Have you guys seen this site?
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org
And in particular
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/...ctsofst.htm#30
Lots of good information about the benefits of oral tobacco as compared to smoking. One thing they point out, whch I think is brilliant, is that oral cancer is _extremely_ rare. Lung cancer is _very_ common. So even IF using dip or snus DOUBLES your chances of oral cancer, it would be like doubling your risk of being hit by lightning as compared to doubling your risk of getting in a car crash with smoking. Clearly going the lightning route is far safer. The use of the term "doubles your risk" is extremely misleading and only is used to scare people. This is very enlightening.
In keeping with the excellent analogies they use on the site, another good way to think of it is seatbelts. Is wearing a seatbelt safer than driving drunk? Of course. But is it 100% safe? Not at all -- any time you use a vehicle there is a risk. But clearly we can understand that using a seatbelt is _significantly_ safer than not using one. So why wouldn't this same mentality of harm reduction not by applied to using tobacco? Yes, there is some risk, but oral tobacco _significantly_ reduces it.
You know, sometimes it's really nice to read things that are actually based on science (you know -- studies, empirical data, health statistics, etc) instead of hysterical political anti-tobacco fanatics.
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org
And in particular
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/...ctsofst.htm#30
Lots of good information about the benefits of oral tobacco as compared to smoking. One thing they point out, whch I think is brilliant, is that oral cancer is _extremely_ rare. Lung cancer is _very_ common. So even IF using dip or snus DOUBLES your chances of oral cancer, it would be like doubling your risk of being hit by lightning as compared to doubling your risk of getting in a car crash with smoking. Clearly going the lightning route is far safer. The use of the term "doubles your risk" is extremely misleading and only is used to scare people. This is very enlightening.
In keeping with the excellent analogies they use on the site, another good way to think of it is seatbelts. Is wearing a seatbelt safer than driving drunk? Of course. But is it 100% safe? Not at all -- any time you use a vehicle there is a risk. But clearly we can understand that using a seatbelt is _significantly_ safer than not using one. So why wouldn't this same mentality of harm reduction not by applied to using tobacco? Yes, there is some risk, but oral tobacco _significantly_ reduces it.
You know, sometimes it's really nice to read things that are actually based on science (you know -- studies, empirical data, health statistics, etc) instead of hysterical political anti-tobacco fanatics.
Comment