Concerning Smokeless Tobacco

[MoonRose]

Found this article in the opinion section of our local paper from Evansville, IN.

LETTER: Baseball's great except for smokeless tobacco » Evansville Courier & Press

 

[Vocalek]

What's more, adolescents who use smokeless tobacco are more likely than nonusers to start smoking, which we all know can lead to additional medical problems.

If the above statement is true, perhaps it is because the American Cancer Society is withholding information about the relative risk of smokeless products.

Following are the cancers that the ACS claims, with no supporting data, are caused by smokeless tobacco use, followed by the actual scientific evidence derived from the most comprehensive study ever published (read about it here). http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/cancer-risks-from-smokeless-tobacco-use.html

American Cancer Society ................Claim Actual Scientific Evidence
Mouth, tongue and throat cancer ......Not significantly elevated, RR = 1.07 (CI = 0.84-1.37)
Esophagus cancer .........................Not significantly elevated, RR = 1.13 (CI = 0.95-1.36)
Stomach cancer ...........................Not significantly elevated, RR = 1.03 (CI = 0.88-1.20)
Pancreatic Cancer ........................Not significantly elevated, RR = 1.07 (CI = 0.71-1.60)

RR = Relative Risk.

Scientific evidence shows clearly that smokeless tobacco use only slightly elevates cancer risks, if at all. The reported elevations are so small that they are not statistically significant; in other words, they may have occurred purely by chance. It is also important to point out that small RRs (those under 2) should not be seen as reliable. The National Cancer Institute advises: “Relative risks or odds ratios less than 2 are viewed with caution,” because they “are sometimes difficult to interpret.”

Tobacco Truth: Cancer Risks from Smokeless Tobacco Use: Next To Nil

Perhaps a rebuttal Letter to the Editor is in order.

 

[sqirl1]

I know Swedish Snus and dissolvable tobacco are obviously much better than smoking, but isn't the stuff baseball players usually use like that Red Man chewing tobacco and stuff like Skoal, Copenhagen, etc. just as bad because American tobacco companies lace their stuff with chemicals to make you more addicted just like they do with cigs? that's what I heard anyway; that you should never trust any tobacco product made by any major tobacco firm in the states and should always either import it or buy from the little guy.

 

[CJsKee]

IMO you should never trust anything public health anti-tobacco zealots say about tobacco.

 

[BCB]

Nicely said, CJsKee!

 

[MoonRose]

I know Swedish Snus and dissolvable tobacco are obviously much better than smoking, but isn't the stuff baseball players usually use like that Red Man chewing tobacco and stuff like Skoal, Copenhagen, etc. just as bad because American tobacco companies lace their stuff with chemicals to make you more addicted just like they do with cigs? that's what I heard anyway; that you should never trust any tobacco product made by any major tobacco firm in the states and should always either import it or buy from the little guy.

Actually, all forms of smokeless tobacco are safer than lighting up and inhaling tobacco smoke. There is some slight increased risk of oral cancer from the older forms of chewing tobacco and old fashioned snuff compared to that of the newer products with fewer nitrosamines. I would personally prefer that people used the spitless forms of smokeless tobacco, simply because there's nothing nastier looking than watching someone spit a wad of tobacco or stream of tobacco juice onto the ground. It would be different if they were considerate enough to always use spit cans with lids on them, but many are not that considerate.

 

[BCB]

Many inconsiderate people spit on the ground. They don't have to be smokeless tobacco users. They're just spitters. I don't think they realize that some of us don't like it. But it has nothing to do with the use of tobacco. We'd have to contact some etiquette maven for a rundown of when it is/is not appropriate to spit on the ground near other people, but until we've done that we must not blame tobacco for bad manners. Spitting is ubiquitous where I live.

 

[MoonRose]

LOL ... you do have a point there BCB. It's just that when one spits tobacco juice or wads on the ground, you can see it quite clearly until a hard rain washes it away, spitting in public areas is nasty and it's unhealthy as well, especially to small kids who do tend to crawl around and play on the ground where people are always spitting ... yuck.

 

[sqirl1]

Actually, all forms of smokeless tobacco are safer than lighting up and inhaling tobacco smoke. There is some slight increased risk of oral cancer from the older forms of chewing tobacco and old fashioned snuff compared to that of the newer products with fewer nitrosamines. I would personally prefer that people used the spitless forms of smokeless tobacco, simply because there's nothing nastier looking than watching someone spit a wad of tobacco or stream of tobacco juice onto the ground. It would be different if they were considerate enough to always use spit cans with lids on them, but many are not that considerate.

so I could get some old chewing tobacco every once in a while and not have to worry about my gums rotting down to my jaw bone like all those pictures I saw in High School? I'm not actually trying to quit smoking but rather I'm using nicotine because it helps me concentrate since I have autism/ADD. also it decreases my appetite so that's a bonus as well. I just want to get nic with the least amount of bad stuff. I just got my first can of General Snus today and I liked it, but still, theres no question that stuff's hell on your gums cancer or no, so I'm for the most part sticking to vaping.

 

[Demarko]

so I could get some old chewing tobacco every once in a while and not have to worry about my gums rotting down to my jaw bone like all those pictures I saw in High School? I'm not actually trying to quit smoking but rather I'm using nicotine because it helps me concentrate since I have autism/ADD. also it decreases my appetite so that's a bonus as well. I just want to get nic with the least amount of bad stuff. I just got my first can of General Snus today and I liked it, but still, theres no question that stuff's hell on your gums cancer or no, so I'm for the most part sticking to vaping.

You do have a higher chance of mouth cancer than not doing anything, but actually smoking is a higher chance than chew. They don't tell you that, of course - all tobacco is the same just ask them!

 

[sqirl1]

oh definitely, and like I said, vaping is my main thing, but when I need something I can easily hide, I use snus. and like I said before, I'm sure my dentist would notice if I used snus all the time. I remember one video we watched when I was in like 4th grade there was a guy that said he got mouth cancer within a few years of starting to chew tobacco, and my senior year when I took health class because I had to have the credit (I was the only senior in the whole class! it was all freshman and a few sophomores lol) they said in my book chewing tobacco was WORSE than smoking. also in my area, ALL tobacco use is banned, smokeless and all, and at my work if you get caught stepping out of your car with a lit cigarette you get one warning and after that you're fired, and the same policy goes with vaping and smokeless tobacco. in other words, st. louis county is $%&#ing insane.

 

[MoonRose]

But I lay odds that they don't have a problem with the pharmaceutical gums, lozenges and patches, which are technically smokeless tobacco products.

 

[sqirl1]

noooooooooo that's "medicine"! see the problem is, most people who don't smoke consider smoking to be a weakness of character, and roll their eyes when people say they can't quit. smokers are generally viewed as having no willpower similar to the fat @$%# who eats 50 donuts every day. I remember when the ban went into effect me and 2 cashiers at my work were having a conversation, one smoked and one didn't. the one who didn't said "it's about time, maybe it'll get people to quit." and I'm like "Well theres "e-cigs" and the one who smoked said "can't have those either." the one who didn't goes "oh those are a joke! if you're going to smoke those you might as well quit outright" and I go "whats the big deal if people smoke it's their choice" and the nonsmoker says "because when they get cancer and need surgery it's at the expense of my tax dollars and it's causing my premium to go up, buy a patch and suck it up." the smoker just rolled their eyes like "whatever you judgmental b#$%&"

 

[Demarko]

"because when they get cancer and need surgery it's at the expense of my tax dollars and it's causing my premium to go up, buy a patch and suck it up."

I hear that a lot, about insurance premiums. Any bets that if suddenly smoking was 100% eliminated through some magical means, that insurance premiums would still stay the same? Of course they would, because then the insurance companies would be like, "Oh now you're paying for obese people!"

 

[Demarko]

Odd, it double posted. I'll think of something clever to write here..

 

[sqirl1]

yeah and then theres the "I don't need to rely on a substance to get me through life, I just deal with life and anybody who does is weak minded and can't deal with reality" argument. most people I've told about the possible medical value of nicotine say it's just BS and an excuse for "weak minded" people to smoke.

 

[kristin]

You do have a higher chance of mouth cancer than not doing anything, but actually smoking is a higher chance than chew. They don't tell you that, of course - all tobacco is the same just ask them!

Yep - but you have to quantify that risk in the first place - which the antis don't do. They say "smokeless tobacco doubles your chance of getting oral cancer than if you don't smoke" but they don't tell you that oral cancer is EXTREMELY rare in the first place.

It's like saying "If you sky dive, you'll double your chances of falling 200 miles to your death." So, what are the chances of falling 200 miles to your death without sky diving? Probably 1,000,000,000,000 to 1, right? So, with sky diving, your chances are now 1,000,000 to 1. Big freaking deal.

yeah and then theres the "I don't need to rely on a substance to get me through life, I just deal with life and anybody who does is weak minded and can't deal with reality" argument. most people I've told about the possible medical value of nicotine say it's just BS and an excuse for "weak minded" people to smoke.

Brainwashed. It's perfectly ok to have to rely on pharmaceutical drugs for the exact same symptoms smokeless nicotine addresses and those drugs come with a long list of adverse side effects that smokeless nicotine doesn't have. Think about all of the warnings on anti-depressent drugs and Chantix.

I'm sure none of those people eat comfort food (candy, fatty foods), drink alcohol, soda or coffee or take sleeping aids, either? Then there are thrill seekers, fishermen & hunters, sports fans, racers, internet & porn addicts, etc who seek comfort, thrills or relaxation through their activities. Just because it's not a chemical doesn't mean it's not causing the same chemical reaction in their brain. EVERYONE has some sort of crutch, but because it is sanctioned by society, it's not seen as one.

I'm not "weak minded" just because I choose nicotine to feel good over jumping out of a plane, attending every sporting event, knitting or never missing an episode of Jersey Shore. lol

 

[Vocalek]

Actually, switching from smoking to smokeless cuts your risk of death from oral cancer in half.

Point | Counterpoint: Would a Switch from Cigarettes to Smokeless Tobacco Benefit Public Health? > Health Issues > ACSH

Deaths from oral cancer cases attributable to smoking total 11,500 per year. If all smokers switched, oral cancer deaths attributable to using smokeless tobacco would be reduced to 6,000 per year. All other tobacco-related deaths would be reduced to zero.

Average years of life lost would go from 7.8 years to about 14 days.

 

[kristin]

So true, Elaine!

Deaths from oral cancer cases attributable to smoking total 11,500 per year. .

And that would be allegedly "attributable." Some researchers and harm reduction experts disagree with some of those oral cancer deaths being attributed just to the tobacco use. The research was often sloppy and/or skewed. The factor of alcohol use, for example, which has also been linked and wasn't accounted for in the also tobacco users.

 

[MoonRose]

There was a very recent report that I saw on the news that was basically stating that alcohol use (more than 1 drink a day) is the leading cause of oral, esophageal and stomach cancers.