Safe sex vs. Safe tobacco

In the 1980's, public health groups began campaigning for "safe" sex. These campaigns promoted the use of condoms to reduce exposure to HIV and AIDS and continue to be used today to promote reduced exposure to other dangerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases (STD).

Rarely are the public health benefits of reducing health risks via "safe" sex questioned, even though "safe" sex is a misnomer. A 2001 NIH panel of experts examined dozens of studies and found that proper and consistent condom use reduced the incidence of STDs by 18% to 92%, depending upon the disease in question. At best case, that still leaves an 8% health risk for "safe" sex practices. For the human papilloma virus (HPV) - which has been linked to cervical cancer, the fifth most deadly cancer in the world for women - the harm reduction is even less. 

In reality, condoms contribute to "safer" sex, but do not cause sex to be 100% safe. This does not stop public health groups from promoting "safe" sex to the public and the majority of us agree that it's better to be safer, even if it's not 100% safe. Millions are still spent promoting safe sex practices, even though STDs rarely result in death. In fact, it's reported that 80% of those infected with STDs are asymptomatic and not even aware that they are infected. The CDC reports that around 18,000 people with AIDS and approximately 4,000 women with cervical cancer die annually.

On the other hand, the CDC and other health groups report that "tobacco use" (or more specifically, smoking) causes 440,000 deaths annually in the U.S. (including the highly debated second hand smoke deaths.)  Compared to smoking deaths, mouth cancer, the main health warning for smokeless tobacco use, contributes to only 8,000 deaths annually. However, according to the National Cancer Institute, researchers have been unable to determine how many of those deaths are actually caused by smokeless tobacco use. Based on one 1981 study of female chew users in the southern U.S., the NCI reports that "users of smokeless tobacco are at four times the risk of developing oral cancer than non-users." More recent research shows that smoking actually causes twice the risk of oral cancers (compared to smokeless) and factors such as alcohol abuse and dual use of smoking and smokeless seem to have reduced the link to oral cancer caused by smokeless use alone even further. In fact, the scientific research overwhelmingly shows evidence that smokeless tobacco carries very little to no health risks, at or less than 1% compared to never-users.

In spite of knowledge of this widely known research and the ready acceptance of harm reduction practices for less lethal STDs, public health officials refuse to acknowledge the obvious potential health benefits of promoting harm reduction in the form of smokeless tobacco products. In fact, they go out of their way to convince the public (and smokers) that smokeless products are just as deadly as smoking. While condoms, with a contribution of lowering health risks 18% - 92%, are required by the FDA to inform the public that condoms reduce the risk of STDs, smokeless tobacco products are required to display health warnings such as "This product is not a safe alternative to smoking," or "This product causes oral cancer." Rather than informing smokers that switching to smokeless tobacco would reduce their health risks by 99% or greater, the FDA actually prohibits smokeless tobacco companies from informing the public and forces them to misrepresent the comparative risks, causing the 440,000 people who die from smoking annually to believe that they may as well keep smoking.

Additionally, public health groups continue to lobby legislators to limit or outright ban and/or apply unwarranted "sin taxes" to smokeless products such as snus, lozenges, sticks and strips, claiming "no safe tobacco use" and over unfounded concerns that children and smokers will flock to these less deadly products rather than eschew tobacco products altogether. The concern about youth use is particularly comical, considering that banning these smokeless products would leave no competition for cigarettes, leading curious and reckless youths to smoking tobacco instead of using smokeless and increasing their health risks by 99%. Taxing these products to make them just as expensive as cigarettes also removes further incentive for current smokers - who have no intention of quitting tobacco - to switch to smokeless alternatives.

This insane double standard of approving and encouraging harm reduction for less lethal practices and denying them for tobacco must end. The "abstinence only" approach has resulted in smoking quit rates stagnating at 20% and public health efforts to stop smokeless use as an alternative could result in that percentage increasing again as smokeless products are made less available and more expensive for smokers who have already switched. Not only must the "quit or die" approach be rethought, but public health must stop misleading the public about the health risks and start encouraging inveterate smokers to switch. If they can call an 8% health risk "safe" when it comes to sex, then a less than 1% health risk from smokeless tobacco IS a "safe alternative to smoking." The great dream (lie) of total tobacco abstinence must end. Based on the scientific evidence, the time for tobacco harm reduction must be allowed its turn.

Concerned groups such as the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) and TobaccoHarmReduction.org are working to promote "safer" tobacco use. For more information on Tobacco Harm Reduction please visit casaa.org.

American Lung Association continues to misrepresent smokeless risks

The ALA posted an article titled "Is There an Easy Way to Quit?" on it's web site today, which is filled with typically deceptive ANTZ tactics.

Making statements such as  smokeless tobacco has "28 cancer-causing agents" and "increases the risk of developing cancer" and that e-cigarettes contain "cancer-causing agents and toxic chemicals" found in anti-freeze is not only leaving out key information, it relies upon questionable "science" and sensationalism to deceive the reader.

Smokeless Tobacco
Smokeless tobacco includes chewing tobacco, snuff, snus and some other new products. Some people think that using smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking but that’s not the case. Smokeless tobacco has 28 cancer-causing agents and it increases the risk of developing cancer in the mouth, gums, and pancreas. The amount of nicotine that is absorbed from smokeless tobacco is 3 to 4 times the amount delivered by a cigarette.

The key information left out here is that many products we consume contain "cancer-causing agents." The question is, "How much?" Hot dogs can contain "cancer-causing agents." Whole milk can contain "cancer causing agents." Potato chips and french fries can contain "cancer-causing agents."

Yet we consider these foods to be "safe," because although the "agents" are present, the risk of actually getting cancer from them is extremely low.

While there is a "risk" of developing cancer in the mouth and gums from some smokeless tobacco, the risk is extremely small - somewhere between 0% to 4% - and smokeless snus studies have not shown any increased risk of oral or other cancers. The very few studies linking smokeless tobacco to a very low risk of pancreatic cancer have contradicted themselves, so the link remains inconclusive as to whether or not there is an actual risk at all.

Yet the ALA reports these as established facts and make it sound as though the health risks are great.

Once again the ALA has ignored scientific evidence and used inflammatory language to make something sound worse than it is by reporting the statement made by the FDA rather than the scientific evidence from the actual FDA testing.

e-Cigarettes
There is no scientific evidence establishing the safety of e-cigarettes. The FDA has found that these products contain cancer-causing agents and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. While some distributors directly or indirectly market e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates these products are safe or effective at helping smokers quit.

By this time, anyone who has bothered to read the actual FDA test results knows the truth vs. the spin put out by the FDA. The "cancer-causing agents" discovered in the e-cigarette cartridges tested were found in only one out of the 18 tested, were not found in the actual vapor that is inhaled and were at levels so low they were comparable to the levels of "cancer-causing agents" found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch.

Yet the ALA reports this as though e-cigarettes have been proven to cause cancer and hides the fact that the same levels of "cancer-causing agents" are found in the nicotine patch - which they endorse.

The inflammatory language used to describe the non-toxic amount of diethylene glycol detected (again in just one cartridge and not in the vapor) as "ingredients found in anti-freeze" is pure sensationalism. Diethylene glycol is also found in other FDA-approved products at non-toxic levels. Because the amount found in the one e-cigarette cartridge is so small and not in the actual vapor to which the user is exposed, the user would have to drink the contents of a few thousand cartridges per day in order to reach toxic levels.

Yet the ALA reports the presence of "ingredients found in anti-freeze" as though e-cigarettes have been shown to be just as poisonous as anti-freeze.

So let's see why using the products and methods endorsed by the ALA isn’t a good way to quit:

Nicotine Replacement Products (NRT)
NRTs includes nicotine gum, nicotine patches, nicotine lozenges and nicotine inhalers. Some people think that using NRT is a safe alternative to smoking but that’s not the case. NRT has cancer-causing agents and it increases the risk of developing oral cancer. The amount of nicotine that is absorbed from NRT is much lower than the amount delivered by a cigarette, which may contribute to a failure rate as high as 95%, greatly increasing the risk of relapse to deadly smoking. Nicotine is highly addictive and because these nicotine products are available over the counter to both adults and youth, they are easily abused, contributing to sustained addiction rather than cessation.


Chantix (Varenicline)
There is no scientific evidence establishing the long-term safety or effectiveness of varenicline. The FDA did not review varenicline for the usual 10 month period and it had not been tested in those under 18 years; those with mental illness or pregnant women and therefore is not recommended for use by these groups. The FDA has received reports of "suicidal acts and ideation, psychosis, and hostility or aggression, including homicidal ideation, were the most prominent psychiatric side effects. Multiple reports suggested that varenicline may be related to the loss of glycemic control and new onset of diabetes, heart rhythm disturbances, skin reactions, vision disturbances, seizures, abnormal muscle spasms and other movement disorders."


While some claim varenicline is "safe and effective," only 4.3% more smokers had still quit after one year compared with placebo and over 200 deaths have been linked to varenicline since its release to the public. France's government health insurance no longer subsidizes varenicline prescriptions due to questions about its safety. Canada and Australia have received more than 1,800 reports of adverse events related to varenicline as of May 2010. The number of adverse events associated with varenicline outnumber any other medication monitored by ISMP and more than twice as many deaths have been linked to varenicline than with any other medication currently on the U.S. market.

Really, American Lung Association? Compare all of that to zero reports of serious adverse events linked to e-cigarette use since they were introduced to Europe in 2004 and the U.S. in 2006.

The ALA claims that "Becoming smokefree is anything but simple, yet some folks will try almost anything that promises to a quicker, easier way to quit smoking. You can’t wave a magic wand and suddenly be done with the process of quitting." Yet millions of smokers world-wide, most of whom have tried and failed with the ALA's "safe and effective" methods, are calling e-cigarettes a "miracle" and the "easiest" method they've ever used to remain smoke-free. Sweden, where smokeless snus use is most common, boasts the lowest smoking rates in the E.U. without increased adverse health effects vs. never-smokers.

Any "fact" can be spun to appear to support an agenda. The difference is whether or not the "facts" are based on scientific evidence or if they are based upon junk science and made to sound reliable. Can you tell the difference?

A Look at the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The FSPTCA seems to directly contradict its purpose to improve the health of smokers. Not only does it perpetuate the myth that ALL tobacco is equally dangerous, it pushes the idea of dependency itself being inherently dangerous, whether or not the addictive chemical is actually a serious health risk.

Direct quotes from the FSPTCA:

A consensus exists within the scientific and medical communities that tobacco products are inherently dangerous and cause cancer, heart disease, and other serious adverse health effects.

Note that it says "tobacco products" and not "smoking," even though smokeless tobacco carries very little risk of cancer, heart disease and other SERIOUS health effects.

Nicotine is an addictive drug. 

Yes, but it does not carry high health risks by itself. The word "addictive" is used in this sentence to say "bad" or "dangerous."

Tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of premature death in America. It causes over 400,000 deaths in the United States each year, and approximately 8,600,000 Americans have chronic illnesses related to smoking.

Not including deaths questionably attributed to second-hand smoke, about 16.5% of all annual adult deaths in the U.S. are smokers/ex-smokers who died from smoking-related diseases (393,600 smoker deaths to 2,383,724 total U.S. adult deaths in 2007.) I cannot find data on smokers who died from non-smoking related diseases or natural causes. However, it's interesting to note that while 80-90% of lung cancer patients are smokers, only 10% of smokers actually get lung cancer. The 8,600,000 illnesses equals about 18.2% of smokers having a chronic illness related to smoking, which means 81.8% of smokers do not have smoking-related chronic diseases.

Not sure where I'm going with that one but it is interesting seeing it from a different persepective.

But it's important to note that they don't give actual statistics for smokeless tobacco and nicotine products. They are saying "tobacco" and then only give stats and health effects for "smoking," which intentionally leaves the reader thinking all tobacco use causes the same illnesses and diseases as smoking.

Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, one that typically requires repeated interventions to achieve long-term or permanent abstinence.

Tobacco dependence ITSELF is a chronic disease?

Definition of disease: "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."

Hmmm...didn't realize tobacco grew in my body.

SMOKING can CAUSE disease, but tobacco dependence is not a disease in and of itself. Dependence upon something not normally needed to keep the body healthy/alive would be a DISORDER: "a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; malady or dysfunction."

Diabetics are dependent upon insulin, but insulin dependence is NOT a disease.

Exposure to radiation can cause disease, but taking risk and working at a job that exposes one to radioactive material is not a disease.

There may be underlying conditions which cause people to be more likely to become dependent upon nicotine/tobacco, but the dependency is not a disease. I suppose the same argument could be made for any chemical dependency.

Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is cessation, interventions should target all smokers to help them quit completely.

This sentence is nonsensical and redundant unless you deduct from it that "quit completely" means no tobacco or nicotine use, because isn't the definition of cessation "quit completely?" What this sentence really should say is "Because the only known safe alternative to smoking is to not smoke (cessation), interventions should target all smokers (not "tobacco users") to help them quit smoking completely. "

Well...DUH.

But what they are really saying is that they see no evidence that a smoker who switches to a smokeless alternative will reduce their health risks enough to justify encouraging them to switch and only complete abstinence from tobacco and nicotine is acceptable for them. It doesn't matter that repeated attempts at abstinence means repeated exposure to smoking, while the 1-2% risk from smokeless at least keeps them from smoking.

Well.....DUH again.

Again, they are expecting something to be 100% SAFE for treating tobacco dependence, when other disorders or diseases are usually treated with drugs that are SAFER. No medical treatment can be considered 100% SAFE, because they ALL have risk. This also lumps nicotine use in with smoking. Smokers aren't considered to have "quit completely" unless they quit any form of nicotine.

It is essential that the Food and Drug Administration review products sold or distributed for use to reduce risks or exposures associated with tobacco products and that it be empowered to review any advertising and labeling for such products. It is also essential that manufacturers, prior to marketing such products, be required to demonstrate that such products will meet a series of rigorous criteria, and will benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.

Reduced harm products are seen as a possible threat - a ruse or fraud by tobacco companies. The criteria that it be considered safe for current non-smokers too makes it nearly impossible to get accepted. How can any tobacco product or even nicotine be considered acceptable for non-smokers to start using, even if it reduced risks to smokers by 99%?

Unless tobacco products that purport to reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use actually reduce such risks, those products can cause substantial harm to the public health to the extent that the individuals, who would otherwise not consume tobacco products or would consume such products less, use tobacco products purporting to reduce risk.

So, the product not only has to reduce risk for smokers, but has to ensure that people who would otherwise avoid nicotine products because of the perceived danger won't start using them because they now perceive them to be low-risk.

This is the theory that the non-tobacco users who will start using low-risk tobacco products will so outnumber the smokers who switch that MORE people have health risks. It completely ignores the level of risks and probability. Here is what it would take for that to happen:

1000 non-users start using 1% risk products = 10 people get sick

10 current users switch to 1% risk products = 9 people get healthier

So, in the above scenario, more people who otherwise wouldn't use tobacco products got sick than people who switched from smoking got better, resulting in an increase in health risks.

The problem is, there is no evidence or even reason to believe that so many non-users will suddenly use and so few users will fail to switch even when given the truth about reduced harm alternatives. But there is no way for a company to guarantee (however unlikely) that non-users won't be at greater risk to the point where it offsets the health benefits of users switching. It's an impossible criteria for approval.

One good thing in the Act which I think was completely unintended:

in order to ensure that consumers are better informed, to require tobacco product manufacturers to disclose research which has not previously been made available, as well as research generated in the future, relating to the health and dependency effects or safety of tobacco products;

Hmmm...so if the tobacco companies have research which supports the fact that smokeless tobacco is in fact safer than smoking, they can now not only say that but are REQUIRED to inform people? Awesome!

Sources:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...-111publ31.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=6138

Tobacco Prohibition and a Law of Physics

If tobacco prohibitionists get their way, will it really be a 'win' for public health?

It's pretty obvious that the "anti-smoking" movement, based on the principle that smoking is the "leading cause of preventable deaths" in the world, has changed course. No longer is it only about the health risks of smoking. Unable (and often unwilling) to get smoking products banned in the U.S., these groups now target smokeless tobacco products; making unsubstantiated claims that these products somehow lead to smoking and must be banned to protect public health. They completely ignore, hide and even discourage the substantial research and science that contradicts their claims.

And they don't stop there.

After "wins" of banning rarely sold "flavored" cigarettes and insisting that smokeless products, such as snus and chew,  display technically true (yet intentionally misleading) labels which declare that the much safer products are "not a safe alternative to smoking," they have set their sights on nearly harmless nicotine products such as tobacco lozenges and e-cigarettes. They are now somehow convinced that people accustomed to the pleasant taste and low health risks of these nicotine products will suddenly and inexplicably stop using their safer, pleasant-tasting product and switch to the harsh smoke, foul taste and increased health risks of cigarette smoking. Apparently any nicotine product, unless it is made by a pharmaceutical company and designed to get the user to wean off of nicotine, is now taboo. Anti-smoking for health reasons has now become anti-smokeless nicotine for no valid reason at all.

So, what if they get their way? What if tomorrow all tobacco and non-pharmaceutical nicotine products were removed from the market? Would this be the great victory for public health that the health groups claim it will be?

Well, let's look first at why people smoke. Most people will point to the obvious - that people are addicted to the nicotine. So why did they try smoking in the first place? Peer pressure? Parental example? Rebellion? Stress? Those could all be reasons to start. But while millions of people try smoking for various reasons, only a small percentage of them keep smoking. So, why don't they just stop like the others? If it was just that "nicotine is as addictive as heroin" as claimed, why do the vast majority of people who try smoking not become addicted? The most logical answer is that there is something about smoking, tobacco and nicotine that goes beyond the addictive nature of nicotine itself, a theory which is most simply supported by the fact that most nicotine-only products fail to actually keep smokers from smoking.

If it was just the need for nicotine, a piece of nicotine gum would be 100% effective as a tobacco replacement, yet the success rate actually hovers around 7%. Many smokers reportedly miss the mechanics themselves - the taste, the feel, the ritual and the social aspect of smoking. However e-cigarettes, which not only contain nicotine but also mimic the habits and ritual associated with smoking, reportedly still seem to be "missing something" for about 25% of users. Additionally, smokers who have been nicotine and cigarette-free for several years have been known to relapse under certain stressors or triggers - which strongly indicates that smoking is linked just as much to the smoker's mental health and less to simple chemical addiction and habit as thought.

Whether it's chemical or psychological, smokers seem to be predispositioned to smoking for various reasons. In spite of the negative health risks posed by smoking, tobacco and nicotine products seem to provide many benefits similar to various medications. Tobacco or smoking may be a stimulant for some and have a calming, stress-reducing effect on others. Some find it improves cognitive abilities or lessens attention deficit disorders. Others find it keeps them from other oral fixations such as over-eating or compulsive nail biting. The presence of nicotine and other monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), which act as anti-depressants, in cigarette smoke suggests that those suffering from mild depression often find relief from tobacco use. Research also shows that an inordinate number of those with schizophrenia or other mental health issues are smokers and may be somehow "self-medicating."

My experience within the e-cigarette community has shown me just how different smokers (and their reasons for smoking) really are. It's reflected in the choices smokers make when actually given a choice with e-cigarettes. Suddenly they can choose the nicotine level, no nicotine, flavors, styles, sizes and the vapor production to best fit their needs. While some e-cigarette users pick up a basic e-cigarette and never have the desire to smoke again, others can't give up tobacco altogether, no matter how high the nicotine content. They seem to need something else found in tobacco other than the smoking habit or nicotine, such as the other tobacco alkaloids or MAOIs. Many in this category find that using a smokeless tobacco such as snus, along with e-cigarettes, can satisfactorily replace smoking. On the other hand, some e-cigarette users just need a higher nicotine content, while others need no nicotine at all - just the look, taste and feel of smoking.

So, smoking seems to be helping people with a great variety of mental health issues and addictive behaviors and the sense of satisfaction is determined by different factors for each individual. The drawback is that this "cure all" comes in such a deadly delivery system. The question is that in trying to keep people from harming themselves with the delivery system, by targeting even low-risk products - such as smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes - simply because they contain nicotine, will the goal of improving public health really be achieved? What will the people who rely on smoking turn to instead? Will those with oral fixations turn to food and become obese and face other health risks? Will those looking for relief from depression or other mental health issues, smokers who may currently avoid recreational drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs and even alcohol, turn to even more dangerous behaviors and/or addictions? Will all of these smokers just quit tobacco and nicotine use and somehow be magically cured of all of the underlying issues that caused them to continue smoke in the first place? Is it really reasonable to expect them to stop something that works for them and simply substitute a pharmaceutical drug in its place? Are pharmaceutical drugs really free from risks and side effects themselves? Are those dependent upon tobacco-specific chemicals any more "weak" or "immoral" than those dependent upon pharmaceutical chemicals to get through their day?

The solution to the health issues related to smoking is not to remove access to nicotine and tobacco and hope all of the reasons why smokers smoked go away too. The solution is to develop and make accessible the safer products which can address the real needs of smokers, without passing moral judgment on the product or the user. Smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes already address many of those issues with very low health risks. The majority of scientific research does not support the claims that their use will lead to smoking, so other than the irrational vilification of tobacco and nicotine and the moral judgment of the user, there is no valid reason to call for their removal.

The likelihood of cigarettes being banned for sale (and without a black market created) is slim to none. Therefore, those affected by the removal of safer tobacco and long-term nicotine products are not only current smokers, but those who for whatever reason may choose to try smoking and find themselves dependent in the future. So long as tobacco cigarettes remain available and so long as there are people who find the benefits outweigh the risks, removing safer options merely increases the health risks for those who may have otherwise sought them out. Smokers and “would-have-been” smokers deprived of all sources of tobacco or nicotine, including low risk products, will likely seek out an alternative for relief that may even more dangerous and detrimental than smoking itself.

Basic physics - for every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Considering the likely reaction of a ban on all tobacco and nicotine products, can prohibitionists really forsee that it will result in a "win" for public health?

Memorial Day and the Myth of Nicotine

This holiday weekend I had the opportunity to speak to my husband's aunt regarding electronic cigarettes. She was smoking and showed interest. Ever the e-cig evangelist, I excitedly told her of the advantages of smokefree alternatives.

To my utter dismay, she told me her doctor had given her a prescription for a "low nicotine" or "no nicotine" cigarette, claiming that the nicotine was the dangerous component of smoking. (After an extensive Google search, I couldn't find a "prescription no/low nicotine cigarette," so I've concluded she meant a Nicotrol Inhaler.)

It took me several attempts to get her to understand that nicotine, absent the smoke, is relatively safe. "It's the smoke that contains all of the toxins," I told her. She was shocked, as the vilification of nicotine by the anti-tobacco groups had completely convinced her that nicotine is what killed people.

That led, of course, to a discussion about smoke-free tobacco and another surprise revelation - that smoke-free tobacco is up to 99% safer than smoking cigarettes. The real shock for her was finding out that the risk of mouth and throat cancer was actually up to 50% less than the risk from smoking. As with other typically brainwashed consumers, she believed that smokeless tobacco products actually had a HIGHER risk of mouth/throat cancer. To add to the irony, she had discouraged her occasional-smoker son from using oral tobacco, not because of the perceived health risks, but to prevent damage to his costly dental work. Consequently, he remained an occasional smoker, when simple, good dental hygiene would have reduced his health risks by 99%.

Finally, she told me that she never filled the prescription from her doctor, because insurance didn't cover it and just 30 doses cost $35. So, she continues smoking. After informing her of the truth about the health benefits of smokeless alternatives and electronic cigarettes and especially the low cost, she was quite interested in getting information on how to order.

This whole conversation graphically illustrated the tragic consequences of the lies and myths perpetuated by the groups calling themselves "public health." A 50-something year old woman, who knows that she should quit smoking for her health and well-being, would have been willing to switch to a less hazardous product had she known the facts. "Public health" failed her. Their scare tactics failed to inspire her to quit, their costly "treatments" were out of her financial means and their refusal to endorse reduced harm tobacco products (in a prohibitionist belief that any kind of nicotine use is unacceptable) needlessly exposed her to the most harmful tobacco product available.

It's my hope that groups like CASAA, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, will be able to fill the huge gap left by the tobacco control and public health groups, by educating committed smokers and giving them the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.

If my conversation with my husband's aunt is any indication, the myth of nicotine as the killer in cigarettes continues to be pervasive and persuasive and that is what continues killing people.

The concept of reduced harm tobacco has been around for at least 15 years. In that time, public health and tobacco control have had the opportunity to save many lives. This Memorial Day, I found myself thinking of the 6.6 million smokers who died because of the prohibitionist agenda of "public health."

SmokeFree Wisconsin not about public health

In a recent blog post, I addressed a recent blog post by SmokeFree Wisconsin regarding smokeless tobacco products.

After a few readers questioned the logic of refusing to do "less harm" in promoting the use of smokeless tobacco over smoked tobacco, the author replied,

Our priorities include proving for smoke-free environments, increasing the price of tobacco, and ensuring there is a strong, comprehensive tobacco prevention and control program.

To serve those priorities we partner to collect data, data which indicates that smokeless use is already on the rise in WI. We use data which shows that the burden of tobacco is NOT reduced by the use smokeless products.

We are not exposing smokers to any risks. We pass policies, we don't do treatment.

Smokeless is not less harmful. Period.

So, where is the goal of protecting public health in this statement?

Where is the accountability that in setting policies, they affect public behavior?

Since when did it become "the burden of tobacco" over the burden of smoking and it's affect on public health?

Where is the science that proves that smokeless is not less harmful than smoking? There is plenty of science that proves the greatest exposure to toxins and carcinogens is in the smoke - we see it in the news and in public statements from groups such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.

If what SmokeFree Wisconsin says is true about smokeless tobacco, wouldn't the opposite also be true? That smoking is no more dangerous than smokeless tobacco? So why the need for indoor smoking bans, if the smoke isn't the real danger?

In its policy to put eradicating any tobacco use as a priority over getting people to quit smoking, SmokeFree Wisconsin completely ignores valid, scientific research and urges people who use tobacco products to continue to use only its most dangerous form - smoking.

Because if smokeless tobacco is no less dangerous, why switch from smoking?