Understanding Misleading Anti-Harm-Reduction Metaphors
Author Information
Author(s): Carl V. Phillips, Brian Guenzel, Paul Bergen
Primary Institution: University of Alberta
Hypothesis
Are the metaphors used by anti-harm-reduction advocates misleading regarding the risks of smokeless tobacco compared to smoking?
Conclusion
The study concludes that anti-harm-reduction metaphors significantly exaggerate the risks associated with smokeless tobacco compared to smoking.
Supporting Evidence
- Anti-harm-reduction metaphors exaggerate the risks of smokeless tobacco.
- Mortality risk from smoking is comparable to a fall from about 4 stories.
- Mortality risk from smokeless tobacco is similar to a fall from less than 2 stories.
Takeaway
Some people use silly comparisons to say that switching from smoking to smokeless tobacco is just as bad, but this isn't true; smokeless tobacco is much safer.
Methodology
The authors conducted a systematic review of literature on mortality rates from falls and compared these to the risks associated with smokeless tobacco.
Potential Biases
The authors acknowledge potential bias in the estimates of mortality risk from smokeless tobacco.
Limitations
The study relies on rough estimates and limited published information on mortality rates from falls.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website