A tobacco-free society, or tobacco harm reduction?

[Vocalek]

http://hera.helsebiblioteket.no/hera/bitstream/10143/84913/1/sirusrap.6.09.eng.pdf

SIRUS-Report no. 6/2009
Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research​

Oslo 2009

As a health agent with certified power to be able to change the conditions for use of tobacco, one should perhaps ask oneself: What is more important – to redeem people from tobacco, or to reduce tobaccorelated mortality even if the method involves continued use of a tobacco product?

Without encouragement to use harm-reducing nicotine products, a large proportion of the remaining smokers will continue to smoke, and will thus have a 50 per cent chance of dying from a tobacco-related disease. With the status quo in the tobacco/nicotine policy that is given legitimacy by the authorities – that is a policy without an active harm-reduction strategy – use of tobacco will maintain and strengthen future social inequalities in health status.

​

​

​

​

 

[Tom09]

Thanks, Vocalek, for digging out this good read. E-cigs would have some much better stand, when placed in the framework of harm reduction, if harm reduction could become a dominant meme in the tobacco control community.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

It is always amazing to me that the answer needed for everyone to move forward is so glaring and beautiful, yet ignored. Tobacco Harm Reduction.

Yet the same arguments against it are played over and over and no-where is where we get. (Except two sides of the "quit or die" philosophy getting madder and madder and madder)

Thanks Vocal. Again, another great find.

 

[JohnnyVapor]

At least the Norwegians are looking at the idea. Makes me proud to be a Norwegian-American.