Comments about ‘My View: Smokers are routinely misinformed’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 15 2013 12:05 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Far East USA, SC

In Utah, anything relating to alcohol or smoking is a Religious issue first and a health issue second.
(you can probably throw coffee in that mix also)

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I want to have free agency, I can do any thing but hurt some one. I can go to church but I accept people who don't. I can exercise eat healthy, I can spend my money any way I want. I can show off, or be very quiet. I can choose my friends, say things and do things any of the things I choose can some day be my demise. I have an expiration date.


Despite this letter writer's best efforts, I think we all really know tobacco is bad for you. We all know it.
And yes, with the war on drugs and all the MIS-information about drugs in general, it has lost our government some credibility.

The truth is . . .
Midvale, UT

It is interesting in an op ed fraught with misinformation he himself spreads thick and often, that dentist Brad Rodu has the gall to accuse Dr. Nelson of misinforming others. As an example, Rodu fails to mention that his "endowed chair" at the University of Louisville and the bulk of his "research" mentioned in the article are actually funded by the United States Smokeless Tobacco Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria (Phillip Morris), and the largest producer of smokeless tobacco products in the U.S. Of course this company will benefit greatly if smokers are incentivized to use smokeless tobacco as he suggests they should be. He also fails to mention that his "research" isn't evidence based research at all but only his own opinion pieces. And perhaps most concerning is that he fails to mention that while others in our state are suggesting a tax increase on food, if he had his way he would reduce the tax on smokeless tobacco products in our state by 90%, thus depleting an important source of much needed revenue in the state and making these products more accessible to children and low income tobacco users.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

I would love to know how Professor Radu came up with his incredulous claim of "98% safer." He focuses on the risk reduction for those who switch from smoke to smokeless. He conveniently dismisses the reality that the off-ramp is also an on-ramp. Youth who are considering smoking may see smokeless nicotine as more attractive. Smokers who are considering quitting may see smokeless as an easier alternative. Some who have quit may relapse if faced with a "safer" source of nicotine.

Rodu himself admits that smokeless products are every bit as addictive as smoking.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

‘My View: Smokers are routinely misinformed’


To wit --
Global Warming Deniers are also misinformed.

Rush Limbaugh rountinely tells his EIB radio listeners that Global Warming is a hoax, and tobacco is not only harmless, but is GOOD for you.

Grandma Willey
Midvale, UT

Quite the amazing premise that a scientist as Rodu likes to call himself wants to cure tobacco use with tobacco use. From what I am reading here, what he really wants to do is keep smokers addicted to nicotine by swithing them from cigarettes to the smokeless tobacco products that his apparent funders produce and sell. Sadly that is exactly what will happen, all but the swithing part that is. All the evidence I've seen indicates that smokers continue to smoke where they can, and then subsititute the use of smokeless tobacco products for where they cannot. Of course this dual use increases their chances for cancer, heart disease and all the other scorge caused by tobacco. If Rodu really cared about smokers he would be encouraging them to utilize evidence-based cessation methods and urging lawmakers to fund programs to provide them.

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

The time has come to tell it like it is and stop worrying about offending the oversensitive. Smoking is an incredibly selfish act that imposes tremendous health dangers and financial burdens on our entire society, not just smokers. Anyone who advocates or promotes smoking should be swiftly and severely condemned.

Ogden, UT

As previously pointed out Brad Rodu has ties with the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is coming out with new types of smokeless tobacco. Contrary to tobacco industry marketing messages, use of smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to cigarette smoking. The health risks associated with smokeless tobacco use include cancer of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx, larynx, stomach and pancreas, as well as oral health problems, and nicotine addiction. As more public policies have been passed banning smoking there has been an increase in the appeal and use of smokeless tobacco leading to dual use. Dual use is when an individual will smoke when it is possible and use smokeless tobacco when it is not. According to a 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) conducted by the Utah Department of Health 50% of Utah adults who used smokeless tobacco reported that they also smoked cigarettes. This shows that the tobacco industry promotes smokeless tobacco as an alternative knowing that the majority of individuals will continue to smoke in addition to using these products. This is not harm reduction but in fact increases harm. This benefits the tobacco industry's bottom line not the health of their consumers!

Chicopee, MA

And how much money do the various anti-tobbaco, rather the anti-NICOTINE, agencies receive via grants from the pharmaceutical companies whose products they continue to push on people? Better enforcement of the laws that prohibit those under 18 to purchase tobacco is needed, not "scare tactics and fear mongering". Nicotine does not cause the health problems, inhaling tobacco does. Adults have the right to be informed about ALL their options, not just the ones that are deemed morally correct.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments