New survey finds that 5 of 6 smokers in North America inaccurate believe smokeless tobacco as hazardous as cigarettes

[Bill Godshall]

Survey finds 5 of 6 smokers in North America inaccurately believe smokeless tobacco as hazardous as cigarettes; due to 25 year US law requiring misleading package labels and campaign of deception by health agencies, organizations and professionals http://www.harmreductionjournal.com:80/content/pdf/1477-7517-8-21.pdf

 

[Bill Godshall]

ACSH on new survey finding that 5 of 6 smokers inaccurate believe smokeless tobacco is as hazardous as cigarettes
Smokers ill-informed about harm reduction > Facts & Fears > ACSH

 

[Bill Godshall]

Interestingly, this survey also found that a higher percentage of smokers in the UK and Australia (than in the US or Canada) correctly believe that smokeless tobacco is less hazardous than cigarettes (even though snus and many other smokeless tobacco products are banned in the UK and Australia, while being legal to market in the US and Canada).

That's because health agencies, organizations and professionals in the US and Canada have engaged in a decades long campaign to deceive smokers to believe that smokeless tobacco is as hazardous as cigarettes.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Ironically, if any cigarette company had ever mislead smokers or the public to believe that smokeless tobacco was as hazardous as cigarettes, abstinence-only prohibitonists and government health agencies would have viciously attacked the cigarette company for lying.

 

[Vap0rJay]

That's because health agencies, organizations and professionals in the US and Canada have engaged in a decades long campaign to deceive smokers to believe that smokeless tobacco is as hazardous as cigarettes.

Coz dat dere spittin toe baccy is such a dis-qusting habbit ya hear!?!

 

[Demarko]

Met a gentleman last week who chewed, and we were chatting for a bit. He said that he "knew it was as dangerous as smoking but liked it anyway," and I explained that it wasn't. He said, "No it's right on the can." Read aloud he took pause, "This is not a safe alternative to smoking." "Well, of course it's not safe... but you're saying it is SAFER?" "Yeah, if it wasn't safer, they would say it's not a safer alternative." This from a guy who was doing it ANYWAY.

 

[rothenbj]

I get some of the strangest looks and outlandish speeches from people that see my snus. Invariably, the discussion starts when I pull out my stainless can with a catch lid from Icetool. It really looks a lot like the old portable ashtrays they used to sell except when you open the lid it is only about 5/8" deep, a pocket to store used portions until you're near a trash can.

Anyway, many of these people are people I've spent hours with, yet before seeing the can they had no idea I was snusing. Smokers start out with, "that's disgusting" and talk about how it's worse than smoking. No matter what evidence you present them, the propaganda has worked. As they say, perception is reality.

Without the government and health institutes initiating a educational campaign to reverse this perception, it will take a long time to convince anyone to switch for health reasons. The FDA's dog and pony show in 09 had the same effect initially, but there is more willingness to consider other smokeless tobacco. Heck, If I had been asked a bit over a year and a half ago, I would have and did look negatively on smokeless.

 

[Vocalek]

In 2008, BMJ ran two "point - counterpoint" type articles on snus. I responded to the one titled Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? No

Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? No -- Macara 336 (7640): 359 -- bmj.com

Dr. McCara states, "If legalised, snus might be taken up by people, especially the young, who might never have smoked tobacco but who may then progress to doing so."

Let us examine two questions concerning the risk: 1. Is this fear justified? 2. If so, can anything be done to mitigate the risk?

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) Report (sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service) March 5, 2009: Smokeless Tobacco Use, Initiation, and Relationship to Cigarette Smoking: 2002 to 2007, states that 65.5% of smokeless tobacco users started using cigarettes first.

Therefore, many more Americans are reducing their risk by switching to smokeless than are increasing their risks by switching to smoking.

Now let's examine why, according to the NSDUH report, 31.8% did progress to smoking.

Only 15% of the U.S. population realizes that smoking presents vastly greater health risks than using smokeless tobacco. One of the required warning labels on smokeless products is "This product is not a safe substitute for smoking." Obviously, the majority of people have interepreted this message "smokeless tobacco is no safer than smoking."

Given the message that "you might as well smoke," many people did just that.

If Americans had been provided with complete, accurate information, it is probable that very few would have progressed to the more dangerous form of tobacco use.

So providing accurate information to everyone is one way of mitigating the risk. Other ways of mitigating the risks to the young non- tobacco user is to step up programs aimed at tobacco prevention, and to call upon parents to do their part to protect their children.

This same fear-for-the-children is being used as justification to ban another harm-reduction tool that might prove to be even safer than snus, since it contains no tobacco: the electronic cigarette.

Finally, let us examine a different risk, not mentioned in Dr. McCara's article: If harm reduction products are not made available, they will not be taken up by people who are unable to quit smoking. Millions will sicken and die horrible, painful deaths.

Competing interests: None declared

I know a lot more now than I did back then, and would have added references that point to more smokers switching completely to snus than snus users switching to smoking. I also would have addressed the tactic of bringing up a negative that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic:

In India, a 10 year follow-up study has shown that oral cancers invariably arise from pre-existing leucoplakia.11 In the US, oral cavity cancer was found in patients who were exclusive users of smokeless tobacco and who had no exposure to alcohol.12 Studies in India, Pakistan, and the Sudan reported large increases in the risk for oral cancers related to the use of various smokeless tobacco products.

I'd point out that it is a shame that the folks in India, Pakistan, and the Sudan are stuck with tobacco that is a lot more harmful instead of being permitted to switch to snus.

Oh, here is the link to the other article, Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? Yes:
Should doctors advocate snus and other nicotine replacements? Yes -- Britton 336 (7640): 358 -- bmj.com

 

[GregH]

I get some of the strangest looks and outlandish speeches from people that see my snus. Invariably, the discussion starts when I pull out my stainless can with a catch lid from Icetool. It really looks a lot like the old portable ashtrays they used to sell except when you open the lid it is only about 5/8" deep, a pocket to store used portions until you're near a trash can.

Anyway, many of these people are people I've spent hours with, yet before seeing the can they had no idea I was snusing. Smokers start out with, "that's disgusting" and talk about how it's worse than smoking. No matter what evidence you present them, the propaganda has worked. As they say, perception is reality.

Without the government and health institutes initiating a educational campaign to reverse this perception, it will take a long time to convince anyone to switch for health reasons. The FDA's dog and pony show in 09 had the same effect initially, but there is more willingness to consider other smokeless tobacco. Heck, If I had been asked a bit over a year and a half ago, I would have and did look negatively on smokeless.

Yes, the propaganda has definitely worked. The reactions I get from smokers when I mention Snus to them.... most of them simply cannot (or will not) process the fact that it's not chew, and they firmly hold on to the idea that it's worse than smoking. I showed my can of General Snus to a guy a few weeks ago, and you would have thought I'd pulled a cobra out of my pants. (This was while he was smoking.) And I also have to admit that I had the same thoughts until I actually tried Snus about a year ago. It's just amazing to me at how effective that anti-smokeless propaganda machine has been.

 

[sqirl1]

Being only 21, I gotta tell you, ever since I was a little kid I was always taught in school that smokeless is equally bad if not worse. "the only difference is where you get cancer" that's what I was always told. some videos I was forced to watch in health even suggested that somebody developed mouth cancer and had to get his jaw cut off within a year or 2 of starting to use smokeless tobacco. I always thought it was because tobacco was corrosive or something.

 

[LadyLynx]

It's like refer madness all over again :O. Someone should make a cheesy vid about everyone who uses an ecig or SNUS going CRAZY.

 

[Vocalek]

It's like refer madness all over again :O. Someone should make a cheesy vid about everyone who uses an ecig or SNUS going CRAZY.

No, don't. The ANTZ are too stupid uptight to recognize the humor. Even if they did, they still would use it as propaganda against us.

 

[Thulium]

Being only 21, I gotta tell you, ever since I was a little kid I was always taught in school that smokeless is equally bad if not worse. "the only difference is where you get cancer" that's what I was always told. some videos I was forced to watch in health even suggested that somebody developed mouth cancer and had to get his jaw cut off within a year or 2 of starting to use smokeless tobacco. I always thought it was because tobacco was corrosive or something.

Smoking has more than TWICE the risk of causing oral cancer as smokeless tobacco, and Swedish-style snus and dissolvables have reduced levels of TSNA's that are below levels known to cause cancer.

Oral sex now main cause of oral cancer: Who faces biggest risk? - HealthPop - CBS News

 

[LadyLynx]

Sad how far (or rather how little) things have come. We teach our children to submit and sit still. Let's teach them to push boundaries and see what they can become and what they can teach the world. The only growth we have as humanity is left in not in bowing down but in rising up and declaring the truth to be left up to the masses and not small minds in government.

 

[rothenbj]

Smoking has more than TWICE the risk of causing oral cancer as smokeless tobacco, and Swedish-style snus and dissolvables have reduced levels of TSNA's that are below levels known to cause cancer.

Oral sex now main cause of oral cancer: Who faces biggest risk? - HealthPop - CBS News

Say it isn't so Joe, OCC (oral cancer control) should gear up. The only problem I can see is there's no way to tax it.

 

[sqirl1]

Smoking has more than TWICE the risk of causing oral cancer as smokeless tobacco, and Swedish-style snus and dissolvables have reduced levels of TSNA's that are below levels known to cause cancer.

Oral sex now main cause of oral cancer: Who faces biggest risk? - HealthPop - CBS News

I know that now, hell I even get a can of General once in a while, but I'm just giving you an idea of what people -- especially those of this generation -- have been brought up on.

 

[BardicDruid]

And here in Texas anything in a round can is dip, there's nothing else but dip, if it goes in your mouth it's dip, sometimes this bunch of rednecks really get on my nerves. I spent the better part of a semester sitting in class with a pouch of snus under my lip, no one knew, towards the end of the semester one of my classmates seen me before class pop one in. She raised such a stink about it that the professor told me I couldn't do it in class anymore, so I just made sure no one seen me put it in.

Anyway after some difficulties getting swedish snus for a couple of months, I used Camel snus until my supply was back again. I had no dental problems with swedish snus, but after two months of Camel my teeth are literally rotting where I kept it. American snus in not real snus, it's candied smokeless designed to hold you over until you can smoke again, that's why the kids like it so much. If it weren't for snus, vaping wouldn't have worked for me.

What gets me worked up is that people are constantly putting snus in with moist snuff in the smokeless tobacco category, when they have been proven to be completely different. It's my belief that two category's of tobacco need to exist, one for cigarettes and moist snuff, chewing tobacco and one for less harmful like e-cigs and real snus. As long as the controlling factors are able to lump them all together it'll be an uphill fight every step of the way.

 

[sqirl1]

And here in Texas anything in a round can is dip, there's nothing else but dip, if it goes in your mouth it's dip, sometimes this bunch of rednecks really get on my nerves. I spent the better part of a semester sitting in class with a pouch of snus under my lip, no one knew, towards the end of the semester one of my classmates seen me before class pop one in. She raised such a stink about it that the professor told me I couldn't do it in class anymore, so I just made sure no one seen me put it in.

Anyway after some difficulties getting swedish snus for a couple of months, I used Camel snus until my supply was back again. I had no dental problems with swedish snus, but after two months of Camel my teeth are literally rotting where I kept it. American snus in not real snus, it's candied smokeless designed to hold you over until you can smoke again, that's why the kids like it so much. If it weren't for snus, vaping wouldn't have worked for me.

What gets me worked up is that people are constantly putting snus in with moist snuff in the smokeless tobacco category, when they have been proven to be completely different. It's my belief that two category's of tobacco need to exist, one for cigarettes and moist snuff, chewing tobacco and one for less harmful like e-cigs and real snus. As long as the controlling factors are able to lump them all together it'll be an uphill fight every step of the way.

isn't snus just a sub-type of moist snuff? I always thought the smokeless tobacco went like this http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/stflowchart.png/ (and yes I made this myself, so please tell me if I'm wrong)

 

[GregH]

I believe so. The key difference, I think, is that Swedish Snus is pasteurized, which reduces the carcinogens/nitrosamines. This is as opposed to traditional tobacco that is fermented. I hope I said that correctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thulium]

I know that now, hell I even get a can of General once in a while, but I'm just giving you an idea of what people -- especially those of this generation -- have been brought up on.

I figured as much, but just wanted to set the record straight. For that matter, I'll say it again: Smoking has more than TWICE the risk of causing oral cancer as smokeless tobacco, and Swedish-style snus and dissolvables have reduced levels of TSNA's that are below levels known to cause cancer.

Reading the 2010 THR Yearbook was a truly eye-opening experience--anyone who hasn't read it, check here: THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) What was especially interesting to me was the fact that ALL forms of smokeless tobacco were found to be at least 95% safer than smoking, and even that is being quite conservative. The only form of smokeless tobacco that is even 1/20th as dangerous (95% safer) is the old-fashioned dry nasal snuff. According to data from the CDC on traditional smokeless tobacco (important to note this isn't even accounting for Swedish-style snus or other modern products with reduced nitrosamine content--this is regular old "chewing tobacco") is estimated to cause at least 98.4% fewer deaths....but if you think about it, death is not even the biggest problem caused by smoking...it doesn't account for the 8.6 million people who have chronic lung disease but continue smoking, nor does it account for things like burnt clothing, stained teeth, reduced productivity, diminished lung and athletic capacity, and any of the other untold costs of a lifetime spent inhaling smoke hundreds of times a day.

It's not the estimated half-million smokers that die each year that keep drug dealers in business... There's no money to be made from people who are healthy OR from people who are dead. The BIG bucks are made from treating the symptoms of chronic diseases....and you'll notice that doesn't get talked about as much.