Nicotine debate
- Thread starter Newtothevapelyf3
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Thank you.And I purposely vape those flavors with diacetyl, diketones and other nasties because they taste better.
ETA; *I* should be studied.
Tony Gwynn's cancer was not related to his use of ST. He had saliva gland cancer which has no known connection to the use of tobacco.
Tobacco Truth: Dishonoring Tony Gwynn
Tobacco Truth: Mayo Clinic Misinformation About Smokeless Tobacco
It is sad that people who claim to be supporting tobacco harm reduction can be so grossly misinformed as to claim ST is as harmful as smoking. CASAA, whom I hope you are a member of, supports all forms of tobacco harm reduction, including vaping, snus, dip, chew, nasal snuff, dissolvable's, and likely a few others I have missed. There is no real world difference in risk for all of the above.
Misinformed? You're considering chew and dip as harm reduction and at the same time placing them in the same risk category as vaping? And then calling others misinformed and what a sad situation it is. That's funny man.
Your links to, quite literally, the only doctor (Dr Brad Rodu-
My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund) in the world recommending chew and dip as a solution to quit smoking on his BLOG are funny. As if they don't carry their own huge risks of cancer aside from tooth loss, gum disease, and tooth decay. Also they themselves are highly addictive delivering nicotine in conjunction with other compounds making delivery that much more effective thus that much more addictive similar to smoking tobacco.
"Smokeless tobacco causes cancer
Overall, people who dip or chew get about the same amount of nicotine as regular smokers. They also get at least 30 chemicals that are known to cause cancer. The most harmful cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco are tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). TSNA levels vary by product, but the higher the level the greater the cancer risk.
Cancers linked to the use of smokeless tobacco include:
Mouth, tongue, cheek, and gum cancer
Cancer in the esophagus (the swallowing tube that goes from your mouth to your stomach)
Pancreatic cancer"
"Whether or not chewing tobacco contributed to Tony Gwynn's death, he died the way so many do who use the product, having his face chopped at by surgeons who tried in vain to remove the tumor. Smokeless tobacco hasn't been firmly linked to the cancer that killed Tony Gwynn, but it's still deadly, causing cancer of the stomach, esophagus, pancreas, mouth, and throat. It's also thought to increase the risk of heart disease and stroke. "
FDA BOC
I very much doubt you have actually read anything Rodu has written. He sites many studies to back up what is being said. Besides that, he is not one lone voice. Also check out Carl Phillips, former scientific director of CASAA
Anti-THR Lies and related topics
There are many others who support ST including of course
CASAA. You also might want to check out the smokeless tobacco forum on ECF and talk to a few of the good folks down there.
Smokeless tobacco
Also good video on the concept of tobacco harm reduction
Parroting some propaganda from somewhere, likely the same people who are trying to ban vaping, doesn't cut it. There are no studies to back up your claims, and many studies that show little to no harm from western style ST.
You mean to tell me that we've had a much safer alternative to smoking tobacco all this time in smokeless tobacco. That's amazing! And we're just discovering this now in 2016 thanks to Dr Rodu who's entire study is paid for by the tobacco industry.
That's it. You've convinced me. I'm going to buy a tin right now. Forget vaping.
FDA BOC
I mentioned how I tried the Marlboro Snus a long time because of Marlboro giving them away for free and I stopped using them partly because of this lovely warning right on the front and back of the package.
Now yes I was a smoker but there was just something about this warning that bothered the heck out of me.
Now yes I was a smoker but there was just something about this warning that bothered the heck out of me.
Actually it has been known for decades that ST has very low risk. As I had already mentioned, Rodu is far from the only person who has pointed this out and advocates for all of the low risk alternatives to smoking (and that does include vaping). From your response it is obvious you prefer to stay ignorant on the subject of tobacco harm reduction as I very much doubt you have read anything.
As for answering your question, yes, we have had a much safer product all this time, though there is no need to give up vaping if that is your preferred choice.
Rodu does get grants from tobacco companies, just as most of the unbiased research on vaping is funded by the vaping industry. You are telling us that we should not pay attention to any of the research on vaping (and nearly all the unbiased research), because of the funding source. I guess we should just look at the research being funded by the government (nearly all of it has extreme bias against vaping). You are playing something straight out of the ANTZ playbook by not actually challenging anything being said by the researcher, but playing the game of, because of the funding everything they say is not valid.
I will challenge you to find flaws in anything he is saying on his blog. Who knows, while you are desperately trying to find something, you might actually learn something.
Last edited:
Please remember that it is the FDA that is requiring that warning on the label of that snus. Doesn't mean it is the truth.
Kinda the same way they are requiring the "This product is made from tobacco" on things that don't have nicotine in them....
From the FDA website:
If the tobacco product manufacturer submits a self-certification statement to FDA that the newly-regulated tobacco product does not contain nicotine (and that the manufacturer has data to support this assertion), then an alternate statement must be used on product packages and advertisements:
“This product is made from tobacco.”
Kinda the same way they are requiring the "This product is made from tobacco" on things that don't have nicotine in them....
From the FDA website:
If the tobacco product manufacturer submits a self-certification statement to FDA that the newly-regulated tobacco product does not contain nicotine (and that the manufacturer has data to support this assertion), then an alternate statement must be used on product packages and advertisements:
“This product is made from tobacco.”
Still in practice today:
Smokeless Tobacco Product Warning Label
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires that smokeless tobacco packages and advertisements have larger and more visible warnings. Smokeless tobacco includes tobacco products such as moist snuff, chewing tobacco, and snus.
Every smokeless tobacco package and advertisement must include one of the following warnings:
- WARNING: This product can cause mouth cancer.
- WARNING: This product can cause gum disease and tooth loss.
- WARNING: This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.
- WARNING: Smokeless tobacco is addictive.
For advertisements, the warning must cover at least 20 percent of the area of the ad.
The warning labels must begin to rotate in advertising for smokeless tobacco products and must be distributed and displayed on the packaging of smokeless tobacco products manufactured on or after June 22, 2010.
Since July 22, 2010, manufacturers may not distribute any smokeless tobacco product unless its packaging complies with the new warning requirements.
These changes aim to increase awareness of the health risks associated with smokeless tobacco use.
Smokeless Tobacco Product Warning Labels
I know that and the new regulations probably require even stronger wording. My point in posting the picture was to show the reason I stopped using them when trying to quit smoking. They are not a much safer alternative to smoking. Anybody who wants some just send a stamped self addressed envelope! LMAO
I guess my point is that they are using the same tactics against vaping. If those tactics worked on you to keep you from trying snus, think of how many will be dissuaded from trying vaping when the labels are all in place...
I don't know enough about snus to have an opinion on whether the warning label is justified.
It's not quite accurate though to claim that the FDA requires the " this product is made from tobacco " label, on products that aren't derived from tobacco. The section you posted is poorly written, but if you read the previous paragraph it states : "Beginning in 2018, the product packages and advertisements of all newly-regulated covered tobacco products must bear the following warning statement:" . So they are talking about "covered tobacco products" which they define as follows :
Covered Tobacco Product:
Any tobacco product deemed by the final rule to be subject to the FD&C Act.
•
Excludes any component or part that is not made or derived from tobacco.
So a nicotine-free cigarette or a NET liquid would require the alternate warning statement, because they are derived from tobacco, but a 0% liquid that is not a NET would not require the label.
In page 22 of the deemings, this is spelled out unequivocally :
"E-liquids that do not contain tobacco or nicotine or are not derived from tobacco or nicotine do not meet the definition of "covered tobacco product," as described throughout this final rule, and will not be required to carry an addiction warning or to submit a self-certification."
You are wrong on the facts by a large margin. Snus has at least the same low risk as vaping, along with other types of western style ST.
I do hope you understand that outside of the vaping world, the majority of people believe vaping is just as harmful as smoking. It wasn't that way when I got involved in this. Back then the great majority of people believed vaping was less risky then smoking. The number of people misinformed has been steadily increasing. You can thank the tobacco control industry for pushing the public against vaping.
It is the same people misinforming the public about vaping that have been misinforming the public about ST, and they have been doing it for decades. I am quite sure they are very happy there efforts have been so successful.
The question as to if ST has vanishingly low risk is not up for debate. That question has been already answered with an overwhelming yes, that is if you read the actual science as opposed to the propaganda from the alphabet soup groups. The only real question is how successful the public has been brainwashed and how deeply ingrained that brainwashing has become.
I will throw out the same challenge to you as I did with eddie. There has been a lot of criticism of Rodu's blog. As you are setting yourself up as an expert on smokeless tobacco, I challenge you to find any flaws in his science. If what you are saying is true (which of course it isn't) it should be easy for you to find the mistakes he has made. I am still waiting for eddie to get back to me on this.
Edit: I will throw that challenge to anyone who cares to give it a try.
Last edited:
None of my vaping products state that they can cause Mouth Cancer and if they did I would stop using them. Refer to the picture I posted. Do NOT try and sway my opinion on this.
I am not claiming to be an expert I am stating a FACT that this is my personal feelings on this matter. I do not care about any propaganda claiming otherwise because this is how I feel and I will not ever use Snus again. This is not debatable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
