Apparently a guy wrote a book about bans, and uses the EU snus ban as an example

[Mykislt]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Suppress.../dp/0956226531

Has anyone read it?

Positive reviews - I think I will.

[justintempler]

I've been following his webposts, his latest is pretty good.

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/1.262...gare-an-capone

Christopher Snowdon: Ban-makers are more dangerous than Capone

Snus The ban could cost more lives than all the poisoned liquor burned at home in Al Capone USA, writes author Christopher Snowdon.

Historically, prohibition policies associated with Al Capone, maple bars and moonshine distilled in the bathtub. U.S. trials of standard-setting team was a fiasco. Sweden escaped the same fate in 1992 by the narrowest of margins in a referendum. 2011, it is not alcohol, but tobacco.Although it is scientifically established that snus is a virtually harmless substitute for smoking is an illicit drug in the rest of Europe. Few Swedes realize snus role in improving the country's health, few Europeans know what snus is.

My country, Britain is to blame for Europe's failed tobacco policies. In the 80's became established a tobacco company in Scotland with a sweetened version of a snuff [dip] box decorated with a cowboy. [Skoal Bandits] The British have no snus history.There was a loophole in the law that allowed sales to young people. Terrified anti-smoking groups and business press inciting a moral panic, and all snuff was banned.

In 1992 it was decided to extend the EU ban to the whole Union, unilateral ban interfered with market harmonization. Get noticed - even fewer cared.Not until Sweden was considering membership was asked life. EU abandoned its harmonization requirements, Sweden got an exemption.The ban was based on the alleged risk of oral cancer and that it was a gateway to smoking.

The first hypothesis was reasonable, because some smokeless tobacco from Africa and Asia contain high levels of carcinogens. Few knew that Swedish snus is different. While dangerous nitrosamines tested at more than 1000 ppm (parts per million) in those chewing tobacco products, the level in Sweden during the 2 ppm. When Europe invented the ban was little knowledge of health effects. But researchers in the 90's could not see any difference in cancer rates between snuff users and non-snuff users. These results were so convincing that the EU removed the text "causes cancer" from cans. But the ban was retained. snus is not a gateway to smoking, rather the opposite. Swedish men have since the 70's had an exceptional race in smoking, and thus of lung cancer among industrial countries.

As public health researchers put together the whole picture became clear that European smokers had been deprived of a product that could help them stop smoking. One study estimated that 200,000 lives could be saved if all EU reiterated "the Swedish experience." Several international health organizations and Sweden have made demands on the EU to reconsider the ban. They face opposition from an uncompromising anti-smoking lobby as anxious to preserve one of the rare tobacco ban. Often supported by strong commercial interests in the nicotine drug manufacturing.

Methods to defend the ban is amazing. Scientific reports are manipulated, the data found on when needed. 2004 tested the ban by the European Court. A report by the European Network for Smoking Prevention was crucial. But the wording: "... have an increased incidence of oral cancer among snus users existed in North America, but not uniquely in Sweden" had with Tippex revised to: "An increased incidence of oral cancer has been found in snus users" in the quoted version .

When Sweden later questioned the ban went out with the Public Health Institute that snus causes impotence. However, revealed that there was a funding application for the planned study FHI promoted to research even before it was made.EU ban is a huge success, few Europeans take snus. As public health policy is as unsuccessful as the prohibition policy at any time in the last 200 years. By denying Europe's nicotine addicts better option might snuff ban to cost more lives than all the poisoned liquor burned at home of Al Capone USA.

Christopher Snowdon British freelance journalist and author

[Mykislt]

To be honest, I was pretty surprised that he was so active in condemning the EU for the snus ban, and yet had no presence on this forum (to my knowledge). I just stumbled upon his blog today, and I was blown away.

[v2]

This is an incredibly good book! I have not read a book since I stopped in my engineering studies, but this is worth reading!!!
But beware, you risk to be pissed off during the reading....

[justintempler]

There's a review of his other book - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist over at SnusCentral
http://www.snuscentral.org/m-hellwig-snus-snuff-politicsguns/velvet-glove-iron-fist-s1147-anti-smoking-cigarette-ban-snus-banhtml.html

[alexdal]

In USA the life if becoming shorter because after the tabacco ban in 90's people stopped smoking eating more. So instead to have less death for cancer, there a lot more for other kind of cancers or hearth problems.

[Mordred]

In USA the life if becoming shorter because after the tabacco ban in 90's people stopped smoking eating more. So instead to have less death for cancer, there a lot more for other kind of cancers or hearth problems.

Many people seem to have forgotten that everybody WILL DIE. So when they say things like "millions of lives will be saved when people stop smoking/drinking/driving fast/whatever", it's clearly bullshit. It's not about "saving" people, it never was. It's about controlling people. Just like the missionaries didn't want to "save the souls" of the natives, they wanted to control them.

Why the **** can't we just live and let live? Is that so goddamned difficult?

[justintempler]

Christopher Snowdon's book got another good review, along with some interesting history about bans. I would post the whole thing but I think it's a little too long, so I'll just post the snippet on snus and a link to the original article for those that want to read more.

....In response to accumulating evidence supporting the use of snus as a harm-reducing alternative to cigarettes, supporters of the E.U. ban have become more brazen. Based on information from Asa Lundquist, the tobacco control manager for the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, the Swedish press reported that snus (which remains legal in Sweden) causes impotence and infertility. Luckily, Swedes, who have suffered through decades of similar scares, insisted on seeing the study behind the allegations. As it turns out, the scare itself was impotent. The supposed source, the Karolinska Institute, admitted “there is no such study.” Rather, “we have a hypothesis and plan to conduct a study among snus users after the new year.”....

Typical nanny state propaganda.

http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyr...in-reason.html