luxury handset posted:

big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-01/vaping-flavors-obama-white-house-fda

FoolyCharged posted:

That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now.

ErIog posted:

If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice?

ErIog posted:

This is a complete misread of what happened and what the article says. The primary concern at that time wasn't vaping itself, but the flavor ban.

luxury handset posted:

big tobacco killed the obama-era attempt to ban flavored vapes

ErIog posted:

If big tobacco was so supportive of vaping then why did they spend a ton of money developing and marketing these products worldwide in that same time period instead of just making vape juice?

luxury handset posted:

that is... exactly what i said?

FoolyCharged posted:

The context being that both the FDA and the company agreed it wasn't the thing you keep claiming it is, because if it were a cessation device it wouldn't legally meet standards and could be seized?

That does not speak well for them as a cessation device. At all.

luxury handset posted:

i mostly just have problems with people blatantly repeating corporate marketing for addictive substances that pose real health risks to the public while framing their advocacy as being in favor of public health. that's the kind of thing that should be challenged, especially in a shill thread dedicated to that exact topic. you don't have to read my posts if you don't want to though, i can't help you if you have problems with my posts itt or in general - that is your responsibility to sort out

FoolyCharged posted:

That was exactly my point. They are not intended to be a tool for quitting. Which is a thing terra has insisted multiple times now.

luxury handset posted:

also please compare these statements by the RJ Reynolds corporation with any of the arguments made by the OP and tell me where they differ

https://www.reynoldsamerican.com/Transforming-Tobacco/default.aspx

quote:

There has been a significant decline in the prevalence of cigarette smoking during the past 30 years, but the rate of decline has slowed. A substantial body of scientific research has shown that smokeless tobacco products present significantly less harm than cigarettes.

quote:

In addition to smokeless products, we believe that other non-combustible smoke-free products, such as vapor products and other innovations, may reduce harm to smokers who switch to them.

quote:

Emerging product categories that offer the potential to reduce tobacco harm allow us to be growth leaders in expanding markets that also offer potential for higher margins.

ErIog posted:

Just because Altria has hedged their bets a little bit with Juul doesn't mean this fight is over. Big tobacco are still pushing their heat-not-burn products even though, as herstory points out, it probably would just be cheaper for them to make vape juice.

On Terra Firma posted:

Just want to point out, again, that heat not burn tech has already been approved by the FDA. If the FDA banned vaping entirely this product would still hit the market and it has been tested and studied much less vigorously than vaping. What studies have shown is that while there is a drop off in carcinogens, it's still not anywhere near as dramatic as with vaping which is comparable to approved NRT. But hey it will be FDA approved! That's what you guys want right?

ErIog posted:

in response you posted an article about them opposing a flavored vape ban as evidence that they actually liked vaping

Herstory Begins Now posted:

Amusingly they thought that most people actually gave a gently caress about the tobacco and weren't just buying their product because of marketing and nicotine addiction compulsion, which was and is basically the entirety of the tobacco (or now, nicotine) industry. Like there's zero way that they wouldn't have switched to selling vapes at that point in time if they thought it was at all commercially viable because you can extract nicotine from fresh plant which is literally pennies on the dollar compared to the process involved in drying ageing and curing tobacco leaf. They just misread the market.

On Terra Firma posted:

I'm not repeating corporate marketing. I'm repeating what the loving science and studies have said.

quote:

The Role of Nicotine​
Nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco plants. While nicotine is addictive, it's the exposure to smoke – not nicotine – that causes most tobacco-related disease. Smoke from the combustion of tobacco contains thousands of chemicals that cause the vast majority of harm from tobacco, including lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema. ​
Tobacco harm reduction is built on the idea that adult smokers who do not quit should be able to get nicotine from products that are less risky than combustible cigarettes.​
Many smokers find nicotine enjoyable, which is why reduced-risk products need to provide a satisfactory nicotine experience. We recognize that comprehensive regulation of tobacco products is necessary to bring these kinds of products to market and let adult smokers know about them.​
​​
​
​Federal Regulation​
In 2000, Altria became the first and only company in the industry to support FDA regulation of tobacco products. We saw this as an important step to providing accurate and scientifically-grounded communications about reduced risk products to smokers.​
Today, the FDA has regulatory authority over all tobacco products. And the FDA distinguishes between the harm associated with combustible versus non-combustible products.​
We fully support FDA's commitment to harm reduction and its commitment to "the proper development of products that can allow adults who still need or want to enjoy satisfying levels of nicotine to get it through products that don’t have all of the risks associated with the combustion of tobacco."​

luxury handset posted:

lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make

quote:

How long will PMI be in the cigarette business?


We’ve built the world’s most successful cigarette company,
with the world’s most popular and iconic brands.


Now we’ve made a dramatic decision.
We will be far more than a leading cigarette company. We’re building PMI’s future on smoke-free products that are a much better choice than cigarette smoking.

Indeed, our vision – for all of us at PMI – is that these products will one day replace cigarettes.

Why are we doing this?

Because we should...
We understand the millions of men and women who smoke cigarettes. They are looking for less harmful, yet satisfying, alternatives to smoking. We will give them that choice.

We have a commitment to our employees and our shareholders. We will fulfill that commitment by pursuing this long-term vision for success.

Society expects us to act responsibly. And we are doing just that by designing a smoke-free future.

and because we now can.
Success in the cigarette business gives us the resources to pursue our ambitious vision.

Thanks to the imagination and perseverance of thousands of people at PMI, we have developed breakthrough products that are smoke-free and enjoyable.

And, we are selling them today. Millions have already given up smoking and switched to our new products, and this is just the beginning.

We’re investing to make these products the Philip Morris icons of the future.

A future PMI that’s known for replacing cigarettes with a portfolio of revolutionary products.
In changing times you can always choose to do nothing. Instead, we’ve set a new course for the company. We’ve chosen to do something really big.

luxury handset posted:

no, you are repeating corporate propaganda. here is what altria has to say, what part of this do you disagree with?

if your statements itt are indistinguishable from the public statements of big tobacco companies, then why do you dislike being associated with these words which are identical to yours?

On Terra Firma posted:

I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not.

luxury handset posted:

i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa

On Terra Firma posted:

Juul and Altria are not going to fight the FDA on that

luxury handset posted:

i'm confused about when you choose to trust the words of big tobacco or not. like i personally don't trust them when they make claims under pressure in a moment of bad press and PR crisis, especially when they have a shadow network of "grassroots" firms to do this lobbying on their behalf. but it seems you don't trust the companies when they make the same statements you make, using the same language and justification, which are different somehow for reasons so far unclear to me

quote:

if your arguments are derived from rational facts and logical science, is this true for the identical arguments made by big tobacco companies?

quote:

if so, why is the FDA dragging their heels about permitting these devices to be sold as smoking cessation tools as claimed by both you and the largest tobacco companies, and multiple public health agencies such as Public Health England, Cancer Research UK,the Royal College of Physicians, and countless others?

On Terra Firma posted:

I dislike it because you are claiming I am shilling for a company and a section of the industry when I'm not. I dislike it because, as I've stated multiple times, I am pulling my positions from the evidence available that I've presented to you again and again. If you have a problem with the studies, point to where they are wrong. If you have a problem with the organizations that put them together, show me where the issue is.

You're also using it as an excuse to dodge any other type of argument I put forward because you dismiss it all and honestly it's pretty exhausting calling you out on your poo poo again and again.

As Erlog pointed out you're just arguing in bad faith at this point. You don't address anything I say and when I do you just go back to calling me a shill. I get it. You hate vaping. You hate all forms of nicotine. Harm reduction does not have a place in tobacco control policy for you. I get it.

Herstory Begins Now posted:

No one is saying that you are shilling, just that your words are indistinguishable from a shill

luxury handset posted:

i guess i could see how it would be confusing if you believe big tobacco hates vaping so much that they release vape products and buy vape companies and lobby against regulation targeting vapes but that is not a very compelling or rational argument to make

ErIog posted:

Big tobacco hasn't really released vape products in a big way (or at least not as big as heat-not-burn).

ErIog posted:

Even if you're only talking about the situation as it stands today in 2019, a single tobacco company having a stake in a single vape company isn't an industry trend. The industry hasn't moved to vape products en masse.

quote:

Tobacco companies were relatively slow to enter the e-cigarette market, but soon made up for lost time using their size and financial firepower to take over a market that was reported by the Financial Times in June 2013 to be worth $3 billion globally. Historically, the market was highly fragmented and largely dominated by small players but large manufacturers are increasingly entering the market with their own products and are also buying already established brands. Tobacco companies already have established distribution points and the resources to cover the costs of marketing and the demands that will likely come with future regulation.[1]

The year 2013 saw a flurry of tobacco company investment in e-cigarettes, both in the UK and in the US. This trend continued into 2014, 2015 and 2016. For a diagrammatic representation of the tobacco industry’s entry into the e-cigarette market see Figure 1 below.

BAT launched Vype in August 2013, an e-cigarette developed by CN Creative, a start-up acquired by BAT in December 2012.[2] In February 2014, BAT announced its Vype e-cigarettes would be sold nationwide at LloydsPharmacy stores.[3] In September 2014, BAT was granted a license by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for Voke, a nicotine inhaler developed by a company called Kind Consumer Limited, a subsequent license was granted in 2016 for a product called e-voke which is rechargable and uses nicotine cartridges. As of April 2016 neither of these products were available to buy. In 2015, BAT launched Vype in France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Colombia and acquired Ten Motives e-cigarette brand in the UK and CHIC the market-leading e-cigarette business in Poland.[4] In 2015 the company also launched its first heated tobacco product glo iFuse in Romania.[3]

Lorillard, the third largest cigarette manufacturer in the US, acquired the e-cigarette company BluCigs for a reported $135 million in 2012,[5] and entered the UK market by taking over Skycig, a leading premium brand of electronic cigarettes in Britain, for $48.5 million.[6] In March 2014, it was announced that, in line with its American brand, Skycig would become Blu ecigs effective May 2014. The rebranding was backed with a £20 million marketing campaign.[7] When Reynolds acquired Lorillard for an estimated $27.4 billion on July 15 2014, its Blu line was sold to Imperial Tobacco to avoid antitrust concerns that allowing Reynolds to own both Vuse and Blu would give it an unfair advantage in the market.[8]

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) acquired UK e-cigarette brand E-lites in June 2014 from previous owner Zandera.[9] The company took a minority share in the San Francisco-based startup Ploom in 2011, signing an agreement to commercialise its nicotine ‘vaporisers’ outside the USA. The Ploom is a loose-leaf vaporizer that heats small pods of tobacco, unlike most e-cigarettes that use liquid mixtures of nicotine and synthetic materials.[10] In February 2015, JTI acquired the patents and trademarks from Ploom Inc. With this acquisition the company can develop new products and sell Ploom in more markets.[11]

Imperial Tobacco's member company Fontem Ventures acquired Dragonite in August 2013, previously owned by Hon Lik, the Chinese pharmacist who claims he invented the e-cigarette. In early 2014, Imperial presented its own e-cigarette called Puritane and announced an exclusive deal with the Boots pharmacy chain to sell the new brand.[12] In July 2014, as part of the merger between Reynolds and Lorillard, Imperial purchased the Blu e-cigs line.[13] When speaking of the company's new acquisition, Alison Cooper, Imperial Tobacco’s chief executive said, "This is a great opportunity to transform our U.S. business and secure a significant presence in the world’s largest accessible profit pool." In February 2015, Imperial announced the launch of Jai its new e-cigarette in both France and Italy.[14]

Philip Morris International (PMI) announced in December 2013 that it was teaming up with Altria to market electronic cigarettes and other "reduced risk" tobacco products. PMI gained the right to exclusively sell Altria's e-cigarettes outside the United States. On 26 June 2014, PMI announced that it had acquired UK-based Nicocigs, the owner of the Nicolites brand, saying it would provide the company “an immediate entry into the UK” and will “pave the way” for faster and broader UK market entry for their other e-cigarette products.[15][16]

Altria, which includes Philip Morris USA and controls about one half of all cartons sold in America, is testing its e-cigarette “MarkTen” in Indiana and Arizona. The plan was to bring an e-cigarette to the market mid-2013,[17] but feedback has been mixed. One industry analyst wrote, “MarkTen products did not start moving until Altria blast e-mailed Indiana smokers with a $2 MarkTen coupon.” The national roll-out occurred in 2014.
RJ Reynolds American was reported to be test marketing an e-cigarette called “Vuse” through its subsidiary RJ Reynolds Vapor Company in April 2013.[18] Vuse is now available for purchase in the US. [19]

On Terra Firma posted:

I've already addressed my thoughts on the FDA. Nobody knows what they are doing. Fixed that last part for you though.

ErIog posted:

I guess you're going to say it doesn't matter, it's all the same grand conspiracy.

ErIog posted:

You appear to support banning vaping because you think it's the same as smoking or heat-not-burn, and that's extremely short-sighted. Using the current hysteria

luxury handset posted:

i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. this makes the people advocating those arguments itt highly uncomfortable and prone to lashing out with accusations of moral panic or galloping into irrelevant detail about the noble history of the vape industry, for reasons which should be obvious

luxury handset posted:

i have also pointed out the links between personal nicotine usage and shoddy argumentation itt, which should also be obvious

luxury handset posted:

there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect


i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies. this makes the people advocating those arguments itt highly uncomfortable and prone to lashing out with accusations of moral panic or galloping into irrelevant detail about the noble history of the vape industry, for reasons which should be obvious

i have also pointed out the links between personal nicotine usage and shoddy argumentation itt, which should also be obvious

FoolyCharged posted:

Not approving the stuff these guys are selling. The fact that it continues to get sold is kind of a red flag.

luxury handset posted:

there is no conspiracy, you are simply factually incorrect

luxury handset posted:

i haven't supported banning vaping at all? i've only consistenly pointed out the uniform similarity between pro-vape arguments itt and the pro-vape arguments made by giant tobacco companies.

vincentpricesboner posted:

are you against safe-injection sites for opiate addicts?

On Terra Firma posted:

Weird how you talk about moving the goal posts but won't address the point that the science says the same thing. That's always conveniently left out in your insinuations.

If it was just RJ Reynolds saying this stuff I would worry. When it's the Royal College of Physicians then I'm a lot more confident in my position. It also happens to be a fact that you repeatedly gloss over and pretend doesn't exist for some reason.

Once again, please show the fault in the data and the organizations who put out the reviews and studies. If you cannot do this then shut the gently caress up about who is parroting what talking points.

luxury handset posted:

there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5480094

the important part is that there are medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there. and nicotine selling firms have a decades long history of claiming their product is healthier, in order to keep their captive market of addicts who would otherwise be motivated to quit because of health risks

On Terra Firma posted:

What you posted also reinforces what have I said all along, and also glosses over what big tobaccos market share was prior to late 2018. They weren't moving units until Altria bought into Juul. Prior to that they couldn't get a foot hold. Most users were very averse to trying or using anything they made for obvious reasons. You have repeatedly claimed that vaping is something being driven by big tobacco which is, to use your own words, factually incorrect. When confronted by this you say it doesn't matter and everyone selling nicotine is just the same.

luxury handset posted:

https://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php?title=E-cigarettes

this is where you are supposed to pivot and move the goalposts to "these products weren't successful anyway"

luxury handset posted:

words

On Terra Firma posted:

So your position is that all of those health organizations went into their reviews with bias and selected hundreds of studies that pointed in one direction to establish a basis for public health policy? Including a study that went out and took direct measurements of carcinogens from users? That's what you're going with? How is your position any different from climate change denial?

luxury handset posted:

but there are problems when you only cite the papers that support what you're trying to argue and ignore the ones that don't support your position. we don't know enough about them yet to say with certainty that they are good for smoking cessation or not, or if they are healthy or not. it's definitely good for sales to pretend that they are, though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5480094

the important part is that there are medically tested and proven nicotine cessation therapies out there. and nicotine selling firms have a decades long history of claiming their product is healthier, in order to keep their captive market of addicts who would otherwise be motivated to quit because of health risks

luxury handset posted:

On Terra Firma posted:

Yeah that's what I thought. You have no argument. You can't address it. Thanks!

luxury handset posted:

i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco

i am saying that it should be obvious what the motivations are for a company that sells nicotine, about if they want people to use less nicotine, or more nicotine. we should be very skeptical about any claim from a nicotine-selling company regarding the benefits and usage frequency of their addictive product

you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this

luxury handset posted:

you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this

On Terra Firma posted:

Just so it's clear what I'm referring to. You claimed I was parroting/mirroring tobacco talking points. I said no and directed you to the evidence reviews.

luxury handset posted:

i apologize if i read your arguments which are word for word the same arguments that big tobacco companies made and i draw a link between them. mea culpa

luxury handset posted:

On Terra Firma posted:

So the evidence reviews by PHE and the RCP are big tobacco talking points now?

luxury handset posted:

i said in very clear language that i am not making any claims about vaping being less harmful, or more harmful, or whatever than tobacco

i am saying that it should be obvious what the motivations are for a company that sells nicotine, about if they want people to use less nicotine, or more nicotine. we should be very skeptical about any claim from a nicotine-selling company regarding the benefits and usage frequency of their addictive product

you can keep trying to redirect my argument to the one you would prefer to rebut, but it's not going to work any of the times you try to do this