Why anti-smokers oppose the e-cig

A recent post on Dr. Michael Siegel's blog takes the ACS to task over their opposition to the electronic cigarette. But, efforts to stifle the fledgling e-cig market are to be expected.

Many people dislike the smell of tobacco smoke. That's not something new, those opposed to smoking have been complaining about the smell for decades. In a letter to the New York Times dated November 10, 1911, Dr. Charles Pease of the Non-Smokers' Protective League of America wrote: “The right of each person to breathe and enjoy fresh and pure air - air uncontaminated by unhealthful or disagreeable odors and fumes is a constitutional right, and cannot be taken away by legislatures or courts, much less by individuals pursuing their own thoughtless or selfish indulgence.”

Just look at the names of some of these anti-smoker groups today. Clean air this, smoke free that. Everything old is new again. In fact, without the smell, the fanatics would have a very difficult time garnering support among non-smokers who comprise the majority of the population.

A case in point. The Japan Tobacco Company recently applied for a Canadian patent on a technique that would practically eliminate the tobacco smell from cigarettes. It was (is) opposed by the anti-smoker crowd on the grounds that it would mislead the public into believing that, since they could no longer smell the tobacco, they were safe from the alleged (and grossly overstated) hazards of secondhand smoke.

To the rabid anti-smoker, that's one strike against the e-cig. It has no noticeable tobacco smell; nothing to raise the ire of non-smokers.

Smoking bans are intended to eliminate smoking in public (and many private) venues. The e-cig is a nicotine delivery system, not a tobacco product. Therefore, it is not subject to the profusion of draconian smoking bans that have sprouted up around the world in the last decade. Smokers can turn on the e-cig in restaurants, bars, casinos, etc., without breaking the law.

Smokers can rely on the e-cig in those venues where smoking is prohibited, while continuing to enjoy the real thing in private and the few places where smoking has not been declared sinful or illegal. This, of course, defeats the real purpose of smoking bans, which is to force smokers to quit. The anti-smoker crowd can't even fall back on their strategy of claiming that bans are necessary to protect workers or “the kids”.

Strike two against the e-cig. It can be used by smokers to circumvent smoking bans without actually quitting.

Another reason why the growing popularity of the e-cig is troublesome to the anti-smoker, is that it's use closely mimics the actions of smoking. In appearance, it resembles a cigarette. In addition, all the physical actions of smoking are present;puffing (drawing the vapour into the lungs); exhaling the vapour which, to the casual observer, looks like smoke; holding or playing with the cigarette, etc. The only thing associated with smoking you don't have to do with an e-cig is light it.

And, most readers will be aware that the very sight of someone smoking is anathema to the anti-smoker. They claim that the sight of someone smoking could encourage those who have quit to return to the nasty habit. Worse, in the eyes of the anti-smoker, is the belief that if the kids should see someone smoking, they might perceive smokers as normal and/or become instantly addicted.

And, if the sight of someone smoking is so dangerous, can the sight of someone pretending to smoke be any less harmful?

Whoops; that's strike three.

And, did I mention that, since the e-cig is reusable, there's no butt left to dispose of; no litter for the anti-smoker crowd to whine about. But, I guess that's immaterial since we're all out of strikes.

And, I've mentioned in other posts the potential adverse financial impact of the e-cig on the anti-smoker crowd.

In fact, if the e-cig manages to penetrate the market, it threatens the financial well being of all parties. The tobacco companies face reduced sales of their tobacco products, the pharmaceutical industry loses their stranglehold on NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products and governments stand to lose billions in direct (and indirect) tobacco taxation currently being extorted from smokers.

The cult-like anti-smoker industry also stands to lose financially. Their funding is dependent on tobacco sales (through the MSA), the pharmaceutical industry (largely through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) and government largesse (which would likely drop dramatically should tobacco tax revenue decline).

The truth is that the anti-smoker cult perceives the advent of the e-cig as a threat to their very carefully laid plans to denormalize smokers and perhaps force some of them to quit.

So they've placed themselves in the blatantly hypocritical position of demanding a ban on e-cigs, while actively promoting similar products (nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers, etc.) distributed by their partners in the pharmaceutical industry.

And, now they want to ban e-smoking (called vaping) in the same way they banned cigarette smoking. But, that's for my next post.

A smoker's health & anti-smoker hate

Denormalization refers to efforts to force smokers to quit by branding them as a sub-human, nicotine addicted species, unworthy of common courtesy or consideration.

It started with smoking bans; first on commercial flights, then all forms of public transit. Bans, first implemented in public buildings, were then expanded to private establishments: bars, restaurants and private clubs. Now, bans have grown to include privately owned automobiles where minors might be present. And the zealots are now pushing (and, in some cases succeeding) to ban smoking in public parks and even in private homes.

The smoking bans were predicated on the contention that secondhand smoke was a health hazard rather than a mere nuisance to non-smokers. But the evidence was, and still is, flimsy, at best.

But, the real reason for the smoking bans is to force smokers into social isolation. In a blatant attempt at behavioural modification. The anti-smoker cult reasons that, if they can reduce the number of places a smoker can light up, they can reduce the number of people smoking. Cultists, you must understand, hate smoking, and by extension, they hate smokers.

The campaign of denormalization is intended to stigmatize smokers, by making them appear, in the eyes of the public, as abnormal individuals engaged in a filthy habit that is injurious to both themselves and those around them.

And, denormalization was implemented by the anti-smoker cult with the full consent of Canadian governments at both the provincial and federal level. And, both levels of government have not only condoned the constantly escalating degree of discrimination, in housing, employment and even medical care, they have actively engaged in the process.

Punitive levels of taxation, readily imposed by greedy politicians, are another form of discrimination directed at smokers. The intention is to force smokers with low incomes to quit by pricing cigarettes out of their reach. It's a regressive system of taxation which strikes at the most vulnerable in society. Billions of dollars are extorted from smokers every year.

The government approved tactics of the anti-smoker cult are designed to denigrate, demean and discriminate against smokers. They would not be tolerated if they were used against any other minority; not blacks or homosexuals or Jews. And, these tactics have been justified by the constant repetition of a web of lies, deceit and deception; a propaganda campaign the likes of which has not been seen since the dirty thirties.

The majority of Canadians, including roughly 7 million former smokers, are non-smokers. CTUMS (Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey) estimates that the smoking prevalence rate is just under 20% of the population over 15 years of age. That's roughly 5 million Canadians who smoke; a sizable minority within the population. 5 million Canadians who have been reduced to the status of second-class citizens.

And, the anti-smoker cult, buoyed by government support and the complacency of non-smokers, are reaching new lows in their campaign against those who choose to smoke.

Two recent news reports demonstrate clearly and convincingly that the anti-smoker campaign of denormalization is not about health; it's about spreading a message of hate.

From Britain comes a vile comment which shows just how much contempt anti-smoker cultists have for the health of smokers. Jane DeVille Almond, a British nurse and anti-smoker zealot, told a radio audience, in essence, that smokers should have to quit or be denied medical procedures offered to the non-smoking population. Said Jane: “They'll just have to die.”

And, another repugnant storycomes from India. Doctors at one hospital have posted a sign which reads: “ Smokers will be beaten up.” Uh-huh. No namby-pamby fine, for smoking in a no smoking zone. These idiots are threatening violence. Says Dr. Abhijit Chowdhury, “we want to send a cultural shock so we can do wonders of behavioural modification.”

Uh-huh. It's dangerous being a smoker these days.

Chantix, smoking cessation and unwanted help

Champix is back in the news. Or perhaps I should say “Still in the news.”

Champix (or Chantix, as it's known in the states) is a smoking cessation drug manufactured by Pfizer. The main ingredient, varenicline tartrate, works by blocking nicotine receptors to the brain and reducing the pleasure which comes from smoking..

In an October (2008) post , I noted that both Health Canada and the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) had issued alerts advising that serious neuropsychiatric symptoms had occurred in patients using the drug including the possibility the drug could lead to suicidal ideation and may have been responsible for a number of suicides and attempted suicides.

On July 1, 2009 came news that the FDA had strengthened their warning. “The FDA has mandated a " Black Box Warning" requiring Pfizer Inc., manufacturer of Chantix, to strengthen warnings about the health risks and dangers associated with using the drug. The FDA Advisory also requires new "Black Box" warnings to be included on packages of another smoking cessation drug, Zyban (buproprion).”

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned pilots and air traffic controllers from using the drug. Commercial drivers were also banned from using Chantix last year.

But, despite the potential for adverse reactions to Champix, the pharmaceutical industry (and the Tobacco Control industry) tout the benefits of both these drugs as aids to smoking cessation. And, they (correctly) point out that millions have used the drug with no discernible adverse consequences.

A cynic might point out that, since it's only smokers who will use drugs such as Champix and Zyban, only smokers are at risk. Which leads to the conclusion that smokers lives are expendable, and any risk is acceptable if it helps smokers quit the habit.

But, as long as use of the drug is a matter of choice, and consumers are made aware of the possible dangers inherent in the drug, then there's no foul . . . right?

Wrong. Intense social and economic pressure is being applied to smokers in an effort to force them to quit. Draconian smoking bans limit the number of social venues in which a smoker feels comfortable. Punitive levels of tobacco taxation severely impact the finances of the most vulnerable members of society.

There is a growing list of employers demanding their employees be non-smokers, efforts to declare residential apartment buildings smoke-free and a host of other measures designed to de-normalize smokers. All are coercive measures which have a tendency to curtail freedom of choice.

For example, smokers faced with the prospect of losing their jobs or seniors faced with the prospect of losing their subsidized apartment if they continue to smoke will be very susceptible to the ultimatum to “quit or else”. And, given the severe consequences of either scenario, they could easily be coerced in using suspect smoking cessation drugs against their better judgment.

In a November 2008 post, I noted that Dr. Gerry Brosky, a researcher at Dalhousie University in Halifax was planning a study to determine if Champix (varenicline) could be used to “help” a smoker to quit even if he didn't want to. Uh-huh. A study to determine if smokers who didn't want to quit could be given medication to induce them to quit.

In the same article, I noted that Dr. David B. Abrams, executive director of the Schroeder National Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the American Legacy Foundation, said in an interview with the New York Times, “The real hope is that we could give pre-adolescent kids a vaccine, just like we do for childhood diseases.” Uh-huh. He was referring to a vaccine that would prevent kids from taking up the habit.

Now, this post should not be construed as a suggestion that there is a conspiracy afoot to force or otherwise coerce adults or children into taking drugs which they may not want to take. But, the de-normalization campaign, led by anti-smoker crusaders, has had a devastating effect on the social, economic and physical well-being of smokers. This deliberate stigmatization makes smokers susceptible to many forms of coercion.

And, just for the record. A December 2008 press release from Nabi Biopharmaceuticals announced it has reached agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) for a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of NicVAX. NicVAC is “the company's innovative and proprietary vaccine to treat nicotine addiction and prevent smoking relapse.” Could this be the vaccine contemplated by Dr. Abrams . . . to be administered to pre-adolescent children?

Paranoid? Maybe. I don't expect they'll strap smokers to a gurney and forcibly inject them with a vaccine or Champix.

But, it's unlikely the pharmaceutical companies are developing these smoking cessation drugs for the benefit of mankind. And, it's equally unlikely they are providing massive amounts of funding to the anti-smoker crusaders without expecting some return on their investment. The more smokers who can be forced or coerced into quitting, the greater the demand for drugs, be it pharmaceutical nicotine in the form of patches, gum or lozenges or potentially deadly drugs like Champix or Zyban.

I guess we really have little to fear. After all, the drug companies and their anti-smoker allies are conducting their war on smokers for our own good. They're determined to “help” us quit smoking whether we want them to or not.

Even if it kills us?

Australlian smokers face $20.00/pack cigarettes

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH, New Zealand) director Ben Youdan is taking aim at a new initiative by British American and Imperial Tobacco to reduce the price of a pack of some of their cigarette brands. Says Youdan: "It's well documented that increasing the price of cigarettes was one of the best things you can do in terms of reducing use and therefore improving health."

ASH, along with other anti-smoker groups, is concerned that price cuts of up to a buck a pack by tobacco companies will make smoking more affordable and lure former smokers back to the habit. But, even worse in the eyes of Youdan, they're reducing prices on cigarette brands that are smoked by those on the lowest incomes. “They're not taking premium brands and making them cheaper," said Youdan.

And, of course, the reduced prices are viewed as detrimental to the health of the kids. After all, if poor people can afford to buy smokes, then the kids might be able to buy them too. “Price plays a very important role in reducing tobacco use, particularly among young people who are the most price-sensitive group in the population. The higher the price, the less people smoke," said a health ministry spokesmen. Uh-huh.

I wonder how much the price would have to increase to force smokers in the higher income brackets to give up the habit?

It's disheartening to see how truly vindictive these anti-smoker cultists can be; vindictive and myopic. If they would just take off the blinders, they might see that a policy of high tobacco prices, especially when it's accomplished through punitive levels of taxation, actually becomes counter-productive.

Of course, it's possible that they don't have the same problem with contraband in New Zealand as they do here in Canada. But, I doubt it.

As taxation rises to confiscatory levels, the potential for profit in the black market economy grows exponentially. Sales of legal tobacco product may go down, but the sales of contraband go up accordingly. And, that usually means that the kids they're allegedly trying to protect from the perils of smoking will be able to get smokes easier and cheaper from the bootleggers who have no qualms about providing cheap black market smokes to underage young people.

And, the latest news from Australia, is that the government there is poised to double the taxes on cigarettes.

ASH (Australia) chief executive Anne Jones, spouts the usual anti-smoker rhetoric claiming that a tax increase will reduce consumption by four per cent for every 10 per cent increase in price. And, of course, it would also reduce the number of children taking up the habit. Says Jones: "We're right behind the recommendations for doubling the price to $20 (a packet) and using that revenue to then drive down smoking rates."

Of course, when she says “using that revenue to then drive down smoking rates”, she means providing funding for the Holy Church of the Anti-Smoker, of which her group is an esteemed member of the congregation. And, it should be pointed out that the increase would raise an estimated $1.97 billion a year for government coffers; at least, theoretically.

But, the politicians should give the issue some serious second thought.

Here in the Great White North, with the highest levels of tobacco taxation in North America, the ever-increasing price of cigarettes has created a well entrenched and formidable black market. As a result, governments have actually seen tax revenue decline by billions of dollars.

In Ontario and Quebec, Canada's most heavily populated provinces, it's estimated that over 40% of cigarettes sales are contraband.

But the effects of usurious levels of tobacco taxation reach far beyond the decline in tax revenue.

For example, convenience stores, which rely on tobacco sales for 30% to 70% of their revenue, also suffer adverse economic consequences. And, it's not just tobacco revenue they lose. Smokers buying cigarettes from the trunk of a car also spend less on impulse items, confectioneries, soft drinks, etc., because they're no longer making regular visits to the local corner store to pick up their fags.

And, actions taken by the anti-smoker crowd to limit the availability of tobacco products to minors are also compromised. Individuals selling cut-rate smokes from the trunk of a car are unlikely to ask for ID. So, increases in tobacco tax are likely to have a detrimental affect on youth smoking rates.

In addition, there's the added cost of policing contraband activity.

The effects of a public heath policy which relies on penalizing adult smokers for engaging in a legal activity are becoming glaringly obvious. And, the prevarication that anti-smoker efforts to punish smokers with vindictive smoking bans and punitive taxes is “for the good of the kids” is wearing a little thin.

Also wearing thin are most of the other lies being touted by the anti-smoker cult. For instance, an Australian Health group, Quit, says increasing the cost of smokes will save thousands of lives. And, Quit policy manager, Kylie Lindorff, makes the audacious claim that 60 per cent of smokers supported jacking up prices. Uh-huh.

Can't you just hear the victims of the Inquitition demanding of their tormentors: “Turn the screws up a notch, it'll help me confess my indiscretions.” If 60% of Australian smokers feel that guilty about their habit, they should simply quit. Tens of millions worldwide have done just that, without the need of NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy).

What's really amazing is the number of people, including smokers, willing to buy into the bullshit and bafflegab.