Okay, so another one bits the dust when it comes to science.
Nicotine debate
- Thread starter Newtothevapelyf3
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If you would like send a self addressed stamped envelope and I will send you some free Snus (While supply lasts) if you would like to stick these in your mouth. I choose not to and will not change my opinion of them.
I am getting very confused @SteveS45 I do hope you realize that if the FDA gets their way with the deeming regulations you may very well see those kinds of warnings on bottles of e-liquid and the devices necessary to vape it.
It doesn't mean that it is true but once deemed a tobacco product the FDA will have free reign to do what ever they want to do. They have already gathered enough junk science against vaping to convince a lot of the general public that vaping is just as bad as smoking.
Even though it seems like you know better are you saying that you will quit vaping if they start putting those unwarranted warning labels on vape products? I do see that happening if the deeming regs go into full effect after 2018.
I am not trying to sway your opinion. I just don't understand why you are fighting so hard for signatures on a petition to stop the FDA because you know they are wrong on one hand but on the other you believe their trumped up warnings on ST products. I guess I just don't understand how you can trust anything they say when in fact they lie so well when it suits their purpose.
They are sealed in boxes plus sealed in individual plastic containers. I am not sure it they get stale like cigarettes do and I offered them since stubby wants to promote how safe they are. I stopped using them way back when I originally got them during Marlboro promotions and stopped using them due to the warning on them. If you don't want them beck then there is no reason to get nasty.
This is not a trumped up warning on Snus and are you saying the warning on Cigarettes is trumped up?
All I did was state how at one time I tried them and then gave them up due to that warning which I do not like seeing. From what I have read they are hazardous to your health and that is enough for me. I do not understand why some feel the need to further the interests of BT.
Sadly, it is a trumped up warning. If you are really interested Google Swedish Snus and see how un-detrimental it is to the health of the folks that have used it for years. Those trumped up charges will be on vapor products once they get total control of the industry by deeming them a tobacco product.
I do believe smoking can be detrimental to some folks health but so can thousands of other products on the market today. A lot of what is out there is trumped up. Now they are trying to convince us that smoking is causing diabetes along with just about any disease one can get. When a smoker dies it is mostly blamed on smoking even if that person lives to be 100 years old
They lie so much it makes it very difficult to believe them if they do tell the truth.
I was not talking about Swedish Snus I was referring to the ones available in this country the USA.
I actually see them as the same product and the same lies and half truths have been attached to all of them. It seems their lies are working very well
Fortunately we are all adults and are able to make our own choices as of right now. I can see a day coming when I won't be able to make that claim though. Personally I am glad I am on the downhill side of life so may not be around when my life and choices are totally controlled by a government agency.
It has been well known since the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report on Smoking
That other forms of tobacco use other than cigarettes have significantly lower
risks than inhaling cigarette smoke. We seem to forget that the 1964 report
(accurate or truthful or not) was a condemnation of cigarettes not all forms
of tobacco. Nicotine was thought by itself not to be a issue of significant harm.
Statistically one can show in certain demographic groups a higher rate of
oral cancers in those that use smokeless tobacco. It is interesting to note
that these same demographic groups a more statistically likely to have
poor oral hygiene.(think rural southern states) One can talk about nicotine
absorption all one wants. The fact of the mater is for those with limited
or no access to adequate dental care (that was the way it was for the most
part of the last century and still is in some parts) using chewing tobacco
(which was the primary form of use until recent times,might still be)
was a form of self medication because of the antiseptic qualities in
treating the pain of bad teeth and gums. Conveniently tobacco was something
readily available or grown by themselves. I think confusion arises when
people confuse snus and snuff.
Snus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
Mike
That other forms of tobacco use other than cigarettes have significantly lower
risks than inhaling cigarette smoke. We seem to forget that the 1964 report
(accurate or truthful or not) was a condemnation of cigarettes not all forms
of tobacco. Nicotine was thought by itself not to be a issue of significant harm.
Statistically one can show in certain demographic groups a higher rate of
oral cancers in those that use smokeless tobacco. It is interesting to note
that these same demographic groups a more statistically likely to have
poor oral hygiene.(think rural southern states) One can talk about nicotine
absorption all one wants. The fact of the mater is for those with limited
or no access to adequate dental care (that was the way it was for the most
part of the last century and still is in some parts) using chewing tobacco
(which was the primary form of use until recent times,might still be)
was a form of self medication because of the antiseptic qualities in
treating the pain of bad teeth and gums. Conveniently tobacco was something
readily available or grown by themselves. I think confusion arises when
people confuse snus and snuff.
Snus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Regards
Mike
I prefer to go by the records of my oral surgeon and periodontist. Both have been in practice for 30+ years.
Not studies but actual patients. The incidence of mouth cancers in people who use dip is definitely higher than in the general population, unless they are seeing something in their practice that nobody else is seeing. (Which i doubt)
Not studies but actual patients. The incidence of mouth cancers in people who use dip is definitely higher than in the general population, unless they are seeing something in their practice that nobody else is seeing. (Which i doubt)
Well in the sense that there was no way in that study to "scientifically callibrate" a number like 95%............
Wait, "Dr" Brad Rodu is a dentist? Who worked for big tobacco before having his blog funded by big tobacco?
Look, even if you somehow want to believe that chew and dip don't greatly increase your chances of cancer, the amount of damage dip and chew do to your mouth is irrefutable. Gum loss, tooth loss, tooth decay, precancerous leukoplakia, ulcers, teeth staining. If vaping did that to our mouths, ignoring completely any cancer risks, would we really be considering vaping a safer alternative?
Really you and dentist brad are doing a disservice to the vaping community by lumping vaping in with dip,chew, and snuff as safer alternatives to smoking. Safer doesn't mean safe. "Powder is safer than rock form." See how that works.
If anything you're attempting to shoe-horn dip, chew, and snuff in the "safer" alternatives using the merits of vaping as the standard when chew and dip and snuff aren't even related to vaping and clearly have unhealthy risk factors unrelated to being cancerous or not that vaping does not. Literally the only relation would be nicotine if the vape even contains nicotine.
Also as I stated in an earlier post. Nicotine is much much more addictive when delivered with other compounds like that in cigarettes, chew, dip, and snuff. Refined and by itself, nicotine isn't nearly as addictive.
I don't know enough about snus or dissolvables to know their effects on health. They seem more refined than dip, chew, or snuff. If you and the dentist argued solely on Snus and dissolvables and them as a safer alternative you could possibly have some valid points. That and maybe not being funded and paid your entire career by big tobacco.
"Durrrr, I quit smoking, don't have cancer but, I have this huge hole in my cheek and gums right where I place my dip all the time". Much safer!Seriously...It's like arguing with a "flat-earther".....
FDA BOC
Look, even if you somehow want to believe that chew and dip don't greatly increase your chances of cancer, the amount of damage dip and chew do to your mouth is irrefutable. Gum loss, tooth loss, tooth decay, precancerous leukoplakia, ulcers, teeth staining. If vaping did that to our mouths, ignoring completely any cancer risks, would we really be considering vaping a safer alternative?
Really you and dentist brad are doing a disservice to the vaping community by lumping vaping in with dip,chew, and snuff as safer alternatives to smoking. Safer doesn't mean safe. "Powder is safer than rock form." See how that works.
If anything you're attempting to shoe-horn dip, chew, and snuff in the "safer" alternatives using the merits of vaping as the standard when chew and dip and snuff aren't even related to vaping and clearly have unhealthy risk factors unrelated to being cancerous or not that vaping does not. Literally the only relation would be nicotine if the vape even contains nicotine.
Also as I stated in an earlier post. Nicotine is much much more addictive when delivered with other compounds like that in cigarettes, chew, dip, and snuff. Refined and by itself, nicotine isn't nearly as addictive.
I don't know enough about snus or dissolvables to know their effects on health. They seem more refined than dip, chew, or snuff. If you and the dentist argued solely on Snus and dissolvables and them as a safer alternative you could possibly have some valid points. That and maybe not being funded and paid your entire career by big tobacco.
"Durrrr, I quit smoking, don't have cancer but, I have this huge hole in my cheek and gums right where I place my dip all the time". Much safer!Seriously...It's like arguing with a "flat-earther".....
FDA BOC
It really depends on what you think of as "harm".
For a lot of people, harm could be becoming addicted, or developing a dependence on a substance.
I happen to believe that nicotine is indeed, habit forming. I know some people here think it isn't. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
At any rate I know a lot of athletes, etc. who do not drink coffee or do any kind of nicotine, as they see it as 'harm'.
bTW, do we have any long-term studies on the effect of vaping to gums and cell structure/tissues in the mouth, tongue, cheeks, etc.?
I'm not talking anecdotals, I'm talking studies that have been done to compare the cell and mouth tissues of vapers to non-vapers and people who do not smoke or dip.
There are enough studies of smokers to know that it is, indeed, detrimental to health. It goes a little beyond "can be".
I challenged you to find mistakes in Rodu's science. I am not seeing anything but continued baseless attacks. If he is so wrong as you are claiming it should be an easy chore for you to take apart his science. Have at it.
The same warnings are on Swedish snus sold in the US. This despite the fact that there are somewhere around 150 studies out of Sweden that show no connection to oral cancer, tooth loss, etc. Go figure.....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
