Statement of Dr. Greg Connolly on Protecting Smokers
Dr. Connolly made the following statement at first Advisory Committee meeting:
“I hope everything we do shows respect and dignity to smokers. We are here to help smokers.”
What are the public policy implications of this statement? In particular should the advisory committee examine the effects a ban on menthol would have on smuggling, production of counterfeit products and the funding of criminal organizations?
If the end goal is to help smokers, it is imperative that the Advisory Committee urge the government to begin publishing truthful information about the relative risks of different tobacco products, compared with the harm inflicted by smoking.
Is it ethical to label products that could reduce risk of smoking-related disease by 99%, “This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes”? An overwhelming majority of smokers who see that product label say to themselves, “Well since this product is no safer than smoking, I might as well keep smoking.”
I have never heard of a smoke-free product that is more harmful than smoking. If there are any, smokers should be warned about them. Likewise, smokers should be provided with detailed information about the extent to which their risks could be reduced if they switch to a non-combusted product until they are ready to stop using nicotine.