That's the government mandated warning on my can of General Lös. Problem is, there isn't one shred of evidence that this product, General Lös, has ever caused mouth cancer.

When governments force manufacturers to print unsubstantiated warnings, those governments loose credibility.

I'm sorry, I need to correct that to loose even more credibility.

Why would it be in the best interest of government to loose even more credibility?

The answer is because they are only loosing credibility with the "lunatic fringe" while going unnoticed by the indifferent majority.

Franklin Roosevelt was able to blame "unpatriotic hoarders" for the Great Depression and successfully confiscate the gold specie and gold certificates of the people via government mandate because in reality very few people were actually hoarding gold. They were a fringe minority, and who cares what the lunatic fringe has to say about it? The majority were indifferent, and nonchalantly exchanged there $20 gold certificates backed by an ounce of gold for $20 Federal Reserve Notes backed by nothing.

Despite the failures of the State to provide any justification whatsoever for the bulk of those mandated warning labels and bans, we who use snus in the US and the EU are a lunatic fringe, a small minority easily dismissed, and so the mandate of false warning labels at the prompting of special interests or the banning of our snus altogether receives little interest from the majority.

In a democracy, which is for all practical purposes the tyranny of the majority, it does not bode well for those who are in the minority. All the empirical studies and harm reduction claims mean little if snus usage does not increase across the board to a level of at least a significant minority.

I never even heard of Swedish snus until a smoking ban at my workplace resulted in my accidental discovery of real Swedish snus. I doubt I would ever have heard of snus had it not been for that smoking ban. Yet I am certain that I would have switch to Swedish snus long ago had I known that I could continue to enjoy tobacco with a 98% reduction in cancer risk compared to smoking if I were to switch to Swedish snus. Manufacturers, retailers, and consumers must all get the word out. Is there a risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention? No, its a certainty, and risk deals with uncertainties. But it is also a certainty that remaining a fringe minority group will inevitably leave us at the mercy of unscrupulous politicians and an indifferent majority.

Mick and Rick Charles shared this on Facebook:

rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/tr...ngs-on.html?spref=fb

about the labels/warnings. Good stuff.

Nicely written.
The warning labels verbiage is actually a law from the mid '80's and was, as today, based on faulty "studies" the government just keeps them because of momentum and special interests. The Gov and scientists had no problem switching from global cooling( an Ice age is coming!)to global warming when the numbers started to swing the other direction, but even with new quality research available, they still continue to base all their "warnings" on 20-30 year old debunked research. Brad Rodu posted a great article on the government warning labels this week.

One thing I will say you are wrong about; Due to the FDA regulations, retailers and manufacturers are not allowed to spread "the word". They are specifically banned by law from saying non-smoked tobacco is safer. It is up to US. The few scientists willing to risk their jobs and grant money, and the brave few who write on the internet or in publications like The Ephemeris, we are the ones the will have to do the hard, unpopular(politically) work to get the message across. At least in the near future. A few people I spoke with from Swedish Match recently believe that snus, specifically, can reach the standards for being labeled a "Reduced Harm" product. I believe they are overly optimistic, but I'm a pessimistic, cynical old curmudgeon and have been wrong once or twice.

In the interests of not writing another 2,000 words and starting a poopstorm, I'll refrain from discussing the Federal Reserve, FDR and gold.

Wait, you mean smokeless tobacco is safer than smoking? And damn, this whole time I thought that because the warning label on snus was bigger, it had to be more dangerous.

The labels are a joke. I have a hard time accepting that even the proponents of such chicanery actually believe that putting such a warning label on tobacco has ever resulted in keeping a single person from purchasing it.

If said folks actually believe that these labels are anything more than an eyesore, then they're either liars or complete morons. Either way, they should be shot on sight and/or made to live in Europe.

I remember reading not long ago that somewhere in Euro-land they required graphic pictures showing diseased lungs, oral cancer, dead folks on cig packs. Then they found that it was increasing usage as certain people were buying them and trading them like baseball cards. "I'll give you 2 dead guys, for the dude with no jaw..."

Brant - excellent article with excellent links - great stuff.

Mick - sorry about the analogy with FDR and the gold confiscation thing, it must have seemed bizarre to associate the two. Please note that I had been drinking rum while writing the OP.

Which reminds me, sorry to all about the length.

It really is up to the consumers in this instance to get the word out. We really can't put it all on the manufacturers and the retailers because the manufacturers and retailers are hamstrung by government threats. One thing I do is always talk snus to my smoker friends. They aren't ready to quit smoking, but most will use Swedish snus as an alternative when they can't smoke or don't want to smoke. I tell them that's ok - when they are ready to quit smoking, they have snus to help them do it and they will substantially reduce the risk to there health in the process.

Feck - liars or morons? Can't they be both!

capitalistdog wrote:
Brant - excellent article with excellent links - great stuff.

no thanks here ... Mick originally posted it, i just linked to it. although, in general, it is a great blog to subscribe to or track with google reader ...

capitalistdog wrote:

Mick - sorry about the analogy with FDR and the gold confiscation thing, it must have seemed bizarre to associate the two. Please note that I had been drinking rum while writing the OP.



No apologies needed. It actually was a good analogy. I just know what happens around here if I get all wound up and start pontificating about things in that area of politics.


Length of posts are never a problem when they're good and that one was.

bigmick wrote:
I just know what happens around here if I get all wound up and start pontificating about things in that area of politics.

pontificate yo bad self, bruth-ah ... preach it ... i promise to read ... and learn.

but i will say, on gold ... wish i had some.