deleted by creator

It seems unfair to impose a tax on someone for physical traits they have no control over. I don’t think a pay-as-you-go system is a sustainable way to fund retirements with birth rates being what they are. A shrinking working population can’t keep funding a growing population of pensioners while maintaining liveable tax rates and liveable pensions.

In my opinion an American or Australian style 401k/superannuation scheme is the most feasible solution. Just hope there isn’t a market crash at the beginning of your retirement.

From your very first link:

It is interesting to note that the proportion in northern Europe is very low, as ‘Swedish snus’ does not seem to be linked to oral cancer. The results are of great importance both from a global health perspective and in terms of the health of migrants." says Cecilia Magnusson, co-author of the publication.

And the article in the Lancet also says:

“Evidence on the risk of oral cancer associated with using Swedish snus—a type of moist tobacco most commonly consumed in Nordic countries as pouches held in the mouth—is currently inconclusive, with several studies suggesting a significantly increased risk of up to three-times among ever daily snus users compared with never daily users, and others suggesting no statistically significant higher risk among current users compared with non-users, due to the much lower levels of NNN and NNK than in other smokeless tobacco products.”

Data from their own study shows that PAF-associated oral cancers are lower in Norway and Sweden compared to Northern Europe as a whole, despite them famously being the main consumers of snus.

I’m not saying snus is healthy. Using snus is definitely worse than not using any tobacco at all. But it is without a doubt a lot healthier than smoking.

Like I said in my first comment though, this is really of secondary importance. The most important thing is that you’re not increasing the cancer risk of people who happen to be in your vicinity by using snus. If every smoker switched to snus, the world would be a better place.

Why should it be banned? It is not harmful to bystanders, and a lot less harmful than smoking to individual users. Even passive smoking entails a higher risk of developing cancer than actively using snus.

Fewer smokers is good of course, but I am not sure if the consumption of tabacco is really going down significantly. It rather seems to be moving from cigarettes to snus, which I’m not sure is a good thing.

It is undeniably a good thing. Smoking increases your risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease by a lot. Snus does not significantly increase your risk of lung or oropharyngeal cancer. Nor does it increase your incidence of strokes or heart attacks. Nor does it lead to copd. More important than a lot lower risks for people who choose to use tobacco products, it eliminates all adverse effects on people like me who do not want any tobacco exposure.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12954-019-0335-1

deleted by creator

Strategic autonomy didn’t seem like a pressing issue to me until Russia invaded the Ukraine, to be honest. I’m sure a large part of the population has been similarly complacent.

Would you rather have your oil and gas from the US, Russia, or the Middle East? The EU is still reliant on oil and gas at the moment, and Norway is the EU’s most reliable supplier by a mile. You should work hard to become energy independent, but that can’t happen over night.