American Council on Science and Health Pro Snus

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

    American Council on Science and Health Pro Snus

    February 20, 2008

    Smokeless Tobacco Is Safer

    By Krystal Wilson

    A press release in the New York Sun caught ACSH off guard with its negative coverage of Swedish smokeless tobacco, also known as snus. Sweden is the only country in the European Union (EU) that is permitted to market smokeless tobacco because it joined after the EU placed a ban on the product, and was given an exemption.

    Recently, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) was asked by the European Commission to evaluate the health effects of smokeless tobacco products with specific attention to snus. The committee report confirmed that, overall, smokeless tobacco causes less harm than cigarette smoking. Snus showed dramatically less adverse health effects, with almost no pulmonary disease, the most common adverse effect of cigarettes. In addition, snus was shown not to serve as a gateway to smoking. So, why all the negative press?

    Here’s what it all boils down to. Although the committee acknowledged the many positive aspects of smokeless tobacco, it did not make these points part of its overall conclusion. The reason for this is that currently the committee believes that it is not possible to extrapolate the Swedish data, which highlight the benefits of smokeless tobacco, to other European countries. Reasons for this include sociodemographic factors, possible differences in risk across country lines, and the potential success of cessation programs as well as stringent smoking restrictions, such as the ones that are now working well in California.

    With all the uncertainties involved in statistically assessing the benefits of smokeless tobacco, the committee’s conclusion consisted only of the clearly-elucidated facts that have been known for some time. They chose to parrot the party line, promoted by U.S. authorities as well as anti-tobacco zealots, that "smokeless tobacco is addictive and its use is hazardous to health." That policy amounts to "quit nicotine or die" and ignores the clear and enormous public health benefits of getting addicted smokers to quit cigarettes by switching to snus. The idea of using snus to reduce smoking deaths is known as harm reduction.

    Nevertheless, the media is covering the report with no real emphasis on the data showing that smokeless tobacco (despite its health risks) is a less harmful alternative to smoking.

    ACSH advocates the use of smokeless tobacco as a form of harm reduction for smokers. We do not assert that it is completely harmless. The truth remains that despite using all the currently approved quitting methods, only a small minority of smokers who try to quit are successful each year. Smokeless tobacco is a very under-utilized means of reducing the overwhelming health risks of smoking. We hope that the media decide to give smokers the full story on smokeless tobacco as a form of harm reduction.
  • Zero
    Member
    • May 2006
    • 1522

    #2
    The thing I hate about all this crap is the fact that they keep tying snus to cigarettes - I mean, why does it have to have anything to do with cigarettes? It's a completely different thing. If people suddenly decided to start shoving coffee beans up their arse, to the great detriment of their health, would it make sense to ban coffee? I mean... wouldn't a cup of coffee just be asking for trouble - just tempting people to start shoving the beans up their rear? The logic is broken. What the hell is wrong with just letting people put some leaves in their mouth? Ridiculous.

    ps : nice article :lol:

    Comment

    • Xobeloot
      Member
      • Jan 2008
      • 2542

      #3
      I like leaves in my mouth. Please dont put beans in my butt. I've had a bit too much to drink. But im good. Took a $40 cab ride home (thats the cost of an icetool!) Cabs are good. DUI is bad. I like using snus in cabs (even though the cab sorta smelled like cabbage). Got a lot of strange looks tonight hand baking some snus. Murphy's Law is a fun bar.

      Comment

      • Jason
        Member
        • Jan 2008
        • 1370

        #4
        You guys are too much. :lol:

        Good article; there seems to be an increasing number of articles relating to snus lately, I've noticed...

        Comment

        • TropicalBob
          Member
          • Feb 2008
          • 316

          #5
          This is a rare time when I disagree with Zero's logic. I hope the words "cigarette smoking" and "snus" always appear together. There is NOTHING the world could do to have a greater positive impact on health than switch cigarette smokers to less harmful snus.

          We are ALL addicts. That's the blunt truth. If our addiction can be made less harmful, that's great. Not many people start snusing and then move on to cigarettes. The Swedish studies show the opposite. Many snusers started snusing to quit cigarettes.

          Hammer that fact home. Always, always compare cigarettes to snus. They both use tobacco. They both are addictive. They both have potential for harm. They both are acquired tastes. But which is better for users? Those on this forum know that answer. Too few smokers do.

          I read an analogy the other day that asked if you'd rather be hit by a train doing 70 or a truck doing 70. That supposedly compared smoking to using smokeless tobacco. It's a silly and false diversion from a realistic comparison and as such delays adoption of harm reduction alternatives.

          Snus vs. cigarettes? Bring it on. Always compare. The answer might become obvious to more smokers.

          Comment

          • Shrewd
            Member
            • Feb 2008
            • 118

            #6
            I have to admit, the selfish side of me hopes that no attention be paid to snus in the US, because then it's probably only a matter of time until they try to ban it. It seems to me that the anti-tobacco zealots will never be satisfied until tobacco of all forms is eliminated. I'd love an open and honest public discussion on snus, but when are public discussions open and honest (and logical)?

            I see what Zero is getting at, why not take snus on it's own? It is most likely healthier than most vices, so why would people give it so much trouble? Does it really cause the public at large an unacceptable amount of harm? A decision to ban/allow it should be made independant of cigarettes.

            However, I don't think the general public can separate different forms of tobacco. There's a general need to compare the different forms. So given that, snus does hold up quite well against cigs and dip. I think ultimately it really should come down to how do snus affect non-users? That's what they're doing to ban cigarettes in locations - because there is a general heath risk to non-users (I'm not actually convinced in all of the second-hand smoke stuff - but that's a different conversation entirely). However, snus only hurts me, not my kids, not my wife, nobody. I'm not a danger on the road when I'm snusing, I'm not hallucinating, etc... The worst-case scenario is that I might have bad breath which certainly isn't an ailment limited to snusing .

            Comment

            • TropicalBob
              Member
              • Feb 2008
              • 316

              #7
              I don't think a ban is a threat. Americans are heavily into the dip form of smokeless tobacco (the only segment of the American tobacco market that is still growing). These products are historic and legal. They're a huge business.

              Snus users are a miniscule part of a sub-cult of tobacco users.

              But the problem is that the anti-smoking movement has morphed into the anti-tobacco movement. Our product is a tobacco product. The aginners are not content to shout "second hand smoke." They are hell-bent on saving you from your own actions. They contend your tobacco use costs them tax monies for your health care.

              Any fair comparison will show them that's not the case. Pipe smokers live longer than even non-smokers (it's a calm-personality thing). Snus and the nasal snuff I use have a long and almost blemish-free record. That's the message. Snus users won't cost anyone anything. As you say, we don't even irritate those in our proximity. Smokers do. There's so much positive to sell with this product that comparisons for harm reduction need to be invited, not avoided.

              I'm seeing more employers that not only have "smoke-free" premises but demand employees be tobacco-free by urine test. This crap has got to stop.

              Comment

              Working...
              X