On October 3 I testified at an Oklahoma legislative hearing
on tobacco harm reduction, providing the state’s smokers and policymakers with
the facts about vastly safer smoke-free cigarette substitutes. My op ed column
on the subject was published in The Oklahoman on September 30 (available here).
In response, an October 10 commentary by Danny McGoldrick (here) urged lawmakers not to inform Oklahoma smokers about safer products.
In response, an October 10 commentary by Danny McGoldrick (here) urged lawmakers not to inform Oklahoma smokers about safer products.
McGoldrick argued “there’s little evidence that this tobacco
industry scheme reduces smoking. In
fact, there is considerable risk it would backfire and encourage more tobacco
use, including among children. The result would be more tobacco-caused death
and disease.”
That these unsubstantiated, demonstrably false claims are
made by a vice president for research at a national anti-tobacco group is
appalling, but not unexpected.
McGoldrick’s employer, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, like other
tobacco prohibitionist groups, routinely ignores scientific evidence that
doesn’t support their objective. Rather,
they offer conjecture, unfounded assertions and ad hominem attacks.
The scientific foundation for tobacco harm reduction is well
established by decades of research. My
comprehensive reviews of the evidence in 2006 (here) and 2011 (here) were based on 279 articles published primarily in medical and scientific
journals. Numerous articles have been
published in the past year.
McGoldrick ignores this evidence. Instead, he repeats an unsupported claim
about marketing to children. Tobacco
initiation by young people should be stopped, but offering adult smokers safer
products is not a children’s issue. If
Tobacco-Free Kids has evidence that tobacco manufacturers are marketing to children,
they should present it to states’ attorneys general. The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement prohibits
manufacturers from targeting children, and many states have expedited processes
for policing and enforcing these provisions.
McGoldrick’s group and its allies have made significant
strides in pushing the FDA to stifle promotion of smoke-free products. In March
of this year, the agency released a 50-page draft document listing information
that will be required for a product to be accepted as “modified [i.e., reduced]
risk” (available here). If adopted, these overly burdensome requirements will condemn
smokeless tobacco products, and therefore tobacco harm reduction, to regulatory
purgatory (here).
For Tobacco-Free Kids, wrecking the tobacco industry is more
important than saving smokers’ lives.
Discouraging the education of smokers about safer products contributes
to the 440,000 smoking-attributable deaths recorded in the U.S. annually. Public policy should support healthier choices
for all Americans, including those addicted to nicotine.
1 comment:
I found it hard to understand what this post was trying to point out at first. But later on realized that you were simply referring to NRT(nicotine replacement therapies and THR(tobacco harm reduction) not to be spread by word-of-mouth vulgarly. Still, I just don't get it... Why would someone urge lawmakers not to reveal this info to OKC smokers. And his answer is because children might find it appealing? Well, that's lame for an excuse if you ask me.. I don't think such a thing could happen! Anyways, this was definitely another good read(as expected, professional, well-thought-out and not biased!)... :)
Kind Regards,
Mark
Post a Comment