The assertion that telling the truth about comparative risks will lead to more smokers, because smokeless tobacco is a "gateway" to smoking is a common one. Thank you for bringing this up and giving us a chance to answer it. We have added a new FAQ entry at http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/nicotine.htm#44 that deals with this point. As for nicotine being unhealthy, we already address that in the FAQ.
The just fess up and quit attitude is exactly the one we seek to challenge. Why, exactly, should we insist that someone just quit (particularly someone who has tried and failed to quit), when we can offer them an alternative that is almost as good as quitting? It is extremely difficult to justify that as a policy, and it is clearly unethical to actively hide the information that there is an alternative.
Carl V Phillips
Well, this promises to be a really nice forum and a melting point of ideas. I am exited about it.
Incontrovertible evidence point to tobacco smoking as the cause of major cancers including that of the head and neck. While it may seem logical to the lay person, the theory of biologic plausibility excludes chewed to bacco products from the etiology of some cancers in this region.
What the tobacco harm reduction advocates are doing is to get people who are already being exposed to smoking tobacco products to have alternatives while quitting is on the long term. This I believe this is scientifically and morally correct.
We cant continue to watch people to use what we are sure WILL harm them because we are afraid to encourage them to take up an alternative that MIGHT harm them.
I want to encourage all researchers and advocates of tobacco harm reduction to keep up the fight.