Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges.
You have no rights
George Carlin
US Army falsely claims "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco"
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You have no rights
George Carlin
And just where is your evidence of that. I see you have fallen head over heals for the junk science that you have been fed by the anti-tobacco zealots. Do a bit of homework into the real science on smokeless tobacco.
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/
Tobaccoharmreduction.org
I think it was Nitzkin who said that as far as he could tell Snus did not raise the rate of death at all. If anything, it's probably safer than electronic cigarettes.
I don't know if snus is safer then electronic cigarettes, but then no one does as there have been no long term studies done. Of course there are no long term users at the moment as it's only been around for a relatively short time.
Snus has been proven to be a very low risk tobacco product. Certainly compared to cigarettes. I used to think american style smokeless, as in dip, was much worse then snus. I am not at all certain of that anymore. The more research I do the less convinced I am that it is all that different from the reduced harm of snus. If there is a difference it is very small. From the dippers I have been in contact with who have switched to snus the main difference appears to be that snus is a good deal gentler on the gums. Dip seems to tear things up a good deal, likely because of the rougher cut of dip and also the sugar content. Swedish snus uses no sugar and most brands are actually salty. Chew is just not a common form of smokeless tobacco as the rate of use has been falling for a long time, while the use of dip has seen a steady rise in recent years.
We all know the wonders of nicotine. Nicotine rocks.
And the OPs sensationalist post methods show how quick we are to defend something. As you put up your dukes and sneer insults take a look at the statement for what it is. It may be a big step down, but it is still far from safe. And that is all the article was saying. Or should I introduce you to my uncle who lost half his jaw, a lot of his tongue and is currently suffering from throat cancer. I'll go tell him today you called him the product of junk science.
The odds of oral cancer are much higher for smokers than for users of modern, low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco products.
Although risks were never as high as for smoking, at one time US smokeless tobacco products contained much higher levels of carcinogens than modern products. In the early 1990s, US tobacco companies began to incorporate some of the methods used by the Swedes to lower the content of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), thought to be the major cause of tobacco-related cancers of all types.
Users of Swedish snus have no higher risks of any type of cancer than former smokers who stopped all use of tobacco.
For Smokers Only
again....we can list all the safer versions and harm reduction products. Snus is not the type of tobacco you chew and spit and again, completely unrelated to the article. The article merely states the army's stance against chewing tobacco. It does not draw a correlation between smoking and chewing and does not talk about snus and whether or not they define snus as chewing tobacco.
Still looking for that article that correlates to the OP's sensational headline and stuff in quotation marks so I can get my feathers ruffled too.
Still looking for that article that correlates to the OP's sensational headline and stuff in quotation marks so I can get my feathers ruffled too.
It's what is being implied. Consider the warnings required on smoke-free snus and other smoke-free tobacco: "This product is not a safe alternative to smoking" and "This product causes oral cancer."
Those are two very loaded statements. They STRONGLY suggest to smokers who are considering switching to smoke-free that the smoke-free is not any safer than smoking (the whole truth being that just because it isn't 100% safe doesn't mean it's not far less hazardous and has only very low risks - consider that driving sober isn't a 100% safe alternative to drunk driving, either) and that smoke-free has an increased risk of oral cancer over smoking (when smoking has 2-4 times higher oral cancer rates.) Proof that these misleading statements work to convey those false messages is the fact that most Americans believe the messages to be true and not think about what the statement actually says. They believe that smoke-free is just as bad as smoking and that oral tobacco has a higher risk of oral cancers than smoking.
So, this article is hiding those same misleading messages in it's "technically true" statements, as well:
What they state: "Unfortunately, the myths concerning smokeless tobacco are still in existence, giving tobacco users a false hope."
What people hear: "Anything you've heard about smoke-free being less harmful than smoking is a myth and just false hope for quitting smoking."
What they state: "Even though this form of tobacco is not smoked, the harmful effects of smokeless tobacco are potentially serious."
What people hear: "Just because it isn't smoked doesn't mean it isn't just as dangerous."
What they state: "Chewing smokeless tobacco contains 28 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). The most harmful carcinogens are tobacco – specific nitrosamines."
What people hear: "There are 28 carcinogens are proven to be at levels to cause cancer in humans and they are all tobacco-specific nitrosamines at the same or higher levels than smoking, so you may as well keep smoking."
What they state: "However, it is the nicotine in these products that cause the addiction. Nicotine absorption in smokeless tobacco products is 3 to 4 times that of smoking tobacco products and its slow absorption allows for a longer length of stay in the bloodstream."
What people hear: " Nicotine is one of the worst things in tobacco and having 3 to 4 times higher levels means smoke-free is worse than smoking. Since they just talked about carcinogens in the same paragraph, nicotine must be one of those carcinogens, too."
What they state: "Smokeless tobacco increases the risk of oral cancer, which includes lip, tongue, cheeks, gums and the roof of the mouth. Constant exposure to the tobacco juices causes cancer of the esophagus, pharynx, larynx, stomach, bladder and pancreas. Gum recession, disease and tooth decay have also been associated with tobacco use."
What people hear: "You may as well keep smoking."
I could keep going but I think you get the point....
Last edited:
Don't mean to be critical, but what was implied to me in the OP's original quotes was that the Military had stated "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." Not implied it - but stated it. I, like Chartz, could not find such a direct statement in the linked material referenced. Perhaps such a statement is there and I missed it. But if that exact quoted statement is not there then, in my opinion, I think the original post was misleading. Before the adverse comments start, let me say that I agree the implications reasonably drawn from the Military statement are indeed misleading and not supported with reasoned facts. That is, to say that I believe the original OP might have been misleading is not the same as saying I believe the statements of the party the OP was critical of.
By making all of those statements that is, in effect, what they are stating. It doesn't matter if they didn't use the exact words that Bill used - he was just telling us what the military was REALLY saying in all of it's misleading rhetoric. That's been the issue in this entire battle and why the ANTZ get away with misleading the public by being clever in how they word things. We have to call a spade a spade and expose them for what they are doing. We can't let them keep getting away with it.
A lot of people will take those statements together to mean "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." Even if they didn't outright state it the way Bill put it, most people will still be led to believe that smoke-free is as harmful as smoking and the end result is the same as if they had said those exact words.
A lot of people will take those statements together to mean "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." Even if they didn't outright state it the way Bill put it, most people will still be led to believe that smoke-free is as harmful as smoking and the end result is the same as if they had said those exact words.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,279
- 65
After reading comments on this thread, I just linked back to the US Army webpage at
Great American Spit Out / Tobacco Cessation - Public Health Command
and discovered that the US Army changed its webpage after I posted my original note on this thread yesterday.
They changed the first statement below "Get the Facts"
from
The VP at Star Tobacco first notified me about this US Army weblink yesterday morning, and indicated that they were going to take immediate action.
Looks like they convinced the US Army to change at least one false claim on the website. Unfortunately, it was changed a week after their anti smokeless tobacco event was held.
Great American Spit Out / Tobacco Cessation - Public Health Command
and discovered that the US Army changed its webpage after I posted my original note on this thread yesterday.
They changed the first statement below "Get the Facts"
from
to
The VP at Star Tobacco first notified me about this US Army weblink yesterday morning, and indicated that they were going to take immediate action.
Looks like they convinced the US Army to change at least one false claim on the website. Unfortunately, it was changed a week after their anti smokeless tobacco event was held.
Last edited:
Here you go: Dr. Rodu was smart enough to store a capture of the web page before he took the military to task for their misleading statements. http://www.smokersonly.org/spit_documents/Army Med Spit Out 022812.pdf
And here is a link to Dr. Rodu's article: http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/
So you see, the OP was not at all sensationalizing what the article said at the time that he read it. The Army apparently changed the document after the criticism of their veracity began rolling in.
"The article merely states the army's stance against chewing tobacco."
I see no evidence that the Army intended to limit the scope of this campaign to chewing tobacco. The topic sentence, even in the revised version states, "The Great American Spit Out occurs in February of each year as a means to raise awareness of the dangers associated with smokeless tobacco." If the Army had any intention of excluding other types of smokeless tobacco products, the topic sentence would have ended with "...dangers associated with chewing tobacco."
In the text written by the Army itself, the only mention of "chewing" is "Chewing smokeless tobacco." Doesn't that wording strike you as strange? If what they meant was "chewing tobacco", why is the word "smokeless" intervening? Could it be that the Army is trying to paint a picture that "tars" (pun intended) all smokeless tobacco products with the same brush?
True, there are some links to other sites where the phrase "chewing tobacco" appears in the titles. The Mayo Clinic article actually lists "snus" on the page titled Chewing tobacco: Not a safe alternative to cigarettes, without mentioning any differences among the smokeless tobacco products in terms of health risks. This is an example of the propaganda technique, "Card Stacking" (selective omission).
Chewing tobacco: Not a safe alternative to cigarettes - MayoClinic.com
Using the terms "smokeless tobacco" and "chewing tobacco" interchangeably is an example of the propaganda technique "name calling." People associate chewing tobacco with spitting.
BTW: Did you read the article I quoted? Modern chewing tobacco, like moist snuff, carries a relative risk of cancer of only 0.7. That means that users of these products are 30% less likely to develop cancer than the average non-user (relative risk - 1.0). If the Army's aim is reducing health risks, it should be targeting dry snuff that has a relative risk of four times average (4.0) instead of chewing tobacco specifically, or even smokeless tobacco in general.
Hmmm.... everyone you see in WWII is smoking.... and that was freaking blood and hard fought. Same with the American Civil War, Vietnam, Korea. These folks must be living in a fantasy world.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,279
- 65
The VP at Star just notified me that it was Brad Rodu who convinced the US Army to change its webpage yesterday.
That was good work by Brad Rody! At least the US army have shown some flexibility.
I'm personally pleased that Bill was right. The words picked in the original post were harsh and apparently deserving. But, IMO, with such harsh words one needs to be exactly right. Thank you Bill, kristin and Vocalek for all your good works.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
