Report: Reynolds eyes company that helps smokers quit

Ah, so how are the anti-Pharma terrorists going to use their stance to defend Big Tobacco now?

Actually, I've been meaning to track a reference from the late 1980s to Reynolds research into a "non-cigarette cigarette". It apparently went nowhere (unless there are deep and hidden ties to the e-cigarette somewhere).

I also recall a tobacco industry quote that shows up here and there, regarding looking for an alternative product that was also addictive, probably containing nicotine.

It makes sense that RJR would want to promote nicotine replacement as the preferred cessation approach, as it threatens profits far less than a vaccine that would negate the addiction.

discusseded wrote:

Ah, so how are the anti-Pharma terrorists going to use their stance to defend Big Tobacco now?
Actually, I've been meaning to track a reference from the late 1980s to Reynolds research into a "non-cigarette cigarette". It apparently went nowhere (unless there are deep and hidden ties to the e-cigarette somewhere).
I also recall a tobacco industry quote that shows up here and there, regarding looking for an alternative product that was also addictive, probably containing nicotine.
It makes sense that RJR would want to promote nicotine replacement as the preferred cessation approach, as it threatens profits far less than a vaccine that would negate the addiction.

No one with half a brain is going to take your f'n vaccine.

Another reason top Exs of Tobacco cos wish to "show a good face" is they realize they may indeed face manslaughter or MURDER charges. It's hanging over their heads and they know it. They are desperate to show they are trying to fix the problem, and are not part of it. We can hope once they are tried, they will be treated as other mass murders have been in the past.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
No one with half a brain is going to take your f'n vaccine.

First, not mine, second if you think of it as an f'n vaccine then your addiction is further along than I thought.

BTW, I want kudos for leaving the brain portion straight line alone.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
First, not mine, second if you think of it as an f'n vaccine then your addiction is further along than I thought.
BTW, I want kudos for leaving the brain portion straight line alone.

You are one frightening socialist.

If Big Brother comes up with a pill for Narcissism...will you please be the first in line?

just candid wrote:

Another reason top Exs of Tobacco cos wish to "show a good face" is they realize they may indeed face manslaughter or MURDER charges. It's hanging over their heads and they know it. They are desperate to show they are trying to fix the problem, and are not part of it. We can hope once they are tried, they will be treated as other mass murders have been in the past.

I believe--and have asked for corrections (if justified) without receiving any--that any death that occurs as a result of commission of a felony is regarded as murder. I further believe that the fraud involved in the RICO convictions constitutes a huge number of instances of felonious conduct.

I've said before, any industry exec or employee who acted with guilty knowledge in the perpetrating or perpetuating of those felonies is guilty of mass (to put it mildly) murder and/or being an accessory (no real difference in culpability) to such murder.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
No one with half a brain is going to take your f'n vaccine.

the antis can have an injection party and enjoy big pharmas newest drug. How far will big pharma go and how much destruction to replace their top drugs that are going to generic? Anything for the almighty dollar.
I can see it now, the newest drug for a class lawsuit due to its harm after the fact.

NO THANKS

Fine by me. You ladies just go ahead and go cold turkey unsupported when your addiction maintenance becomes illegal.

RJR may be able to put it off a little longer by pumping their backing into nicotine replacement, but the end seems to be just around the corner.

Which is, please note, better than around the coroner.

discusseded wrote:

Fine by me. You ladies just go ahead and go cold turkey unsupported when your addiction maintenance becomes illegal.
RJR may be able to put it off a little longer by pumping their backing into nicotine replacement, but the end seems to be just around the corner.

Oh, please, you little NAZI creep. You have no understanding of the real world and the history that rules it. Here's a primer on the history of cigarette prohibition http://sadireland.com/smoking1.htm
Keep in mind that there are over 1.4 billion smokers in the world. What would 1.4 billion smokers look like marching against the cowards and phobes at anti-smoking central?

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, please, you little NAZI creep. You have no understanding of the real world and the history that rules it. Here's a primer on the history of cigarette prohibition http://sadireland.com/smoking1.htm
Keep in mind that there are over 1.4 billion smokers in the world. What would 1.4 billion smokers look like marching against the cowards and phobes at anti-smoking central?

Sheri, I thought you said you were an English teacher. I would have hoped you could do a little better than, " you are a little NAZI creep." when attempting to put someone down. However if that's the best you can do, you can at least say you gave it your best shot. Sad~Sad~Sad. <:~(

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Sheri, I thought you said you were an English teacher. I would have hoped you could do a little better than, " you are a little NAZI creep." when attempting to put someone down. However if that's the best you can do, you can at least say you gave it your best shot. Sad~Sad~Sad. <:~(

I stand by my description and by my choice of words.

discusseded wrote:

Fine by me. You ladies just go ahead and go cold turkey unsupported when your addiction maintenance becomes illegal.
RJR may be able to put it off a little longer by pumping their backing into nicotine replacement, but the end seems to be just around the corner.

Oh you nazi prick, big pharma will see that nicotine is not illegal..you live in fantasy land

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I stand by my description and by my choice of words.

Triple times 99 Billion sad! PATHETIC is a better description.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, please, you little NAZI creep. You have no understanding of the real world and the history that rules it. Here's a primer on the history of cigarette prohibition http://sadireland.com/smoking1.htm
Keep in mind that there are over 1.4 billion smokers in the world. What would 1.4 billion smokers look like marching against the cowards and phobes at anti-smoking central?

Let's see, apart from the fact that an anti-Nazi German scientist was advocating proscription of tobacco in the 1920s because his research showed a clear causal link to lung cancer in smokers AND IN THEIR SPOUSES, we can look at this name-calling another way.

Sheri and/or her cohorts continually contest evidence of that causal connection for SHS because they claim there are no laboratory tests to prove it.

Now, what they clearly demand is that those concerned about SHS go into a laboratory and experiment on humans by killing them with SHS exposure--just so Sheri and Co. can be persuaded of the possibility.

Complying with Sheri's demands WOULD be a very Nazi thing to do.

So would subjecting others to lethally toxic gas and eliciting their cooperation by lying to them about the nature of the experience so that they will march right into the gas.

Sounds a lot like tobacco industry tactics for over half a century.

Simply disagreeing with Sheri does not make anyone a Nazi, and agreeing/complying with Sheri makes one very close to the worst elements of Naziism.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see, apart from the fact that an anti-Nazi German scientist was advocating proscription of tobacco in the 1920s because his research showed a clear causal link to lung cancer in smokers AND IN THEIR SPOUSES, we can look at this name-calling another way.
Sheri and/or her cohorts continually contest evidence of that causal connection for SHS because they claim there are no laboratory tests to prove it.
Now, what they clearly demand is that those concerned about SHS go into a laboratory and experiment on humans by killing them with SHS exposure--just so Sheri and Co. can be persuaded of the possibility.
Complying with Sheri's demands WOULD be a very Nazi thing to do.
So would subjecting others to lethally toxic gas and eliciting their cooperation by lying to them about the nature of the experience so that they will march right into the gas.
Sounds a lot like tobacco industry tactics for over half a century.
Simply disagreeing with Sheri does not make anyone a Nazi, and agreeing/complying with Sheri makes one very close to the worst elements of Naziism.

I can say one thing...NEVER did I suggest experimenting with any human being for anything that involves shs exposure or Chantix or a vaccination. I will NOT be in any test group as you would like. That is the NAZI angle. Over the centuries, billions of people have been exposed to shs, yet you cannot name even one person that it killed. I can point to over 100 people who have offed themselves because of experiments on humans with Chantix. Yet, your people keep prescribing it. As for the vaccine....yeah RIGHT! Not going to happen.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see, apart from the fact that an anti-Nazi German scientist was advocating proscription of tobacco in the 1920s because his research showed a clear causal link to lung cancer in smokers AND IN THEIR SPOUSES, we can look at this name-calling another way.
Sheri and/or her cohorts continually contest evidence of that causal connection for SHS because they claim there are no laboratory tests to prove it.
Now, what they clearly demand is that those concerned about SHS go into a laboratory and experiment on humans by killing them with SHS exposure--just so Sheri and Co. can be persuaded of the possibility.
Complying with Sheri's demands WOULD be a very Nazi thing to do.
So would subjecting others to lethally toxic gas and eliciting their cooperation by lying to them about the nature of the experience so that they will march right into the gas.
Sounds a lot like tobacco industry tactics for over half a century.
Simply disagreeing with Sheri does not make anyone a Nazi, and agreeing/complying with Sheri makes one very close to the worst elements of Naziism.

lol, if you track the pharmaceutical cos back to NAzi Germany where they joined old hitler to use their chemicals on humans you will find that the names just changed ..

Reynolds American is just making a good business decision (no morality here). Its like a local dentist also owning all of the candy vending machines in the area. You make money on people in and out.
James
Customer Service rep in Cordova, TN
http://www.jrsmedical.com

James wrote:

Reynolds American is just making a good business decision (no morality here). Its like a local dentist also owning all of the candy vending machines in the area. You make money on people in and out.
James
Customer Service rep in Cordova, TN
http://www.jrsmedical.com

They have an addictive product. Given the public is being offered a range of approaches to reducing use of that product, it is clearly in the company's interest to back an option capable in itself of perpetuating the addiction.

Other approaches, such as Chantix or the vaccines, approach the problem as one of incapacitating the addiction instead. That makes nicotine-replacement products the enemy of RJR's enemy. RJR is simply looking at supporting a friend. On top of that, if they also buy some directional control, so much the better for manipulating/undermining the effectiveness of public efforts to use NRT against the prevalence of tobacco products.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I can say one thing...NEVER did I suggest experimenting with any human being for anything that involves shs exposure

Maybe not, but it is the only approach that would satisfy your demands for "proof" of harm. And even then, you and yours would probably continue screaming that it was all a coincidence or that the tests were being done by people who WANTED to show that SHS was potentially lethal.

If Master Settlement money were used to fund autopsies for nonsmokers dead of lung cancer, and those autopsies included testing at the DNA level to identify damage known to result from tobacco-specific carcinogens, it just might evolve a level of proof that would shut down ALL efforts to pretend there is reasonable doubt.

The utility of such a program in terms of rock-solid political/social support for smoke-free efforts is not easy to communicate, though, to the mainstream scientific community when THOSE people have no doubt whatsoever about the connection. They would likely see it as wasting time, money and facilities in pandering to and legitimizing tobacco apologists.

The industry has a vested interest in creating public antipathy for using the money for effective anti-tobacco efforts, and there is no shortage of other interests who are more than happy to have the money pushed their way.