The Gateway | Monday, 21 November, 2005

Harm reduction, not anti-smoking, should be our message

Dr Carl V Phillips

I would like to commend Chloé Fedio for the most accurate, best written recent article about my research on the potential of smokeless tobacco (ST) as a reduced-harm substitute for smoking (Re: “Researcher defends grant to study smokeless tobacco,” 17 November). Few smokers are aware that if they cannot or will not quit, they can still get almost all the health benefit of quitting by changing to smokeless products, and Fedio and the Gateway have helped communicate this lifesaving message.

I was pleased to see anti-smoking activist Les Hagen express support for the harm-reduction message. Hagen is correct that pharmaceutical products are another possible source of nicotine, and I address that in my research. However, existing products are more expensive than ST and do not provide the psychoactive effects as effectively.

Moreover, there is no evidence pharmaceutical products improve upon the very low risks from ST, or that large numbers of people will use them (in contrast with ST, which has substantially displaced smoking among Swedish men). Pharmaceutical products are used primarily to wean people off of nicotine entirely and, unfortunately, fail more than 90 per cent of the time.

Hagen claims that research on ST “is limiting research on other nicotine alternatives,” though it is difficult to see how this could be, given that pharmaceutical companies’ research and promotional grants dwarf those related to ST. No one should lose sleep worrying that Big Pharma’s voice will not be heard. However, limiting research on certain topics does seem to be the goal of those who assert (without any empirical support or logical argument) that a university should not take unrestricted funding from one particular source.

Finally, the editorial by Iris Tse on Tuesday (“Where there’s smoke, there’s questionable funding,” 15 November) was a perfect example of how anti-tobacco activists have successfully hidden the truth about harm reduction.

Tse did a bit of research, concluding that ST creates a substantial health hazard (even as a science student, she never found the clear evidence to the contrary) and that my position on harm reduction is rather novel (though many experts have been proposing it for years). Tse could have done better research, but the greater blame lies with those who intentionally flood the popular media with inaccurate claims, making it unlikely that a layperson will find the truth.

Wanna respond? Send your feedback to gateway@gateway.ualberta.ca.


	© 2002-2004 Gateway Student Journalism Society - All rights reserved \| This site uses valid CSS