Guest guest Posted March 8, 2004 Report Share Posted March 8, 2004 6/26/2003Return to News Featured organizationsBlind to the FactsValue Preferences Shape the Tobacco DebateBy Annette Niebelski No one argues that tobacco is good for your health. Forty-six million Americans smoke cigarettes, and approximately 400,000 die each year from lung cancer or smoking-related diseases. Many Americans try patches, pills and hypnosis, but still cannot quit their addiction to nicotine. Is there any alternative to going cold turkey? Yes. Studies show smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking tobacco. Scientific research shows switching to smokeless tobacco reduces rates of lung and oral cancers, emphysema, and heart disease. So why are anti-smoking activists fighting to thwart the word from getting out? In February 2002, 39 public health groups asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to reject the U.S. Tobacco Company’s petition to advertise the less harmful effects of smokeless tobacco. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Oral Health America (OHA) are the main objectors to smokeless tobacco. Other prominent petitioners include the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Dental Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Pharmacy Council on Tobacco Dependence. Anti-smoking advocates don’t want you to compare the health risks of smoking and using smokeless tobacco because they oppose all tobacco use. They tout a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, which shows smokeless tobacco leads to oral cancer rates higher than non-use. But they fail to point out that smokers who switch to smokeless tobacco reduce their risk of developing oral cancer by 50 percent. Also, it seems counter- intuitive for activists to campaign aggressively against second-hand smoke yet oppose smokeless tobacco. Abstinence-only activists worry that if tobacco companies are allowed to show tobacco users how to minimize their health risks, the companies will entice new users. This is the impetus behind their campaigns attacking any kind of tobacco advertising. But why should abstinence from tobacco be the only answer? The answer is that the activists are really arguing over morality. Many liberals tolerate promiscuity and drug use, but not tobacco. Most conservatives have strict moral objections to promiscuity and drug use, but don’t think using tobacco is a sin. Both sides construct abstinence programs to reflect their moral opinions. An alternative like smokeless tobacco only seems incomprehensible if you are morally opposed to tobacco use. When Dr. David Connolly, head of tobacco control programs for the Massachusetts Department of Health, says, “It’s like trying to play God: trading oral cancer for lung cancer” to explain why he opposes smokeless tobacco, he is showing his moral opposition to tobacco use On the other hand, Dr. Brad Rondu and Dr Phillip Cole, the two University of Alabama, Birmingham scientists, want to improve public health but have no moral objections to tobacco use. In 1995, they published findings about the public health benefits of switching from smoking to smokeless tobacco in Priorities For Health, the health journal of the American Council on Science and Health. Rodu and Cole noted that nicotine in tobacco is addictive, but is not a source of cancer or other diseases. They estimate that smokeless is 98 percent safer than cigarette smoking, and write: “The number of deaths from smoking is almost 70 times higher than the number from smokeless tobacco use. In terms of life expectancy, the smokeless-tobacco user loses only about 15 days on average compared with the eight years lost by a smoker.” In addition, recent Swedish studies show that smokeless tobacco is not a gateway drug to increased smoking, but actually a gateway out of smoking. The facts about smoking and smokeless tobacco use could improve public health if they were more widely known. But first conservatives, who don’t think using tobacco should be a crime or a sin, will have to convince liberals, who do. Annette Niebelski is summer communications fellow at Capital Research Center. homelessness is a national embarrassment Http://www.msfraud.org New Photos - easier uploading and sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.