Nicotine debate

[SteveS45]

Don't care, doesn't matter and nothing will change my mind. I do not consider nicotine a tobacco product but Snus are in my opinion. I gave up smoking over two years ago and not going backwards at this stage. Anyone who wants to can stick tobacco products wherever they like and not hurt my feelings.

 

[Stubby]

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

There is only one group that has been shown to have increased cancer rates with smokeless tobacco, and that is rural Appellation females who used a form of powdered dry snuff. The snuff they used very likely has very high TSNA's.

No other group of smokeless tobacco users have shown any increase in oral cancers. Of course you have to read the actual science to find that information, rather then depend on the propaganda machine of the tobacco control industry.

 

[Stubby]

Don't care, doesn't matter and nothing will change my mind. I do not consider nicotine a tobacco product but Snus are in my opinion. I gave up smoking over two years ago and not going backwards at this stage. Anyone who wants to can stick tobacco products wherever they like and not hurt my feelings.

I have to wonder why you feel this is a personal attack on you and your personal preference. No one is trying to force you to use anything you don't want to.

 

[Cacique]

Don't care, doesn't matter and nothing will change my mind. I do not consider nicotine a tobacco product but Snus are in my opinion. I gave up smoking over two years ago and not going backwards at this stage. Anyone who wants to can stick tobacco products wherever they like and not hurt my feelings.

I've been reading the thread and I just wanted to point out, no one is telling you what and what not to put in your body. They're not arguing with your opinion, but the science behind the warning labels. Disregarding the fact that snus/snuff is chewing tobacco and ejuice just has nicotince, why would one believe warnings that are coming from the same group that has been proven to lie about multiple things and want to put the same labels on the things we use? We know our products don't carry the same dangers, so why believe the warnings they put out on other products?

I don't claim to know more about tobacco than the people here. I KNOW most people here know more about tobacco than I do. But this conversation seems more about unwarranted labeling than the tobacco itself. I would rather read the science than just follow some labeling, no matter where it came from.

 

[SteveS45]

I have to wonder why you feel this is a personal attack on you and your personal preference. No one is trying to force you to use anything you don't want to.

Because you keep quoting me and the snide remark about being an expert. If you want to tell the world your opinion do not Quote me.

 

[SteveS45]

If people would stop quoting me to voice their opinions it would be greatly appreciated but I keep getting quoted so sorry but to me IMHO that is personal since it is directed at me.

 

[Cacique]

It's directed at you because you keep ignoring the facts and pushing your opinion over other people's opinions and attempts to bring some facts in. If you don't want to be quoted, don't join the conversation. It's something you can do on an online forum that you can't do in real life. If you were to argue about this stuff in real life, you're stuck there or have to walk away with people talking at you. If you're on a forum and join the convo, you can't really dictate who can quote you and talk to you.

 

[SteveS45]

You seem to want to push your opinion on me when all I said was the warning was the reason I stopped using Snus as a smoking cessation device years ago. If you keep quoting me and directing your opinions at me I will respond because I do not walk away and will get right in your face and stand up for what I believe and how I feel.

 

[classwife]

Knock it off and stand down.

 

[SteveS45]

 

[EddieAdams]

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.

So a DENTIST who's entire career has been and is funded by big tobacco is more credible than the countless links I could provide by countless medical associations(you know with actual DOCTORS) proving an increased chance of cancer with use of chew, dip, and snuff aside from the non cancerous oral complications it causes?


Do you want some pictures with that? How about some pictures of non-cancerous complications resulting from chew, dip, and snuff use?


I know all I need to know. You believe whatever you like but, do vaping a favor and don't include us in your propaganda for Smokeless Tobacco.

FDA BOC

 

[Stubby]

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)

I am not saying this to be cynical, but you are asking me (and everyone else) to ignore the studies and the science in favor of some vague opinion from your dentist, with nothing there to back it up.

 

[EddieAdams]

I am not saying this to be cynical, but you are asking me (and everyone else) to ignore the studies and the science in favor of some vague opinion from your dentist, with nothing there to back it up.

But your Dentist is credible

FDA BOC

 

[Stubby]

So a DENTIST who's entire career has been and is funded by big tobacco is more credible than the countless links I could provide by countless medical associations(you know with actual DOCTORS) proving an increased chance of cancer with use of chew, dip, and snuff aside from the non cancerous oral complications it causes?


Do you want some pictures with that? How about some pictures of non-cancerous complications resulting from chew, dip, and snuff use?


I know all I need to know. You believe whatever you like but, do vaping a favor and don't include us in your propaganda for Smokeless Tobacco.

FDA BOC

So, it appears you are not going to take up the challenge, which is not at all surprising. No one else has so why should you be the first.

For all of your attacks on Rodu, as of yet you have not pointed out one mistake in his science.

 

[Mr Fidget]

My only input would be, after 35 years of Skoal, this dumb old country boy is finally free of tobacco. God bless whoever invented vaping.

Sent from my Z958 using Tapatalk

 

[Nermal]

So a DENTIST who's entire career has been and is funded by big tobacco is more credible than the countless links I could provide by countless medical associations(you know with actual DOCTORS) proving an increased chance of cancer with use of chew, dip, and snuff aside from the non cancerous oral complications it causes?

I know who my dentist is funded by, and his name is Nermal. Well, his name is actually Roger, but you know what I mean.

 

[Racehorse]

Long term negative effects of dry-mouth could be a risk.

FDA BOC

Actually, once your mouth is dry, you are already dehydrating........

I am not saying this to be cynical, but you are asking me (and everyone else) to ignore the studies and the science in favor of some vague opinion from your dentist, with nothing there to back it up.

My docs and I have read all the snus research. It appears that while Swedish snus may not increase the risk of dysplastic changes for oral or gastric cancer, there is still some question about head and neck cancers, as well as pancreatic cancer (which is a very rare form of cancer actually.) (yes, I also know that Rodu claims those studies used cherry picked data.)

So true, SNUS connection specifically to *oral cancers* is very low.


The point is that some people allow their dependence to affect their logic, and the I suspect the truth is that most all forms of harm redcution are safer than smoking, but not totally w/out risk.

SNUS of course is not the same as dip made in USA, it is processed completely differently, etc.

Actually, alcohol is one of the highest risk factors for oral cancer.

Seems that TSNAs and nitrosamines would have some risk, just as nicotine has some risk for people who have had heart attacks or strokes due to vaso constrictor properties........

 

[Stubby]

+


My docs and I have read all the snus research. It appears that while Swedish snus may not increase the risk of dysplastic changes for oral or gastric cancer, there is still some question about head and neck cancers, as well as pancreatic cancer (which is a very rare form of cancer actually.) (yes, I also know that Rodu claims those studies used cherry picked data.)

So true, SNUS connection specifically to *oral cancers* is very low.


The point is that some people allow their dependence to affect their logic, and the I suspect the truth is that most all forms of harm redcution are safer than smoking, but not totally w/out risk.

SNUS of course is not the same as dip made in USA, it is processed completely differently, etc.

Actually, alcohol is one of the highest risk factors for oral cancer.

Seems that TSNAs and nitrosamines would have some risk, just as nicotine has some risk for people who have had heart attacks or strokes due to vaso constrictor properties........

You are correct in this

most all forms of harm reduction are safer than smoking, but not totally w/out risk.

Something to keep in mind is that although not without risk, most people, even people who vape, overestimate the risk of all alternatives by a good amount. Both Bill Godshall and Carl Phillips estimate the risk of ST to be about
99%, plus or minus 1%, less risky then cigarettes. Brad Rodu, who does what all the better researchers do, in that he is pretty conservative with his numbers, estimates the risk to be no less then 98% less risky.
Having said that, it is highly unlikely vaping will end up being risk free. People who believe vaping is risk free are as much deluded as those that think ST has a significant risk compared to smoking, or vaping.

SNUS of course is not the same as dip made in USA, it is processed completely differently, etc.

It is processed differently, but the risk are essentially the same. It is one of the common myths (even among snus users in the US) that dip is significantly more risky. The numbers are not showing it. If there is a difference, it is pretty much impossible to find in population studies. Any differences are simply lost in background noise.

Actually, alcohol is one of the highest risk factors for oral cancer.

The leading cause of oral cancers of all types is smoking, which accounts for about 75%. Excessive alcohol is a factor, especially the combination of smoking and alcohol. HPV is also now being recognized as a major risk factor. Nearly all oral cancers for younger people are suspected to be caused by HPV.

ST doesn't make it on the list of major risk factors, or even minor risk factors. I am not saying it never happens, but if it does it is rare.

 

[skoony]

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 agree to the extent where actual harm is caused there should be a concern.
So how does one quantify harm and the level of concern that should accompany
the said harm? For the sake of argument I will concede that if nicotine alone
causes dependency and addiction what quantifiable harm does it do? What level
of concern should be placed on it? Would a nicotine addict wind up living under
the bridge over the tracks with those other addicts? So what about tobacco in general?
Statistically tobacco users most notably cigarette smokers are more likely to
suffer from so called smoking or tobacco related illnesses. They are statistically
more likely to be poor and be less educated than average. Statistically they
are more likely to live in less than ideal middle class neighborhood type conditions.

So wait a minute. Your thinking I am reasonably educated and not living in a bad
neighborhood what gives. Statistics are not percentages. A very small percentage
of any given group(all smokers) can statistically raise the risk of the whole group.
We read every day of the problems caused in poor rural communities and the
inner cities concerning crime and illegal things. Poverty is an acknowledged
factor. Statistically that raises the risk of all of us becoming criminals if we
were all included in one big single homogeneous group. Fortunately in the case
of crime and drug use in general that it not done for the most part in terms
of identifying where the problem lies. It is interesting to note that in Terms of
predicting illness in the tobacco using population we are all just one big happy
group of tobacco product users.
Regards
Mike

 

[mattiem]

Can we all agree to this statement. When talking about all ST's and vaping we are talking risk reduction not total risk elimination.

The point is, every thing we do carries some risk to some folks. I believe all the ST products are safer than lighting up and inhaling smoke. Note: I didn't say safe. I don't claim harm free. Seems like I remember reading years ago about chewing on cinnamon toothpicks in place of smoking and even that method carried some risk.

We live in a world full of things that can be detrimental to our health. We have to choose the path we hope contains the least risk if living a safe life is important to us.

I had to quantify that statement because there are some folks that love to live on the edge of danger but we are talking about ST's, vaping and nicotine consumption here not riding a motorcycle down a rocky mountain at breakneck speeds or any of the thousands of other thrill seeking adventures some humans venture into.