It is pretty clear that this “controversy” has been engineered by those worried about losing their unending supply of anti-tobacco funding, taking advantage of their current power and influence, including with the press, to defend their empire against anyone with another priority.
In the same article, Stanton Glantz is quoted, “Given that tobacco kills four times as many people as obesity does, why is the government putting more money into obesity?” Since he seems to be believe that passing exposure to second hand smoke causes 1/3 of all heart attacks, I can only assume that he actually thinks that is a valid argument. But sadly, most others seem to miss the point also: What matters is the marginal effect of additional spending.
Meanwhile, as Smokles reports, the aforementioned mechanical engineer, cardiologist and all-round Renaissance man Stanton Glantz has popped up in Tobacco Control claiming that shifting smokers towards tobacco products which are 99%-100% less harmful will not result in less harm.
Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level.
A slight improvement on the conclusion given when Glantz presented the same study to a conference last year:
Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes will not result in a reduction of harm and may lead to an increase in harm at the population level.
I don't have the full study to hand so I can't say whether it was paid for by organisations which have a stake in promoting pharmaceutical nicotine.
Whoever it was, I'm sure their motives were pure...
