E-smoking vs snus

Status
Not open for further replies.

paladinx

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 3, 2008
941
330
44
mars
alot has been said about harm reduction and trying to quit smoking. What do you guys think the gives the most harm reduction. Snus or e-smoking? I am guessing snus is safer since you are not inhaling anything into your lungs, and that it has been around a lot longer. Any ideas or input on this subject?

regards
 

dEFinitionofEPIC

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 5, 2009
240
1
38
NJ
You pretty much know what you're getting from snus.... with the e-cig you have a lot of unknowns (especially considering most people are getting their liquid from unknown places without any kind of safety standards). For this reason, in my opinion at least, snus is the safer of the two for harm reduction. Plus, like you said... inhaling anything into your lungs besides air probably isn't the best thing for you.
 

D_Struct

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 9, 2009
792
3
Lufkin, TX
I would have to go with e-cigs due to the lack of processed tobacco, but I know Tropical Bob has referenced a few studies that have been done on Snus.

The inhalation into the lungs of propylene glycol and nicotine is not really an issue. We all know the effects of nicotine inhalation, and propylene glycol inhalation has actually been proven beneficial in many studies. It's the flavoring and possible trace contaminants that are the issue, and they are most certainly in low percentages.

Using processed tobacco in your mouth will still lead to problems, it's just that the way Snus is used that makes it a great harm reduction tool.

In the end, regardless of which one you choose, it's probably better than smoking.
 

dEFinitionofEPIC

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 5, 2009
240
1
38
NJ
Using processed tobacco in your mouth will still lead to problems, it's just that...

Actually...out of any form of smokeless tobacco snus by far has the lowest level of nitrosamines and tobacco-specific carcinogens. There is no conclusive evidence that snus increases ones chances of getting oral cancer...and its been around a long time... So I don't think its guaranteed to cause any problems just because it is used in the mouth....
 

D_Struct

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 9, 2009
792
3
Lufkin, TX
Actually...out of any form of smokeless tobacco snus by far has the lowest level of nitrosamines and tobacco-specific carcinogens. There is no conclusive evidence that snus increases ones chances of getting oral cancer...and its been around a long time... So I don't think its guaranteed to cause any problems just because it is used in the mouth....

Well, all things being equal, if e-cigs are what they SAY they are, you're not going to be dealing with any of the tobacco-specific carcinogens or nitrosamines. Big IF.

Just depends, I suppose.

I use snus, as well. I enjoy it, and it's encouraging to read all of the studies done on it, to date.
 

UkUsa

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 15, 2008
511
1
Smalltown Iowa, USA
I've been reading up a little on snus recently. Really thinking of trying some. Most times the e cig is great but sometimes it just don't do it, or it isn't pheasible to sit and puff away. Also there are the enevitable breakdowns, dead batteries, lack of supplies.

I have found some negatives about snus, even mentions of carcinogens. But overall, if you have to have nicotine it looks like a better option than analogs or chewing tobacco.

As for which is better, snus or e cigs. Hmmm my gut tells me that ecigs maybe better, but as D-struct says, it's the flavorings that is my only concern.

I'm sure i am going to try some Snus soon. Especially since our local gas station has started selling the camel snus now. It's definitely worth a shot.

In the meantime i'll have to go back and see if can find some the studies i was reading a few days back.
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
63
Port Charlotte, FL USA
For me, it's not e-cigs versus snus. It's e-cigs AND snus.

Snus has a 200-year history of safe use. E-cigs have no identified danger points, although everyone admits we are guinea pigs and testing hasn't been done by scientific methods. I made my choice. I use both. And don't apologize for that fact. To me, in the end, these seem the safest practical way to obtain nicotine I feel I need.

Bluntly, no available harm reduction alternative is as hazardous to health as inhaling cigarette smoke!

You want safe though? Nasal snuff. It was the first recorded use of tobacco and has never had a single instance of cancer attributed to its use.
 

paladinx

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 3, 2008
941
330
44
mars
very interesting feedback thanks guys. About the poster talking about PG being good for you. What studies? Have they studied a mass amount of e-smokers for years who are inhaling the stuff constantly? despite descriptions of PG, I have not read really anything that is convincing right now. Sure PG, or many other chemicals are completely harmless when you are not overexposed to them. But your talking about inhaling large quantities, concentrated quantities daily. I think there is a big diff. If there are studies on this, i would love to read it, and apologize.

my fear is that those who are interested in e smoking are going to start funding their own research, same way the tobacco companies did it way back int he day. they actually had doctors coming on saying how good for you smoking is LOL


I was all for snus. but i read something that it has been proven to cause pancreatic cancer. that kind of worried me a little bit. But one thing that made me feel a little better. they said out of i think 10 thousand or 20 thousand snus users, 9 of those will get pancreatic cancer from snus. and four of them will get pancreatic cancer from not using any tobacco products at all. So i guess the correlation is weak at besT?
 

Mohave

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
I was all for snus. but i read something that it has been proven to cause pancreatic cancer. that kind of worried me a little bit. But one thing that made me feel a little better. they said out of i think 10 thousand or 20 thousand snus users, 9 of those will get pancreatic cancer from snus. and four of them will get pancreatic cancer from not using any tobacco products at all. So i guess the correlation is weak at besT?
You are thinking of the research project published in The Lancet, Volume 369, Issue 9578, Pages 2015 - 2020, 16 June 2007. It was a statistical examination of the comparative medical history of male Swedish construction workers who used snus for a long time and never smoked vs. those who neither smoked nor snused. It did not conclude snus was "proven to cause" pancreatic cancer. The authors suggested that snus might be "added to the list of tentative risk factors" which may, or may not, be associated with some increased risk for it, pending further investigation. There are some things about that study of epidemiological data which are anomalous (peculiar or inconsistent) both internally and in contrast with other data. They found a small statistical increase in pancreatic cancer among one of the several age groups, but both younger and older cohorts did not show the same evidence of increased incidence of pancreatic cancer. Further, it has been contradicted by other, more comprehensive data from studies such as those in THIS THREAD, and the construction worker data suggesting some possibility of this risk has not been replicated elsewhere.

I have not spent much time carefully considering these issues, as they aren't my main motivation for using this stuff, and I am not any sort of expert, but for what it's worth this is how I personally evaluate this information:
1. Given that any particular type of cancer is a randomly occurring low probability event (even low probability among lifelong heavy smokers for example, and also randomly occurring among people with no risk factors at all for no particular reason) it is notoriously difficult to measure probability of risk, because a relatively few random individual cases can skew the small percentages one way or another so easily. Given the internal inconsistency among the groupings in the Lancet published data, and given the fact that other data contradicts it, it seems most probable to me, but not certain, that there is not an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. But, one could not say with certainty that there is absolutely zero increased risk of this particular cancer, even though other data from other samples in other studies did not show statistical evidence of a risk.

2. Other forms of cancer were found not to be significantly associated with long term snus use in any of the academic studies I have found, including the anomalous construction worker sample.
I have no opinion on how any of this might compare to cancer risk of e-cig vapor, and nobody else can either, since most cancer generally has a very long gestation period, and an association with cancer could not become known for decades. If I began intake of a powerful carcinogen today, it is unlikely that it would have time to develop an actual cancer before I die of other unrelated routine complications of old age first within about 25 years. A recent publication of some experimental results produced evidence to support a new hypothesis that people with certain kinds of lesions already existing in their mouth could possibly have an increased risk of mouth cancer from exposure to pure nicotine alone as occurs with using nicotine vapor, but it is a hypothesis (theory) of a mechanism of action which might (or might not) be a way for cancer to start, and there is at this time no data from human users to show whether inhaling nicotine alone does actually result in an increased probability of that kind of cancer actually occurring via that experimentally observed process, and if so how significant any such increase in risk might be.

That was all a long winded way of saying no, that study did not demonstrate pancreatic cancer can be caused by snus, but unlike the other studies it failed to rule it out as a possibility; and that nobody will really know anything about nicotine in vapor form & any associated cancer risk for a long time because it hasn't been around long enough, regardless of what testing or study is or is not performed on it for other things.
 
Last edited:

D_Struct

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 9, 2009
792
3
Lufkin, TX
Well, for one, I don't use PG "constantly" so I don't have to worry about instensive use. PG is used in nebulizers and many inhalers, so the inhalation HAS been proven to have beneficial properties for a multitude of reasons.

To imply and transfer your own misguided beliefs of how everyone uses their PVs shows your own hangups regarding these products, not mine.

There haven't done studies for years regarding the use of e-cigs, PG, nicotine, etc, but they haven't done studies showing they AREN'T safe, either. So, if you don't want to risk it, fine. Just don't expect me to agree.

Continue to smoke. By all means. Have at it.

Spoonfeeding you information isn't on my evening agenda.

I hope you find an alternative you can be happy with. I just find it funny that you feel the need to chastise people that are using a product that has yet to be shown good OR bad, while openly admitting still using analogs, where, well... we all know what those do.



very interesting feedback thanks guys. About the poster talking about PG being good for you. What studies? Have they studied a mass amount of e-smokers for years who are inhaling the stuff constantly? despite descriptions of PG, I have not read really anything that is convincing right now. Sure PG, or many other chemicals are completely harmless when you are not overexposed to them. But your talking about inhaling large quantities, concentrated quantities daily. I think there is a big diff. If there are studies on this, i would love to read it, and apologize.

my fear is that those who are interested in e smoking are going to start funding their own research, same way the tobacco companies did it way back int he day. they actually had doctors coming on saying how good for you smoking is LOL


I was all for snus. but i read something that it has been proven to cause pancreatic cancer. that kind of worried me a little bit. But one thing that made me feel a little better. they said out of i think 10 thousand or 20 thousand snus users, 9 of those will get pancreatic cancer from snus. and four of them will get pancreatic cancer from not using any tobacco products at all. So i guess the correlation is weak at besT?
 
Last edited:

dEFinitionofEPIC

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 5, 2009
240
1
38
NJ
....To imply and transfer your own misguided beliefs of how everyone uses their PVs shows your own hangups regarding these products, not mine....So, if you don't want to risk it, fine. Just don't expect me to agree....Continue to smoke. By all means. Have at it....Spoonfeeding you information isn't on my evening agenda....

...I hope you find an alternative you can be happy with. I just find it funny that you feel the need to chastise people that are using a product that has yet to be shown good OR bad, while openly admitting still using analogs, where, well... we all know what those do.

Dude... what the .... are you talking about??? A little hypersensitive are we? The man wasn't "chastising" anyone. He was just expressing his genuine concerns.... Your comment was extremely rude and pointed and you really made an a**hole out of yourself.... People like you are why this world sucks to live in....
 

D_Struct

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 9, 2009
792
3
Lufkin, TX
Dude... what the .... are you talking about??? A little hypersensitive are we? The man wasn't "chastising" anyone. He was just expressing his genuine concerns.... Your comment was extremely rude and pointed and you really made an a**hole out of yourself.... People like you are why this world sucks to live in....

I suppose I should take a bow, then?

My comments were carryover from another thread he posted in general discussion, not based solely of his comments, here. He's someone that found that he, personally, didn't care to risk giving up a known evil for something unknown. That's fine. That's his choice. But it seems as though he is intent on trying to justify himself, or point out reasons why he came to his decision like no one has every really thought it out like him before.

You might've taken my post a little out of context, but, you're right. I wasn't necessarily trying to be nice to the guy. He's made his decision regarding this practice. I wish him the best. I even said that in the post in question.
 
Last edited:

paladinx

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 3, 2008
941
330
44
mars
No, i didnt already make a decision. Im trying to weight the situation and share my opinions and get feedback from others. You ever think to yourself that maybe I am a little unsure about it, and bringing up my concerns to people and hearing their comments and feedback helps?

I think people like him get defensive with me because they dont want to hear anything negative. it kind of puts a thorn in t heir side. I think everything i said on the other thread made perfect sense. I was not nasty, I am not criticizing anyone. I just gave another perspective. If you feel like I am attacking anyone, I apologize. Its not my intention.

I am obviously here not to bash things, but to just have a conversation about it. I want to quit smoking, I dont want to smoke "analogs" as you say. I wouldnt be here if that were the case. I guess I am trying to make a decision since I cant seem to quit cold turkey. Just trying to decide what route to go is all. And i try to share my own opinion as well.

regards
 

Mohave

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
oh yeah btw guys, where do you buy your snus from? I have bought mine in the past from buysnus.com.
For Swedish products I've been using:
1. Northerner;

2. Buysnus;

3. Getsnus.
I check all three for selection and to compare prices and total cost with shipping. There are others, but they each appear to have disadvantages compared to these three, so I haven't been regularly checking them when I order.

For Camel snus (and a small selection of Swedish Match's General brands) I've found it is possible to get a little better price ($3/tin) than brick and mortar vendors at:
They also carry something called Grand Prix snus, which I've never tried but read somewhere is not very good. That's according to some anonymous dude(s) on the web somewhere, so it must be true, right? It sure is cheap. Might be interesting to throw a can into an order just to see what's up with that stuff.
 
Last edited:

Happy Jack

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
very interesting feedback thanks guys. About the poster talking about PG being good for you. What studies? Have they studied a mass amount of e-smokers for years who are inhaling the stuff constantly? despite descriptions of PG, I have not read really anything that is convincing right now. Sure PG, or many other chemicals are completely harmless when you are not overexposed to them. But your talking about inhaling large quantities, concentrated quantities daily. I think there is a big diff. If there are studies on this, i would love to read it, and apologize.

You might be interested in this thread http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/13866-pg-vapor-proven-healthy-breathe.html.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread