written by Coral Gartner of University of Queensland as she seems
    to have a more pragmatic approach and seems genuinely concerned about public health and the
    massive potential for harm reduction in an imperfect world full of imperfect people.
    ..but hey it was removed, because its obviously so offensive )))
    JWH, Robray, sperex and 2 others like this.

  2. #2
    LNB
    LNB is offline
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,208
    I like your comment mate, but hey it goes against their view so of course it'll get deleted. I really must stop reading these bullsh!t articles,so much verbal diarrhea, all it does it piss me off.
    JWH and tugboatofdeath like this.

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,140
    Wow, your comment was so offensive I nearly dropped all of my government grant money. I am glad they deleted it! Punched me right in the academia. /s

    But seriously, I don't understand the insanity from the ANTZ crew. Very upsetting when they squish and hide valid and well thought out comments like yours. It's like when Renee Bittoun from the Brain and Mind research centre was dissing nicotine addiction stating how terrible it is... never mind that we know exactly how it works with the brain and body, it's almost identical to being a coffee junkie. Never mind that you're supposed to be a super smart adjunct professor totally good at knowing about brain things. It's obviously all a ploy from BT to hook the chidrens on vapes and graduate them to smoking. It's so obvious!
    JWH and tugboatofdeath like this.
    Words are fun.
    Steam powered and smoke free since January 2013.
    Addiction is bad, let me explain it to you after I finish this coffee.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney (vaping since Nov 2011)
    Posts
    2,144
    thanks...i actually made an effort to make it coherent and non-offensive (i really did), it must have been the first paragraph (thats my guess)

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Maitland, NSW
    Posts
    1,586
    Un-academic academics.
    There's a lot of it lately.
    Left wing, interventionist, nanny staters.
    There, I said it.
    I feel so much better now.

  6. #6
    JWH
    JWH is offline
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    1,650
    Love it, great ideas in your comment- sure more people out and about using their ecigs creates interest.
    I personally made the choice to swap vaping for analogs. I can be around people that smoke and never feel like I need one.
    There was a pole here asking what type of vaper you were a little while ago, cbf d finding it something to the effect of
    Exclusive user of VAPEING.....
    Dual,user....
    And another one I can't quite remember- the pole found that majority of voters were exclusive vapers :/
    Not sure what my point is, just thought it was relevant in some way shape or form
    Thank you for sharing your article, and how,it was treated. I agree with Robray censorship plays a big part in information getting out about vaping, we all know why
    But yep cheers

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    Just want to point out that Clive Bates, Bill Godshall, and Carl Phillips have all responded to this article.

    Clive Bates:

    The concerns that Freeman raises about the tobacco industry are only valid concerns if they increase cigarette consumption over what would happen otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever from anywhere that this is the case. The evidence that there is points the other way - and that should not really surprise anyone. To the smoker, the e-cigarette provides a strong value proposition: it provides many of the attributes of smoking (nicotine hit, behavioural similarities, recreational branding), some additional benefits (personalisation, variety) and almost none of the harms to the user or bystanders - and usually at lower costs. It has come from bottom up interactions between smokers and producers without any blessing from public health or payments from taxpayers. It is a disruptive phenomenon - both to the tobacco industry, and as Freeman demonstrates, to the public health establishment's model of 'tobacco control'.

    It is a threatening value proposition to the established business model of Big Tobacco and they have correctly sensed the threat and are responding by entering the category - mostly by acquisition (a measure of their own failure to innovate and to recognise the priorities and psychological distress of their own customers). It is hard to see how this could lead to more smoking (except by one route - that favoured by Freeman, discussed below). The companies are focussed on the combined profit pool of tobacco and e-cigarettes, but they are strongly competitive with each other and will lose market share to other tobacco companies or non-tobacco e-cigarette / vapour business if they don't product products that smokers want, and better products than their rivals (BAT will not mind 'losing' a smoker to one of its e-cigarettes, but it won't want to lose her to NJOY or PMI). It is this competitive dynamic that is missing from the tobacco control analysis of the role of Big Tobacco in e-cigarettes. It is a good thing if companies sell fewer cigarettes and more e-cigarettes than would otherwise be the case, and this is what one would expect from a competitive market into which a category with strong new value proposition has been introduced.

    The intervention that would prevent this is the one favoured by Freeman - 'strict regulation'. Strict regulation would favour commoditised sealed cig-a-like products (the less effective alternatives to smoking). It would raise high barriers to entry at the firm and product level and significantly diminish the value proposition to smokers. It is quite likely that a combination of predatory tobacco interests, risk averse regulators and misguided tobacco control activists will establish a new and harmful oligopoly in e-cigarettes that will slow its progress and protect the cigarette market from competition. The tobacco control community appears blind to the health risks that its own policy prescriptions will create and Freeman entirely sidesteps them in this article. I have written about them here: Turning the tables on public health – let’s talk about the risks *they* create The counterfactual

    She says: "e-cigarettes are a huge distraction to tobacco control advocates and policy makers" and laments 'divisions' among tobacco control colleagues. Let's be clear: "unity in tobacco control" is not a prized outcome. What matters is the net impact on health, the options available to smokers, and the highly positive experience of the many thousand smokers whose health, welfare and prospects have been transformed by these products (700,000 e-cigarette users are ex-smokers in the UK).

    I suggest tobacco control advocates try three things: (1) take a sceptical but open-minded view of the possible role that tobacco companies will have, given the competitive dynamic between them - my view is that they will be prime movers in transforming their own industry and the 'endgame': (2) be a careful what they wish for and recognise that 'strict regulation' is a gift to the big players, slows innovation, denies smokers options and protects cigarettes; (3) get back to basics: it the cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung disease that matters - any war with an industry is subordinate to this. May I recommend reading some testimonies from vapers - and approaching the subject with a little more empathy and humility? Try these, unsolicited testimonies left on my website: Where is the humility? Where is the empathy? The counterfactual
    Bill Godshall:

    As one who has actively urged tobacco companies to develop and market far less hazardous smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes to cigarette smokers for most of the past decade (and who has sent Becky Freeman weekly news updates about our successful public health campaign to convince smokers to switch to smokefree alternatives), I'm disappointed she has once again (for the nth time) chosen to obfuscate by creating straw man arguments against tobacco companies.

    A far more important public health issue is Australia's unethical and inhumane laws (advocated by Becky Freeman and her mentor Simon Chapman) that deny addicted cigarette smokers legal and affordable access to exponentially less hazardous snus and e-cigarettes.

    Those Australian laws are public health malpractice, and they dwarf the number of suffering syphilis victims the US Public Health Service denied treatment (to watch them die) in its infamous Tuskegee Study decades ago.

    Denying suffering smokers smokefree alternatives is also cruel and unusual punishment that demonstrates disdain for the lives and health of smokers (and the nonsmokers who have to breath the tobacco smoke pollution created by their cigarette smoking).

    All real public health advocates (and other ethical and humane individuals) support cigarette smokers switching to less hazardous smokefree alternatives, and support their right to legally access these alternatives.

    Unfortunately, intolerant extremists have taken over the old anti smoking public health movement (especially in Australia), and they've outrageously banned the least hazardous tobacco/nicotine products while keeping the deadliest products (i.e. cigarettes) on the market. Even morons can understand that those policies protect cigarette markets at the expense of public health.

    Protecting and preserving cigarette markets (by banning snus and e-cigs) while demonizing cigarette companies is deadly hypocrisy.

    Bill Godshall

    Executive Director

    Smokefree Pennsylvania

    1926 Monongahela Avenue

    Pittsburgh, PA 15218

    412-351-5880

    BillGodshall@verizon.net

    A link to Carl Phillips Blog post:

    Vaporific likes this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    793
    What pisses me off is that she doesn't even respond to the comments. She doesn't even engage with the experts. It's a though she just had a brain fart, diarrhoea'd out some of S.C's straw man paranoia bull-crap and left, forcing real public health advocates like Clive Bates, Bill Godshall and Carl Phillips to come and clean up the mess by correcting her in the commentary.

    This is Australian Tobacco Control in 2014. Nothing but brain farts and diarrhoea.
    tugboatofdeath likes this.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    84
    The woman that wrote this article sounds like a pompous git, as so many anti-smoking zealots are.

    IMHO the PVC is a the greatest health invention since penicillin. However for it to have full effect in our society governments and big business will (or must?) get involved.
    youngvaper34 likes this.

  10. #10
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Liverpool NSW
    Posts
    437
    shes probably not responding to the comments because she was probably paid to write this on her blog and say nothing more, its just propaganda for the health department/cancer council.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 02:32 AM.