« ASH Scotland says smokers should be allowed to adopt or foster children | Main | In the brave new world of public health, less information is more »
Saturday
Mar182017

Friendly fire

I agree that snus should be legalised.

That said, this headline seemed a little strident to me:

If we want to benefit from Brexit, the first thing we should do is make snus legal (Spectator Health).

The article – by Chris Snowdon – highlights the low rates of smoking in Sweden where the sale of snus is legal.

Noting this "quiet revolution", Chris quotes a New Scientist report that began:

Sweden is lighting the way to a cigarette-free world [my emphasis]. The Swedish government has released data showing that the proportion of men aged between 30 and 44 smoking fell to just 5 per cent in 2016 ...

Overall, just 8 per cent of Swedish men now smoke on a daily basis – itself a record-low percentage – compared with a European Union average of just over 25 per cent. The proportion of Swedish women who smoke also continues to fall, and is now 10 per cent.

Let me be clear. If you believe in choice, or the principle of harm reduction, it makes complete sense for snus to be legalised.

Adult consumers must be allowed to buy a wide range of nicotine products, some 'safer' than others.

In an ideal world the legalisation of snus would be accompanied by an education campaign giving consumers all the information that's available about the health risks of snus in relation to smoking, vaping etc.

They can then make an informed choice and if, as a result, smoking rates fall, that's fine. That's how market forces work.

But advocating the immediate legalisation of snus post Brexit with the principal aim of reducing smoking rates in Britain strikes me as a potential own goal because it tacitly accepts that smoking cessation should be an urgent priority for government when it clearly isn't.

See Enough Is Enough: UK Attitudes to Smoking Cessation, 2016.

The primary reason we should legalise snus is not because it will arguably reduce smoking rates but because consumers have a right to purchase an alternative nicotine product that evidence suggests is not risk free but is significantly 'safer' than smoking tobacco.

In other words, if the legalisation of snus leads to a reduction in smoking rates, fine, but it shouldn't be the principal reason for doing it.

In fact, as soon as you accept the argument that reducing smoking rates is a priority (because it will 'benefit' Britain) you're on a slippery slope. Worse, it's exactly the sort of thing tobacco control would say.

To be clear, as long as there's no coercion or dubious propaganda involved I've no problem with smokers quitting or switching to a 'safer' nicotine product. It's their choice.

But how, exactly, does smoking cessation 'benefit' Britain?

I know we shouldn't talk about smoking in purely economic terms, but if millions of smokers quit will it improve Britain's balance sheet? No.

Regardless of the estimated cost of treating smoking-related diseases, there will be a significant net loss of revenue that alternative nicotine products will never fully replace unless they too are taxed at exhorbitant levels.

More important, if the smoking rates should ever fall to single figures in the UK you can be sure that intolerance of smoking – far from easing – will reach a peak.

As smokers become an ever smaller minority they will become an even easier target for discrimination. The merest whiff of smoke will be enough for someone to call the nearest environmental protection officer, or worse.

Parents who smoke will be accused of child abuse; smoking in public (if it is allowed at all) will be restricted to a handful of designated smoking areas marked out with thick yellow lines. (I haven't written about this yet but it's coming, believe me.)

The 'benefit' to Britain of single figure smoking rates is a middle-class fantasy in which people live longer and 'healthier' lives, travelling the world on expensive package holidays funded by lucrative private pensions and the tens of thousands of pounds allegedly 'saved' by not smoking!

For many people of my generation (and younger) that is la-la-land. Increasingly however even free marketeers and campaigners for individual liberty are buying into this vision of a 'smokefree' (sic) world.

This weekend The Freedom Association is hosting its annual Freedom Festival in Bournemouth. One of the sessions is entitled 'Vaping: has science beaten smoking?'.

Forest supports vaping, like snus, because we believe in choice. We also embrace the concept of harm reduction. (Who wouldn't?)

But what's with this idea of 'beating' smoking? No-one who genuinely supports choice and personal freedom should be at war with smoking.

'Vaping: has science beaten smoking?' is exactly the sort of title I would expect to see at a tobacco control convention.

A better title (for a 'libertarian' event) might have been, 'Vaping: has science beaten tobacco control?'. Alternatively, 'Vaping: has the free market beaten tobacco control?'.

But no, they went for 'Vaping: has science beaten smoking?' because vaping is all about 'beating' or making smoking obsolete, right?

Wrong. It's about choice.

Something else that's worth mentioning is the implication that if snus is legalised millions of smokers will switch, as happened in Sweden.

No, they won't. Snus is to Sweden what chewing tobacco is to America. There will be a niche market for it in Britain but nothing more (and I'll stake my life on that, as Phil Neville might say).

In the long-term e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn devices have a far better chance of replacing combustible cigarettes because (a) they mimic the act of smoking, and (b) the technology will evolve and improve.

But snus? Like snuff it is what it is.

But let me finish with an anecdote.

Prior to our balloon debate last month (subject: 'The Most Pleasurable Nicotine Delivery Device in the World') I invited a former CEO to advocate snus.

At work he regularly produced a tin of snus before slipping a sachet under his lip. He spoke enthusiastically about the product so I thought he would be ideal for the role.

Instead he declined my invitation and said:

"I used snus when I couldn't smoke in the office. Now I'm working from home I smoke because I prefer it."

In my experience he's far from alone.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (9)

Sadly it seems the battle these days is to force smokers to switch or quit. Choice is only an issue for those who want to force smokers to choose something else.

Vaping is no safer than smoking, not for me anyway, but it has shoved smokers into third class citizen status and removed any hope we might once have had to be members of our communities again.

I doubt anyone will fight for us because those being supported in their anti choice methods will just claim that many "nicotine addicts" have switched to vaping so there is no reason why all "nicotine addicts" including smokers shouldn't do so too.

As for snus, what is the point of it? You can't smoke it and when it comes to harm reduction by those, allegedly on the side of choice, why can't they be honest and promote the dose makes poison harm reduction method of smoking too? I suppose that won't push smokers to the vape market would it.

Smokers will be sacrificed to the alter of I'm alright Jack.

Supporters of choice and freedom my arse.

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 13:26 | Unregistered Commenterpat nurse

It always baffles me when snus is advocated as an alternative to smoking because the experiences have nothing in common, except that tobacco is present - it's like instead of drinking on a night out, you're eating liquor filled chocolates, it shouldn't be a problem as both activities involve alcohol, right? :)

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 14:36 | Unregistered CommenterVlad

"I doubt anyone will fight for us..." Not quite. I have a great deal to learn but, in all modesty, I think I am getting there, The linked article contains my views (and also the views of a great many vapers) They need to develop. I know this.

I think that the vaping fraternity are at a crossroads and that very soon they will be forced to drop Public Health and Tobacco Control jargon and concentrate on a more principled approach.

If they do not do this, they become as bad as those they claim to oppose.

Here is my article - far too much for me to repeat. I feel that what I say is important (I would wouldn't I?) therefore forgive me this breach of etiquette.

http://www.vapingpost.com/2017/03/14/vaping-principles-within-a-changing-world/

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 17:32 | Unregistered Commenterrobert innes

What they can't all fathom is that we have no intention of giving up our cigarettes. We love them ! Vaping, snus, forget it !

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 17:46 | Unregistered CommenterTimothy Goodacre

Robert, I read your article a few days ago. I think we tweeted - or retweeted - a link to it because it's very good. Thanks for posting.

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 18:11 | Unregistered CommenterSimon

Why thank you. I have not been on Twitter for a while.

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 18:38 | Unregistered Commenterrobert innes

Choice should be the paramount concern and both vaping and suns should be legal as should smoking. Coercing people to give up smoking for vaping or snus misses the point. The tactic is to divide and conquer.

To paraphrase the old Tareyton advert in the US, "I'd rather fight than switch!"

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 19:23 | Unregistered CommenterVinny Gracchus

There is only one reason snus should be legalized: because there was no good reason to ban it in the first place.

The effect of snus on smoking cessation, pro or con, is totally immaterial.

Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 19:55 | Unregistered CommenterNate Pickering

Of course the ban on snus should be lifted. It was clearly only imposed in the first place because Tobacco Control were frustrated by the fact that snus enables smokers to avoid the punishment which TC has all lined up for them. What’s the fun for TC adherents in a smoker being able to use snus in warmth and comfort inside as an alternative when smoking wasn’t possible or (especially in Sweden) it was too cold or (in the UK) too wet to step outside? Ditto e-cigarettes – even those anti-smoking groups which purport to support e-cigarettes are careful only to do so in respect of their use as a smoking-cessation product (i.e. implied short-term usage). They are remarkably quiet on the matter of vapers who have switched to e-cigarettes and intend to continue using them long-term.

Mind you, I’d expect to see some squeals of protest from the e-cig community themselves if another (possibly, for some people even more) effective alternative nicotine-delivery device were to be permitted, as this might cut even further into their recently-slowed (as reported on here, I think) market. Look at their hysterical reaction (with a few notable exceptions, such as our friend Robert, above) to the advent of HNB devices ...

Monday, March 20, 2017 at 2:28 | Unregistered CommenterMisty

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>