American Lung Association Says that Quitting Smoking is Not Quitting Smoking, Unless You Do It Their Way

In an inane statement, the American Lung Association asserted that if you quit smoking by switching to nicotine pouches, you have not quit smoking. 

After noting that 10% of smokers who use nicotine pouches are able to switch completely (that is, quit smoking), the American Lung Association states: "This is not quitting, this is merely switching to another tobacco/nicotine product sold by the tobacco industry to sustain lifelong customers."

The Rest of the Story

I criticized the American Lung Association yesterday for lying to the public by asserting that cigarette smoking is no more hazardous than using a nicotine pouch. After reading the statement again, I now realize that there is a second lie: the assertion that if you quit smoking by switching to Zyn, you have not quit smoking.

The truth or falsehood of this statement hardly needs a scientific analysis because it is false on its face. What the American Lung Association is essentially saying is: "Quitting smoking is not quitting smoking." This is like claiming that 1 is not equal to 1.

What I think the American Lung Association is really saying is: "Quitting smoking doesn't count as quitting smoking unless you do it our proscribed way." Apparently, switching from tobacco cigarettes to another product that contains no tobacco and involves no combustion does not count as stopping using tobacco cigarettes unless that product is free of nicotine. And not produced by a tobacco company.

What the American Lung Association is revealing here is that its primary concern is apparently not the health of smokers or trying to prevent smokers from dying. Their concern is that people not use nicotine and that people not purchase any product manufactured by a tobacco company. Unless of course that product is cigarettes. After all, the American Lung Association is discouraging smokers from quitting using a much safer product like Zyn. Apparently, they would rather that a smoker continue to smoke than to switch to a product that will likely save their life. Is it really better that smokers die rather than use a safer nicotine product?

The rest of the story is that this is no longer public health. This is an ideological crusade against nicotine use. Not because of adverse health effects of nicotine but simply because the American Lung Association apparently cannot tolerate the possibility that someone might be using a nicotine product in a way that greatly benefits their health.

The zealotry and ideology in the tobacco control movement has become so strong that protecting the public's health and saving lives are no longer the primary concern. The primary concern is upholding a Puritanical crusade against the use of nicotine, regardless of the actual health effects or consequences. Saving your life is not worth it if it means continuing to use nicotine. Better that you should die so that you suffer the consequences from your decision to use nicotine.

I really believe that tobacco control organizations are troubled by the fact that someone could use nicotine without paying a price (with their health or lives). The crusade against nicotine is so strong that anyone who uses nicotine in any form must be punished; they must suffer health consequences. It clearly pains the American Lung Association to think that someone might be using a nicotine product but experience an improvement in their health and greatly reducing the chances that they will be mortally punished for what is apparently viewed as a sin.