West R, Krafona K
Psychology Department, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, London University, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Br J Addict. 1990 Sep;85(9):1097-8; discussion 1099-106. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1990.tb03429.x.
This paper discusses public health policy with regard to oral tobacco use. It notes that in the UK, oral tobacco use is extremely rare. Concern that it might become prevalent among schoolchildren has proved unfounded. Smokeless tobacco almost certainly carries health risks but these risks are probably less than from smoking. What little evidence exists suggests that smokeless tobacco may be less dependence-inducing than cigarettes. In the light of this, the UK Government's decision to ban oral tobacco products is hard to reconcile with their continuing to permit the sale and advertising of cigarettes. A cynic would view the Government's ban as a 'no cost' measure to placate the public health lobby and ease the pressure for more restrictions on cigarette promotion. The inconsistency in the Government's approach to Skoal Bandits and cigarettes may be used as a focus for pressure to change in the laws governing promotion of cigarettes.
本文讨论了关于口腔烟草使用的公共卫生政策。文中指出，在英国，口腔烟草的使用极为罕见。担心其可能在学童中流行起来，事实证明是毫无根据的。无烟烟草几乎肯定存在健康风险，但这些风险可能比吸烟要小。现有的少量证据表明，无烟烟草可能比香烟更不易使人产生依赖。鉴于此，英国政府禁止口腔烟草产品的决定，很难与他们继续允许香烟销售和广告的做法相协调。愤世嫉俗者会认为政府的禁令是一项“零成本”措施，旨在安抚公共卫生游说团体，并缓解对香烟促销施加更多限制的压力。政府对斯科尔强盗牌（Skoal Bandits）和香烟的处理方式不一致，这可能会成为推动香烟促销管理法律变革的压力焦点。
