RE: Does Snus use have a harm reduction effect in Sweden?

Eletter to Tobacco Control in response to an eletter published in the same journal about whether snus (Swedish moist oral snuff) was responsible for a decline in smoking prevalence among men in Sweden.

The prospects for tobacco harm reduction

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) policies aim to reduce the prevalence of tobacco-related harm by encouraging smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit to adopt less harmful ways of obtaining nicotine, such as pharmaceutical nicotine and oral tobacco snuff. Proponents of THR argue that the effects of tobacco control policies have reduced smoking as much as they reasonably can and that we can best reduce tobacco-related harm by encouraging smokers to use these methods, which substantially reduce the health risks of smoking. Critics argue that THR policies will undermine the two traditional tobacco control goals of preventing the uptake of smoking by young people and encouraging smokers to quit. I assess the main arguments and evidence advanced for and against THR.

Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: technical appendix

This technical appendix details the methods used in an assessment of the potential of snus for tobacco harm reduction using simulation modelling.

Should the health community promote smokeless tobacco (snus) as a harm reduction measure?

Background to the debate: The tobacco control community is divided on whether or not to inform the public that using oral, smokeless tobacco (Swedish snus) is less hazardous to health than smoking tobacco. Proponents of 'harm reduction' point to the Swedish experience. Snus seems to be widely used as an alternative to cigarettes in Sweden, say these proponents, contributing to the low overall prevalence of smoking and smoking-related disease. Harm reduction proponents thus argue that the health community should actively inform inveterate cigarette smokers of the benefits of switching to snus. However, critics of harm reduction say that snus has its own risks, that no form of tobacco should ever be promoted, and that Sweden’s experience is likely to be specific to that culture and not transferable to other settings. Critics also remain deeply suspicious that the tobacco industry will use snus marketing as a 'gateway' to promote cigarettes. In the interests of promoting debate, the authors (who are collaborators on a research project on the future of tobacco control) have agreed to outline the strongest arguments for and against promoting Swedish snus as a form of harm reduction.

The current status of psychological debriefing - It may do more harm than good

Despite the widespread use of psychological debriefing, serious concerns have been raised about its effectiveness and potential to do harm. 1 2 Psychological debriefing is broadly defined as a set of procedures including counselling and the giving of information aimed at preventing psychological morbidity and aiding recovery after a traumatic event. In 1995 Raphael and colleagues emphasised that there was an urgent need for reliable evidence from randomised controlled trials on the impact and worth of debriefing.3 Unfortunately, the news has not been good for debriefing. Debriefing is generally applied within the first few days after a traumatic event, lasts one to three hours, and usually includes procedures that encourage and normalise emotional expression. Debriefing can also be more narrowly defined in terms of the procedures used, the information provided and the target population. One example of this type of debriefing is known as critical incident stress debriefing.4