Similarly, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights - in a press release titled Electronic Cigarettes are NOT a safe alternative! - criticised the e-cigarette specifically because it mimics the act of smoking and because it contains nicotine. Only pharmaceutical nicotine products escape criticism, partly because they are marketed as a medicinal cure for a ‘disease’ and partly because they administer nicotine without providing pleasure. This has led to a somewhat inconsistent view of nicotine, described as being perfectly safe in pharmaceutical products but highly toxic in e-cigarettes, snus and other tobacco products. The EPA describes it as “acutely toxic (Category 1) by all routes of exposure (oral, dermal and inhalation)” while the MHRA says thats “nicotine, while addictive, is actually a very safe drug.”Read Full Story
My views on tobacco and nicotine consumer issues, nanny state policies, Libertarian viewpoints, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other random topics that pop up.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Why do anti-smoking groups oppose tobacco harm reduction?
An excellent speech by Christopher Snowdon, author of "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They are extremly dangerous to the bottom line of Pfizer, the cessation manufacturing company that spent millions using tax exempt political action committees (charities) to get these smoking bans in the first place, They are undermining the entire purpose of expensive smoking bans. Also, unlike Chantix, they have no mind altering drugs and can be safely used by airline pilots, railroad engineers, truck drivers, and others in jobs where public safety is an issue.
ReplyDeletewww.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912