How else to explain the movement to keep people like me from buying Snus?
12 Comments 
Nanny State
As a Swede, I always find it hilarious when Americans start discussing snus. It's such a deeply ingrained part of our culture that we take completely for granted, and it's kind of strange to hear you foreigners trying to come to terms with it. Non-swedes using snus is like a pasty white dude wearing a dashiki. What's next, you gonna start celebrating midsummer, eating herring and drinking aquavit?
(all of which I highly recommend, btw. There is nothing better than eating some herring with some snaps on a cool midsummers eve.)
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the regulatory bureacratic mindset.
And frankly, I suspect that that is good. Because it seems to involve equal measures of paternalistic arrogance, stupidity and an insanity that makes the film Brazil look like a documentary.
It's available here Oskar, though a lot of nannies want to ban it, because it's DANGEROUS. Since nitro-glycerine causes fires, we should ban kerosene as well. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
As for cultural imperialism, you and your people have a lot to answer for with Stieg Larsson, pal.
Okay, but you have to promise that if there's ever a lawsuit alleging somebody was harmed by snus, and the defendant snus manufacturer says "But you can't sue us, if our product was dangerous the government would have regulated it!" you will hit them with a plank.
No snus is good snus?
Don't be silly. There have been lawsuits alleging that people were harmed by Froot Loops and Crunchberries.
I know Snus is harmful to its users. So are law degrees, but you won't find me demanding those be banned.
Patrick, I think you misread. I'm not arguing snus should be banned (quite the opposite); I'm noting that the alternative to regulation is to resolve disputes about products in the civil courts. And that a lack of nanny-stating is something used to argue that it can't possibly be dangerous because "they" would have banned it if it were, right? Sadly, people do fall for this.
If the alternative to regulation were civil litigation, wouldn't more regulation of things have led to less litigation over them? Are there things as to which that is true?
Not a one.
Ken, regulation is supposed to limit harms that would otherwise lead to litigation to redress those harms and reallocate their costs to wrongdoers. In a perfect regulatory scheme, lawsuits would be few and far between because the regulations would eliminate all harm. (Yes, I am well aware that this is the theory rather than the reality.)
In the case of snus, the government would be telling snus sellers and snus buyers "We're not going to tell you all what to do. If you, buyer, have a problem with the seller, take it up in court. You, buyer, are on your own in determining whether you can sell snus without getting your pants sued off." I would assume this is the path favored by libertarians.
The problem I'm griping about comes in when, in a buyer-seller dispute, the seller argues the lack of regulation itself is evidence in their favor.
Status quo would be fine with me. Keep it illegal for minors, and restrict its advertising as we do with cigarettes.
The problem is that there are a number of public health types who'd like to ban Snus entirely (as they've already done in the EU), when from a utilitarian standpoint it's a good thing. The product is safer than inhaled tobacco smoke, and it is more successful as a path to quitting smoking than gum, patches, or drugs. It's also new, at least here. I can't imagine many Americans have made Snus their gateway to nicotine. It's primarily used by addicts who want a safer (not safe) product, and a way to make quitting the nicotine habit entirely less agony.
Banning the product might be logical if tobacco itself were a new invention. But it isn't.
Contact
Subscribe
Jul 21, 2010 
By 