For the experts

[Paladinx]

I saw a graph one time about nicotine levels comparing a snus to cigarettes. The cigarette nicotine spiked really high quickly and went down quick. The snus nicotine was more of a gradual intake and lasted longer. However, there was no data about how long the portion was used for. and i think the total time was 60 minutes. anyone have this graph or know what i am referring to?


I know there are other factors including PH, personal use, saliva etc. however. Roughly, on average. If i put in a portion of 8mg nicotine for 20 mins and than spit it out, about how much nicotine is that? Or how many cigarettes worth? im curious about how much nicotine you get with time.

[barnfish]

I found a graph comparing "Blood nicotine concentrations with cigarette smoking and the use of smokeless tobacco in single doses":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bl...tine_graph.jpg

Hope this helps!

[Paladinx]

That is exactly my point. I also found this chart.. comparing snus to a cigarette.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/conten...9/F1.large.jpg

But the problem with these charts is that they are vague. They are not giving you vital pieces of information.

A cigarette is used up within five mins. You get a strong nicotine spike than it comes down quick. The snus looks like it goes on forever. They dont tell you anything about the snus usage, How long are they keeping it in the mouth.. Is this one portion, 2? 1 portion every hour?? How many cigarettes are they comparing it to??

I think they are being vague on purpose if you ask me.

regards

[chainsnuser]

If it were on purpose, or incorrect, then the nicotine gum would show the biggest spike and the longest duration. Maybe there are more informations in the book. I'm sure your local library will find it for you.

I know that my very first snus-portion in 2006 gave me the first real nicotine kick since 1988, despite of chainsmoking regular strength cigarettes. It immediately made me think what a dumbass I had been for so many years to risk my health for this weak sissy-stuff, called cigarettes.

Paladinx, be happy that your lungs aren't already as black as mine. A few years from now you probably also will not feel much from a cigarette.

Snus is the way to go, not that stinking tar stick habit.

Cheers!

[Paladinx]

Thats not that reassuring to me, that you chain smoked cigarettes, but got a reaction to snus. That means there must be an awful lot of nicotine or something in it.

Honestly, im not using snus to get high or for any cheap thrills or buzzes. Im beyond that stage. if i wanted that I would just do drugs. I just want something to help me quit smoking by killing my urges to smoke and withdrawals, Dont really want to OD on nicotine. Im sure if its not ur lungs something else will give after awhile. too much of anything isnt good.

[RedMacGregor]

or you could man-up, quit being a sissy boy and quit cigarettes cold turkey instead of looking for a quick fix and badgering us about something we enjoy (myself in moderation).

[f. bandersnatch]

(a) you are not burning and then inhaling tobacco and other chemical smoke into your lungs. This alone, regardless of considerations for nic., should allow you to determine that snus is safer.

(b) Nicotine is a mild stimulant. As in, its not crack, calm down. You are probably putting your heart through more rigor worrying about it than you would be using it.

(c)If you wish to use snus, but are afraid of nicotine (despite a previous cig habit?), then use in moderation. No one is forcing extra sterks into your face one after another.

(d) If you really do just want to use snus to help you quit, than do that. And then quit snus. No problems. You are not signing a contract to use the stuff for 30 years just by ordering a couple of cans of it, and it can be a really helpful aid in breaking the more social and psychological aspects of cig addiction.

The above is solely the product of my own experience and opinion.

Most importantly though,
(e) That chart you linked to is not in the least bit vague. It specifies right at the top that what is at question is a cigarette (singular) and 2 grams of snus. The implication would be that the snus is used until the nicotine is gone, or until the end of this particular 60 min. sampling, in just the same way that the cig is smoked to the butt. You should be able to figure out the x and y axises, as they are clearly marked.

Hope this was helpful.

[Paladinx]

I am not badgering anyone. I was talking about my point of view, and what my personal approach is to snus. Not sure why the other guy had a hissy fit over it. Weird. I guess thats forums for you. Say anything logical against the cult and they attack.




About the graph. what i meant was. They said 2 grams of snus. The standard amount is 1 gram is it not? If they were going to compare anything why wouldnt they compare a 1 gram snus pouch? Did they throw a loose 2 grams of snus, 2 pouches at once? or was it 2 pouches used consecutively. was it kept in the mouth the whole time? was it used for the standard 30 mins and spit out? I think these are important pieces of information. Most heavy smokers have more than one cigarette in an hour anyway. The graph to me is comparing apples to oranges


ITs silly if you ask me. They are trying to make some kind of point with that graph obviously. They are basically illustrating the DECLINE of nicotine after one cigarette compared to the nicotine uptake of having snus in the mouth. Dont you see that as a kind of retarded comparison?

According to that graph, if i had five cigarettes in that hour the nicotine level would be off the chart.

[Anthony]

I am a spy sent by Altria. I don't even use snus.

I thought so.

[LaZeR]

I am a spy sent by Altria. I don't even use snus.

I thought so.

:lol:

[f. bandersnatch]

^^Word

I tried to lend some kind of explaination/support to your question, and what I got back was "this is kind of a retard comparison, if you ask me"? Guess what? Nobody asked you. You asked the forum.

[lxskllr]

I am not badgering anyone. I was talking about my point of view, and what my personal approach is to snus. Not sure why the other guy had a hissy fit over it. Weird. I guess thats forums for you. Say anything logical against the cult and they attack.




About the graph. what i meant was. They said 2 grams of snus. The standard amount is 1 gram is it not? If they were going to compare anything why wouldnt they compare a 1 gram snus pouch? Did they throw a loose 2 grams of snus, 2 pouches at once? or was it 2 pouches used consecutively. was it kept in the mouth the whole time? was it used for the standard 30 mins and spit out? I think these are important pieces of information. Most heavy smokers have more than one cigarette in an hour anyway. The graph to me is comparing apples to oranges


ITs silly if you ask me. They are trying to make some kind of point with that graph obviously. They are basically illustrating the DECLINE of nicotine after one cigarette compared to the nicotine uptake of having snus in the mouth. Dont you see that as a kind of retarded comparison?

According to that graph, if i had five cigarettes in that hour the nicotine level would be off the chart.

The chart's pretty clear imo. There's 10,000 different ways the data could have been organized, but they picked that way. If you want to figure it for 1g of snus, halve the values. If you want to figure it for 5 cigarettes, you'll have to spend some time with a calculator, but that can be figured also.

I think people are irritated because they don't care that much. Micro analyzing nicotine absorption rates doesn't get anyone anywhere. It comes down to deciding what's right for you. Not enough nicotine? Use more. Too much nicotine? Use less....

Edit:
By chart, I mean the one you linked. The other chart is missing information which I'm sure was provided in the text of the study.

Edit2:

Two studies examining nicotine intake in users of Swedish moist oral snuff are reported. Absorption form a single pinch (2 g) in ten users after overnight abstinence was fairly rapid. The increment in plasma nicotine concentrations averaged 9.9 ng/ml (SD 6.5) after 10 min and peaked at 14.5 ng/ml (SD 4.6) shortly after discarding at 30 min. Among groups of habitual snuff takers (n = 27) and cigarette smokers (n = 35) studied on a day of normal snuffing/smoking, peak blood nicotine levels after use were similar [averaging 36.6 ng/ml (SD 14.4) and 36.7 ng/ml (SD 16.1), respectively], but there was a tendency to higher cotinine levels in the snuffers (399.2 ng/ml versus 306.3 ng/ml). The snuff takers and cigarette smokers reported similar levels of subjective dependence on tobacco. Epidemiological study of Swedish snuff users could clarify whether the cardiovascular risks of tobacco are attributable to nicotine or to other smoke components, as in their case nicotine intake is not accompanied by combustion products.

[Snusdog]

To build on what lxskllr said let me make a comparison that might explain our differences here on this thread so far. I think we are talking past each other (which always leads to frustration). Maybe this will help:

Let’s say that American coffee companies used a method of roasting their beans that left trace amounts of arsenic in their product. Over time this arsenic would build up in the system and cause health problems and even death. Arsenic was the toxin. Caffeine was the addictive principle than encouraged ongoing ingestion and made it much harder to stop.

Now let’s say that the Swedes came up with a way to roast coffee beans that eliminated the arsenic from the mix. The addictive principle caffeine is still there but the toxin is removed (or significantly reduced).

Now here come special interest groups that wish to ban all coffee for its toxic properties. In an effort to do so, they compare the caffeine levels in American coffee, tea, and Swedish coffee. However, the study misses the point. The toxin is not caffeine but arsenic. Caffeine is addictive but it is not the lethal factor in our little story here.

I think that may be the divide here in our understanding of one another on this thread. While nicotine is addictive it is not in and of itself a carcinogen. Thus, for most here on the forum, the primary factor in snus is not the nicotine levels but rather the carcinogenic levels. We love snus because it has provided a fix with a significant reduction in harm caused by the carcinogens in cigarettes and American dip.

Nicotine is not the major health factor and therefore it is not the major focus of comparison for most of us on the forum.

When we discuss nic levels it tends to be in terms of personal tolerance and comfort. Thus someone might compare the nic level to better quiet his craving for cigarettes. Likewise, one might compare the levels in order to not "OD' on nic as he/she is beginning snus. However, beyond that, the nicotine level is only a secondary concern to the greater risk factors in play. Yes, it is what keeps us coming to snus and may eventually be something we wish to remove altogether. However, that is a different issue and another story

Hope this helps

Peace

dog 8)

.

[chainsnuser]

Sorry, lxskllr and Snusdog, but I think that Anthony is on a better track.

Paladinx posts on dipper-forums, saying he's a dipper, but he only badmouths dip.

He posts on e-gig forums only to ridicule the devices.

And now he posts on Snuson, but only about his exaggerated health concerns or the (in his view) weird taste of real snus.

All the time with an undertone (mostly disguised in a somewhat intelligent manner) that cigarettes are better. And all the time with a wording that can discourage new people to try the respective cigarette-alternative.

BTW, according to SMPOST, the dippers-forum, he uses snus since 2006. I read some of his postings there when I was a snus-newbie. I only wondered why they didn't ban him.

I don't know what Paldinx' problem is, but his postings qualify almost as a definition of trolling (whether payed by a cigarette company or just for his own sick fun).

Don't feed the troll!

Cheers!

[lxskllr]

Duly noted chainsnuser :^)