tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199402777613414553.post9055515994205727407..comments2023-09-25T11:38:22.717-03:00Comments on Your Health Educator: the 411 on Smokeless Tobaccodeedeeskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08590036730651038977noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199402777613414553.post-48536223609384676442009-11-26T12:48:29.152-04:002009-11-26T12:48:29.152-04:00Diedre,
It seems as though your desire is current...Diedre,<br /><br />It seems as though your desire is currently being met through electronic cigarettes. Only time will tell if the powers that be allow that option to continue to be available. In my own country, the government has decided that it is preferable that people stick to using the most obviously dangerous method of obtaining nicotine.<br /><br />Part of the reason for the poor success rates of pharmaceuticals can be traced to subsistence rather than pleasurable levels of nicotine, and the practice of short periods of administration. If they were approached more as a substitute and not only as a route to quitting altogether then they would no doubt end up being more effective.<br /><br />Until that time, and you are probably aware, that tobacco is the only field in which safer options are being withheld on the basis of them either not being perfect or there being other options already available. Kind of like if we would have discarded airbags because we already have seatbelts, or both altogether because the only really safe option in not driving at all.<br /><br />That being said, I believe that all the energy being spent trying to avoid tobacco is more political than health related. As long as it is not lit, it is fairly safe (the toxicology does show the TSNAs but the epidemiology shows that that does not exactly translate into disease...you might have seen that recent studies have found that many of the same toxins are now being found in pharmaceutical nicotine products, so it is not entirely straightforward).<br /><br />As to your last comment, it is quite likely that many people do find respite through nicotine (I am not one of those but I do know people who seem to find it helpful). And if they use it in a fairly safe form....who could argue with that?<br /><br />Anyway, nice to have a civil conversation on this topic...people tend to go crazy when they hear the word tobacco or nicotine..<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />PaulPBergenhttp://www.tobaccoharmreduction.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199402777613414553.post-20104209296909356982009-11-25T15:50:41.897-04:002009-11-25T15:50:41.897-04:00Paul
I do believe and the research supports, that ...Paul<br />I do believe and the research supports, that smokeless tobacco is less harmful than smoking. I will never deny that - even when my agency wishes I would. You are correct that there is controversy around "harm reduction products" and I do not necessarily believe that smokeless tobacco should be used for that, especially considersing that they too contain TSNAs. What I am interested in and have said at public forums(not well received I might add!) is that it might behoove us to regulate and sell nicotine in a nontobacco delivery system. I know that food, alcohol and caffeine can be misused, but each also has a health promoting side, and I wonder if the same could be said of nicotine, minus the tobacco.deedeeskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08590036730651038977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6199402777613414553.post-2194021872524363632009-11-25T12:38:14.598-04:002009-11-25T12:38:14.598-04:00You missed what I believe is the single most impor...You missed what I believe is the single most important piece of information about smokeless tobacco and that is its role in harm reduction. There is some disagreement in exactly how low the levels of risk are in the use of this product but there is little doubt that in almost every respect, the use of smokeless tobacco is much less risky than smoking (switching will reduce a smoker's risk of oral cancer as well as every other cancer dramatically). <br /><br />Though domestic agencies like to downplay international results, the fact is that there are more than a few good studies showing that smokeless tobacco can be quite effective in replacing smoking. <br /><br />This is all rather important since current policies are fairly ineffective at reducing the numbers of smokers (and therefore the associated effects) and the very low success rate of pharmaceutical replacements.<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />Paul Bergen<br />Research Associate<br />Public Health Sciences<br />University of AlbertaPBergenhttp://www.tobaccoharmreduction.orgnoreply@blogger.com