Why Snus Is Important
Swedish Snus is essential to the e-cigarette community since it may be the proof (not just evidence) that:
- THR works
- That it functions spectacularly well
- That it’s the thing that does work, once smoking prevalence is lowered to some level
- That it features dramatic (and unique) rewards for public health
- That permitting its widespread, unrestricted make use of results in an impressive (and one of a kind) fall in cigarette smoking prevalence through the entire population
- That it creates a remarkable (and exclusive) drop in smoking-related loss of life and disease
The much time history of consumption of Snus in Sweden is the reason why we realize the factual results of the application of consumer THR products, and just why you don’t have for a debate about the problems or the ‘evidence’: we already have the facts.
- Sweden may be the world leader in the reduced amount of cigarette smoking, and the world head in the reduced amount of smoking-related disease and death.
The reason being (and only because) they allowed full, free, unhindered and unregulated usage of a consumer THR product: Snus. By ‘unregulated’ is meant that forget about regulations are applied than for any other consumer product. In many countries, including the UK and Sweden, client products have all of the regulation had a need to ensure they will be safe; actually, consumer goods are safer than pharmaceutical goods in these countries. That is all that is required, unless there exists a demonstrable problem to repair, and this is obviously not apparent regarding Snus or e-cigarettes.
Only usage of Snus, as well as truthful info on the relative risks in comparison to smoking, is in charge of the dramatic decrease in smoking and the parallel reduction in ‘tobacco-related’ disease and death.
Sweden is indeed far before any other developed region in the reduction of cigarette smoking mortality that they have even an authentic prospect of reducing cigarette smoking deaths to insignificant proportions - something completely unthinkable for just about any other country. Man cigarette smoking prevalence falls at 1% annually and will be only 5% by around 2016.
Others talk about measures to lessen smoking. Some waste large sums on jobs that cannot possibly produce any visible improvement because the 20% barrier possesses been reached. None carry out anything that translates into benefits. Not just that - some actively do the job to remove the only realistic alternatives that may reduce smoking. Now why would they do this?
- Only THR merchandise substitution works for reduction of smoking after the 20% Prevalence Guideline operates.
The Swedish experience shows that (a) you’ll be able to reduce smoking significantly at night 20% barrier for Western countries that may normally expect huge smoking prevalence; and (b) is the single example of any such success. THR has either been banned far away or only introduced in the sort of e-cigarettes.
We know that, no matter how much cash is thrown at the problem, no other methods do the job - because no other region with previous high cigarette smoking prevalence has got substantially below one-fifth of the adult population smoking; and this despite enormous sums of money being spent.
All such expenditure is pointless, and a waste of valuable tax revenue. It is simply funds flushed down the toilet.
In comparison, in Sweden:
- Smoking prevalence is not even half the UK’s and continues to be falling
- Male smoking cigarettes prevalence falls at 1% per year, a spectacular gross annual drop
- The smoking death count is still falling though it is previously far lower than anyone else’s in the EU
- The smoking disease amount is still falling even though it is currently far lower than anyone else’s in the EU
- It expense the taxpayer zero
In contrast, the UK has done nothing except spend huge amounts of money for zero go back. Smoking prevalence features stayed constant going back 5 years - and actually the quantity of smokers in the united kingdom has truly risen by about 0.5 million.
Sweden reduced their smoking prevalence to 1 / 2 the UK’s numbers at zero cost to the taxpayer. Some MEPs and MPs are trying to stop British smokers having this option: inquire yours where they stand. Are they working out for you, or perhaps a commercial client instead? Unless they support unrestricted THR then they certainly aren’t working for you; why certainly not inquire further who they will work for.
- The ‘Swedish Miracle’ proves that THR performs, and may be the only thing that does work.
The dramatic fall in smoking prevalence, and in smoking-related disease and death, is entirely because of THR adoption and practically nothing else.
It also ensures that no one may declare that “THR is a good theoretical idea”; or that “There is absolutely no proof that THR functions”; or that “We don’t know if e-cigarettes will continue to work”; or that “We don’t really know what the dangers are”; or that “Nicotine is dangerous and should be prevented”; or that “These products could be a gateway to cigarette smoking”; or that “The flavours happen to be marketed to kids”; or that “Kids will come to be addicted and get to a life of cigarette smoking”, etc. Such statements either reveal ignorance of the facts, or are simply lies: the individual making such a declaration ought to be asked which one pertains to them.
- We find out that not merely does THR work, but that it functions spectacularly very well; and that it’s the only thing up to now that is proven to work.
- We know a THR product - even a whole-tobacco one - may contain an elevation of risk for any disease hence low that it can’t be reliably identified. The same risk for e-cigarette users will accordingly oftimes be so low as to be impossible to see at populace level.
- We know that ad lib usage of nicotine over many years has an implication for wellbeing so small concerning be challenging to reliably identify by statistical strategies at population level.
- We know that if all smokers switched to Snus, smoking cigarettes deaths will be reduced to about 1% of the existing figure, and perhaps less.
- We realize that, since e-smoking cigarettes are popular with smokers than Snus, you will find a very true prospect that reductions in smoking cigarettes prevalence because of Snus (of around 50% in Sweden compared to the UK) will end up being eclipsed by ecigs. This means there is a opportunity of at least a 60% decrease in smoking, in countries where e-cigarettes are equally unrestricted.
- We now know that regulation = loss of life. There is absolutely no simpler way to place it. Deregulation saved thousands of lives in Sweden.
- We can see the large and unequalled rewards for public well being: Sweden’s national health statistics are unique under western culture.
- We are able to estimate that if all smokers switched to e-cigarettes, smoking mortality will be reduced so very much that it might be impossible to recognize it by statistical methods; it is even possible that only people that have known pre-existing medical conditions could have any quantifiable risk.
The experience with Snus in Sweden is proof that THR products are safe; that they do the job; and that they will be the only matter that does work.
Sweden has the lowest tobacco-related mortality [the smoking death rate] of any specific developed country simply by a wide margin.
- Phillips, Rodu
- The death price is approximately half the EU standard.
- Sweden gets the lowest male lung malignancy and oral cancer fee in the EU.
They have a cigarette smoking prevalence of about 11% @2013 (various numerous sources quote from 11% to 13% for 2012). ‘Prevalence’ is the percentage of the population who smoke cigarettes, averaged across male/feminine, generally measured as any adult who smoked within the last thirty days (although this number is not specific since there are multiple numerous results published actually for the united kingdom; it should be regarded as +/- 2 tips on any amount quoted). Sweden’s is about half the UK’s amount.
They have a man smoking prevalence around 8% (probably about one-third of the UK figure). This ensures that Sweden may additionally be the only country to have lowered male smoking cigarettes prevalence below the female figure (believed around 15%).
The amount of male smokers continues to be falling by 1% per year (2003 male smoking = 17%, 2012 = 8%).
By around 2016, Sweden could have a male cigarette smoking prevalence of 5%. That is a phenomenally low physique. It indicates that they even have a realistic potential for reducing cigarette smoking disease and death to insignificant proportions - something absolutely unthinkable for any other country. It has been attained by deregulation - not more regulation.
It is therefore very clear that, in this discipline of public health, regulation kills.
This can be a value of Snus to us: we realize that THR works spectacularly well, and that the incredible value of THR can’t be denied. We understand that it’s the only remedy for European countries to significantly reduce smoking below the 20% barrier. We realize that the dramatic advancements in public health as a result are impossible to deny any more. We know that deregulation saves lives, regulation kills.
We know that if allowed to happen elsewhere instead of just in Sweden, the entire benefit to open public health will be the most significant because the invention of antibiotics.
The bright facet of this picture for us is that there is absolutely no reason to guess that results will never be as good and even better here, given that free and unhindered access to e-cigarettes is permitted to continue in the UK. The factors why this is simply not a favorite choice with those in electricity clearly has nothing in connection with public wellbeing; the economical pressures overrule medical issue.
We have been told quite evidently by a leading amount in tobacco control, Prof J Britton of the RCP, that, just in the UK, 5 million lives of those alive today could be saved if all smokers switched to e-cigarettes. That’s some statement - specifically from within a group that traditionally pushes a “quit or die” mantra.
We must ask ourselves: “Would it not be reasonable and equitable to discriminate against black persons, or women, or the disabled, in the same way that smokers are discriminated against in the EU? Would it not be allowable to take measures that inevitably result in the death of people of such minority teams, for financial reasons?”. Normally the answers to these inquiries will be an unequivocal “No”.
For some reason it seems acceptable, for some people, to kill off smokers instead of permit them free consumer selection of viable options to remain alive.