From the UK: Clive Bates, Director General of Sustainable Futures in the Welsh Government, makes some observations on the European Union's ban on snus (low-risk oral tobacco) that we wish someone at the European Commission would listen to. Why? Well, for one thing, as Bates points out:
The reason for allowing it on the market is that smokeless tobacco is an effective substitute for smoking, but far less hazardous to health than cigarettes. [ ¦] Switching provides a substantial health benefit to smokers who switch, in fact switching is not that much different to quitting smoking altogether.
Bates goes on to point out the hypocrisy of banning the low-risk forms of smokeless tobacco while leaving much more hazardous products (such as cigarettes) on the market. He writes:
The ban is clearly aimed at a contrived limited subset of smokeless tobaccos, it avoids the most hazardous form of tobacco (smoking) altogether and does not apply to the more hazardous form within the smokeless tobacco category, namely the Asian and African chewing products, which remain freely available in Europe. It s hard to design a more discriminatory approach.
Is the EU ban on oral tobacco lawful? Bates asks. No, basically, he answers. It is arbitrary, disproportionate, unjustified and violates the principles of the internal market and therefore it is unlawful.
Read Bates full commentary here.