Caution: Don't Assume 'Smokeless' Substitutes for Cigarettes Are Safe

Reader Comments
Back to article

It is gratifying to see the three comments that were posted previous to this. It shows that even though the media often still quotes anti-tobacco extremists unquestioningly, many members of the public are getting the real public health message. As another commentor noted, smokeless alternatives to cigarettes are much less hazardous. Research at the University of Alberta School of Public Health (see TobaccoHarmReduction.org) has determined that smokeless tobacco is about 1% as risky as smoking -- a 99% reduction in risk. The evidence suggests that electronic cigarettes pose similarly low risks. So, contrary to the article, the benefits of switching from smoking to a smokeless alternative are so close to the benefits from quitting that we should not worry too much about the difference. The people quoted in the article would rather let smokers die than educate them about the low-risk alternatives. Shame on them for making statements that directly contradict the science, and especially shame on the Lung Association for abandoning their mission (smokeless products have *no* effects on the lungs) to stick with the naive abstinence-only approach to nicotine use.
Carl V. Phillips
Associate Professor, University of Alberta School of Public Health

Carl V Phillips 12:34PM January 14, 2009

Although your article claims to show that snus is not a safe alternative to smoking, you only devote one sentence, from one study to health facts. Even then, the best you can come up with is that it MAY be harmful. I guess I didn't realize that hearsay had a place in an article which guises itself as scientific. And in regards to an increase in instances of pancreatic cancer among snus users, check the data. While the use of snus may slightly increase the instances of pancreatic cancer when compared to non-smokers, the risk is actually lower than when compared to smokers. It seems silly to me that such a poorly researched article made it into US News and World Report. I understand that certain people will say no form of tobacco is safe, and I certainly agree. There is, however, significant evidence that Swedish snus is much safer than smoking, and if it can help people get of cigarettes (as it did for me) I for one believe that it's worth it.

Justin of MI 9:10AM January 14, 2009

I never assumed using snus was risk free. Snus is a method of harm reduction which has an immediate benefit. I have smoked for 38 years and attempted to stop numerous times. Snus has allowed me to be smokefree for 2 months. The amount of harm reduction is estimated to be above 90%. It might not be the ideal solution but it sure has made an improvement in my life.

Dirk of FL 11:41PM January 13, 2009

This form of tobacco usage has been around for over 200 years yet the health related risks are still inconclusive. I've read that the Swedish government has run numberous studies including death rate, cancer and found no correlation. I don't know how you've come up with your analysis unless new studies have been performed that refute previous findings.

Santos Murillo of NJ 3:37PM January 13, 2009