Lost in translation: why Swedes don’t like to talk about

‘harm reduction’

Atakan Erik Befrits – ab@innco.org

Credits, to name but a few of many, who have been inspirational: Jeannie Cameron, Gerry Stimson, Clive Bates, Brad Rodu, Carl V. Phillips, Ann McNeill, Robert West, Robert Nilsson, Linda Bauld, Derek Yach, J-F

Etter, Jacques LeHouzec, Kofi Annan, IHRA, Dick Killander, Dan Befrits, G. Befrits, G. Befrits, Anders Milton, Michael Russel, Professor Glantz, Mitch Zeller and many more

Anonymous emeritus, June 4th

2017:

95%!!??Hell, we knew that with

99,99% certainty in 1973!

The only ever scientific questions for us were if it was 96% or 99% harm

reduced, and quantifying positive and

negative gateway effects

Sir Richard Peto, Oxford June 28, 1984(≈98%-99%)

’SACRIFICED’ BASELINE KNOWLEDGE THAT SHOULD HAVE FORMED THE BASIS FOR RESEARCH

Miss Health and Mr Policy dance the night away in the late 1970’s and decide to make a tobacco free future together. They marry and their last baby is born in 1992, Doctors against Tobacco

• Smoking decrease continuously mirrored by snus increase –snus had <2% negative health effects 1822 – 1985 (- 2017)

• Mrs Health-Policy saw this as a serious problem and declares high danger from snus and precautionary principle

• Mr Health-Policy sees problem also and in 1993 anti-snus is verbally enacted into Swedish law (anti-snus kept in 1994, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2010 and 2016 with elevated warnings)

• Mr and Mrs H-P in 2004 mistranslate FCTC and erase harm reduction (e g snus) from article 1(d) – in effect banning discussions and science on snus as harm reduction

• ANDT strategy No1 (2011) clearly stipulates:

tobacco = snus ≇ harm reduction

• ANDT strategy No2 (2016) reinforces this ≇

≇ Not equal to

and not even remotely close to

- CSO/NGO for THR are by definition industry allies, banned

- No Tobacco/No Nicotine (non-pharma)

- Unattractive snus until snus ban possible/ absolutely keep bans wherever in place (FCTC)

- 5.3 encourages throwing away harm reduction info

- No e-cig and if so e-cig are tobacco products (FCTC)

- Industry rightly 105 % banned

- Self-police and self-reinforce through network

HOW IS THIS DONE?Differentiated and layered audience dependent messaging content

This is what the general

public is encouraged

to see

Re-lexicalization and re-framing since 1992

• Smoking = tobacco• Snus = tobacco• E-cig = tobacco• Nicotine (non pharma) = tobacco• Marketing = Children smoking• Regular packaging = Kids smoking• Tobacco = Deforestation• Nicotine = Poverty• Risk-Tax = Smoking children• Snus = Threat to Agenda 2030• Second hand Vape = SHS = SH(i)T

Interpretive packages and cultural resonance of THR (tobacco)• Danger/Risk/Harm/Death• Quitting is the only option• Gateway to smoking• Next generation addicted• Threat to tobacco free future• Threat to sustainable future• Accelerates climate change• Tobacco industry is evil• NEVER OK to swap addictions• Smokers don’t have rights as

the option to quit is always open to them and support available

• Missionary • proselytization• Politics over science• Tobacco over ’harms’• Harm reduction ≠ FCTC• No manifesto• Fluid meaning• Adaptive• Multilayered• Self-enhancing• Self-policing• Circular reasoning fallacy

Mission creep

1992 2012

156 + 5 + 2 heads June 12 2017

Pro-active messaging strategy and threat profile dependent tactical responses

Silence is very very effective when delivered by a group of this size

Think tank Tobacco Facts

Doctors against tobacco

Government Public Healh Agency National Board On Health and Welfare

Government Public Healh Agency National Board On Health and Welfare

Think tank Tobacco Facts

Doctors against tobacco

• Professionals in Sweden simply can not talk about harm reduction in tobacco• Therefore the general public wouldn’t know how to even if they wanted to (+shame)• From age 7 to PhD level harm reduction is non-existent in syllabus and as topic• Snus (harm reduction) explained as direct violation of the FCTC• Young professionals challenging this get a microeconomics 101 on ”opportunity cost”

BROAD PROFESSIONAL PARIAH SUBJECT ☞ PUBLIC IGNORANCE AND GULLIBILITY ☞DISINFORMATION FROM CREDIBLE HIGH STATUS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS POSSIBLE ☞ENHANCEMENT OF PARIAH IN PROFESSIONS ☞ CIRCULAR MASS PSYCHOSIS