Harm reduction advocacy group Quit Like Sweden thinks the Scandinavian nation should be a smoke-free role model. The tobacco control organisation TabakNee suggests we should instead take inspiration from Turkmenistan, a country that Human Rights Watch states has “made no improvements to its dire human rights record in 2023.”

The truth continues to be stranger than fiction.

What is Quit Like Sweden

Quit Like Sweden is the harm-reduction advocacy group started by Suely Castro and Dr. Anders Milton. It takes its name and inspiration from The Swedish Experience, which describes the Scandinavian country reaching what the WHO considers “smoke-free” status.

For Castro, this is personal. Her father lives in Brazil and is one of over 20 million people who smoke cigarettes in the country. Sadly, since 2009, electronic cigarettes have been illegal to sell or import in Brazil.

Milton, a former Chair of the World Medical Association, is a Swedish physician who has seen first-hand the transformative effect of sensible policies and regulations around smoking alternative products.

The EU considers a country “smoke-free” if its smoking prevalence rate is below 5%. That figure is the key metric of success for a variety of smoke-free programs across the EU.

Sweden has reached this goal way ahead of other European countries, so you’d think everyone who is interested in lowering smoking rates would be lining up to learn how Sweden did it.

However, things are never that simple in the upside-down world of tobacco control.

The imitation game

If you’ve spent any time around children, you’ll know that imitation is a big part of how they gain knowledge. This habit never leaves us.

We see this dynamic play out in various ways, even when people grow up. A sports team does well, so everyone copies their style of play. Someone is in great shape, so everyone asks for their workout plan. People integrate millionaires and ask them about their habits and routines. You get the picture.

However, in some domains of human activity, this kind of knowledge gathering does not happen across the board. The Swedish Experience is one of these areas.

A recent article in a Netherlands-based website, TabakNee, goes to great lengths to sully the reputation of both Castro and Dr. Milton. It is the usual poisoning of the well by self-appointed health industry groups who think any link to tobacco industry funding, however tenuous or unproven, makes objectivity impossible.

I always see this stance as a failure of imagination and curiosity. If you can’t deal with someone’s argument, smear tactics are not a counter-argument. Of course, this is the only trick that TabakNee has to pull because when they do try to counter arguments for harm reduction products, their endeavours fall flat.

Here is some of the nonsense they try to pass off as thinking.

Infographic comparing smoking statistics and policies of Sweden and Turkmenistan.

Argument 1: They never started smoking

TabakNee claims snus is not responsible for Sweden’s low smoking rates because, per this study, 4 in 10 Swedish snus users started with snus.

It never crossed their minds that access to harm-reduction products prevents people from taking up cigarettes. Sweden had this culturally popular product that was available to its citizens, so people who might have smoked otherwise chose that pathway instead.

Banning or restricting this product means some of these people will start smoking, which is what TabakNee is meant to be against.

Argument 2: 1 in 5 Swedish kids smoke

Next up, TabakNee claims that:

“As many as 21 percent of secondary school students in Sweden now smoke and that there has been a huge increase in the use of nicotine pouches and e-cigarettes among Swedish children and young people.”

I think they’re quoting this report, which shows that daily, almost daily, and sporadic cigarette smoking among year two students as follows:

Graph

As you’ll notice, the graph shows that the number has almost halved since 2004. Also, if you’re like me and you bother to read the reports you cite, you’ll find this statement:

“A clear majority (17 percent) of all smokers in upper secondary school were occasional users, compared to frequent users (3 percent).”

Yes, that’s 3%, or in the WHO parlance, smoke-free.

Argument 3: Turkmenistan has a smoking prevalence of 5%

TabakNee suggests that:

“The WHO has also noted that a country like Turkmenistan has managed to achieve lower smoking rates than Sweden, less than 5 per cent, and without the help of alternative nicotine products. Apparently, it can also be done without it.”

Yes, it can be done, but as reported by Radio Free Europe, the tactics involve things like:

  • Arresting people for smoking in public.
  • Men being “paraded on state TV to confess to their "wrongdoings."
  • Fifteen days in jail for using chewing tobacco.
  • Citizen’s homes being raided by police on the basis of social media posts showing them using hookahs.

You couldn’t make it up.

This is the second most evil piece of tobacco control madness I’ve seen this week.

The first? This DERANGED post by Caroline Salzinger celebrating both herself and the claim that Swedish cancer mortality rates have allegedly risen relative to other European countries. Political point scoring has never been so low.

The source? Super secret WHO data, of course.

Argument 4: It’s policy

TabakNee suggests that according to the WHO:

“The low percentage of smokers in Sweden is largely due to decades of effective tobacco policy, including information campaigns, advertising bans and smoking cessation support.”

I’ve seen people make this claim before, and it always struck me as odd. Those policies are easy to replicate, and many countries have indeed applied them, but their smoking prevalence rates have not dropped like Sweden’s has. Why is that?

The wide availability of snus is one material difference here. It’s anti-science to ignore it, and yet they do.

Look at the outlandish tobacco control policies that Australia and Quebec have used lately, only to see their measures backfire and lead to an increase in smoking.

Something doesn’t add up.

Argument 5: The Gateway Effect

I’m going to cap it at five, but I could go on.

TabakNee says:

“Many young people who use snus or other nicotine products are also more likely to smoke.”

I have a question. If snus is widely used in Sweden, and if the gateway effect is real, where are all the smokers?

TabakNee thinks that “many” people move from snus to smoking. That’s the word “many”, which implies a large number of people have gatewayed to smoking.

I put it to the editor at TabakNee to prove that statement.

Final thoughts

Sweden’s low smoking rate is worth celebrating. However, it’s inconvenient for tobacco control zealots who are hell-bent on a crusade against harm-reduction products.

Quit Like Sweden is an opportunity for other countries to examine Sweden’s smoke-free success and see how they can replicate those conditions and save citizens' lives.

For me, it boils down to this. Some humans like nicotine, and they’re going to get it in whatever way they can. All the posters or public health messages in the world won’t change that.

Accurate information and less harmful products are the road to less smoking, death, and illness. Or, in the words of the great Thomas Sowell:

“As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism—unless we realise that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom.”

Quit Like Turkmenistan? That’ll be a big “nee” from me.

Learn more about 'Quit Like Sweden' - https://quitlikesweden.org/