Snus for EU
Sweden has by far the lowest levels of individuals dying when compared with the EU nations. The reason is straightforward.
Smoking incidence is 13%, compared to the EU average of 28 percent. (The 2nd greatest EU nation has a smoking incidence of 23%, near the average.) Half as many people smoke, which has led to death from smoking in comparison to the rest of the EU.
This is only because snus is lawful in Sweden (although not in another EU state). This has given Swedish smokers the option to change from smoking into using snus. Though snus isn’t a product in itself, snus is between 90 and 99 percent less dangerous than smoking. This represents a health advantage.
If you’re able to give up all types of nicotine usage if you’re a smoker, then that is the best thing there is. But if you’re unable to try it, switching from cigarettes to snus is as great from a wellness standpoint. Sweden is a success story in the struggle against tobacco-caused ailments and death.
Many snus brands such as Lyft (Lyft is all white) among others are getting more popular not just in Sweden but in the other parts of Europe.
There can be some elements that describe any gaps in the amounts. It may be difficult to compare amounts between nations. But in this case, it is clear.
Sweden’s two neighbors both have doubled Sweden’s smoking incidence. With 26 percent in Denmark, and 25 percent in Finland. Smoking is as common there as it’s in Sweden. Although both Denmark and Finland are culturally like Sweden.
There is no explanation than snus Sweden is currently doing far better to decrease smoking such as Finland and Denmark.
Smoking kills 700,000 persons yearly, according to the figures presented by the European Commission. I don’t have any reason. Tobacco smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the world.
This implies that if we can decrease smoking in the rest of the EU down to Swedish amounts, we’d save 350,000 lives each year.
I find it unacceptable that the EU Commission proposes to keep the ban. With this many lives at stake, they are not allowing member states that follow Sweden’s example. And also the use of snus as part of a harm reduction plan, to do this if they would like to.
That is exactly what I stated at the Committee for Consumer Protection IMCO and the Internal Market when we had an exchange of opinions.
By permitting each member nation to develop its policy to lift the snus ban on EU, we could save thousands of lives yearly. Not researching this potential is immoral.
With lives at stake, we’ve got a duty to deal with this issue in a serene and evidence instead of imitating the EU ban.

Categories: Health