While watching the chat box not long ago I saw a comment that keeps haunting me regarding the safety of Swedish snus and that next to ecigs, it's the safest alternative. I've seen this elsewhere and usually let it go, mostly because I spend a sizable amount of time on an ecig forum that is gracious enough to provide a smokeless subforum (lovingly known as "The Dark Side") and only so much proselytizing is allowed. I use an ecig, but rely almost exclusively on Swedish snus to maintain sanity, simulated or otherwise, after 31 years of smoking. Anyway, back to ecigs and Swedish snus.....I think ecigs are safe, but that's only an opinion. Ask me again in 30 years and my opinion might be different. Sticking to the facts, personal vaporizers (PV's) are new and even though we can assume they're safe and the nicotine carrier (propylene glycol) is approved by the FDA for human consumption, we really don't know what the long term effects could be. Only PV users inhale this much pg and no long term studies are available. Anywhere. I don't wanna slight PV's, but facts are still facts. And the facts are that Swedish snus alone can back-up its claim to safety. Indeed, long term studies have been done multiple times. Anti-tobacco nazi organizations do have their own skew, of course, but independent studies (not including ones done by snus makers) verify the low risk associated with its use. This also includes an extensive study by the Royal College of Physicians (the outfit that started the hoopla about the dangers of smoking way back in '62....1962 for you young fellers). Some independent studies do speculate on a possible elevated risk of liver cancer, but speculation is the key word. The only negative documented and proven by any of these studies is the use of nicotine can be addicting. So, for the benefit of those who dwell in both worlds as I do, Swedish snus is as good as it gets, everything else has to take a back seat. In time, when long term studies can be done on ecigs, at best they'll tie with snus. Comments, questions and donations taken at the exit door......
-
-
Never tried an e-cig, but does it work just like a regular vaporizer? -
Comparisons to actual smoking are what's important here and not the inconsequential differences between most smokeless products. Quibbling over whether e-cigs are "safer" than snus, or snuff or anything else, is pretty bootless since they all are 99% safer than smoking--at least. Whether any type of smokeless product is more addictive than any other is equally pointless since no one questions the addictive properties of nicotine. Don't give in to the mindset that nicotine of and by itself is the bad actor because divorced from the toxic delivery system of smoking it is so innocuous in its health consequences as to scarcely be worthy of serious discussion. The true point of contention, if there is to be any, is how effective a product is compared to the others regarding its use as a smoking cessation method.Comment
-
I'm surprised my offhand comment inspired this thread.
I disagree that it is inspired by the anti-tobacco crowd, as they believe nicotine is also a dangerous drug (it's as bad as caffeine). It is true however that removing tobacco itself from the equation removes other potentially dangerous chemicals such as TSNAs. I do believe that snus is the safest tobacco product without going to a completely tobacco-independent delivery system such as the e-cigarette. And the OP is correct that the long-term effect of inhaling propylene glycol is not known.
Snus is the safest tobacco product (yet) you're going to get, and as a non-smoker I am a casual user. I stopped smoking hookah recently because of both the health impacts and that that tobacco is sickeningly sweet (even more "traditional" shisha tobacco like Nakhla is too much).Comment
-
I don't think e cigs have been around long enough for comparison where as you have a record of people using snus that goes back centuries. I have tried to look the e cig data up before and was not able to find any studies that really impressed me. Having said that, it would not surprise me if e cigs do turn out to be safer as there is no tobacco in it. I also think that it may also go back to the quality and safety of the ingredients that are in whatever product you are using. I have heard that people say that they believe that it is the chemicals used in the processing of tobacco and not the tobacco itself that is the real culprit. Modern tobacco farming techniques rely heavily and artificial fertilizers and pesticides. Then to top it off, many cigarettes are then laced with many other chemicals and fire retardants. I would love to see a study out there that compares the cancer rates among people who smoke organically grown tobacco versus people who smoke regular cigarettes. I would also love to see a snus that has been produced organically and would be willing to pay extra for it.Comment
-
Not sure on the extent of pesticide use—nicotine is a natural pesticide that tobacco produces. Herbicides, yes. And the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) is a huge culprit in loss of crop.
Ironically, despite extensive anti-smoking research, TMV is one of the most studied viruses, and I believe the first to be mapped through X-ray diffraction.Comment
-
Erm, I think you missed the point....completely. The comparison was between 2 alternatives to smoking, not "as compared to". I didn't intend on a "squabble" and I don't think anyone else does either.Originally posted by Darwin
(1) "Quibbling over whether e-cigs are "safer" than snus, or snuff or anything else, is pretty bootless since they all are 99% safer than smoking--at least."
Not bootless at all. Most of us feel the weight society and our government has strapped on us in the form of laws, stigma and taxes. If we argue that other alternatives to smokes are 99% safer, shouldn't we be able to back-up our claim? What is the risk compared to nasal snuff? Do you know? Can you make a clear and legitimate argument to counter anti-propaganda? It's important. What do you tell a sick smoker who wants to quit, but can't and he's afraid to use smokeless tobacco after he sees the mandated warning on the can? Or the FDA's bogus ecig study?
(2) "Whether any type of smokeless product is more addictive than any other is equally pointless since no one questions the addictive properties of nicotine."
No dispute there. Just stating the only thing they found negative, which is only a problem if I don't have any on me.
(3) "Don't give in to the mindset that nicotine of and by itself is the bad actor because divorced from the toxic delivery system of smoking it is so innocuous in its health consequences as to scarcely be worthy of serious discussion."
I agree, nicotine has many beneficial medicinal qualities too.
(4) "The true point of contention, if there is to be any, is how effective a product is compared to the others regarding its use as a smoking cessation method."
Not really. Chantix is effective, but snus is safer.Comment
-
I'm fairly skeptical that organically grown tobacco would be statistically safer than any other kind when smoked. Regardless of how "natural" a tobacco leaf is the very act of converting it to smoke is at least 99% of the problem. Sundry dubious ingredients might cause a few extra problems but teasing the effects out of available data sounds like a daunting endeavor. As far as snus is concerned using organically grown stock might have some merit but since since snus already has such a low disease association any advantage would be extraordinarily hard to ascertain, especially with the Scandinavian product. American snus tobacco may be another matter as neither RJR or Altria are to be trusted in this, or pretty much any other, regard.Originally posted by GoVegan View PostComment
-
Just for the record, I do think ecigs are safe. They were first introduced in 2005 and only became widely used since 2008, so it's just not possible have much in the way of studies. That's what originally got me off smokes. The reason I started this thread is to give food for thought, since most of us face opposition. As for the safety of tobacco itself, tobacco plants are chemical sponges soak up whatever's in the soil. Organic cigarette tobacco is probably safer, but by what margin who knows. I think once it's lit and inhaled there's not much difference. TSNA's are generally the same, though. I rely on Swedish snus (Asian tobacco) since it can't be anymore toxic than any other edibles in Sweden.Comment
-
"Chantix is effective" Not really. In any other part of life 22% efficacy would leave most wanting or at the very least their confidence waning.....Comment
-
When I decided to quit smoking 15 months ago, it was purely based on convenience. I travel a lot and spend a lot of time in hotels and rental cars and carpools. I could no longer smoke in any of those venues and would spend my time "waiting until I could smoke" and having nicotine fits. I tried e-cigs first and while they were almost acceptable (my friends would let me use them in the carpool as they knew it was just vapor and smelled good, I could use in hotels, and rental cars) I found I was still suffering from nicotine fits. Then I found snus (via old member TropicalBob) and have never looked back.
I know this isn't a "comparison" thread but to me the biggest difference between e-cigs and snus is, as mentioned earlier, you still have the stigma by people "seeing you smoke" the e-cigs whereas you can snus secretly. I snus at work and all but one person even knows I do it, and he keeps forgetting about it until someone brings up smoking.
Additionally, e-cigs have no tobacco, so you are truly tobacco free if you use them, although nicotine is the addictive substance.Comment
-
Data on snus and snuff use is available, just not from the FDA, but getting it disseminated to major opinion makers is a big problem. Really big. Aside from us being effective personal witnesses for the use of snus and snuff there's not a heck of a lot we can do to get wider acceptance and to counteract the criminal irresponsibility of the FDA. I wish things were different but in the current climate of demonization extolling the advantages of any kind of tobacco at all is a tough sell. As much as I hate to admit it RJR has been one of the leading instigators of the increase in usage of Swedish snus in this country by virtue of the inferiority of their product which has a far wider distribution and promotional footprint than the real deal. Perverse but true.Originally posted by TWISTED VICTOR View PostComment
-
I'd be afraid that if snus does catch on via Camel SNUS that anti-tobacco groups could redirect their attention to combating flavored snuff, as they have done with cigarettes.Originally posted by Darwin View PostComment
-
I couldn't agree more with everything you said, and I don't see the tide changing. Still, whenever confronted by those who swallow the garbage put out by the FDA, AHA or ACS, I have a laptop full of bookmarks and PDF's for studies of pretty much all things tobacco. Good and bad. Same with guns, property taxes and helmet laws. Maybe I'm ate up.........Originally posted by Darwin View PostComment
-
I don't think too many pay attention to snuff, but when anti's notice, I'm sure that'll be the next "outrage" to pick up the cause for.Originally posted by raptor View PostComment
-
By David Swanson, TomDispatch
It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed... -
These are synopses of research studies from schizophrenia.com on the use of snus and the health-related issues The full listing of research links on... -
Prepare yourself, because this is going to be quite an article! Sit down, grab a tin of your favorite snus and a beverage, and I'll tell... -
-
Hi,
I am 24, male (who would have guessed) and I hail from Australia!
I've not been a smoker for three years give or take now...
Comment