These are additional reason why smokers should switch to far less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products, or at least use them as a temporary substitute when/where smoking isn’t permitted.

The controversial ordinance, effective January 9, is the most restrictive smoking law in a state that already prohibits lighting up in any public commercial building — restaurants, bars and businesses. Belmont’s law extends the ban to any “multistory, multiunit dwelling.” Transgressors will be fined $100.

Enforcing the latest restriction will be “complaint driven” — In other words, neighbors will be required to “rat out” a violator to get the wheels of justice moving — or in Belmont’s case, the designated code enforcement officer.

“I’m more like the stick than the…pointy tip,” said Kirk Buckman, an officer for Belmont’s community development department who is in charge of extinguishing the city’s smoking offenders. “But it’s all part of the job. They enact ‘em. I’m paid to enforce ‘em.”

The controversial residential ban has some Belmont residents upset.

“I’m very agitated,” said Howard Odessky,” who lives in a 16-unit apartment building. “I’ve had three cigarettes in my apartment already this morning…I’m going to continue to smoke in my house, in Belmont…I don’t want to be a jerk about the whole thing, but, after all, a man’s home is his castle.”

The ban passed the city council by a 3-2 vote.

In sharp contrast, epidemiological studies estimate that smokeless tobacco products are attributable for no more than several hundred oral cancer deaths annually in the US. Cigarette smoking also poses a far greater (5-10 times greater) risk of oral cancer than does smokeless tobacco use.

In sum, daily cigarette smoking poses about 100 times greater risk of premature death than does daily smokeless tobacco use.

Smokers can greatly reduce their risks of disease and death simply by substituting smokeless tobacco products (or even less hazardous nicotine gum, lozenges or inhalers) for cigarettes.

Brad Rodu and I authored a peer reviewed article on this issue entitled “Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers” http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37

Since Mike Sawyer has received many different e-mails from me containing research and news articles about the comparable health risks of different tobacco products, I don’t understand why he posted those comments and criticisms on this blog.

United States
A study conducted by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts and scheduled to be published in the October issue of the American Journal of Public Health found that teens living in households that allow smoking are more likely to perceive the habit as socially acceptable, compared with teens whose parents have banned smoking at home. (Newswise 08/13)

How are you capable of saying that there other forms of tobacco that are 98%-99% safer. Where is the proof? Can you actually provide this or are you just so blinded by the profits of the tobacco industry? Tobacco kills how many people when smoked, second hand and even referencing that some forms are safer implies that some people still die from it. Is the number close to 450,000 people each year. Is that not enough to just say enough is enough it needs to go away? Tobacco companies be trusted? Are you kidding? I mean look at how history has proven that they lie. I mean how do we know that a new product won’t be found to be more harmful in the future. I also don’t think that FDA regulation is the answer as that organization is not capable of figuring out whether a tomato kills or a jalapeno kills. So I would much rather see proof of what your saying. I do know a lot of people are dying because of tobacco! If there was a toy out in the industry that caused harm to a child would it not be banned? Would folks not demand that it be made safe? If one could make tobacco safe I’d be for that but what are the chances of that ever happening. Just by referencing harm reduction means harm still exists. So further enlighten me and I will consider your scientific and medicallt driven proof.

I’d like to add the point that there are those who just out right want to smoke regardless of whether there are health claims related to smoking. I know enough folks that believe it is within their civil rights as long as it is not affecting others to choose to smoke. Does everyone who smokes die – yes, but do they all die from smoking – no!
Driving a car kills – do we tell people no more driving? Where is the Anti Driving Coalition? Drinking diet soda has been linked to cancer – is there a Anti Diet Soda Coalition that is harrassing the beverage industry? Where is the Anti Tanning Salon Coalition to protest the cause that tanning causes cancer. Me thinks that someone is behind the scene funding the anti smoking coalition which is truly spewing a misrepresentation of the facts. I get so tired of all the folks who use data from reports but just pick out portions that they can use to support their cause. And the public is just so misinformed.