This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drautzburg (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 18 July 2014 (→Should mention the flipside too: tried to sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:39, 18 July 2014 by Drautzburg (talk | contribs) (→Should mention the flipside too: tried to sign)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Health and fitness Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Contributions from other knowledgeable Wikipedians very welcome- thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Should mention the flipside too
The article gives the impression, that tobacco control is widely accepted by the people and its only opponent is the tobacco industry. This would be a clear overstatement. Many libertarians all over the world are in fierce opposition to tobacco control.
The article gives the impression, that tobacco control is concerned about reducing smoking prevelance and free of vested interests. However, tobacco control also advocates agaist Swedish Snus and e-cigarettes (e.g. the German Cancer Research Institute - a WHO collaborator). In doing so tobacco control may actually slow down the ongoing reduction in smoking prevalence. In any case this topic is disussed passionately among snusers and e-cigarette users and deserves being mentioned here.
The article gives the impression, that only the tobacco industry publishes biased studies (junk science) and tobacco control does not. There is no doubt that many lost faith in tobacco control due to publications which were percieved as biased or following a political agenda, including ex ASH director Clive Bates . This fact should not be concealed. ~~dtz~~
- http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.de/
- https://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/Publikationen/AdWfP/AdWfdP_Snus_de.pdf
- http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2053