The anti-smokeless message

[TropicalBob]

This is a long, quite scientific look at the collective effort to prevent smokers from switching to smokeless. Who's behind it? Maybe Big tobacco. The profits are in selling cigarettes.

If you can't wade through all of this, skim it and read the statements from WHO and the National Cancer Society. Then you'll understand why they can't be trusted. They surely won't be friends of e-smoking either.

www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/31

 

[breezy]

TB, I cant get the link to work. Is it me?

 

[Cage]

No breezy,
I'm getting an error also:
Sorry, we could not find the page you were looking for.
The page “http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/www.biomedcentral.com/147...” can't be located.

I'm sure TB will repost.

 

[dc2k08]

BioMed Central | Full text | You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco

 

[TropicalBob]

Sorry but the link messed up in copying over. DC's is correct: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/31

 

[Denni]

I've just skimmed the abstract and it's written in such an amateurish/biassed way that I can't believe that this is a genuine paper!

 

[TropicalBob]

I sure don't see that, Denni. Reads to me like typical med-speak stuff, and the primary author is widely known. It's actually pro-smokeless, in a roundabout way.

FYI: Big tobacco wants to sell tobacco products. To that end, Philip Morris International yesterday completed its agreement with snus-maker Swedish Match for a global program of snus availability. Every big tobacco company wanted to cash in on what Swedish Match is doing. PM won the lottery!

More FYI: Camel snus are rolling out in convenience stores across the nation now. They have a wonderful taste and decent nicotine. Marlboro also has revamped its snus product by jacking up the nicotine level. Expect Marlboro snus before long.

 

[Denni]

Oh, it's definitely pro-smokeless--I'm all for it! But it's biassed all the same. I'm surprised that it got accepted (but then medics are less strict about language/wording than scientists).

It's a shame: if the paper had been written in a more neutral tone it would have a greater impact. I agree with the reviewers that it is important to point out misleading (and downright false) information about the relative risks of ST and smoking.

I'm very annoyed that the excellent Scandinavian snus has been banned in the UK (and most other EU countries) precisely because of this misleading information!

 

[TropicalBob]

You have every right to be annoyed.

E-cigs are new; not much is known about long-term health effects. That raises red flags among authorities. And studies for safety and efficacy take time.

But snus have been around for more than a century and are as safe as any tobacco product can possibly be. There have been studies -- lots -- to support snus, and vast numbers of Swedisn men use them every day. The UK seems blind to the harm reduction potential.

Cigarettes are hazardous and legal; snus are safer and illegal. By anyone's measure of logic, that defies it!