MORE ABOUT The Differences Between Snus and American Smokeless

[piks101]

Bottom line, as a chemist who tests tobacco products of all kinds, cigarettes are cigarettes, whether they have organically grown tobacco and no added chemicals or not. There are like 8000 components in a natural cigarette, about 10 are known carcinogens and 60+ are thought to be carcinogenic. The added chemicals in a regular cigarette are things like ammonia (for the pH), propylene glycol & glycerine (humectants: to stabilize moisture content), some brands spray a sugar mixture to adjust burn rates. And that's about it. When you burn propylene glycol & most mono/disaccharides (sugars) that does produce potentially carcinogenic compounds. But it's only a couple more than a regular cigarette. So, based on that, there's only 95% of the carcinogens in an American Spirit then in a regular cigarette. However, the density of the tobacco in an American Spirit is higher (no puffed tobacco like a regular cigarette), so there is actually MORE tobacco in each stick and therefore potentially MORE carcinogens per cigarette. Not to mention that American Spirits burn longer than a regular cigarette, so you'll take more puffs off of it to burn it to the filter and they have a much higher nicotine dose than regular cigarettes, so they're also going to be more addictive. They may have less noticeable short term effects for you, but they are by no means safer than a regular cigarette.

Not sure what you are basing your short list of additives to commercial cigarettes on but there are actually 599 documented additives. Studies have indicated that more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/

This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._in_cigarettes

Matt... have you actually ever smoked a cigarette? I have smoked both brands I mentioned and personally have noticed first hand the difference between the two brands as it relates to how I feel after I smoke one brand vs the other.

[mattzq8sonoma]

Not sure what you are basing your short list of additives to commercial cigarettes on but there are actually 599 documented additives. Studies have indicated that more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040350/

This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._in_cigarettes

Matt... have you actually ever smoked a cigarette? I have smoked both brands I mentioned and personally have noticed first hand the difference between the two brands as it relates to how I feel after I smoke one brand vs the other.

I have seen that list and article before. The short list I gave is the big contributers to additives, if you read the article you gave a link to you will see those as the major additives. The others are all flavors or vitamins or plant extracts that are added at very low levels, and they're not ALL in every cigarette. Thats just a list of things that they have used. Most of those are also minor flavor components used in loose leaf, moist snuff and snus and most are major components in things like essential oils. To the average person, all those chemicals look bad and dangerous but the reality is they're very common.

I have smoked about every kind of cigarette there is. Im not saying you dont notice a difference between types, what im saying is the feeling you get after smoking one vs another, no matter which kind makes you feel better, is a false sense of security. Stick with the snus

[piks101]

I have seen that list and article before. The short list I gave is the big contributers to additives, if you read the article you gave a link to you will see those as the major additives. The others are all flavors or vitamins or plant extracts that are added at very low levels, and they're not ALL in every cigarette. Thats just a list of things that they have used. Most of those are also minor flavor components used in loose leaf, moist snuff and snus and most are major components in things like essential oils. To the average person, all those chemicals look bad and dangerous but the reality is they're very common.

I have smoked about every kind of cigarette there is. Im not saying you dont notice a difference between types, what im saying is the feeling you get after smoking one vs another, no matter which kind makes you feel better, is a false sense of security. Stick with the snus

I will stick with snus 98% of the time but I also trust my body when the effects of smoking cigarettes with additives are repeatedly more negative vs non additive cigarettes. I don't think it is reasonable to just off hand dismiss the potential negative effects from the 599 additional known additives with such a general response. Kinda like saying everything in moderation. Matt, what is your LinkedIn public link. You stated that you were a scientist with Swedish Match...if you are going to put out that you work for Swedish Match I think it would be appropriate to post your LinkedIn link or real name, as those that work for Snus manufacturers or vendors provide their name not a generic user name. Let us know please, as you input is interesting but not 100% credible, as it relates to the source, at this point.

[Snusdog]

Regardless of the outcome of the debate here..........to me the issue of additives or not as many additives in cigarettes is kind of like the comfort of knowing that you are standing in front of a 9 man firing squad instead of a 10 man squad.

I just wish the US and EU governments would take a sane look at harm reduction

[mattzq8sonoma]

Regardless of the outcome of the debate here..........to me the issue of additives or not as many additives in cigarettes is kind of like the comfort of knowing that you are standing in front of a 9 man firing squad instead of a 10 man squad.

I just wish the US and EU governments would take a sane look at harm reduction

My thoughts exactly.



I don't use LinkedIn...or Facebook or Twitter for that matter. I use SnusOn primarily as a snus resource, and a place to share knowledge. Here's a pic of my work badge if that adds to my credibility.

I wasnt dismissing the other additives. I mentioned sugars, ammonia, and propylene glycol because those are the major additives, like the ncbi article link that was posted says, that account for ~10% of a cigarette are also the only additive compounds that, when pyrolyzed, create much worse compounds. The flavor compounds are at very low levels, and don't create hazardous compounds when burned. Yes they may mask the smoke smell slightly and they probably do contribute to better nicotine absorption. Im not a pharmacologist or a toxicologist so I don't know about that. What I meant is that the additives arent the majority when talking about the hazards of tobacco smoke...its the pyrolysis of the actual tobacco, additive free or not.

This debate is a huge reason why Swedish Match divested their cigarette companies back in the early 1980's and we gave up all that cash flow for our vision of a world without cigarettes. Unlike most other tobacco companies out there, we care about public health...not just in words but by action...and have shown that by sacrificing huge profits for the greater good.

[Skell18]

I will stick with snus 98% of the time but I also trust my body when the effects of smoking cigarettes with additives are repeatedly more negative vs non additive cigarettes. I don't think it is reasonable to just off hand dismiss the potential negative effects from the 599 additional known additives with such a general response. Kinda like saying everything in moderation. Matt, what is your LinkedIn public link. You stated that you were a scientist with Swedish Match...if you are going to put out that you work for Swedish Match I think it would be appropriate to post your LinkedIn link or real name, as those that work for Snus manufacturers or vendors provide their name not a generic user name. Let us know please, as you input is interesting but not 100% credible, as it relates to the source, at this point.

I bet you still think the world is flat too don't you!

[halocog]

Matt, would you happen to work in the Kentucky offices for SM / formerly Pinkerton?

[piks101]

Regardless of the outcome of the debate here..........to me the issue of additives or not as many additives in cigarettes is kind of like the comfort of knowing that you are standing in front of a 9 man firing squad instead of a 10 man squad.

I just wish the US and EU governments would take a sane look at harm reduction

Could be 5 man....haha but I agree smoking should be limited to very rare occasions and preferably none but either way smoking less added chemicals as opposed t more passes the common sense test imo.

[piks101]

I bet you still think the world is flat too don't you!

I am not saying what I see but rather what I physically feel. I can accurately gauge my personal pain/discomfort I feel. Your analogy/lil dig really didn't apply.

[piks101]

My thoughts exactly.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2837[/ATTACH]

I don't use LinkedIn...or Facebook or Twitter for that matter. I use SnusOn primarily as a snus resource, and a place to share knowledge. Here's a pic of my work badge if that adds to my credibility.

I wasnt dismissing the other additives. I mentioned sugars, ammonia, and propylene glycol because those are the major additives, like the ncbi article link that was posted says, that account for ~10% of a cigarette are also the only additive compounds that, when pyrolyzed, create much worse compounds. The flavor compounds are at very low levels, and don't create hazardous compounds when burned. Yes they may mask the smoke smell slightly and they probably do contribute to better nicotine absorption. Im not a pharmacologist or a toxicologist so I don't know about that. What I meant is that the additives arent the majority when talking about the hazards of tobacco smoke...its the pyrolysis of the actual tobacco, additive free or not.

This debate is a huge reason why Swedish Match divested their cigarette companies back in the early 1980's and we gave up all that cash flow for our vision of a world without cigarettes. Unlike most other tobacco companies out there, we care about public health...not just in words but by action...and have shown that by sacrificing huge profits for the greater good.

Hey I'm on board with snus and respect that SM has a worthwhile mission other than just profits. As for a backup, the site is anonymous but since you posted you worked for SM it makes sense to back it up. Hey, badge looks legit to me.

[Frankie Reloaded]

As we seem to have a SM guy here, I would like to raise the question why SM is the only snus brand (AFAIK) which prohibits independent web shops like Northerner, snus.de or snusline to sell their products to us in the EU. I know the ban, of course, but there are loopholes allowing snus to be sold. Other than SM, I mean. Why not General, Ettan, etc. as well?

[alopezg1]

Matt...I get your point that burning and inhaling the smoke is a health issue. Just like chewing on coca leaves and smoking crack both deliver cocaine but smoking crack is well whack, as in it will wack you out (FU-UP). Similar to snus vs smoking, you can get a nice, even stead supply of nic with snus with very little to no ill effects or get a hyper amount of nic with fleeting satiation and all the detrimental health issues that go with smoking (burning) tobacco. I personally have smoked American Spirits on the rare occasion I smoke and I will tell you that although not safe the short term after effects on my throat, sinuses and chest are significantly reduced then if I smoked a Marlboro per se. I would say the difference is that I am not inhaling the added chemicals. I think it is safe to say that smoking American Spirits or an other all natural tobacco is safer but by no means safe.

This could be true, although i remember my last year or so of smoking i switched to American spirit as i thought it would be somehow 'healthier' I still had ****ed up sinuses though ,and felt like garbage .... maybe there is a difference but i think if you are smoking regularly every day that difference is negligible

[alopezg1]

These cigarettes costs a lot more money to produce, with no added benefit, so I think they'll probably just stick with regular cigarettes. Unless they can make more profit off these by selling them for drastically more...and then you're right But the presentation I attended about this was given by a big wig from Philip Morris, and he was bummed. So I'm assuming they're not pursuing this any further.

Another thing that bugs me is "Natural" cigarettes, like American Spirits. Their market share has been increasing dramatically over the last couple years. Just because they're natural or organic or whatever doesn't mean they're safe. It's what's natural in the tobacco, when burned, that causes the majority of the problems.

quite right.. Arsenic , uranium, cyanide all these things are 'natural' ... all of them will kill you in unpleasant ways .... as will tidal waves and earthquakes , all 100% natural ... It's obviously just a marketing scheme ; people are suckers for anything in a rustic looking packet

[Andy105]

This could be true, although i remember my last year or so of smoking i switched to American spirit as i thought it would be somehow 'healthier' I still had ****ed up sinuses though ,and felt like garbage .... maybe there is a difference but i think if you are smoking regularly every day that difference is negligible

Same here, it didn't seem to matter what brand that I was smoking, and tried Spirits, too. Smoke inhalation didnt do me any favors, no matter what was in it. Once pot is legal, and in all of the stores, I'll just have it in a brownie, thanks.

[DanF]

Same here, it didn't seem to matter what brand that I was smoking, and tried Spirits, too. Smoke inhalation didnt do me any favors, no matter what was in it. Once pot is legal, and in all of the stores, I'll just have it in a brownie, thanks.

Andy

From what I've recently read: taking pot in edible form (brownies, etc.) has a greater potential for overdosing and even causing death in some people. It seems that the effects of consuming pot this way does not kick in until you have consumed far too much.

Start with a very small amount of brownies and wait and see what happens before you eat the whole piece.

Dan