Would anti-smoking enthusiasts today support marketing competitively priced kief candies, hash hostess cupcakes etc. if there was solid proof that this could abruptly reduce the number of children getting hooked on nicotine?

Camel Orbs and other low nitrosamine smokefree spitfree tobacco products are 99%-99.9% less hazardous than cigarettes. Smokers who switch to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduce their tobacco disease risks by nearly as much as those who quit all tobacco/nicotine, and millions of smokers have already switched to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products. The only ones encouraging youth to begin using smokeless tobacco lozenges are prohibitionists (like the two nurses quoted in this article) who are making false accusations against Reynolds (just as they have made against e-cigarette vendors) in an attempt to deny adult cigarette smokers access to these far less hazardous smokefree tobacco alternatives. If the two nurses had any actual evidence that Reynolds is marketing these or any other tobacco products to youth, they would have contacted the Ohio State Attorney General to report a violation of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which prohibits companies from doing so. Health agencies and professionals have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and the public that smokefree products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, and smokers have a human right to truthful information about and legal access to these far less hazardous alternatives. For 20 years, I've campaigned to stop tobacco companies from marketing to youth (and have been quit successful as youth smoking has declined by 65% in the past decade), I'm appalled that some folks are making false accusations against tobacco companies for helping smokers reduce their health risks.

The link: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid for more nursing scholarships than you can count. RWJF is Johnson & Johnson's "non" profit. J&J sells MINT nicotine gum. But there is no outcry about the minty gum, nor the study that showed 80% of underaged kids buying the gum were asked for ID. There's no outrage for all the NICOTINE GUM commericals, the NASCAR driver they sponsor. So RWJF gets rich off the MINTY and CINNAMON NICOTINE Gum (from the tens of millions of shares of J&J stock), J&J gets rich but when a tobacco company comes up with an alternative, there's an uproar? How hypocritical. Where's the difference?

GlaxoSmithKline and other drug companies market nicotine lozenges that are nearly identical to tobacco lozenges, http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov%20tsna%20in.pdf that are marketed in packages that could be claimed to resemble candy (then again, many other products also resemble some form of candy) that are marketed in different flavors http://www.commitlozenge.com/ Instead, nurses and other health professionals heavily promote these nearly identical nicotine products that have a 93% failure rate (after 6 months) as smoking cesation aids http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/1/21?ijkey=5.ko5/Oz4yutl and a 98% failure rate after 20 months http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/apr02_3/b1024 But while nicotine gums, lozenges and patches are not very effective smoking cessation aids, they (like Camel Orbs) are far less hazardous temporary or long term alternatives for smokers. But Camel Orbs and other tobacco lozenges are much less expensive than nicotine lozenges, gums and patches.

I'm in favor of harm reduction nicotine products and I think the fact that youth smoking has declined by 65% in the past decade is a welcome sign, Thank you for your part in it. But let's be fair, the two nurses quoted did not accuse Reynolds of targeting kids, They said the product is colorful looks like candy and comes in what looks like a candy box. Actually, you are falsely accusing them of accusing the tobacco industry. We all know that some kid somewhere is going to get into these thinking they're candy, like the old stories of kids eating ex-lax because it looked and tasted like chocolate. It sounds more like a packaging issue than a complaint about the product itself

I read an article about a boy that OD'd on Nicorette gum given at school without parental knowledge. So, very underhandedly, pharmaceutical nicotine is pushed on 12 year old kids. If anyone doubted that the anti-smoking crusade leads back to Big Pharma, there is nothing more to say!