Make Snus Cheap and Available: Australian Public Health Exp

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • darkwing
    Member
    • Oct 2007
    • 415

    Make Snus Cheap and Available: Australian Public Health Exp

    Comon sense from down under, from Brisbane Times:

    Encourage smokeless tobacco: experts
    January 5, 2008 - 7:14PM

    Public health experts are calling for smokeless tobacco to be stocked in pharmacies so smokers have access to an arguably safer nicotine alternative.

    The controversial idea is being touted by Queensland medical specialists who argue that oral snuff, banned in Australia since 1991, should be made available as a new way to encourage smokers to quit the habit.

    Studies from Sweden, where so-called snus is widely used, suggest it doesn't increase rates of oral cancer or cardiovascular disease like cigarettes do. However, other research has linked it to increased rates of pancreatic cancer.

    Wayne Hall, a professor of public health policy at the University of Queensland, and his colleagues argue that snus, a moist mini "teabag" of tobacco that is tucked between the gum and upper lip, may be affective in helping some of Australia's 2.9 million smokers give up.

    "We think it is unethical to deny smokers access to a product that may reduce their health risk while cigarettes are readily available and very few quit attempts succeed," Prof Hall wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

    "Many former smokers in Sweden have quit through using snus, suggesting it may be a more effective cessation aid and a more attractive long-term alternative than pharmaceutical nicotine because its nicotine delivery and social aspects are similar to those of smoking."

    The specialists call for "absurdly high" import taxes recently imposed on smokeless tobacco to be reduced to make the products more affordable.

    With legislative changes, they could be sold under the counter in pharmacies and doctors and quit lines could encourage inveterate smokers to make the switch "as a way of reducing the harm caused by their tobacco use".

    Prof Hall said the process would need to be carefully regulated to ensure non-smokers were not taking up the habit, or that smokers were not using the products as an occasional alternative when inconvenient smoking bans prevented them from lighting up.

    Professor Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, said it was important in ensure any introduction of smokeless tobacco actually reduced overall harm.

    He said tobacco companies could use the legalisation to put brand names on snus products and indirectly boost cigarette sales.

    And while they couldn't advertise directly, they could employ viral and buzz marketing tactics to encourage dual use, especially among younger people.

    "The challenge remains of how to provide choice to smokers without repeating the catastrophic legacy that the history of allowing cigarettes to be sold from every conceivable retail outlet, packed and advertised beguilingly, has brought," Prof Chapman said.

    © 2008 AAP
  • perique
    Member
    • Sep 2007
    • 75

    #2
    Re: Make Snus Cheap and Available: Australian Public Health

    How often do the "powers to be" use common sense when tobacco is involved ? ;-)

    Paul





    Originally posted by darkwing
    Comon sense from down under, from Brisbane Times:

    Encourage smokeless tobacco: experts
    January 5, 2008 - 7:14PM

    Public health experts are calling for smokeless tobacco to be stocked in pharmacies so smokers have access to an arguably safer nicotine alternative.....................

    © 2008 AAP

    Comment

    • chainsnuser
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2007
      • 1388

      #3
      Sorry, but I can't see much common sense in this article.

      While cigarettes, which pose 100 times the health-threat of snus, remain freely available, snus should only be sold under the highest possible regulations, maybe only as a prescription drug from the doctor, who maybe will have to make a radiogram of the patient's black lung, before the patient is able to buy snus in a pharmacy-store :?: :?: :?: Again, I can't see common sense in this, I only see, that young people will continue to take up the habit of smoking because of the inavailability of alternatives.

      Yet I understand the logic behind all these proposals from anti-tobacco-people, namely to reduce the overall nicotine-consumption. I find this logic to be doubtable, not only because nicotine itself is about as 'dangerous' as caffeine, but also because I believe, that the use of nicotine gives real benefits to so many people. Nobody would ever get addicted to a stinking tar stick, if there were no benefits.

      BTW, regarding that nicotine itself is highly addictive, but not very dangerous to one's health and also the withdrawal is horrible, but not deadly, the whole anti-addiction-argument is, in my eyes, very weak.

      I understand the fight against smoking, as every second smoker is directly killed by this habit and the others certainly lose some years of their expectancy of life, but the fight against nicotine and against tobacco in every form IMHO is only a counterproductive witch-hunt.

      Cheers!

      Comment

      • Snusdog
        Member
        • Jun 2008
        • 6752

        #4
        Originally posted by chainsnuser View Post
        Sorry, but I can't see much common sense in this article.

        While cigarettes, which pose 100 times the health-threat of snus, remain freely available, snus should only be sold under the highest possible regulations, maybe only as a prescription drug from the doctor, who maybe will have to make a radiogram of the patient's black lung, before the patient is able to buy snus in a pharmacy-store :?: :?: :?: Again, I can't see common sense in this, I only see, that young people will continue to take up the habit of smoking because of the inavailability of alternatives.

        Yet I understand the logic behind all these proposals from anti-tobacco-people, namely to reduce the overall nicotine-consumption. I find this logic to be doubtable, not only because nicotine itself is about as 'dangerous' as caffeine, but also because I believe, that the use of nicotine gives real benefits to so many people. Nobody would ever get addicted to a stinking tar stick, if there were no benefits.

        BTW, regarding that nicotine itself is highly addictive, but not very dangerous to one's health and also the withdrawal is horrible, but not deadly, the whole anti-addiction-argument is, in my eyes, very weak.

        I understand the fight against smoking, as every second smoker is directly killed by this habit and the others certainly lose some years of their expectancy of life, but the fight against nicotine and against tobacco in every form IMHO is only a counterproductive witch-hunt.

        Cheers!
        +1

        Very well put Cs

        I could not help thinking while I read this, where in the hell in the entire world can a person go with out the government of that section of the world providing a nanny for your protection.

        This mode of thinking is beyond anoying......................... it is down right frightening

        We have become far too willing to allow the state to think for us and to determine what is really in our best interest.

        And that my friends has historically proved to be utterly deadly
        When it's my time to go, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle did....... Not screaming in terror like his passengers

        Comment

        Working...
        X