The election is over, but the battle over flavours, white snus and e-cigarettes continues. At the same time, the political landscape has become less predictable. New voices are being heard within the Social Democrats, and narrow margins in the Riksdag could have a major impact on future nicotine regulations. This makes users’ own voices more important than they have been for a long time, writes Stefan Mathisson of Vejpkollen.
In fact, the outlook for the availability of smoke-free nicotine in Sweden looks quite positive. Regardless of which government options may emerge in the Riksdag’s turbulent chamber.
And I actually didn’t think that would be possible. But give me a few minutes to explain what I mean.
The left still wants to ban everything – or does it?
For many years, the left – and by that I include the Green Party – has been campaigning for a restrictive approach to smoke-free nicotine products. Their proposals has centred on outright bans on certain flavours in e-cigarettes and white snus. The arguments have often revolved around risks, use among young people and the influence of tobacco companies.
Social Democrat Karin Sundin has, on several occasions, gone the furthest. She has not attached much importance to the differences in risk between smoking and using snus.
”All nicotine is harmful to health. We don’t want anyone to put a snus under their lip at all,” said she, in the Riksdag, not so long ago.
But something has happened recently.
Suddenly, Social Democrats are being heard cautiously defending smoke-free nicotine. These voices are coming primarily from the business policy sector, from trade unions and from people with links to commerce and industry.
White snus is not just a product used by many Swedes; it has also become an export industry.
”The government that governs Sweden following this autumn’s election should take the initiative to develop a national strategy and bring together politics, trade unions, the business community and the research sector behind a common Swedish approach to white snus,” wrote Social Democrat Kenneth G. Forslund, together with Nataša Stojković, chair of the Food Workers’ Union, in an opinion piece published in several Swedish media outlets.
It is perhaps not so surprising that the trade union is getting involved in the debate. The use of snus is widespread amongst many of their members. At the same time, smoking rates in Sweden are at an all-time low.
Two factions are at loggerheads – within the same party
The extent to which snus has contributed to this trend remains a matter of debate – although most people who know someone who has switched from smoking to using snus, or for that matter a vape, sees the connection in everyday life. What is rather surprising is that the Swedish authorities have devoted so little effort to actually conducting scientific research into the link. This suggests that ideological conviction takes precedence over a more pragmatic approach to nicotine without tobacco.
At the same time, the situation in Sweden differs from that in much of the EU. And as several countries introduce bans or high taxes to restrict access to oral nicotine products, Swedish Social Democrats have also begun to react.
”I find it strange that some countries regard nicotine pouches as the biggest problem. In France, 25 per cent of smokers are under 25, compared with 3 per cent in Sweden. Among young people in Europe, an average of 6 per cent use e-cigarettes, compared with 2 per cent who use nicotine pouches. The priorities seem somewhat odd,” said Johan Danielsson (S) to EU News Italy this spring.
It is therefore at least possible to discern different perspectives within the Social Democratic Party.
”The child’s perspective” comes first – and yet…
I met the (current) Member of Parliament Magnus Tegnér (s) during Almedalen Week and took the opportunity to ask him about this very issue. He agreed, at least in part.
”But we must bear in mind that snus use in Sweden and snus use in other European countries are two entirely different matters. For the party here at home, where the practice is fundamentally accepted and widespread, the focus is primarily on prevention. This paves the way for a more aggressive policy: youth use is highlighted as a problem, and clearer criticism is levelled at the industry’s tactics and marketing, and so on. ”But the fact that 20 per cent of the population uses snus, and that it probably helps many people to give up smoking, cannot really be ignored, even if the children’s perspective tends to take precedence,” said Magnus Tegnér.
He argued that, out in Europe, Swedish politicians find themselves in a different position.
”In many countries, white and brown snus is seen as a threat, worse than cigarettes and as a pure poison. Almost a drug,” he remarked.
“That makes it difficult for us Swedes – even for us Social Democrats – not to defend these products and the Swedish tradition. Particularly given how many people actually smoke on the continent. The fact that many Swedes working across Europe use snus and are directly affected by bans, such as in France, naturally has an impact too. I think that’s why it can appear to be a rift, even though it may actually be about different issues.”
If Tegnér’s account is correct, there need not, therefore, be any real conflict. The same party can pursue a restrictive policy at home whilst at the same time defending Swedish nicotine products when other EU countries wish to ban them.
For me, having long followed this issue from the perspective of what the regulations mean for people who use smoke-free nicotine in their daily lives, the change is nonetheless remarkable. And it gives me hope.
And then there was the Centre Party – the snus party?
But the Social Democrats are not alone in influencing what happens during the coming parliamentary term. After all, we now have a clear kingmaker in the Riksdag in the form of the Centre Party.
And the Centre Party has been clear in its responses to Vejpkollen:
”Smokeless alternatives may pose fewer health risks than cigarettes, but they are not risk-free. Policy should, however, be based on science and harm reduction. And regulation must protect minors”, the party writes.
That statement will be relevant the next time issues such as bans on certain flavours come before Parliament. In that context, it will not only matter which proposals are put forward, but also what majorities can actually be rallied behind them.
And perhaps that is where my optimism comes in. Party C shares the same view as the opposition – the Moderate Party, the Christian Democrats, the Liberal Party and the Sweden Democrats – on this issue. They clearly advocate a policy characterised by harm reduction. Would they really change that and start supporting the prohibitionist stance taken by S, V and MP? Doubtful.
Not everyone agrees with me – Hi Linus Gustafsson! – but I like to be both an optimist and a pessimist at the same time.
User feedback is more important than ever
Above all, I believe in people.
After all the interviews, surveys and political manoeuvres during this election campaign, this is perhaps my most important conclusion. Politics is not shaped solely by party manifestos, organisations and professional lobbyists. It is also shaped by people who tell their elected representatives how political decisions actually affect their daily lives.
For those for whom nicotine, vaping and the option to choose less risky alternatives to cigarettes are matters close to their hearts, that path is still open.
Contact your politicians. Tell them why you gave up smoking. Tell them why you’ve chosen to use snus or vejp instead. Tell them what a flavour ban, a tax increase or any other ban would actually mean for you. What would it mean for your children and your loved ones?
These organisations are already doing this all the time. The Cancer Foundation, Non-Smoking Generation, The Heart and Lung Foundation, trade associations and businesses naturally ensure that politicians are aware of their arguments.
There is no reason why we, as users, should be any quieter.
After all, it is our lives, our health and our choices that politics governs. At a time when things are hanging by a thread, this is more important now than ever.
