Register
This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THR? Is this the best term?
24-02-2013, 11:53 PM
Post: #1
THR? Is this the best term?
I thought tonight's show was a great discussion, but something leapt out at me—the term "THR", or Tobacco Harm Reduction. I wonder if this term doesn't actually work against us, since it implies that we vapers are still using tobacco ... and that we're just reducing the harm of so doing. We know what THR means, and its intentions, but does an MP, or MEP, or the general public for that matter? I think not ... they see "tobacco" and "harm", and by that time "reduction" loses its impact.

Would perhaps "TA", for Tobacco Abstinence be a better term? I think this is more the true spirit of vaping—we want to carry on the pleasures of smoking and the enjoyment of nicotine, but we also are abstaining from tobacco (and its horrendous hoard of hazards) in so doing. In my mind, Tobacco Abstinence allows the vaping community to approach the EU, and WHO, and the rest of the ANTZ and nannies by saying, in effect, "See, we're on your side. We want nowt to do with tobacco, and we're abstaining from it through vaping." It seems it would be more difficult for the ANTZ to demonize vaping, since by so doing they would be demonizing tobacco abstinence, which they supposedly support ... (yes, I know, they really want to ban nicotine, not just tobacco, but still, it makes them sound even more hypocritical to be against Tobacco Abstinence ... let's change the focus by side-stepping nicotine and concentrating on tobacco.)

I understand that we need to include dual-users under the vaping umbrella, but this doesn't necessarily exclude them (when they vape rather than smoke, they are abstaining from tobacco, if only for that moment).

Such are my rambling thoughts ... what are yours?

If you can't get there by a comfortable road, don't go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2013, 12:01 AM
Post: #2
RE: THR? Is this the best term?
As I intimated on teh show earlier - THR is not a term that I particularly "like" and I think you make an excellent point. In addition "Harm Reduction" strategies traditionally have included issuing clean needles for heroine addicts,sponsoring the use of methodone etc - so it's kind of an area that we don't really enjoy seeing ourselves in. The conference that Dave Dorn is speaking at tomorrow will also feature such other Harm Reduction spokesmen and subjects.

However, it's a vehicle, and one that seems to support the concept of e-cigs and has the ear of the policy makers. So on balance I say we exploit the concept as much as we can!

Dave's Tackle Box - Sundays @ 9pm UK
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)