Why Snus Is Important

Why Snus Is Important

Because Sweden is one of the few countries that still allow snus, Swedish Snus is significant to the electronic cigarette community. It’s the evidence that:

  • Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) works
  • That it performs admirably well
  • That’s the only thing that works when smoking prevalence is lowered to a specific level.
  • It has important (and one-of-a-kind) public health benefits.
  • The popularity of snus has caused a substantial (and unusual) reduction in smoking rates among the general population.
  • It lowers the death rate among smokers by an astounding amount, and it lowers the incidence of smoking-related illnesses.

Because Snus has been used in Sweden for so long, we are able to provide factual data on the effects of consumer THR products, and there is no need for a discussion about the issues or “evidence,” as we already have the facts.

The following are the top three Snus facts.

1. Sweden is the world’s greatest success story in reducing smoking, as well as the globe’s largest success story in reducing smoking-related illness and mortality.

This is because (and only because) they provided unrestricted access to a consumer THR product: Snus.

The term “unregulated” refers to a product that is not subject to more regulations than any other consumer item.

In many countries, such as the United Kingdom and Sweden, consumer goods have all of the rules needed to guarantee their safety; in fact, consumers’ items are safer than pharmaceuticals in these nations.

That is all that’s required unless there is a clear problem to address, and this isn’t the case with snuff or e-cigarettes.

The only way for consumers to get their hands on Snus, as well as accurate information about the relative dangers of smoking and snuffing, is responsible for the dramatic reduction in smoking and the corresponding drop in “tobacco-related” disease and mortality.

The success of Sweden in reducing smoking mortality is so far ahead of every other developed country that it has a realistic chance of eliminating smoking deaths to nearly nothing – something no other nation can claim.

The percentage of people who smoke is declining at a rate of 1% each year.

Some individuals discuss methods for reducing smoking. Some people waste a lot of money on initiatives that will not make any visible difference because the 20% barrier has been passed.

Nothing is done that translates into results. Not only that, but some people are working hard to remove the only realistic options for reducing smoking. Now, why would they do something like that?

2. Once the 20% Prevalence Rule is in place, only THR product substitution helps with smoking cessation.

The Swedish experience demonstrates that (a) it is feasible to reduce smoking in Western countries such as the United States and Canada past the 20% threshold, which is the typically expected rate of smoking; (b) it is the only example of any such success in any country.

Other countries, like the United Kingdom, have either banned THR or just introduced it in the form of e-cigarettes.

We know that, no matter how much money is invested in the fight, there are no other solutions since no other country with a high smoking rate has been able to significantly reduce its adult population from smoking; despite significant expenditures of money.

Any money spent is a complete waste of tax income. It’s just money down the drain.

By contrast, in Sweden:

  • Smoking prevalence is considerably lower than in the United Kingdom, and it continues to decrease.
  • Every year, the annual decline in smoking prevalence is 1 per cent.
  • Even though the smoking death rate is already considerably lower than that of any other nation in the EU, it continues to fall.
  • Despite the fact that smoking is already far lower than in any other EU country, it is still reducing.
  • The taxpayer paid nothing for it.

In contrast, the UK has accomplished nothing but squander enormous sums of money for almost no return.

Smoking prevalence has remained steady for the previous five years, with the number of smokers in the UK rising by roughly 0.5 million people.

Sweden achieved a 50% reduction in smoking at no cost to the government, as compared to the UK.

Many MEPs and MPs are attempting to prevent British smokers from taking advantage of this alternative: ask your representative where they stand.

Are they working for you or perhaps a business customer? Unless they enable unrestricted THR, they aren’t working for you; why not inquire as to who they work for.

3. The ‘Swedish Miracle’ is proof that THR works, and the only thing that does.

The dramatic decline in smoking prevalence, as well as smoking-related illness and death, is solely due to THR adoption.

It also eliminates the argument that “THR is a theoretical notion” or “There’s no evidence that THR works,” and so on.

Such claims reveal a lack of knowledge about the situation or are simply lies: the person who makes such a claim should be asked which one is correct for them.

  • We know that THR works and works effectively and that it is the only thing thus far proven to work.

The comparable hazard for e-cigarette users will almost certainly be so low that it would be tough to detect at the population level.

  • We are aware that decades of ad-lib nicotine consumption has a negative impact on health, to the point where it is nearly impossible to reliably detect in large populations using statistical techniques.
  • We are aware that if all smokers switched to snus, smoking-related deaths would be reduced to around 1% of the current number and perhaps less.
  • We know that given that e-cigarettes are more popular among smokers than Snus, there is a high chance that the reduction in smoking prevalence caused by Snus (which is around 50% in Sweden compared to the United Kingdom) will be eclipsed by e-cigs.

In countries where e-cigarettes are unrestricted, the prospect of at least a 60% reduction in smoking is possible.

  • We now understand that regulation equals death. There is no simpler way to say it. In Sweden, deregulation saved the lives of tens of thousands of individuals.
  • We can see the tremendous and unrivalled advantages for public health: Sweden’s national health statistics stand alone in the West.
  • We may predict that if everyone switched to e-cigarettes, smoking deaths would be reduced to the point that it would be impossible to identify by statistics, and even those with pre-existing medical issues might have a quantifiable risk.

Snus has a long and excellent track record in Sweden, where it has been available for decades. It is easy to refute the idea that THR products are dangerous; they work; and there’s nothing else like them on the market today.

What is the difference between snus and nicotine pouches?

Snus and nicotine pouches are similar products in use, but they differ in ingredients. Snus is a traditional Swedish tobacco product made from ground tobacco that comes in the form of a small, moistened pouch placed under the upper lip and dissolves to release its nicotine content. On the other hand, nicotine pouches are a newer type of product made from a blend of natural fibers and nicotine, which also dissolve in order to release their nicotine content. 


Picture of OZ Vapour Team
OZ Vapour Team
The OzVapour team consists of a diverse group of experienced vapers who strive to bring you the very best content on all things vaping. Make sure to subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more!