Smokers have options other than quit or die
The letter from Matthew Kuhlenbeck of the Missouri Foundation for Health (Nov. 7) offers help to smokers who want to quit.
Unfortunately, he failed to mention the most helpful option for most of those smokers: switching to a low-risk nicotine product. It’s a strategy called “tobacco harm reduction,” and many experts believe it has the potential to save countless lives.
A recent study from the University of Alberta School of Public Health in Canada found that, for average smokers, “smoking for just one more month poses a greater health risk than a lifetime of using one of the increasingly popular low-risk products like snuff, snus, the new electronic imitation cigarettes, nicotine lozenges, or some other non- combustible alternative.”
Many health organizations recognize the need to incorporate tobacco harm reduction strategies into public health policy. These groups include the American Association of Public Health Physicians, the American Council on Science and Health, the Royal College of Physicians, Smokefree Pennsylvania, and Action on Smoking and Health-UK.
The resistance to harm reduction by other groups is perplexing. Harm reduction is a part of our everyday lives. We employ it every time we use a seatbelt or wear a bicycle helmet. Part of the problem seems to be the failure to recognize that nicotine, in and of itself, carries about the same health risks as caffeine (another widely used, addictive substance). It’s the common method of nicotine delivery– that is, the combustion of tobacco–that is so dangerous.
It’s time for all anti-smoking groups to acknowledge the fact that, despite aggressive public health campaigns, about 43 million Americans continue to smoke. The two options normally offered to smokers are to “quit or die.” Since an estimated 440,000 American smokers will die this year alone from smoking-related illnesses, it seems clear that this kind of rigid, moralistic thinking is resulting in a lot of …
death.
While quitting the use of nicotine altogether may be ideal, it isn’t realistic. Adult smokers have a right to the truth, and the truth is that there are options to minimize the risk of nicotine use. “Breaking the addiction,” as Mr. Kuhlenbeck describes his goal, should be secondary to improving health and saving lives. Nicotine addiction may be, for some, a moral problem, but the focus on public health policy should be on science, not moral judgements.
Patricia Clewell
St. Louis County
Snuff and chewing tobacco are not without their health risk! You are naive if you think so. The tobacco juice touches the person’s tongue, jaw, lips and mouth and continues on down the digestive track causing harm to the esophogus,stomach, and colon. Cancers of the oral cavaties and digestive track as well as sores in the mouth are more prevelant. Not to mention gum disease, dental infections and loss of teeth, etc..
As far as the smokeless tobacco, I don’t know the health implications, but I inquired at the gas station what the cost for a pack is and it’s over $14.
Who said anything about “moral judgement” of smoking? Most smokers are considerate and step outside for their fix. It’s the idots who lite up the cigars inside and act like it’s their due right that gives smokers a bad name.
Ms. Clewell is absolutely right in stressing harm reduction rather than the “quit or die” approach, and the logic can be extended to the illegal drugs. A sensible system of legalization would result in less harm to drug users, and less harm to society.
Thanx for a great article. I truly wonder if there was some way to miraculously get all smokers to quit if all these anti-smoking groups would be satisfied. For some reason I don’t think they would feel as if their goal was accomplished, and that they would be happy that the world is a smoke free place.