pageok
pageok
pageok
Big Tobacco Goes Smokeless:

USA Today reports that the big cigarette companies are introducing smokeless tobacco products in response to the proliferation of smoking restrictions around the country. One new product, similar to some already developed by smokeless tobacco companies, is a tobacco pouch users tuck under their cheek -- just like traditional smokeless tobacco -- that does not require chewing or spitting. Public health experts are split on the development. While smokeless tobacco is clearly less risky than smoking -- that is, the mortality and morbidity rates from equivalent rates of use is quite less -- some fear that these new products will entice non-smokers.

Smokeless tobacco poses fewer health risks, but smokers are unlikely to give up cigarettes entirely for it, says Greg Connolly, director of Harvard University's Tobacco Control Research Program. "It's like trading in your Mercedes for a tricycle." He says the new products will more likely attract non-smokers, those who might otherwise quit and smokers in a smoke-free place. "This is an effort to keep people using tobacco," says Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Whatever else the impact of these products, as a non-user, I'd still be thrilled if they eliminate spit cups!

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Big Tobacco Goes Smokeless:
  2. Against Nicotine Abstinence:
Houston Lawyer:
Smokeless tobacco pouches are not new. I remember trying them out in the 70's. They are not nearly as messy as other smokeless tobacco products, but most people will still spit. Swallowing tobacco juice is not for the weak stomached.
6.9.2006 11:14am
Brian Cook (mail) (www):
As a former dipper, I ask what's wrong with spit cups? As long as the dipper practices proper etiquette and doesn't leave it lying around, it doesn't affect you in the least!
6.9.2006 12:00pm
Miggs:
The problem is that dippers ALWAYS leave their cups lying around. And the easier the cups can knocked over, the better. In fact, anything with a concave surface is game.

Still better than smokers I suppose.
6.9.2006 12:16pm
Fub:
From the quoted article:
Smokeless tobacco poses fewer health risks, but smokers are unlikely to give up cigarettes entirely for it, says Greg Connolly, director of Harvard University's Tobacco Control Research Program. "It's like trading in your Mercedes for a tricycle."
In other words, the prohibitionists' real concern is the classical busybody fear that somebody, somewhere, is actually enjoying something.

Tobacco prohibitionists will have an easier time than their predecessor alcohol and drug prohibitionists, at turning ordinary decent people into criminals.

Unhealthy food busybodies are already charging down the slope they have slickened.

I predict that my grandchildren will see the day when it is a crime to enjoy anything that anybody anywhere thinks is unhealthy, unaesthetic, personally unwise, or the last resort: a bad "role model" for children.

It's become scarily popular to be ruled by a nanny "King Who Couldn't Dance" (WMA format or RA).
6.9.2006 3:19pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
You know if people choose to use these products in a society that frowns upon them despite a knowledge of the risks maybe they actually find the benefit worth the harm. Sure smokers of tobacco mostly regret they took up the habit but much of the harm from smoking comes from the non-nicotine parts of tobacco while the benefit comes from the nicotine.

I certainly don't want kids getting hooked, people need to reach a certain level of maturity before they should be making this sort of potentially lifelong deciscion. I also think it's good to have public education campaigns to tell people about the risks of addiction and other problems.

However, we should at least consider the possibility that for some people taking nicotine in this form is going to be on net a positive. The same that taking caffeine can be a positive. It might turn out not to be true in a lot of cases but this presumption that taking nicotine must be bad just annoys me.
6.9.2006 3:25pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
Why is there Chinese Checkers, but not Chinese Chess?
6.10.2006 10:09am
Fub:
Frank Drackmann wrote:
Why is there Chinese Checkers, but not Chinese Chess?
See Xiangqi.
6.10.2006 3:01pm
Some Jerk (mail):
That Myers guy sounds like the same sort who s#$%canned the tobacco companies' efforts to make less dangerous cigarettes a few years back. They found a way to cut down dramatically on a lot of the cancer causing substances in cigarettes, including the tar and nicotine, but idiots like Myers led a smear campaign against them so nasty they dropped the marketing effort and a product that would definitely have SAVED LIVES.

Too bad none of the survivors of lung cancer victims know how Myers' ilk murdered their loved ones. Too bad Myers and his buddies are still up to their games.
6.13.2006 1:19am