# National poll on tobacco harm reduction



## RichJB (25/5/17)

Hello all, News24 recently published the results of a public poll that was conducted by Milward Brown on tobacco harm reduction. Original article here.

While the results of the poll are encouraging to vapers, the poll was funded by Philip Morris. And it shows in the poll findings. Let's take some examples.



> 76% think heated tobacco products have the potential to improve public health



Sure. But are heated tobacco products the best/most popular harm reduction product?



> 8 in 10 support reduced-risk product development by tobacco companies



What is the support for reduced-risk product development by non-tobacco companies?



> 58% think tobacco companies have an important role to play in harm reduction



What is the response about non-tobacco companies' role in harm reduction?

One can understand that Philip Morris was more interested in public perceptions about their company and their products than vaping companies and products. They funded the study, they can structure it any way they like. But, in the public's mind, it does create the perception that vaping = big tobacco and that harm reduction is being driven by big tobacco. While that is partly true, it's not the whole truth and it doesn't mention the significant role that non-tobacco (i.e. vaping) companies are playing in harm reduction.

It's why I always say that it is pointless for the vaping community to try and distance itself from big tobacco, or persuade the public that vaping is completely different from big tobacco. The perception of the non-smoking public is shaped by articles and studies like this, so they are never going to appreciate the fine distinction between the vaping gear we use and the cigalikes or heated tobacco products sold by big tobacco. In their mind, e-cigarettes = big tobacco.

The vaping industry needs alternative studies to counter this perception. But where does the funding come from? It is largely a PR war and tobacco's bottomless coffers are allowing them to dictate terms. That, in turn, fuels skepticism about vaping. Big tobacco lied about the health implications of their products before. The assumption is that they will lie again and the whole of vaping gets tarnished by that. It also fuels the belief that vaping is just big tobacco's way of keeping the populace hooked on nicotine. Without a significant injection of PR funding, it's hard to see how vaping is going to counter this. For the foreseeable future, we are deemed to be in bed with big tobacco.

Still, let's look on the bright side: the vast majority of voters have rejected the "ban everything that contains nicotine" approach and understand that harm reduction has a key role to play. That is, of course, if the published results are true. I dunno but the attitudes in the poll seem suspiciously open-minded compared to what I have heard from the general public. 79% of people think vaping should be allowed in places where smoking is banned? Really?? So 4 out of 5 non-smoking open-plan office workers would have no objection if colleagues were allowed to vape in the office? I find that a bit hard to believe tbh. Anyway, it is what it is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Lloydb (25/5/17)

RichJB said:


> Sure. But are heated tobacco products the best/most popular harm reduction product?



Vape juice doesn't contain tobacco?

Are they again trying to insinuate that vaping contains tobacco?


----------



## RichJB (25/5/17)

No, not really. That question was specifically about heated tobacco products. Elsewhere in the study they refer to "combustion-free alternatives to cigarettes" and "alternative nicotine-containing products". I don't think there is an agenda to imply that everything contains tobacco.

The wording used might explain some of the poll results. For example:



> 79% agree that alternatives that don't burn tobacco should be allowed where cigarette use is banned



That implies that everybody has a clear understanding of what "alternatives that don't burn tobacco" means. For many respondents, I think the assumption would be that they are talking about patches and gum. So the question is then interpreted as "should patches and gum be allowed where cigarette use is banned?" Well, duh, of course. Nobody is going to object if a colleague at the next desk in the open-plan office is wearing a patch.


----------



## Lloydb (25/5/17)

I hear what you are saying, but is it not within their (PM) best interest to imply that everything contains tobacco? if they can get people to perceive that vaping is as bad as smoking an analog then aren't they winning?


----------



## Lloydb (25/5/17)

RichJB said:


> That implies that everybody has a clear understanding of what "alternatives that don't burn tobacco" means. For many respondents, I think the assumption would be that they are talking about patches and gum. So the question is then interpreted as "should patches and gum be allowed where cigarette use is banned?" Well, duh, of course. Nobody is going to object if a colleague at the next desk in the open-plan office is wearing a patch.



Sorry I never saw that part of your reply before i replied


----------



## RichJB (25/5/17)

Sorry, my fault as I edited my post. I don't believe that PM is trying to convince people that vaping is just as bad as smoking. Quite the contrary, their study shows support for vaping (or, more broadly, all harm reduction products) as a much safer alternative to smoking.

What they are doing, though, is putting themselves at the forefront of the harm reduction drive. As in "we may have created the initial problem but we are now also the solution. You don't need anybody else, PM has the answers". While that is partly true and big tobacco's alternative products are to be commended (as opposed to denial or doing nothing), they are not by any means the sole solution. Still, it has to be expected. It's R&D expenditure and any corporate policy will hold that R&D expenditure should have positive PR impact for the company.


----------



## Lloydb (25/5/17)

RichJB said:


> Sorry, my fault as I edited my post. I don't believe that PM is trying to convince people that vaping is just as bad as smoking. Quite the contrary, their study shows support for vaping (or, more broadly, all harm reduction products) as a much safer alternative to smoking.
> 
> What they are doing, though, is putting themselves at the forefront of the harm reduction drive. As in "we may have created the initial problem but we are now also the solution. You don't need anybody else, PM has the answers". While that is partly true and big tobacco's alternative products are to be commended (as opposed to denial or doing nothing), they are not by any means the sole solution. Still, it has to be expected. It's R&D expenditure and any corporate policy will hold that R&D expenditure should have positive PR impact for the company.



I see what you getting at, basically this is another marketing tool that makes them look better.


----------



## RichJB (25/5/17)

It'll drive sales as well. Publishing a research study which implies that 80% of the population thinks your product is good might sway those who aren't convinced. As in "well, if so many other people think it's great, I must be missing something. Maybe I should look into this". At the very least, paying for it to be on News24 increases their brand awareness.

Of course, pharma will be annoyed by this because their NRT are only hinted at in the study, much like vaping. The spotlight is on heated/smokeless tobacco products. Vaping might not have the funds to launch a counter-offensive but pharma sure does. So expect The Empire Strikes Back shortly.


----------



## Effjh (25/5/17)

Lloydb said:


> I hear what you are saying, but is it not within their (PM) best interest to imply that everything contains tobacco? if they can get people to perceive that vaping is as bad as smoking an analog then aren't they winning?


Some insider info. Believe it or not, PMI is planning to stop producing traditional cigarettes completely in a few years and only market devices similar to the iQos. They want the harm reduction side to look better so that they "win" and they're cigarette selling competitors "lose".

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## kimbo (25/5/17)

RichJB said:


> Hello all, News24 recently published the results of a public poll that was conducted by Milward Brown on tobacco harm reduction. Original article here.
> 
> While the results of the poll are encouraging to vapers, the poll was funded by Philip Morris. And it shows in the poll findings. Let's take some examples.
> 
> ...



Heated? To what point? combustion?
Cause that is the bad one


----------



## RichJB (25/5/17)

No, it's the IQOS heated tobacco system that @Effjh mentioned. It's apparently safer than smoking although, as with vaping, health authorities say it's too early to make definitive conclusions yet.


----------



## RichJB (25/5/17)

Effjh said:


> Some insider info. Believe it or not, PMI is planning to stop producing traditional cigarettes completely in a few years and only market devices similar to the iQos. They want the harm reduction side to look better so that they "win" and they're cigarette selling competitors "lose".



I see the whole industry going this way. BAT and Reynolds also have their vaporiser products so the fight is on for who can take the cigarette-smoking market share in the developed world. For the undeveloped world, they'll continue to market cigarettes until they can find an alternative that is both less harmful and more affordable. Vaping is the rich man's solution but it does nothing for penniless third world residents. That is the only thing keeping cigarettes viable at this point, that technology hasn't advanced to the point where tobacco companies can phase cigarettes out completely. They are all aiming to do it, though, as it cuts the link to their shameful past.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Effjh (25/5/17)

RichJB said:


> I see the whole industry going this way. BAT and Reynolds also have their vaporiser products so the fight is on for who can take the cigarette-smoking market share in the developed world. For the undeveloped world, they'll continue to market cigarettes until they can find an alternative that is both less harmful and more affordable. Vaping is the rich man's solution but it does nothing for penniless third world residents. That is the only thing keeping cigarettes viable at this point, that technology hasn't advanced to the point where tobacco companies can phase cigarettes out completely. They are all aiming to do it, though, as it cuts the link to their shameful past.



Indeed. They might save the vaping industry to a degree, but not because they give a toss about us or our health, it's still purely business. BAT is going a different direction from PMI with vapor products more in kind to what we are used to (Eliquid + atomiser). 

The main appeal to BAT is the fact that they can market and advertise it, which neither them nor their competitors can do by law with cigarettes. I suspect they will want vape products to NOT be classified as tobacco products as that will mean no advertising and back to square one. 

PMI on the other hand are actually using tobacco in their IQOS system, so it is in their best interest if it is in fact all labelled tobacco products. They can then kill the small guys by being big enough to absorb the regulatory product approval costs.

They are all working their own little angle. As far as I am concerned, as long as traditional cigarettes go away and people are vaping/heating instead of combusting tobacco, it is a public health victory. Big pharma on the other hand.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------

