| 2000. |
|
Bates C. Taking the nicotine out of cigarettes - why it is a bad idea. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2000; 78: 944.
“If removing nicotine will not work, what is the alternative? . . . . Regulators should be
concentrating on cleaning up the delivery system, and tending to increase the amount of
nicotine in the smoke relative to toxic smoke constituents such as tar and carbon
monoxide. Regulatory pressure may be used to force selective reduction of tobacco
toxins relative to nicotine by the use of chemically active filters, a switch from burning
to heating tobacco, and greater use of oral tobacco, tobacco distillates and perhaps,
ultimately, to nicotine delivery devices that do not use tobacco at all but, unlike current
nicotine replacement therapies (patches and gum, etc.), deliver a psychoactive and
satisfying dose of nicotine to the addict. None of these approaches avoids all harm – far
from it – but the evolution (rather than prohibition) of addictive nicotine delivery
products represents an important strategy in reducing tobacco-related deaths in the 21st
century.” |
| 2000. |
|
Ramström L. Snuff – an alternative nicotine delivery system. In: Ferrence R, Slade J, Room R, Pope M (eds.). Nicotine and public health. The American Public Health Foundation, Washington D.C., 2000; Chapter 9: 159-178.
“If snuff dipping had been a major contributor to oral cancer, Sweden’s high levels of
snuff dipping in the late 1960s and later should have been reflected in high death rates
for oral cancer about 1990 compared with other countries. Instead, Sweden has lower
rates for male oral cancer than [Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, and the U.S.A.].”
(p. 169).
“While snuff use may entail some health risks, there is good evidence that these are
substantially lower than those associated with smoking. Switching from smoking to
snuff use would therefore represent a reduction in health risks.” (p. 172). |