Smokeless Tobacco is not a Safe Alternative for Cigarette, Maybe Watching a baseball game on television is similar to watching a sitcom: there are many patterns that are present regardless of which game, or episode, is currently on the screen, In any game, there will be full counts, drunk fans cheering on their favorite team, and players with lips packed full of tobacco, Smokeless tobacco use has been a part of baseball for generations. In my experience, I have come to believe that smokeless tobacco is unhealthy.
However, with conclusive evidence in the contrary, I would be forced to change my opinion in the name of genuine science, I must first admit that I have never done due diligence in researching the effects of smokeless tobacco on people I have relied on my information coming from secondary sources repeatedly told to stay away from smokeless tobacco.
As a baseball player, it is a stereotype, albeit true, that I am more likely to become addicted to smokeless tobacco than the average person, From friends’ parents to dentists, I have been told by everyone and their cousin about the dangers of chewing tobacco.
Even Uncle Sam has been whispering in my ear about smokeless tobacco. Government-mandated labeling on cans, pouches, snus, and other forms of smokeless tobacco are not allowed to be sold in the United States without clear warnings from the surgeon general. These labels warn that smoke the risks involved with consuming smokeless tobacco, including cancer and various diseases of the mouth.
I would be much more likely to alter my position on the healthiness of smokeless tobacco if the study is funded by non»biased sources.
For example, the government can justify charging a sin tax on smokeless tobacco products because they can claim it is harmful to one’s health, A large source of my drug education came from public schools, which are run by the government, The FDA is responsible for the warning labels placed on smokeless tobacco products, a government agency, I would expect that studies trying to prove that smokeless tobacco is not bad for health would somehow be funded by the tobacco industry. If I were to find a study that tried to make this argument, I would have to first investigate the workplace of the researchers involved, and the source of funding for thejournal and the specific study. Any affiliation with big tobacco companies, tobacco farmers, or others that make profit from increased smokeless tobacco sales would raise red flags about the credibility of the study.
If scientific research is done to show that smokeless tobacco is not unhealthy, I would have to take a closer look before changing my perspective. The burden of proof lies with the side trying to prove that chewing tobacco is not harmful to one’s health because this would be an anomaly, going against what is currently thought to be known Honestly, it would take multiple studies to shift my position on chewing tobacco The design of the experiments involved would affect how much I accept the study as valid, which would be necessary to change my perspective I would like to see studies on both the short-term and long—term effects of chewing tobacco.
There would have to be a large sample size with thorough matching to eliminate other possible factors that would affect health I would like to see the impact that chewing tobacco has on more aspects of health than mouth disease and cancer risk, which is often the main focus of literature on chewing tobacco I would like to see , such as If these studies are not looked at closely, they could mislead in the interpretation of data. Empty jargon and displaying data in a way that would exaggerate or hide certain findings may appear in studies like this, Matching would help decrease the possibility of false confirmation. I have long held the belief that smokeless tobacco is bad for overall health, However, if multiple reliable studies that together could demonstrate that smokeless tobacco was in fact not harmless to overall human health, I would be forced to reconsider my position on the issue