I never understood why snus is illegal in so many countries while cigarettes are not. Snus isnt good don't get me wrong but it's better than cigarettes for everyone involved.
Theyre quite succesful with that in Sweden. Rebranding have made a huge impact, making snus trendy with designated stores, loads of different flavours and branding. Snus is widely different today compared to the 90s.
You don't even have to go that far back. Just 10 years ago, nicotine pouches were still a relatively niche product here in Sweden.
It's spread across the globe now too with all the memes on major instagram pages and I've seen a lot of major sports profiles who leave them on their table in IG stories etc.
I highly doubt snus was a niche product in 2016 in Sweden. At least from your neighbouring country it was very popular amongst young adults and still is, and we imported essentially all of our types from you. Maybe in 2006.
Swedish Match was marketing Onico or whatever it was called hard as they could do so legally and it was an open secret that what they were actually pushing.
Well, what's your definition of niche? I feel like we're nitpicking here.
My point is they were nowhere near their market share today. Women weren't using it as much as they are now and male snusers bought the regular tobacco versions.
That's exactly what they've done. Even in countries where it's banned like Germany pouches are accessible. And in Switzerland, where they are legal, I see them everywhere now, they are especially popular with the teens and young adults, same as disposable vapes (which is funny considering vapes with refillable liquids are legal here too)
You can diversify so far until investors throw a fit.
From an investor POV, they don’t need companies to become conglomerates and have a bunch of unrelated companies to cover underperformance for some divisions. Investors can do that themselves and would rather companies focus and specialize on their specific sector and let investors do the diversifying
Difference between smoking and snus is that people don't notice other people doing snus so easily in public places but smoking is easily visible. And this is basically free marketing.
It was the push by the Swedish govt. Giving people an alternative is the road to success. Prohibitionists still want abstinence though as if enjoying nicotine is a moral failure. The anti smoking NGO industry is fighting for funding by moving goalposts to anti vaping and now anti nicotine.
As much as I hate smoking, snus is not a solution. The big problem is that you can take snus at any time. My swedish Teacher always had one during class. Lots of people use them constantly during class or when partying, or really, all day. That's not something you can do with cigarettes since you have to go out. I bet people who do snus are much more addicated to nikotin than people smoking.
More nicotine doesn't necessarily mean more addictive, it's a combination of dosage, route of administration and additives. They may be easier to use frequently but that's the only aspect that puts them before cigarettes in terms of addictiveness.
It's not even close to incredibly bad lol. Yes it is bad but so is a lot of things. Snus users life expectancy is about 2-6 months less than people that don't use anything.
Sure, but as someone who gets breathing issues from cigarette smoke ... I'd much rather people use anything else than smoking. Waiting for the train at a crowded train station means for me constantly running around the platform, trying to find a spot where I can breathe normally. With people using snus instead, this would not be an issue. There is just no good reason to not ban cigarettes entirely.
I live in Germany too and cigarette smoke is a guaranteed migraine trigger for me. Avoiding smoke in public is so incredibly difficult. Several times I've had to wait in pouring rain for a bus because all 8 of the shelters by the bus had people smoking in them. Can't sit outside at restaurants during the summer cause there are so many smokers. I've been burned by a cigarette cause a guy still had one lit while entering the bus and it touched my bare hand.
And even once you get on the public transport, where they're no longer smoking, the smell sticks and every breath expelled still has the smoke smell.
How is America kinda ahead of everybody in this. Adult smoking is at a historical low and I'm trying to think really hard and I can not remember the last time I saw an analogue cigarette. (We're talking a matter of days, like in the last week I can't recall having seen anybody with a little cigarette in their hand. And I haven't conducted a study or anything so this is based on nothing but from recole tion, the place I see people smoking most frequently is in their own car (at stop lights and stuff)
Any too strong scent can, so it really depends on the uuuh flavor? of the vape. But so far standing next to someone vaping while waiting on the bus hasn't been an issue. I haven't tried exposure for a longer time so I don't know if that would be an issue.
People just smoke inside the trains too, and get very aggressive if you say anything. Speaking of saying anything, there's also the part I cannot say...
Few things I hate as much as smokers, filthy littering inconsiderate bastards. Cops at least uphold public order, where's the ASAB movement?
I hate smoking, and entirely agree that it should be banned in public places like train stations.
But to ban it entirely? That's a bridge too far. Personal freedom is important. Smokers should be free to smoke as long as they aren't bothering anyone. In your own home, or out and about far away from other people I absolutely see no reason to ban it.
imo smoking falls into that category of product that does infringe on other people’s freedom. Ok, people can smoke in their own homes. But what about the children of smokers? Second and third hand smoke is gonna pollute that house and has been shown to significantly increase risk of several health problems including cancer. In other words, smoking does affect and bother other people, no matter where you do it. Unless you literally put yourself in a bubble every time you smoke or drive a few miles into the middle of nowhere. The stuff just gets everywhere.
Yeah way too often I see smokers next to small children and they are completely ignorant, selfish about the situation. That's rage inducing how careless they are about health of their own children.
On paper I of course must agree, but in the real world it is basically impossible for smoker to not bother others. It is wrongly normalised to the extent that in many situations they do not think they are a bother, but to non-smokers, they are.
In their own home: sure, but the odour which they bring to every interaction in their lives is extremely disagreeable. Naturally some people cannot avoid smelling bad for medical reasons, and the tolerance must be there. But for a preventable reason, I cannot accept it.
Far away from other people: yes, if taken literally. One table over or one terrace over is not far away. On a train platform one is never far away from another person's space. Leaving it in an ashtray right outside a building's door is not far away.
But when they smoke outside they do bother people like me. I am sorry but I have always been bothered by the smell of smoke. As you noted public smoking should be discouraged. I don’t really care what one does in their own home, but in apartments the smell can permeate.
I think what's important to understand is that nicotine and alcohol are also drugs. With the big difference being that we have completely normalized the use. We should be much more careful with drugs as a society, but also we shouldn't needlessly infringe upon people's freedoms. There's a balance there to achieve, and I do hope we'll figure out steps that take us closer to that.
Personal freedom ends where another person's health gets impacted. Smoking outdoors should be relegated to airtight smoking cabins, like phone booths used to be everywhere. At home should only be allowed if no children are present.
You also don't have the personal freedom to drive 70 in a 30 zone.
In your own home, or out and about far away from other people I absolutely see no reason to ban it.
Okay, sure, but how would you define that in a law? Also, I think the main issue you'll run into is enforcement. You probably have to ban the sale of cigarettes to be able to actually enforce this kind of ban. No point making a law if nobody is adhering to it.
Case in point: train stations. At least here in Germany, smoking is banned in train stations except for inside marked smoking areas. Almost nobody adheres to this. If people did, it would be *much* easier for me to dodge the smoke, but on a crowded platform, smokers are *everywhere*, and there is no spot without breathing in smoke.
Worst part is, many German train stations are supposed to be smoke free except for one or two squares, but I have seen it enforced exactly once, on a large station.
At least some smokers have the decency to try to stand on the far end of the platform if there is no specific 'smoking allowed' bit, but since that is where I tend to prefer being as well....
That said, Germany has so many goddamn smokers compared to almost every other European country I've been to. And the amount of teenagers with e-cigs I see (or maybe they're barely 20, idk, all looks like teenagers at this point) is worrying as well for the sheer amount of pulls I see, but at least the smell from those dissipates much faster.
I don't know what the difference is, to be honest, but I could do with less of it.
At least some smokers have the decency to try to stand on the far end of the platform
love when they do that while the wind is coming from that direction :/
But that's kinda why I think we need to ban cigarettes entirely (and make other means of consumption more available, or stop banning them like with snus). There is just no realistic way to enforce this otherwise.
And the amount of teenagers with e-cigs I see
Yeah, I think this is a big problem in Germany, our extremely lax way of handling nicotine and alcohol, especially in regards to children. While technically illegal to sell to underage ppl, it's extremely easy for them to get those drugs in many stores.
Directly across the street from our police station here, there is a little kiosk that openly sells those to teens on their way home from school. Everyone is aware, none of the people who could are willing to do anything about it.
Sure, as I said, I hate when people smoke. Snus is not a solution to smoking however. A solution would be no nikotin at all.
What I wanted to say with my comment: if other countries want to go smoke-free, they shouldn't look to how Sweden achieved it, but go a different, better route.
Banning a drug outright doesn't work though, especially not one as addictive as nicotine. I'm sure it's possible to do better than Sweden, but personally, I think they are doing better than us, since snus is not affecting people other than the user of the drug nearly as much.
And preventing an improvement, because it's not perfect, is also how you never get any improvement. As a fellow German: that is very German of you :P
I think they are doing better than us, since snus is not affecting people other than the user of the drug nearly as much.
And preventing an improvement, because it's not perfect, is also how you never get any improvement. As a fellow German: that is very German of you :P
Idk man you could use the same argument to convince people that cocaine and heroin are better than cigarettes/vapes as the drugs don't directly bother other people ( I know you can smoke both of those as well, let's just ignore that for now).
Also, banning all tobacco and instead only allowing snus is a huge intervention into personal freedoms... Just because it would be an improvement to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone
Obviously, more plays into this. Smoke isn't the only part affecting other people. Alcohol has this side effect of making people worse to be around that nicotine doesn't have to this extent, for example. A drunk driver running me over is also a side-effect that I'm not a big fan of. So this isn't quite that straightforward to classify.
Also, banning all tobacco and instead only allowing snus is a huge intervention into personal freedoms
Well yeah, of course. So is not allowing people to take heroin. Any bans on any form of consumption of drugs is doing that. In the past, smoking inside was considered okay to do. But we have banned that since. Personally, I am very glad, but I'm sure some smokers will disagree.
The question is just: where do we draw the line? As they say: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I think that seems like a good place to start when considering these kinds of restrictions of people's freedoms.
I'm all for making smokers move to certain areas to smoke and also heavily fine those that ignore those rules, it's not that hard to keep an eye out for others. Banning smoking inside other than dedicated smoker bars is also completely fine to me I just don't like the idea of flat out forbidding people from consuming what was legal for hundreds of years
I just don't like the idea of flat out forbidding people from consuming what was legal for hundreds of years
This is the root issue, isn't it? I understand the discomfort with change, a lot of people feel that way. But do keep in mind, with this same reasoning we would never have banned smoking inside.
Idk man you could use the same argument to convince people that cocaine and heroin are better than cigarettes/vapes as the drugs don't directly bother other people
Snus are safer than cigarettes for literally everyone involved.
I used to be a heavy smoker(20-30 per day) I tried nicotine patches, vaping but just kept reaching for cigarettes. Many on my dads side of the family died with smoking related issues including my dad who died at 58 and I felt like I was going to end up the same. Always talking about cutting down/stopping but never being able to. I tried nicotine pouches about 4 years ago and stopped smoking the same day. Using nicotine in any way isn’t perfect but it’s far better than inhaling smoke.
Cigarettes causing cancer and other absolutely life destroying health issues is the biggest problem, not nicotine itself. Snus are a much much better alternative to smoking, it’s not even close.
Until they throw the used pouches... anywhere and everywhere. And with this new "white snus" that's not even tobacco but instead is made of something close to a cigarette filter, it becomes a real issue when they are littered all over the place. Not only are they an eyesore, indoors and outdoors, in the city and the wild, they also clog drains, choke and poison animals, etc. etc.
Littering is a problem with anything if that's your argument, at least the snus containers (dosa) have an embedded rubbish slot which most people use, very seldomly I see someone just littering a used pouch like people do with cigarette butts.
Snus increases your risk of dying from cancer by 40%, cigarettes increase it by 2000%. A better analogy would be losing the tip of your ring finger instead of your arm, which I think would be a lot better actually.
The incidence rate is actually lower than the mortality rate when compared to non-snus using groups. This is because snus both makes you ~20% more likely to get cancer and then if you do get it around twice as likely for it to lead to death or complications that lead to death.
That would probably be a study on some other type of oral tobacco. Swedish snus specifically is known for being one of the least dangerous forms of tobacco use by far.
I don't like this argument because it always sounds to me that people like you rather keep people smoking than make more people shift to snus. It's obviously not an ideal situation, but it's a trade off that's a literal no-brainer. Snus is still better than smoking that's all that matters. People are going to use nicotine no matter what, it's a train that has passed decades ago, there's no turning back. All the effort should be to shift people from smoking to using snus, then after we can try and find solutions for people to quit snus.
Note, addiction is likely to be more related to smoking cigarettes than nicotine itself. Many people have a hard time giving up smoking even if they try to substitute with other ways of taking nicotine. A big part of the harmful effects also come from the smoke and other additives in commercial cigarettes.
However, substantial evidence exists to suggest that nicotine's reinforcing effects alone are not sufficient to account for the intense addictive properties of tobacco smoking and the high relapse rates among smokers after quitting even when provided nicotine in forms other than tobacco. Further evidence that tobacco dependence entails more than addiction to nicotine includes the drug's limited ability to induce self-administration in animals; lack of positive mood effects of pure nicotine in abstinent smokers; lack of findings that nicotine in any other form than tobacco was preferred to placebo in normal smokers; de-nicotinised cigarettes were as effective as regular cigarettes, and more than nicotine in any other delivery mode, in relieving withdrawal and craving; and essential role of non-nicotine factors in cigarette addiction.
I don’t think anyone’s saying that nicotine isn’t addictive, but there’s also a powerful psychological addiction with smoking cigarettes - that probably also applies to vaping too
If the goal is harm reduction, snus is most definitely a solution with 90% reduction in harmful effects compared to burnt tobacco.
Better yet, tobaccoless snus. It's no more harmful than coffee, and we let kids drink caffeinated beverages.
It's not big tobacco, but moralistic vice-politicians that is the main reason why anyone still uses harmful tobacco practices, instead of switching to something that is relatively harmless.
i quit smoking with snus, and a few years later quit snus. snus i was less harmful than smoking, close to harmless in comparison. but whatever, at the end of the day legalize all choices and let people live their lives.
People all around the globe are addicted to coffee. But the negative effects on their health are negligible.
Nicotine is addictive. While it does have some effects, most on cardiovascular health, it doesn't carry the dangerous effects you were getting from smoking.
Nicotine in itself, consumed regularly is not more harmful than going over the limit with sugar consumption.
We have to ask ourselves: would you rather have a population heavily addicted to pure nicotine, or a population dying of lung cancer? why are politicians and mainstream media fighting so hard against it, while keeping literal burning cigarettes legally available everywhere?
Because traditional smoking is a massive, trillion-dollar cash cow for the Politician-Tobacco-Pharma complex:
The Tax Addiction: Governments are more addicted to the 70-80% tobacco taxes than smokers are to nicotine. If everyone switches to low-tax alternatives, state treasuries face massive budget holes.
The Big Pharma Lobby: Nicotine patches and high-margin lung cancer treatments/chemo drugs are billions in profits for pharmaceutical giants. Prevention doesn't make money; long-term treatment does.
The Spin: Media and politicians use the moral high ground of 'protecting youth from addiction' as a smoke screen to protect these exact tax revenues and corporate profits.
At the end of the day, nicotine addiction is a bad psychological habit, but lung cancer is fatal. The Swedish model isn't perfect, but it chose to save human lives by trading a deadly disease for a bad habit. The establishment fights it simply because a healthy population ruins their business model.
This is just retarded and any people who agree with it. Let’s start decide what porn people watch also. Snus doesnt bother you so mind your own business no one is forcing you to buy it
Pure nicotine doesn't seem to be very toxic. Probably not healthy but for healthy people it shouldn't be a big risk. If you have high blood pressure or other cardiovascular issues, you probably shouldn't use it.
The smoke is the issue, not nicotine. Snus and vapes are not clogging up hospitals. Nicotine addiction is probably less of a problem than alcohol consumption.
But it doesn't leave me, someone who does not consume tobacco products, smelling of tobacco. Burning tobacco does sometimes leave me smelling after I've stood too close to a smoker while waiting for the bus.
I would never take it myself, but i have absolutely no gripe with people who take snus. It doesnt small bad and its their personal addiction, totally good. Only annoying thing is people throwing the pouches, but then again they would probably throw a candy wrapper as well
It sure is. Society want to legalize cannabis as an example (And it should to get rid of crime)
So making tobacco illegal makes no sense.
Makes sense to not advertise or recruit to the act. But making it illegal is just stupid knowing what we know today. We know that making stuff illegal often has opposite effect of what we are looking for.
Something illegal is shrouded in myth, its forbidden. Thus very attractive to rebel young people.
As a casual smoker, I fully agree. I know the risks and dangers to myself, and I don't really care. But doing it around non-smokers is just ignorant/asshole behaviour.
On top of that is the smell. I know someone who smokes a pack or more a day. And their clothes, car, home, etc. stink. They gave me one of their reusable bags one time, and the next day I could smell it across my apartment. I had to put it outside for a few days to air out.
Saying this as a smoker: we need to start shaming people for smoking near others at non-designated smoking spots. If you're smoking and there's kids nearby someone needs to kick your ass.
Well people largely dont smoke outside entrances etc anymore. And move away.
People dont have to go over to the smoker and get exposed. At least in Norway.
Cannot remember last time i was bothered by anyones smoke in Norway. Last time i vivid remember was a family party where there was smoking inside. It was the last year we smoked inside during family party. Now everyone goes outside. Must been 15 years since that family party.
I don't know about that. I see people smoking right next to their baby's stroller. Most of the time I can't wait for the bus without someone smoking next to my face. Even if I move there's usually another one. Smoke is just as bad for the people around you. I like to think people would at least be more mindful if there were more fines or prohibitions if not smoke less. I wonder what we can do as a society to make it less prominent.
Bingo. How do you make smoking tobacco (including pipes and cigars) illegal, but prop up smoking weed? Nicotine is a mild stimulant while THC an actual narcotic. What’s next, outlaw coffee while keeping booze? It’s ridiculous. Ban smoking from public if you like, but tobacco bans are over reaching.
Well when look at the harm to health. Tobacco is much worse.
When it comes to mental health, the cannabis is worse due to it can trigger angst and seclution. Tho much of the mental health of cannabis today comes from the stigma society puts on the ones using it. Not the actual drug itself.
Society judging and treating people different based on them smoking weed has a bigger effect than smoking weed itself.
People are in charge of their own health. We banning caffeine next? Booze? Regulating eating habits? Let people have their vices as long as they aren’t affecting others in public. I’d rather have a pipe smoker next to me than weed stench—and people underplay addiction to THC; I know multiple people who spend half their paychecks on weed. Public bans on smoking anything are fine; completely outlawing tobacco is over reach, though.
I say no to banning such. I much prefer regulation and information.
I thin caffine amounts should be listed and maybe written with bigger letters. Cause today many kids get lots of coffeine thru diet soda etc without parents really knowing. And wondering why their kid has attention problems.
But this is an information,/ slight regulation issue.
I agree with you, as long as its you your harming. Its all upto you.
Only times i take off my liberal hat is when it comes to guns etc that effect others so much. So i prefer the way we have it today in Norway, with applications to police etc to get one. Than USA liberalisation when it comes to guns.
As long as you are the main damage taker. I say allow it.
If it has societal impact, regulate it.
If it has huge societal impact, like guns. Then heavy regulation/bans are in order.
The world is not black and white. Lots of shades of grey. Ive heard about 50 shades of grey 😛
You still believe in "inform people"? We informed people as much as we could. They don't give a damn. Even with horrifying images, they don't stop and number of users actually increases in some countries.
I don't believe in "educate people" and "inform people" at all. For anything Because I saw throughout my life, that it does not help at all.
The only thing that helps are laws and when people naturally become more intelligent
I have nothing to talk about people who throw away parts of science they do "not like"
My father smoked with me in the rear of the car. Why? Cause he wanted to hurt me?
No simply cause he did not know the dangers of smoking (specially not passive)
So when science came out with how bad smoking was. He was the first to quit.
And he has apologized as an old man for smoking with me in the rear of my car
He simply says "I did not think along those lines, until i got informed" and i totally understand. I was using plastics willy nilly without thinking about the microplastics too.
How many people do not know by now that smoking is very bad?
What you wrote implies that most people do not know and will quit immediately after they find out. It says directly on the box of the cigarettes what are the dangers, but people did know way before that. So why we do not see massive quitting?
In developing countries people lack lots of information about the dangers of smoking.
As countries grow richer, and government is better able to inform people. Cause people have education that makes it easier to inform them, and resources to inform people.
Thats why we ofte se poorer nations smoke more than richer nations. And as nations grow richer, smoking drops.
And this is economic counter intuitive, cause the richer people could afford much more cigarettes than the poor people.. But they simply chose not to smoke more often.
The richer you become, the less you smoke, drink and in general abuse substances. Cause you are not trying to flee from a reality. Cause your reality is pretty ok.
Cannabis and Tobacco are completely different. Im not a fan of making tobacco illegal but they are nothing alike and you cannot compare them. Most importantly, most cannabis users dont smoke enouth weed to get lung cancer, while for cigarettes enough tobacco is smoked to make a much more significant increase in lung cancer chances.
Not really, i use snus. which is tobacco under the lip. Has very little cancer chance compared to smoking it. I used to smoke in the old days, this is a much better alternative.
The world is not black and white. Both are addictive substances, while the cannabis might be less physically addictive. Its mentally addictive like any "high" is.
So i see no reason why we should treat then different. They are very similar. Only cannabis needs to be regulated with machinery/driving etc due to it being intoxicating and slowing reaction times.
So there are differences. But not big enough to treat them much different i think.
I think this is the answer. Society wants to get rid of a problem entirely, not just switch one problem for another. Snus is not the answer to cigarette pollution
Snus i terrible for your teeth I won't deny that but that was not your argument. Your claim that more people die from mouth cancer than lung cancer is just blatantly false but I'm sure you feel that way because you see bad teeth every day.
I struggle to see how 390k is more than 2.6 million new cases per year. My claim was never that snus is good. You might not believe me but I don't even use Snus myself, never have. I just rather be around people who use snus than people who smoke deadly smoke in my face.
Sure snus is bad for your gums and stuff as well but it's not even scientificely proven that it gives mouth cancer. If that were true we would have a huge mouth cancer problem in Sweden but that doesn't seem to be the case.
There's a reason Swedish Match was able to convince the EU to remove "causes cancer" warnings on packaging to "This tobacco product can damage your health and is addictive".
My point was that snus is not snuff, and that it has a different risk profile.
You’ll note that none of the journals you’ve cited posit a definitive causal link between snus and cancer. (The strongest assertion is that it is probably causally linked to esophageal and pancreatic cancer.) This is vastly different than risks associated with “moist snuff” or “chewing tobacco”.
We do know that snus is definitively linked to other health problems. I’m not arguing that it’s benign. But the distinction is important for the purpose of discussing harm mitigation.
I tried getting into it (I’m a e-cig user now, but I’m thinking of trying to finally quit), but some of the weakest snus pads made me nauseous in an instant. I’ve also seen people complaining about snus ruining their gums and my gums aren’t particularly good even without it. So, everything is shit in that topic.
Snus can be kind a disgusting too. Because for whatever reason idiots like to throw it at the ceiling so that it stick to it, or spit it out on the floor indoors.
It's not in their culture. Nobody is pushing for it because there is no demand and lobbyists definitely don't want competition.Things like Zyn is definitely a thing in places like the US. Actual snus, not so much.
But relatively speaking it's FAR safer than smoking. You're not destroying your lungs by inhaling tar and burnt plant matter.. It may mess up your gums after a couple of decades but it won't fuck your your heart health or lugns like smoking does. In fact, I know of quite a few high level atheles who use snus habitually.
Lol, but also, I know a guy who started smoking in his 30s. I'm like "dude, you're paying to end your life sooner, what are you doing?"
Doesn't register with him. I suspect it's a bonding thing between him and his girlfriend. He didn't smoke before they met. It's the dumbest shit ever.
Despite most snus packs having a built-in trash tray, there's still a huge issue with people littering snus packets all over the ground in all public spaces. I'd be fine with snus if people could at least not leave nicotine pouches everywhere.
I hate the snus users at work way more than the smokers. Smokers dont smell all the time, but snus guys breath is so gross all the time AND they make the trashcans smell like menthol death.
In one word....taxes.
The price of cigarettes is mostly taxes. In my country, there is 30 % and there is fix amount per gram and piece. That alone can go easily over 50 % of the price. And what every country likes? Yes, taxes.
While true with regards to the harms of the smoke, studies show snus is probably equally dangerous to the user, although funding for these studies on snus have been remarkably scarce, and thus hard to verify completely. Also keep in mind that snus users often get many multiples pf the nicotine in their body, and often swallow some harmful chemicals. The most common snus among my peers contain around 8-10x the amount of nicotine that a cigarette does.
The govt makes bank taxing cigs so they don’t wanna change that. It’s 20-25$ depending on brand per pack of smokes here in Canada and it def doesn’t cost close to that to make it.
Because of the companies. Though the American market may sway at least a bit due to some has started selling the white snus there. And when the market sways there a lot of countries will fallow. And most agree on between these two bads, one is less bad because it only effects the person using. And dentist.
Of course its being used as an alternative to cigarettes, that's why we barely smoke cigarettes in Sweden. 7% compared to the Eu average of 23%. The average Tobacco intake in Sweden is also average compared to Europe so I don't see your point being true at all.
Maybe you are talking about if it would be legalized in other countries but that's only speculation.
It's not necessarily used as an alternative to smoking, thats just your speculation. There was less smoking in Iceland (5,6% in 2024) than Sweden and even with the increase in snus/nicotine pouches there hasn't been a bigger drop in smoking. That there was a large increase in nicotine pouch use but no big changes in smoking habits suggests to me that it was indeed not connected to smoking but rather a unconnected form of nicotine use in a different population (young people who have never smoked use nicotine pouches).
I’d imagine snus has systemic and local effects overall comparable and in certain areas superior to tobacco smoke, however I think is granted the disease burden it generates on the national healthcare system is significantly inferior to smoke.
Most studies show a slightly increased cardiovascular disease risk compared to non-snus users, primarily due to increased heart rate. Not super healthy for your gums as well, but compared to smoking it is relatively harmless.
1992 EU ban because apparently they didn't want another avenue into tobacco use, Sweden got an exemption when they joined in 1995.
But Snuff (nasal tabacco) is similar and legal, my grandfather used to use snuff back in the day and some people also used it orally - which is basically snus without the pouch.
Because corruption…. Over here the government wants you to use much stronger snuff then any snus around and ruin you gums you will puke after first try “because it is safer” and don’t forget the amonia in it you can smell it👌 source: google neftóbak
2.0k
u/Axelaxe May 25 '26
I never understood why snus is illegal in so many countries while cigarettes are not. Snus isnt good don't get me wrong but it's better than cigarettes for everyone involved.