Another terrific piece. But maybe a little too optimistic? The EU banned snus in 1992, yet snus is responsible for the lowest rate of smoking and smoking related disease in the developed world in Sweden and other Nordic countries. Since the ban, around 20 million European citizens have died from smoking related disease, and thousands, maybe millions, may have been avoided if they had taken the opposite approach. All this has been clear to the quiet scientists who ignored the memo. Yet the EU reaffirmed the ban in 2001, 2014 and 2017 (in court). Now several EU member states and the Commision want to ban pouches, the non-tobacco snus equivalent. A whole industry of NGOs is devoted to denying the role played by snus. There has been no reckoning, no accountability, and only a handful (at most) of those who campaigned for the ban have acknowledged the strategic error.
Perhaps the better way to frame the “reckoning” is not as a single moment of admission or apology, but as a slower erosion of certainty. The rise of nicotine pouches, the continued divergence between Sweden and the rest of Europe, and the persistence of scientists willing to state the obvious risk gradients all keep the contradiction alive. The narrative has held so far, but it does so while reality continues to move underneath it.
In that sense, the scientists who ignored the memo have done something important even without a formal reckoning: they have ensured the record exists. When future policymakers look back, as they eventually will the evidence will be there, along with the voices that tried to point it out at the time. Whether institutions acknowledge the mistake or simply move on without admitting it remains to be seen.
I'd like to hope so... but it's hard to square that idea of gradual awakening and reconciliation with reality with a determination to expand the snus ban to pouches. They have taken a more extreme evidence-denying stance to hold the line. Your last post on Australia showed people holding the line despite everything around them in flames, literally and metaphorically. Maybe that's where they finally crash. A further example might be the war on drugs. I think that they develop a strong narrative that works (no matter how wrong) and then stick with it.
I guess I am optimistic, maybe more than I should be.
I can’t help but hope. Sweden’s snus experience is real, data keeps diverging from predictions, and scientists who ignored the memo are still quietly documenting it. Change may be slow, but reality has a stubborn way of asserting itself and that keeps me believing it eventually will.
Another terrific piece. But maybe a little too optimistic? The EU banned snus in 1992, yet snus is responsible for the lowest rate of smoking and smoking related disease in the developed world in Sweden and other Nordic countries. Since the ban, around 20 million European citizens have died from smoking related disease, and thousands, maybe millions, may have been avoided if they had taken the opposite approach. All this has been clear to the quiet scientists who ignored the memo. Yet the EU reaffirmed the ban in 2001, 2014 and 2017 (in court). Now several EU member states and the Commision want to ban pouches, the non-tobacco snus equivalent. A whole industry of NGOs is devoted to denying the role played by snus. There has been no reckoning, no accountability, and only a handful (at most) of those who campaigned for the ban have acknowledged the strategic error.
Perhaps the better way to frame the “reckoning” is not as a single moment of admission or apology, but as a slower erosion of certainty. The rise of nicotine pouches, the continued divergence between Sweden and the rest of Europe, and the persistence of scientists willing to state the obvious risk gradients all keep the contradiction alive. The narrative has held so far, but it does so while reality continues to move underneath it.
In that sense, the scientists who ignored the memo have done something important even without a formal reckoning: they have ensured the record exists. When future policymakers look back, as they eventually will the evidence will be there, along with the voices that tried to point it out at the time. Whether institutions acknowledge the mistake or simply move on without admitting it remains to be seen.
I'd like to hope so... but it's hard to square that idea of gradual awakening and reconciliation with reality with a determination to expand the snus ban to pouches. They have taken a more extreme evidence-denying stance to hold the line. Your last post on Australia showed people holding the line despite everything around them in flames, literally and metaphorically. Maybe that's where they finally crash. A further example might be the war on drugs. I think that they develop a strong narrative that works (no matter how wrong) and then stick with it.
I guess I am optimistic, maybe more than I should be.
I can’t help but hope. Sweden’s snus experience is real, data keeps diverging from predictions, and scientists who ignored the memo are still quietly documenting it. Change may be slow, but reality has a stubborn way of asserting itself and that keeps me believing it eventually will.
Na mate, thank you for wat you do!! Tis awesome 👌 👏
I'd profanely use the F8ckening rather than the reckoning. But thats just me.
🤣🤣