Hämtat från http://www.carlhaglund.fi/sve/aktuellt/#article-4695-3089-haglund-snusfragan-avgors-nu
Något som också är anmärkningsbart är att EU för en gångs skull har för avsikt att konsultera sina invånare, så då är det också viktigt att vi visar att vi är aktiva och kan svara på frågor när de för en gångs skull ställs direkt till folket. Här hittar man konsultationen, och nedan följer mitt svar inskickat endast angående punkt 2, smokeless tobacco products.
The problem definition states that "all smokeless tobacco products are addictive and can cause cancer". While this is true I would like to see it as all tobacco products are addictive and can cause cancer, regardless of smoke. Smokeless tobacco (especially Swedish snus) has been proven to be harmful, yes, but is it more harmful than chewing tobacco or cigarettes? If you ban one you will have to ban the others too. If you ban snus because it is harmful you would also have to ban regular cigarettes, since smoking has been shown to be more harmful than using snus.
"It may cause a slight increase in cardiovascular risks and is likely to be harmful to the unborn fetus, although these risks are lower than those caused by smoking. There has been a larger drop in male daily smoking (from 40% in 1976 to 15% in 2002) than female daily smoking (34% in 1976 to 20% in 2002) in Sweden, with a substantial proportion (around 30%) of male ex-smokers using snus when quitting smoking. Over the same time period, rates of lung cancer and myocardial infarction have dropped significantly faster among Swedish men than women and remain at low levels as compared with other developed countries with a long history of tobacco use." (Tobacco Control BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 12(4):349-359, December 2003)
"Although few in number, these seven studies do provide quantitative evidence that, for certain health outcomes, the health risks associated with snus are lower than those associated with smoking. Specifically, this is true for lung cancer (based on one study), for oral cancer (based on one study), for gastric cancer (based on one study), for cardiovascular disease (based on three of four studies), and for all-cause mortality (based on one study)." (Inhalation Toxicology [Inhalation Toxicol.]. Vol. 17, no. 13, pp. 741-748. 1 Dec 2005.)
"Little evidence was found to support a causal relationship between ST (senders note: ST=smokeless tobacco) use and risk of oral, pancreatic or lung cancer. ST use was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke incidence, but evidence Suggested ST use was associated with increased mortality from these diseases." (Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 56 (2): 197-211 Mar 2010)
Put warning texts on everything, but don't use legislation as a way to deal with a healthcare problem. If people want to use tobacco products that's a choice they should be free to make for themselves. Last, but not least, one tobacco product should be considered the same as another as long as one of them isn't significantly more dangerous. If snus is continually banned, then all other forms of oral tobacco should also be banned, and probably cigarettes as well. We've got freedom of speech, freedom of having our own opinion, freedom of religion, why not give people the freedom of making their own stupid choices and the right to live with those choices as well?
Gå in och svara du också, oavsett åsikt. Att visa sin åsikt mellan valen är lika viktigt som att rösta när det är val. Stöd demokratin!