If "smokeless" chewing tobacco causes cancer, then doesn't "smokeless" e-cigs?

[TheRac25]

Chewing tobacco is still tobacco, but there is no tobacco in eliquid, only nicotine. Nicotine causes addiction, but it cannot cause cancer

Apart from the nicotine found in both tobacco and e-liquid (and also in patches, gum and sprays, none of which cause cancer either), tobacco and eliquid couldn't be more different.

i would argue that addiction comes from some other underlying psychological condition, less than 5% of people that try [moderated] become regular users, which is to say that while these substances may be classified as "addictive" they don't cause addiction.

 

[antespaz]

All those horror films in high school gym class about people who chewed, who have missing cheeks, jaws, throat cancer and electronic voice boxes were lies?

Ya, I'm not buying this either???? Tony Gwynn just died and I know several ex-chewers that had a piece of their jaw removed. Chewing tobacco must not be the same thing as the swedish Snus or whatever it's called. I'm confused

 

[antespaz]

Chewing tobacco is still tobacco, but there is no tobacco in eliquid, only nicotine. Nicotine causes addiction, but it cannot cause cancer

Apart from the nicotine found in both tobacco and e-liquid (and also in patches, gum and sprays, none of which cause cancer either), tobacco and eliquid couldn't be more different.

Great way to explain it. I will hapily vape on and not worry. Thank you

 

[Stosh]

Ya, I'm not buying this either???? Tony Gwynn just died and I know several ex-chewers that had a piece of their jaw removed. Chewing tobacco must not be the same thing as the swedish Snus or whatever it's called. I'm confused

Very true, they are very different...The Differences Between Snus and American Smokeless

 

[slyphex]

Just for clarification, in the US 'smokeless tobacco' usually refers to chewing tobacco like Copenhagen and Skoal but also includes authentic Swedish Snus as well as the big tobacco branded "snus" which is basically chewing tobacco put in pouches. It also includes 'plug tobacco' which is disgusting and tastes like prunes.

With the exception of Swedish Snus, the other forms of smokeless (chewing tobacco) are smoke cured and have many additives for flavor and texture and the like.

The danger comes from when the enzymes in your saliva break down the 'chew', this creates carcinogenic byproducts which damage the delicate lining of your mouth.

Burning tobacco (especially branded cigarettes) when smoking cause the chemicals to combine and create thousands of different chemicals which are not present in the original cigarettes. Many of these are carcinogens.

Eliquid does not experience the same transition that chewing tobacco or cigarettes do. What is present in the liquid is present in the vapor , which why it's so much safer. You can look at eliquid and see pg, vg, and nic and know that's all that's going into your body.


Sent from my Z10 using Tapatalk

 

[Stubby]

What was the cause of Tony Gwynn's death?

What a mix of good and bad information in this thread. I'll start here. Tony died of saliva gland cancer, which is rare to begin with and has never been associated with any type of tobacco use. This is nothing more then propaganda by the media and anti-tobacco zealots.

There are way too many people out there who have made the same 'leap' of logic, or assumption about the cause of Gwynn's cancer.

Carl Phillips addresses this very question.

Supposed THR supporter demonstrates he still thinks like an ANTZ | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

And as to the scare-films, a whole lot of propaganda style content there than true facts. Cherry-pickin and selective story-telling

Any and all smokeless tobacco products fall down into the <5% the harm risk of smoking, and real snus & ecigs being 1% or less.

Brad Rodu, Michael Siegel and Carl Phillips writings over the past 3 years for numerous references.

I have no idea where you got the 5% figure. I have heard figures of that nature some years ago, but all recent numbers are showing smokeless tobacco (all forms in the US) to be about 99% less harmful then cigarettes, same as snus, and essentially about the same as vaping. There is no real world difference. There is no continuum of risk between different non-combustable tobacco/nicotine products (and that does include vaping). If there is a difference it is so small as to never show up in population studies. The only continuum of of risk is combustable and non-combustable.

The possible 1% risk that shows up is not because of cancer, but cardiovascular issues, and that is caused by nicotine.

Very true, they are very different...The Differences Between Snus and American Smokeless

The amount of TSNA's and other toxins found in american ST has been falling dramatically in recent years because of better processing (actually decades). Besides that there are actually some types of snus that are fermented and still have very low TSHA levels. Traditionally all snus was fermented. It has only been in recent decades that many snus brands have switched to a pasteurization process. It is very questionable as to if it actually makes a difference. No cancer then, no cancer now.

 

[Stubby]

Ya, I'm not buying this either???? Tony Gwynn just died and I know several ex-chewers that had a piece of their jaw removed. Chewing tobacco must not be the same thing as the swedish Snus or whatever it's called. I'm confused

I saved this for its own separate post (you should be proud).

The risk for oral cancer from ST is so low, (considering they have been unable to find any connection to oral cancer from ST since the 90's when studies developed better controls) the chance that you know two people who got oral cancer for ST is so low it is beyond believability. Inevitably what happens is someone who both smoked (or was a heavy drinker) and used ST gets oral cancer and the blame is falsely placed on ST.

Whenever I get into a discussion about ST, nearly always someone shows up and tells us they knows someone who used ST and got oral cancer. Considering the rarity of oral cancer and ST (there are real doubts it exist at all) I have serous questions about the authenticity of the claim.

 

[SleeZy]

Those films are not factual and mostly "other stuff" madness type propaganda.

The Swedish snus has been proven in studies to be effective and less harmful than others. The smokeless tobacco has been shown in studies to be far, far less harmful than smoking. The least harmful thing to do is absolutely nothing, but that also holds true not only for smoking, but food, drink, driving a car, flying in an airplane, crossing the street....

Read through at least some of the studies I linked to earlier in this thread. Reading is fundamental...

This, yet EU tries to ban snus. I just don't get it...

 

[WharfRat1976]

I have been using ecigs since 4/1/2013. No more analogs for me. I really enjoy my Ecig. However, the thought recently occurred to me...........if smokeless tobacco causes mouth, throat, and other cancers, then wouldn't ecigs, too? I have been doing tons of research but can't find any hard facts. All I know is that people that chew tobacco don't cough or wheeze like cigarette smokers, but they end up getting cancer nonetheless. I no longer cough or wheeze now that I vape, but in the end will I end up getting cancer from this Ecig?

There are no "hard facts" for comparison because you are comparing an apple and an orange. It is a non sequitur premise that does not require an answer.

 

[SleeZy]

I have been using ecigs since 4/1/2013. No more analogs for me. I really enjoy my Ecig. However, the thought recently occurred to me...........if smokeless tobacco causes mouth, throat, and other cancers, then wouldn't ecigs, too? I have been doing tons of research but can't find any hard facts. All I know is that people that chew tobacco don't cough or wheeze like cigarette smokers, but they end up getting cancer nonetheless. I no longer cough or wheeze now that I vape, but in the end will I end up getting cancer from this Ecig?

Also it sounds like you're trying to spread fear & doubts with your post.
If you did your research you wouldn't have posted this.

Also were did you read that snus users gets cancer non the less?
Might be true to US snus i don't know.

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

What a mix of good and bad information in this thread. I'll start here. Tony died of saliva gland cancer, which is rare to begin with and has never been associated with any type of tobacco use. This is nothing more then propaganda by the media and anti-tobacco zealots.

I have no idea where you got the 5% figure. I have heard figures of that nature some years ago, but all recent numbers are showing smokeless tobacco (all forms in the US) to be about 99% less harmful then cigarettes, same as snus, and essentially about the same as vaping. There is no real world difference. There is no continuum of risk between different non-combustible tobacco/nicotine products (and that does include vaping). If there is a difference it is so small as to never show up in population studies. The only continuum of of risk is combustible and non-combustible.

The possible 1% risk that shows up is not because of cancer, but cardiovascular issues, and that is caused by nicotine.



The amount of TSNA's and other toxins found in American ST has been falling dramatically in recent years because of better processing (actually decades). Besides that there are actually some types of snus that are fermented and still have very low TSHA levels. Traditionally all snus was fermented. It has only been in recent decades that many snus brands have switched to a pasteurization process. It is very questionable as to if it actually makes a difference. No cancer then, no cancer now.

The 5% figure likely came from something I read about that continuum you mentioned. And 99% sure it was a Siegel piece criticizing the use of the continuum concept.(Can't find the link at the moment... maybe it wasn't him... )

Anyways, the reason I included the 5% was to be slightly conservative in the harm-risk of American ST, while using the widely accepted <1% figure for Snus & vaping.

Any and all smokeless tobacco products fall down into the <5% the harm risk of smoking, and real snus & ecigs being 1% or less.

Which leaves us pretty much on the same page

 

[Robino1]

Moved from General E-Liquid to General E-Smoking discussion.

 

[MrClone]

I think Swedish type snus is not a tobacco product just like e liquid is not a tobacco product. Swedish snus has nicotine but no tobacco. American chewing tobacco is fermented tobacco.I chew Triump Herbal Chew- mint leaves and such Triump is 1 0f 2 brands of herbal chew among the many out there that have a nicotine and nicotine step down option. The other being Ellicit herbal chew . Its the same formulation of nicotine used in nicotine gum

Swedish snus is made out of tobacco!

 

[exnihilo]

Sweden has one of the lowest occurrences of oral and throat cancer. Look it up!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[JoppaRoadCruiser]

Yeah I remember when I was in my early 20s and decided to give up smoking by dipping Copenhagen. I was terrified that I was going to get mouth cancer due to all the PSA's and anti-tobacco stuff you saw in school. After a few years of dipping, I finally started researching around and found that the "science" supporting the connection to mouth cancer and chewing tobacco was terrible. I remember feeling that dipping was one of the worst things you could do and you were guaranteed to get mouth cancer from it. I was shocked when I started reading some other research refuting these claims.

Fast forward to this year when I gave up dipping for vaping....note I did this for cost not because I was still worried about mouth cancer. I went to my dentist and he complemented me on my gums and cheeks looking much healthier and that led us to the discussion of mouth cancer and chewing tobacco. He basically told me that in his 30 years of practice he has never seen someone with mouth cancer from dipping/chewing. All of the mouth cancer cases he had seen were from smokers and people who consumed lots of alcohol. And of course other people who have never smoked. He told me he is not saying that he thinks dipping is ok but that he has yet to see the presence of mouth cancer directly attributable to dip/chewing tobacco.

Just fyi. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this with people saying they've known multiple dippers with missing jaws from cancer. And of course Tony Gwynn.

 

[Oliver]

Just to add to Joppa's comment,

One of the fathers of modern day Tobacco Harm Reduction advocacy is a dentist/oral pathologist, Brad Rodu, who became an advocate for THR when he realised that in 12 years of practice, he'd never come across a case of Oral Cancer he could attribute to smokeless tobacco.

His latest blog post is very interesting, and I highly recommend a read

 

[Stubby]

The 5% figure likely came from something I read about that continuum you mentioned. And 99% sure it was a Siegel piece criticizing the use of the continuum concept.(Can't find the link at the moment... maybe it wasn't him... )

Anyways, the reason I included the 5% was to be slightly conservative in the harm-risk of American ST, while using the widely accepted <1% figure for Snus & vaping.



Which leaves us pretty much on the same page

You certainly did not get the number from Siegel, who is very much anti-ST. I'm sure it was Carl Phillips who has been saying there is no continuum of risk for non-combustable tobacco.

Yeah I remember when I was in my early 20s and decided to give up smoking by dipping Copenhagen. I was terrified that I was going to get mouth cancer due to all the PSA's and anti-tobacco stuff you saw in school. After a few years of dipping, I finally started researching around and found that the "science" supporting the connection to mouth cancer and chewing tobacco was terrible. I remember feeling that dipping was one of the worst things you could do and you were guaranteed to get mouth cancer from it. I was shocked when I started reading some other research refuting these claims.

Fast forward to this year when I gave up dipping for vaping....note I did this for cost not because I was still worried about mouth cancer. I went to my dentist and he complemented me on my gums and cheeks looking much healthier and that led us to the discussion of mouth cancer and chewing tobacco. He basically told me that in his 30 years of practice he has never seen someone with mouth cancer from dipping/chewing. All of the mouth cancer cases he had seen were from smokers and people who consumed lots of alcohol. And of course other people who have never smoked. He told me he is not saying that he thinks dipping is ok but that he has yet to see the presence of mouth cancer directly attributable to dip/chewing tobacco.

Just fyi. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this with people saying they've known multiple dippers with missing jaws from cancer. And of course Tony Gwynn.

I admit US style dip can be a bit hard on the gums. This is likely because of the added sugar or molasses. Snus is much better in that regard as there is no sugar.

You certainly won't get flamed from me so you can take off your asbestos suit.

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

You certainly did not get the number from Siegel, who is very much anti-ST. I'm sure it was Carl Phillips who has been saying there is no continuum of risk for non-combustable tobacco.

Yup, it was Carl Phillips: Anti-THR liar of the year #3: The World Health Organization (and a Dishonorable Mention for the Continuumistas) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

And now after reading Brad Rodu's latest blog (provided by SmokeyJoe above), I'll not ever be using that 5% figure!

Good catch and Thanks