Snus just as bad as chews?

[ZIRO]

Snus is not as bad as american snuff because it is steam cured and not cured with fire (flue cured... I'm pretty sure). The Swedish government has studied it thoroughly for many years, and has found no reason to believe that the risk for cancer in a snus user is any higher than that of a non-snuser. Furthermore, Sweden has the lowest tobacco-caused fatality rate in the EU.


EDIT:

Be careful when using it that you don't overuse it: My snus habit (at least a tin a day) caused my gums to recede on my 'snusing side' about 1mm****

[sheilalynn]

Originally Posted by WerkIt

I like the Vanilla Mint minis myself. I also have made a small change on my list of SNUS I REFUSE TO PURCHASE. I have changed the Offroad entry to exclude purchases of portions, but not loose. The Offroad los comes highly recommended in many quarters.

The los is DEFINITELY better than the portions by Offroad. I did pick up a sampler package of 7 different portions by Offroad that used to be on getsnus. They're ok, but a little low on the flavor scale. I do like the coffee vanilla, and the cranberry is ok, but not quite as much flavor as the Skruf cranberry portions. I also surprisingly liked the Classic Blue portions, which taste like Goat Rape but milder. So sometimes a little less flavor can actually be a good thing I think another you should put on the "do not buy" list is Grand Prix. Very low in flavor and what flavor there is isn't very good. If it's all I had I'd probably use them, but luckily I have enough cans now to avoid that one tin

[ZIRO]

I really, really don't like Offroad. It may be cheaper than most other brands... but I just thought it was disgusting.

If you want a more affordable snus that is better quality, I'd suggest skruff snus. It's pretty darn good and comes in some tantalizing flavors.

[TropicalBob]

After using a lot of it, I'm with Ziro on Offroad. No more. But Grand Prix is dreadful, I also agree. The problem is that it is now becoming widely available, while our favorites have to be ordered from Sweden. That is going to bite us hard if PACT becomes law.

[sheilalynn]

With the whopping passing of the "Marlboro Bill", I'm sure the PACT won't have much problem getting passed either. Sure will suck when it does...

[WerkIt]

Originally Posted by sheilalynn

I think another you should put on the "do not buy" list is Grand Prix.

That one is on my do-not-buy list, except I call it 'Ghetto' Prix.

Originally Posted by ZIRO

I really, really don't like Offroad. It may be cheaper than most other brands... but I just thought it was disgusting.

If you want a more affordable snus that is better quality, I'd suggest skruff snus. It's pretty darn good and comes in some tantalizing flavors.

Are you speaking of portions, los or both?

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

After using a lot of it, I'm with Ziro on Offroad. No more.

Did you try it in portion, los or both?

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

That is going to bite us hard if PACT becomes law.

There is a long thread on the coffin nails forums, in which a poster discusses growing tobacco indoors. He rigged up fluorescent lighting, but laid white sheets of paper (cardboard?) underneath and around the plants to reflect the light. He grew the plants in 5 gallon buckets. I was AMAZED at the size he was able to achieve with his indoor growing method. For me, it represents another possibility of snus growing in the event the FDA goes bat***** crazy with baccy regs.

[paladinx]

to werkit. sorry i have not responded to you sooner. Thanks for the info. I have read some of the studies done on cardiovascular risk. As I have said in my first post. A lot of later studies contradicted the big study done on construction workers. and again, these studies were smaller, and swedish match had an interest to partially or fully fund many of the newer studies.

Check out the interested parties in the report you showed.
The cohort study that said snus gave you a risk was kind of valuable in my opinion because it sampled the same population sample with very similar variables such as education, lifestyle, physical fitness etc. It should not be overlooked!

in the end, what I am trying to say is this, You cannot deny the results of the huge study. there might have been other over looked variables, but it was a very large study done on a particular population of people. I dont care if the risk is 40, 20, 10. But I would use a little common sense and conclude that there is a risk. I would not believe the newer studies 100 percent and feel there is 0 risk. I would combine both the studies together and say well maybe the risks right now might not be as high as 40 percent, But there might be a risk. I think with everything else, moderation is key. If you have one snus in your ass, one in each gum all day everyday, it would be nieve to say you are not facing any risks. I think the goal for everyone in the end should be limiting or reducing their nicotine intake to more appropriate levels.

[TropicalBob]

Werkit: Strictly personal preference, but I would never use loose, from any maker. I always reference portions. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

P.S. I've joined all the grow-your-own forums I can find. I just might ...

[WerkIt]

Originally Posted by paladinx

A lot of later studies contradicted the big study done on construction workers.

That's exactly how science is done. New information comes to light which often invalidates what we knew, or thought we knew.

Originally Posted by paladinx

and again, these studies were smaller,

What evidence do you have to demonstrate a smaller study is less valuable than a larger one?

Originally Posted by paladinx

and swedish match had an interest to partially or fully fund many of the newer studies.

That doesn't necessarily matter, particularly in cases where later studies, NOT funded by Swedish Match, have the same findings. Any study can be sound science, regardless of who backed the study financially.

Originally Posted by paladinx

You cannot deny the results of the huge study.

You most certainly can. At one point in time, our available scientific data and studies led us to believe the earth was flat. We DENY the results of those studies on a daily basis now. New facts coming to light often overturn what we once thought we knew.

Originally Posted by paladinx

but it was a very large study done on a particular population of people.

It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?

Originally Posted by paladinx

I would not believe the newer studies 100 percent and feel there is 0 risk.

Do you deny newer studies which demonstrate the earth has a spherical shape instead of flat? If not, why not? Generally, this is how science is done. Newer studies shed new light on what we thought we knew, particularly in cases where other studies confirm the results.

[paladinx]

Since this is the preferred format. I shall do the same.

"What evidence do you have to demonstrate a smaller study is less valuable than a larger one?"

In statistics there is such a thing as being statistically strong. Its pretty obvious that the larger the sample, the more statistically powerful something becomes and the more trends can be spotted.

"that doesn't necessarily matter, particularly in cases where later studies, NOT funded by Swedish Match, have the same findings. Any study can be sound science, regardless of who backed the study financially. "

Again with statistics it is VERY important to understand the parties interested in the study. Statistics is more of an art form than a science. There is many ways to retrieve and look for data, And those being paid are paid to gather and form that data into a convincing argument. Swedish Match is not going to take part or fund a study that will hurt them. Just a little common sense there.


"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?"

No thats not the point whether i suffer from what they suffer from. The point is, They studied the same group of people all of which were subjected to similar variables. That is the point. It makes a study stronger when you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges to bannannas.

"Do you deny newer studies which demonstrate the earth has a spherical shape instead of flat? If not, why not? Generally, this is how science is done. Newer studies shed new light on what we thought we knew, particularly in cases where other studies confirm the results."

lol. I dont even know what to say to that. we are not comparing advances in technology that are centuries apart. The scientists who did that study were not apes or cavemen. They found a correlation after looking at a very large, particular sample of people. They saw a connection and I would not go as far as to say they didnt see anything at all. That it was a figment of their imagination. They saw a connection. And I am sure the connection still exists to degrees I am not sure of. I am not saying the study was perfect, or their figures were perfect. What I am saying is that they DID see a connection, and I believe anyone who has a little common sense will at the very least take that into some consideration.