Are you in favor of the concept of Tobacco Harm Reduction?

Sure, as long as it’s voluntary.

I’m with @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard on this. Not surprising.

My insurance doesn’t cover the patch. Seems insane to me.

Yes.

It is OK with me as long as the Federal Government isn’t in charge of it.

Considering that I smoked straight tobacco that lacked all of the chemicals normally found in most cigarettes, I think it safe to say that such alternatives exist. I also notice that it seems to be more of a problem in the US than in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia where many people smoke like chimneys. IMO, if you see a bunch of Chinese centenarians who each smoke 2–3 packs a day and have done so since WWI, that means something is up with American cigs.

I agree that it must be voluntary, and there is often more to smoking than the nicotine anyways. Also, the alternatives tend to have other issues. I got chemical burns and overdoses from the patch, Mouth cancer kind of makes me wary of some of the other alternatives, if for no reason other than I have no idea what else they will add.

Therefore, I have some serious misgivings about the whole idea.

@math_nerd: The patch and other medicinal nicotine products still cost more than smoking. Makes you wonder whether “they” really want you to stop smoking, doesn’t it? If you can afford cigarettes, you can afford to switch to electronic cigarettes or snus. Your risk of lung disease will drop because you wil have stopped inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of harmful chemicals created by the process of combustion. Excess risk of lung cancer may take up to 20 years to go away, though, depending on how much lung damage the smoke did.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard: Nobody wants to force Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) upon smokers. The opposite is true. The tobacco control gang is actively trying to prevent THR. They have a fantasy that if they just dump enough punishment on the heads of smokers that eventually everyone will give up all use of nicotine. It worked for a while, but smoking cessation rates have stagnated; and, when used as directed to wean down and off nicotine, the FDA-approved nicotine products have a paltry 7% success rate, dropping to 5% at one year. This stands in stark contrast to the success rates for smoking abstinence achieved by practicing THR. In Sweden, 66% of the men who used snus as their only method achieved complete smoking abstinence. Surveys of electronic cigarette consumers show success rates ranging from 31% (for customers of a single brand) to over 80% for members of an on-line support community.

What methods are being used by the tobacco control gang? Partial truths: “Ths product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes”. Partly true because nothing in this world is 100% safe. But it is very misleading when placed on a product that, if used as a replacement for smoking, could reduce smoking-related disease by 90 to 99%. Those awful pictures that you see of various mouth cancers? Many of those pictured used the older high-nitrosamine chewing tobacco. Smoking is responsible for a higher rate for all types of cancer than any other type of tobacco product. Yet, clever wording on the Cancer Society, Heart Association, and Lung Association web sites give the impression that switching to smokeless tobacco will increase your risks of mouth cancer.

What else has the tobacco control gang been up to? American for Nonsmokers Rights has sent out model legislation to get states and municipal government to ban the sales of the new dissolvable tobacco products, claiming that the products must be aimed at children because they come in pleasant flavors and in colorful packaging. They hope we won’t notice that the pharmaceutical product Nicorette Mini Lozenges comes in a bright blue package and in pleasant flavors. They trust we won’t figure out that dissolvable tobacco products are shelved with the other tobacco products out of reach of children. They are also promoting bans on the sales of electronic cigarettes; and if they can’t get that, they want to banish the former smokers who use an e-cigarette outside into the smoking area.

@jerv: You make an excellent point. We need many different types of alternatives because one size does not fit all. I, too, have an allergic reaction to the adhesive used in the patch. People with dentures won’t fare well with using nicotine gum. The nicotine gum, lozenges, and snus all rely on absorbtion of nicotine from the inner cheek—the area between the lips and the gums. Dentures tend to cover up most of the gums, so vaporized nicotine (e-cigarette) might be the most effective product for them. You also brought up the issue of there being more to smoking than the nicotine. E-cigarettes satisfy the need for the hand to mouth movement and for the visual effect, with vapor replacing the smoke.

@VocalEK I have an e-cig, and it isn’t the same. Oddly, in King County, WA, they are prohibited in all the same places that regular smoking is; something about “eroding social norms”. I guess the law only catches up with progress well enough to legislate us back to the 19th century.

I switched to e-cigs over a year ago. I had no desire to quit smoking because I enjoy it, so abstinance, gum, patches, etc. were not anything I was interested in. I switched because I refuse to pay the taxes on cigs, and because I wanted to be healthier and not smell like smoke. It worked for me, I get to have a “smoke” whenever I want and still be healthy and smell good. What a deal!

I hear that the government is trying to make e-cigs illegal – typical. They don’t care about anyone’s health or well-being, they just want their money.

And I think it is insane and self-righteous of people to keep marajuana illegal. I don’t use it myself but have friends and family who have been using it for over 40 years. And guess what – they didn’t go to any other drug so the “gateway drug” argument is bull. And they are perfectly healthy. And when they smoke it, it doesn’t impair them any more than having a beer. Our government has been fighting this fight for 50–60 years and besides spending billions on the fight, have accomplished absolutely nothing. Anyone that wants it can get it with no problem. People still use it and it isn’t the “evil thing” that our government tries to tell us it is. To hear them talk, you would think the world would come to an end if weed was legal.

The proposal makes sense, but judging from the FDA’s ongoing effort to have e-cigarettes banned practical suggestions are not something they’re likely to entertain.

Replacing nicotine is about handling an addiction and this involves human psychology as well. A good concept has to include this part.

Things are looking up. Recently the FDA filed a document opposing a new party entering the NJOY v. FDA lawsuit as an intervenor plaintiff. They gave this explanation:

“The D.C. Circuit held in this case that FDA can regulate tobacco products under the drug/device provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) only if the products are “marketed for therapeutic purposes.” Sottera, Inc. v FDA, 627 F.3d 891, 898 (D.C. Cir. 2010). To comply with that holding, FDA has changed its import policy, and no longer refuses shipments of e-cigarettes that do not make therapeutic claims. Declaration of Domenic J. Veneziano, Director, Division of Import Operations and Policy
(“Veneziano Decl.”)”

@VocalEK So does that mean they’ll let us vape in peace?

Not all nicotine comes from tobacco though (it can be synthesized), so I fail to see how that provision allows the FDA to even look at e-cigs and similar items,

If they extend the definition of “tobacco product” then all plants are subject to FDA regulation, and since plants consume water, anything that consumes water is also under the thumb of the FDA; they can regulate humans!

Since I doubt the courts will go along with those last leaps of logic, I can’t see how they will go with the first one; namely that anything with nicotine is a tobacco product.