Snus alternative

Snus has the same risks for oral cancer as smoking tobacco, chewing tobacco or snuff but none of the risks for lung cancer and emphysema (8/26, A-1, “Tobacco trend comes to KC early; Smokeless Snus pouch is being test-marketed here. Health advocates see dangers.”). Sweden’s smoking rates went from 19 percent of the male population to 9 percent as smokers switched to snus.

Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman wrote 13 months ago that the surgeon general’s refusal to say snus was safer than smoking was like saying there’s no difference between driving a Volvo or a motorcycle without a helmet.

Snus is an obvious alternative for bar owners to offer customers who want a nicotine fix with anti-smoking ordinances taking effect.

Lyndall Caldwell
Prairie Village

Comments

[irishguy]

Jack, I can't think of any health advocates that seek a general prohibition on tobacco use.

I do note, however, that some do want some seemingly reasonable restrictions --- such as, "Not in my face while I'm trying to eat."

[CRD]

Gee, big tobacco is rolling out a new product, and healthcare professionals are interviewed for an article about that new product -- and you're calling them liars for opining that that product is unhealthy?

I still don't get it.

[jack]

"Health advocates" love to pick and choose the "unhealthy behaviour" they are opposed to.

[CRD]

What the hell does alcohol have to do with health advocates' opinion that "snus" isn't healthy?

I don't see the "lieing" that you're grousing about.

[jack]

Alcohol causes lip cancer, throat cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, skin cancer, cardiac myothopy, high blood pressure, pancreatitus, cirrohis, bladder cancer, and many other really, really bad things.

Alcohol is a SOLVENT. By definition this means it atempts to dissolve everything it comes in contact with.

At the same time, if you look at the scientific data, things like withdrawl symptoms, dosing (size and frequency of doses-small frequent doses are most addictive-see cigarettes), known diseases caused by, difference between Effecive Dose and Fatal Dose, and several other factors, alcohol is substantially more dangerous than heroin.

I don't hear any "health advocates" yelling for the outlawing of alcohol "for our own good".

I am "grousing about" the overt lies of many of the anti-tobacco crowd. This letter is proof that for many of them the claim that tobacco should not be allowed because it will effect prove they are lieing when they adress snus.

I don't mind the agginners so much as I mind rthem lieing about what they want.

[CRD]

Jack,

You expect health advocates to say "gee, that stuff ain't too bad for you -- it'll only give you mouth and gum cancer instead of lung cancer"?

I'm not sure what you're grousing about.

[jack]

should be "I am not effected"

[jack]

Seems to me there has been a lot of "your choices are none of my business as long as I am not protected"; and "it is really a workplace safety issue".

Now it is that the use of tobacco is dangerous for the user. So, can I go through YOUR life and tell YOU what you can't do because it might be, or is even provenly bad for you?

So, the problem really ISN'T second hand smoke?

[Jeff H]

The one big plus for Snus is that when one person chooses to partake, it doesn't affect the health of everyone around like smoking does.

It's silly, though, to ask health professionals to claim one is safer. It would be like asking them to say it's safer to take arsenic in large doses than cyanide or sarin, because cyanide or sarin gas kills more quickly and affects everyone around you.

Another analogy is, would I rather be shot in the face at close range with a 22 or a shotgun?

The fact is, for the user the end product is just the same. Is it really that much safer to die of mouth, throat, esophogeal or stomach cancer than to die of lung cancer or emophysema, when the alternative is not using tobacco at all, and by so choosing, greatly decreasing your risk of any and all of them?