Smoking bans don't harm business?

This is a telling news report. 

The ANTZ claim that smoking bans are good for businesses and do not negatively impact the economy. You could just read this article and think that the owner allowing smoking in his bar is exaggerating the 20% loss in business after banning smoking. However, if business doesn't actually drop after smoking bans, why is the owner of the bar down the road - one that does enforce the ban - feel it is "unfair" that the law is not evenly enforced? According to the ANTZ, his business should be booming compared to the smoke-filled tavern down the road. Except a picture is worth a 1,000 words:

Busy smoking bar

Nearly empty non-smoking bar down the road

Also telling is the comment made by the man at the smoking bar when asked if he's planning on quitting any time soon.

"When they bury me," he replied.

This is what we call an 'inveterate smoker" and smokers like him are completely forgotten and ignored by the ANTZ when they suggest tobacco and smoking policies to legislators. Rather than caring about this man, he is left behind as a lost cause or even worse, villainized for his smoking. This man, who has no intention of quitting tobacco, is fed the lies and half-truths about smokeless alternatives and electronic cigarettes. He is encouraged to keep smoking because the government tells him that smokeless alternatives are really no better for him. Even if he did decide to switch to a reduced-harm option to save money, local, state and federal governments all across the country are increasing taxes on these products, making them as or more expensive than cigarettes and removing that incentive.

 If he decided to switch to an e-cigarette, which are not currently banned for public use in Wisconsin (and in most of the country), the ANTZ groups such as the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids are lobbying hard to ensure that e-cigarette use is also banned in public, removing yet another incentive to switch. These laws are meant to protect imaginary "possible future smokers" who do not even exist, yet what they really accomplish is keeping real, living smokers in harm's way by putting up every road block possible to him switching to a loss-risk, smokeless alternative.

Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469 has been introduced by Senator Glen Grothman and is intended to ensure that e-cigarettes are not included in indoor smoking bans. If passed, this will be the first legislation it's kind passed in the entire world - legislation to protect the use of a harm reduction product in public. This legislation could set a precedence and set an example for state and local governments all over the country. 

There are an estimated 2.5 million electronic cigarette users in this country. These are not the hypothetical youth and non-smokers over which the ANTZ wring their hands, but living, breathing human beings; former smokers who have made the conscious choice to end their exposure to smoke. These are folks who can head back out to that corner bar and enjoy an evening without having to step outside for a smoke and business could be booming again for that owner with the empty bar. The ANTZ want to put a stop to even that.

Please write your congressmen and ask them to support Wisconsin Assembly Bill 469. You can easily find them here: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx 


(For the record, I do not support public smoking bans in private businesses or open, outdoor areas. However, the ANTZ have successfully sold these bans to the public based on their "evidence." When it comes to e-cigarette use bans, on the other hand, they may as well cite fairy dust and magic potions as "evidence," because they have absolutely nothing else that even suggests harm to users or bystanders!)

Of bans and beaches

I woke up this morning thinking about a few places now trying to ban e-cigarette use (along with smoking) outdoors - including at parks and beaches. A recent television episode of a show my kids watch showed a girl trying to read at the beach and being bothered by grill smoke - which got me thinking....

Would the FDA or CDC argue that charcoal or wood smoke is actually safer to inhale than the smoke from tobacco leaves? If not, then would that not be an argument to also ban charcoal grilling from parks and beaches, in order to protect innocent bystanders from THAT smoke, as well? And since there is "NO safe level" of smoke exposure, regardless of ventilation systems installed, would that not support banning the use of wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills in food service and restaurants, in order to protect employees and patrons? If you can smell the grill in the dining room, that means you are being exposed to smoke, right? How can they argue one smoke is safer than another smoke? (Yet, apparently they do.)

Men "smoking" at the park.
Think of the children!

And then there's campfires, fireplaces and fire pits to consider. Shouldn't those be banned, as well?

I think at these meetings where they are trying to ban e-cigs/smoking outside (where grilling is allowed) we should insist that they add grills to the ordinance or not pass it at all!! And if they are trying to ban e-cig use in bars & restaurants, insist they also ban wood-fired ovens and charbroil grills, because my safety is at risk! (Let's see them answer THAT one.)

I know that this has long been an argument made by smoker's rights groups, but I have yet to hear it or about read this argument at any public testimonies regarding outdoor bans and I don't think anyone has insisted or argued that we SHOULD ban grills and fire pits. Maybe the time has come to force them to put their money where their mouth is or shut up.

Think about it - they want to ban smoking and smokeless e-cigarettes at the stadium in Indianapolis, but the hundreds of tailgating grills that will be at the Super Bowl this weekend, pumping out enough smoke to equal dozens of smokers for hours before the game, isn't a concern? Still think these bans are supported by "science?" Time to call them on their bluff?

Wisconsin bill to exclude e-cigs from smoking bans controversal?

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."
- Rita Mae Brown

State Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) has introduced Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469, an "Act to renumber 101.123 (1) (h); and to create 101.123 (1) (h) 2m. of the statutes; relating to: exempting electronic smoking devices from the types of smoking devices that may not be used in certain locations."

In my mind, this is an e-cigarette advocate's dream - to have a legislator on our side for once. To my surprise and astonishment, this bill is instead going over like a lead balloon for everyone except Wisconsin vapers.

I seriously feel that it's time we stopped always being on the defense and start making offensive maneuvers such as this, yet I have heard these objections to this bill from OUR side: 1) It's opening a can of worms; 2) It's creating a problem where there is none; 3) It's a huge waste of time and energy and a distraction from "important legislative battles;" and 4) This legislation doesn't preempt the local governments from including e-cigarettes in their bans, so it's basically worthless.

OK, 1) We aren't opening the proverbial "can of worms," the ANTZ are already doing it for us. Why let them get their misinformation to the legislators FIRST? Isn't it naive to think that if we don't do it, they won't either? Isn't that essentially hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening?

2) There may not be a "problem" today (as e-cigarettes are not referenced/included in the current law), but don't think that the ANTZ aren't working behind the scenes EVERYWHERE to introduce legislation or definition changes to include e-cigarettes in indoor bans. It's foolish to think that we are somehow "safe" if we aren't the ones to open up the dialog. We have evidence popping up like weeds all over the country showing that the ANTZ are actively approaching state and local legislators to get e-cigarettes included in smoking bans. It's stupid to think they aren't working anywhere and everywhere and we aren't going to be "creating" any problems that the ANTZ won't be right behind us to do themselves. 

Why do we have to wait and then have to undo the damage the ANTZ already have caused once we find out about the bill? These bills don't come out of a vacuum - the ANTZ have to spread their misinformation and lies to a lot of legislators before they get one to introduce a bill. By the time we are fighting the bill, most of the damage has been done and we have far less time to get the truth out. The reality is that those who introduce a bill are seen as more knowledgeable about the issue and their argument will be given greater weight. (They basically have all of the time in the world to make their arguments, while we have the short period between introduction and the vote.)

3) Wouldn't having specific language in the law stating outright that e-cigarettes are NOT "smoking" help prevent or seriously slow down efforts to get them included?? We are involved in all of these legislative battles because we are constantly on the defense against legislation introduced to ban e-cigarettes and the misinformation and lies told legislators that we have to try to UNDO. Wouldn't it make more sense that these proposed changes adding e-cigs would be a lot more difficult to pass if A) there's already language specifying that e-cigarette use is NOT smoking and B) the legislators have already received TRUTHFUL information and testimony from constituents and been educated BEFORE the ANTZ get to them??

4) See #3 plus even if it doesn't preempt local governments from making their own laws, it sets an example for them at a state level and sets a precedence for other states. Additionally, chances are most local governments don't even have their own local smoking bans and just follow the state law.
I just don't see any valid or reasonable argument against supporting this bill and not to try to get similar (maybe better) bills introduced in states where the ANTZ haven't already got a proposed ban inclusion started.

I got a letter back from my district's state senator, Jim Holeprin and he implied that the ANTZ are already actively trying to get a bill started in Wisconsin (where there was supposedly "no controversy" and "no problem" and Senator Grothman was "creating the problem" by introducing this clarification) to include e-cigarettes in smoking bans in Wisconsin. He said in his letter to me:

Some groups are calling for new legislation to specify that these electronic devices should be categorized as "smoking" and included in the ban. A measure like this has not yet been introduced, and may not be anytime this session.

That tells us that just because we haven't seen legislation introduced yet doesn't mean they aren't actively working behind the scenes to do so! The senator just basically admitted as such. Do we really think that having the bill specifically exempting e-cigarettes is a waste of time and energy here? Wouldn't it be just as much or maybe even more time and energy fighting the legislation to get them INCLUDED once they get it introduced?? Why are we just sitting back and letting them do this and not fighting until the problem is all too real and nearly impossible to fix at that point?

His next paragraph states:

The legislation you want me to support would make present law "clearer" by emphasizing that "smokeless" electronic devices are exempted from the statewide smoking ban (even though they are already excluded.) The exclusion has not been challenged anywhere that I know of.

Ummm...didn't he just state in the previous paragraph that there are groups calling for just such legislation??

He stated in his letter:

I was pleased to support the state smoking ban which was enacted almost two years ago...I believe last session's statewide smoking was a solid piece of legislation that attracted good support in the legislature, and has been implemented statewide without much controversy at all. Therefore, I am hesitant to see any changes to the new law that this time, because opening up the smoking issue could result in outcomes that are unpredictable and unwelcome.

Then he says:

If electronic cigarette use starts to become more prevalent, and if its use in public places starts to be challenged, then I would certainly consider supporting a clarification of the law.

OK, so, what if in the meantime the ANTZ get someone to support legislation to INCLUDE e-cigarettes? He doesn't say he would not support that, especially since he clearly supported the smoking ban. And "clarification" could come to mean that they ARE included!

The fact of the matter is, that not having e-cigarette use included in existing smoking bans has NOT protected them one iota from the law being changed TO include them (usually in the definition of "smoking.") So, why are we still acting like it somehow benefits or protects us that most smoking ban language does not presently include e-cigarettes? It hasn't really helped stop most of the amendments to include e-cigs in bans from getting passed. The fact that most laws don't include references to e-cigarettes is proving to be just as much of a hindrance to us, because the lack of language is leaving the door open for them to ADD the language. How could having e-cigarettes formally addressed as being exempt NOT make it harder to add that language?

Can someone tell me what I am missing here?

Wisconsin bill to exclude e-cigs from smoking bans controversal?

State Senator Glen Grothman (R-West Bend) has introduced Wisconsin Assembly Bill No. 469, an "Act to renumber 101.123 (1) (h); and to create 101.123 (1) (h) 2m. of the statutes; relating to: exempting electronic smoking devices from the types of smoking devices that may not be used in certain locations."

In my mind, this is an e-cigarette advocate's dream - to have a legislator on our side for once. To my surprise and astonishment, this bill is instead going over like a lead balloon for everyone except Wisconsin vapers.

I seriously feel that it's time we stopped always being on the defense and start making offensive maneuvers such as this, yet I have heard these objections to this bill from OUR side: 1) It's opening a can of worms; 2) It's creating a problem where there is none; 3) It's a huge waste of time and energy and a distraction from "important legislative battles;" and 4) This legislation doesn't preempt the local governments from including e-cigarettes in their bans, so it's basically worthless.

OK, 1) We aren't opening the proverbial "can of worms," the ANTZ are already doing it for us. Why let them get their misinformation to the legislators FIRST? Isn't it naive to think that if we don't do it, they won't either? Isn't that essentially hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it isn't happening?

2) There may not be a "problem" today (as e-cigarettes are not referenced/included in the current law), but don't think that the ANTZ aren't working behind the scenes EVERYWHERE to introduce legislation or definition changes to include e-cigarettes in indoor bans. It's foolish to think that we are somehow "safe" if we aren't the ones to open up the dialog. We have evidence popping up like weeds all over the country showing that the ANTZ are actively approaching state and local legislators to get e-cigarettes included in smoking bans. It's stupid to think they aren't working anywhere and everywhere and we aren't going to be "creating" any problems that the ANTZ won't be right behind us to do themselves. 

Why do we have to wait and then have to undo the damage the ANTZ already have caused once we find out about the bill? These bills don't come out of a vacuum - the ANTZ have to spread their misinformation and lies to a lot of legislators before they get one to introduce a bill. By the time we are fighting the bill, most of the damage has been done and we have far less time to get the truth out. The reality is that those who introduce a bill are seen as more knowledgeable about the issue and their argument will be given greater weight. (They basically have all of the time in the world to make their arguments, while we have the short period between introduction and the vote.)

3) Wouldn't having specific language in the law stating outright that e-cigarettes are NOT "smoking" help prevent or seriously slow down efforts to get them included?? We are involved in all of these legislative battles because we are constantly on the defense against legislation introduced to ban e-cigarettes and the misinformation and lies told legislators that we have to try to UNDO. Wouldn't it make more sense that these proposed changes adding e-cigs would be a lot more difficult to pass if A) there's already language specifying that e-cigarette use is NOT smoking and B) the legislators have already received TRUTHFUL information and testimony from constituents and been educated BEFORE the ANTZ get to them??

4) See #3 plus even if it doesn't preempt local governments from making their own laws, it sets an example for them at a state level and sets a precedence for other states. Additionally, chances are most local governments don't even have their own local smoking bans and just follow the state law.
I just don't see any valid or reasonable argument against supporting this bill and not to try to get similar (maybe better) bills introduced in states where the ANTZ haven't already got a proposed ban inclusion started.

I got a letter back from my district's state senator, Jim Holeprin and he implied that the ANTZ are already actively trying to get a bill started in Wisconsin (where there was supposedly "no controversy" and "no problem" and Senator Grothman was "creating the problem" by introducing this clarification) to include e-cigarettes in smoking bans in Wisconsin. He said in his letter to me:

Some groups are calling for new legislation to specify that these electronic devices should be categorized as "smoking" and included in the ban. A measure like this has not yet been introduced, and may not be anytime this session.

That tells us that just because we haven't seen legislation introduced yet doesn't mean they aren't actively working behind the scenes to do so! The senator just basically admitted as such. Do we really think that having the bill specifically exempting e-cigarettes is a waste of time and energy here? Wouldn't it be just as much or maybe even more time and energy fighting the legislation to get them INCLUDED once they get it introduced?? Why are we just sitting back and letting them do this and not fighting until the problem is all too real and nearly impossible to fix at that point?

His next paragraph states:

The legislation you want me to support would make present law "clearer" by emphasizing that "smokeless" electronic devices are exempted from the statewide smoking ban (even though they are already excluded.) The exclusion has not been challenged anywhere that I know of.

Ummm...didn't he just state in the previous paragraph that there are groups calling for just such legislation??

He stated in his letter:

I was pleased to support the state smoking ban which was enacted almost two years ago...I believe last session's statewide smoking was a solid piece of legislation that attracted good support in the legislature, and has been implemented statewide without much controversy at all. Therefore, I am hesitant to see any changes to the new law that this time, because opening up the smoking issue could result in outcomes that are unpredictable and unwelcome.

Then he says:

If electronic cigarette use starts to become more prevalent, and if its use in public places starts to be challenged, then I would certainly consider supporting a clarification of the law.

OK, so, what if in the meantime the ANTZ get someone to support legislation to INCLUDE e-cigarettes? He doesn't say he would not support that, especially since he clearly supported the smoking ban. And "clarification" could come to mean that they ARE included!

The fact of the matter is, that not having e-cigarette use included in existing smoking bans has NOT protected them one iota from the law being changed TO include them (usually in the definition of "smoking.") So, why are we still acting like it somehow benefits or protects us that most smoking ban language does not presently include e-cigarettes? It hasn't really helped stop most of the amendments to include e-cigs in bans from getting passed. The fact that most laws don't include references to e-cigarettes is proving to be just as much of a hindrance to us, because the lack of language is leaving the door open for them to ADD the language. How could having e-cigarettes formally addressed as being exempt NOT make it harder to add that language?

Can someone tell me what I am missing here?

Boise gets it but Boston nips it

The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, in conjunction with Jim Longden, the owner of Vapoligy (a Boise e-cigarette store) and several Boise e-cigarette users, successfully campaigned to get truthful and accurate information about e-cigarettes to the Boise City Council members, which resulted in the exclusion of e-cigarettes from ordinances which ban "smoking in bars and private clubs, near bus stops or other transit areas, on outdoor commercial patios accessible to children or on public property, at the Grove Plaza, on 8th Street from Bannock to Main streets, within 20 feet of a City of Boise-owned building and in other public locations" and "within 20 feet of the Boise Greenbelt, except in designated areas within Ann Morrison and Julia Davis parks and the Warm Springs Golf Course."


Mr. Longden was one of several who attended the Boise City Council meeting on Novemeber 1st and his experience supports CASAA's belief that e-cigarette users who show up to these meetings can make a significant impact.


"After the meeting we were able to talk with Councilman Thomson and Adam Park, who is the Communications Director for the Mayor and City Council," said Longden. "They were both very responsive and seemed genuinely interested in seeing an eCigarette perform even to the point where Mr. Park asked me to blow vapor in his face. They both seemed truly amazed at the lack of smell and the vapor dissipating almost instantly."


"This a significant victory. With a population of over 200,000 people, Boise is now the largest city in America to remove e-cigarettes from what was purported to be 'smoking' ban," said CASAA Director Gregory Conley. Other locales that have recently considered, and then rejected, bans on e-cigarette use, include Delaware County, Indiana and Alexandria, Louisiana," said CASAA Director Greg Conley.


Meanwhile, the news isn't as positive for Boston's local vapers. CASAA issued a Call to Action alert September 21st that the Boston Public Health Commission had proposed the Clean Air Works Workplace Smoking and E-Cigarette Use Restrictions Regulation, a prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in the workplace, which was passed by the Commission on Wednesday. Although many members headed the call, it simply wasn't enough.


"Seeking to close a loophole on unregulated products like electronic cigarettes that deliver nicotine, the Boston Public Health Commission’s Board of Health today approved a proposal to treat e-cigarettes like tobacco products, including requiring retail establishments to obtain a permit to sell them, prohibiting their use in the workplace, and restricting their sale to adults only," the BPHC website stated.


The Commission's statement is confusing, because the public use of many smokeless "tobacco products," such as snus, dissolvables and chew, is not prohibited. Therefore, the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the smoking ban is, in effect, treating e-cigarettes like tobacco cigarettes, not just as a tobacco product.


The prohibition on smoking in the workplace is argued by public health officials as necessary to protect bystanders from the "known hazards" of second-hand smoke. However, there has been no such evidence that vapor exhaled by e-cigarette users poses any risk to bystanders. In fact, researchers and even the FDA have failed to find dangerous levels of any toxins or carcinogens in e-cigarettes tested, so there is no science-based reason to suspect e-cigarettes pose a significant health risk to the user, let alone to bystanders. Absent any scientific evidence of health risks, CASAA suspects e-cigarettes are being treated like tobacco cigarettes by the BPHC based solely on how they may "look" to bystanders.


"E-cigarettes are currently in use by approximately 2.5 million adults to eliminate or significantly reduce their exposure to tobacco smoke and there have been no reports of significant adverse health effects since their introduction to the U.S. over 4 years ago," said Kristin Noll-Marsh, CASAA's vice president. "The ability to use e-cigarettes [where smoking is prohibited] is a powerful incentive to get smokers to consider switching to these reduced harm alternatives. By approving this ordinance, the Boston Health Department is sending the message to smokers that they may as well keep smoking. How is that remotely in the best interest of public health? At least Boise [City Council] got it right."

Chew/snus alternatives free from scrutiny given to e-cigarettes

The FDA has gone after e-cigarettes because it decided that the claims that e-cigarettes were safer than smoking were unproven and that the products were actually unapproved drug delivery systems designed for smoking cessation. Arguments that e-cigarettes are actually safer alternatives to smoking (rather than a treatment) have fallen on deaf ears.

Ironically, another "alternative" to tobacco - tobacco and nicotine-free chew/snus products - have seemingly been free to make similar claims about their products without any clinical trials or FDA scrutiny. Compare the claims made on the web site for a product called "Nip the Grip":

• Is NiP really safe? Yes. NiP the ENERGY DIP is made with natural sea sponge that is infused with Vitamin B-12, Caffeine, and natural flavorings which are all FDA approved ingredients.
• NiP is a safe and healthy, natural alternative to smokeless tobacco. It has been specially developed for times of nicotine cravings and your need for increased mental and physical focus.
• NiP is a unique, safe alternative to smokeless tobacco. NiP is designed to help people break away from the powerful grip of nicotine addiction.
• Nip is safe, healthy and a great way to cope with the intense physical cravings of nicotine while achieving more ENERGY and enjoying the same oral gratification as a dip of tobacco.
• A BETTER, HEALTHY BUZZ

And this is just one product's claims. I found several chew/snus alternatives including Absolut Snus (coffee based), Jake's Mint Chew (mint leaf-based in mint, cinnamon, licorice or cherry flavors), Chattahoochee Herbal Snuff (made with soy and glycerin in wintergreen, cherry, mint, whiskey, tobacco and "spitfire" flavors), and Root 100 (ginseng-based in candy and fruit flavors such as apple, cinnamon, peppermint and tangerine) all making similar claims on their web sites.

So, where is the FDA questioning the safety and efficacy of these products claiming to help you beat your nicotine addiction? Why is it legal for some of them to simply put the standard disclaimer "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," (others don't even bother with the disclaimer) when that is clearly what they state the product is for on their web sites? Where is the demand for clinical trials and peer-reviewed research?

Where are the public health groups questioning the long-term effects of having these products in your mouth? Why are they not objecting to the fact that these products "look like" tobacco products and counter their denormalization campaign against tobacco? Why are the ANTZ not claiming that these fruit and candy flavors are encouraging kids to pretend to chew and that they may be a gateway to using "real" chew? How about the fact that it's sold right along side chewing tobacco in convenience stores?

Now, obviously I don't think any of those things should happen - anymore than they should for e-cigarettes. I don't want to see any alternative taken away from people who want it. It's the double standard that bothers me. 

According to this CNN report on mint snuff, dentists endorse and even hand out the tobacco-free products:

(Note the deceptive and misleading statement made by the reporter at the end. She continues the myth that nicotine and addiction is the greatest health risk by stating, "If you think dipping snuff is better than smoking, you're wrong. Chewing tobacco is highly addictive and exposes the body to levels of nicotine equal to those of cigarettes.")

And there it is: the nicotine. These other products are virtually identical in purpose to e-cigarettes, but they do not contain the nicotine. Which begs another question - then why the objection to nicotine-free e-cigarettes? They just "look like" smoking as these products "look like" chewing tobacco. And what about the addictive qualities of the caffeine in some of these chew replacements?

That is what it really comes down to - the vilification of nicotine and the belief that any "addiction" - no matter how low health risks - is the true evil. It's truly not about health - it's about social acceptance. 

Fat people - welcome to our world

In a recent Time Magazine online article, "Let’s Stop Being Passive About Fighting Obesity: It's time to embrace the same tactics that worked against smoking," public health writer Shannon Brownlee drew comparisons between smoking and obesity, calling for public health (and the public) to start treating fat people like smokers. I responded in the comments, but felt it was worth posting here, as well:


The author says, "The war on smoking worked because it made smoking shameful and the public health measures needed to fight it permissible."


In fact, the war on smoking was most successful from 1950 (when the link to lung cancer was found) through the 1980's - when public health focused on education and information, not the "shaming" of smokers. The smoking rate dropped dramatically from 44% to 26% (from 1950 to 1990.) The greatest advances in the mid to late 1980's - nicotine gum approved by the FDA, first city bans smoking in restaurants in 1987, nicotine compared to heroin (without any actual studies to support it), had very little impact in the following decade. The research on second-hand smoke came out in the 1990's, which was gleefully used to change a war against the negative health effects of smoking (to HELP smokers improve their health) into a war AGAINST smokers. The smoking rate at that time was 25%. Since the war on smoking turned from education and encouragement to a war on smokers and making smoking "shameful," the smoking rate has decreased only 5% in those 20 years (1990 to present) and has even ticked back up from 19% to 20% in the past couple of years.


The war on smoking worked for 40 years because it focused on education, developing tools for smokers to quit (finding them safer alternatives) and helping get smokers access to those tools. It relied on sound science and a true dedication to improving public health by empowering people - not controlling human behavior.


Since the late 1980's, public health has turned from trying to help smokers to battling "Big Evil Tobacco" - regardless of the health effects. The discovery that nicotine is addictive turned nicotine and addiction into the evil of smoking, rather than the health effects of inhaling toxic smoke. The science shows that not all tobacco use is equally hazardous - modern smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes have been shown to be 99% safer than smoking, but since the anti-tobacco groups want everyone to quit, they feel justified in letting smokers think they may as well smoke, so they don't just switch to safer options. The insistence on absolute abstinence from all nicotine use, even if it has extremely low health risks, angering smokers and tobacco users by treating them as less than human, applying punitive charges, taxes and policies to smokers - all while isolating them and ostracizing them - has created a backlash.


Additionally, using junk science to justify these actions (claiming taxes, graphic labels, bans and nicotine products work, when real scientific research proves they don't or claiming smokeless products like snus, dissolvable tobacco or e-cigarettes are just as dangerous as smoking when they are 99% less of a health risk) has created distrust and animosity of public health groups. Not to mention revelations that tobacco taxes - having been raised over 2,000% in some places since 1990, because proponents claimed for every 10% taxes were raised overall smoking rates would fall 4% (yet the smoking rate has only fallen 5% overall in the same time period) - are being relied upon to balance state budgets and pay tobacco control executive salaries, which seems to be a huge conflict of interest in actually wanting to END smoking.


Is this really the model you want to apply to fighting obesity?