Another interesting discussion over breakfast (Mental Health and cessation and how to engage with minority communities)
The first session of the day was likely to be the most controversial. Following the RCP report of last week Harm Reduction is a hot issue in the UK and the session attracted a good sized audience.
Detailed presentations from fellow blogger Jonathan Foulds and Dorothy Hatsukami concentrated on the relative risks of SNUS and other oral tobacco products. These were followed by a debate.
Ann Mc Neill as chair said that she wanted to try and avoid the `usual slanging match` that the discussions on harm reduction have previously been and steered the audience through a set of questions. Unfortunately the debate didn`t get going and the overwhelming vote at the end of the session was one of abstention.
Is it that the public health community cannot agree on this issue? or are we frightened to allow another product onto the market and increase the complications? On the one hand it seems sensible to be able to offer a less dangerous product to smokers and thereby reduce thier risk of dying early. So why are our colleagues from Sweden (where SNUS is readily available) so against this? Are we worried that if the tobacco industry is so in favour of something then it can not be the right decision.
In a room of health professionals we had strong views on both sides. The clearest majority vote was for lifting the ban on smokeless products within a regulatory framework but this was by no means unanimous. Until we can get consensus amongst ourselves I would feel very uncomfortable trying to sell our position to the public.
I have not read the entire RCP report yet. Hopefully when I do I may be clearer in my own mind.
Comments