Nasal snuff hazardous ?? Wtf ???

When I need to calm down quick or really think something over that’s the time to pack the pipe. Pipes are very calming and centering, they create an almost narcotic calm objectiviness. Or as a less articulate friend once said I can’t believe pipe smokeing is legal it’s like dope light.

Sherlock Holmes was fictional but the idea of a private detective using snuff and pipe tobacco while contemplating and running the details through his head is totally reasonable.

Gentlemen. In the medical literature, there are apparently only three reports suggesting nasal snuff as a cause of nasal cancer. The first was published by John Hill in 1761; an early observation linking “immoderate” (= excessive) snuff use and cancer. The second was published by Suja Sreedharan in 2007 (Sreedharan S, Hegde MC, Pai R, et al. Snuff-induced malignancy of the nasal vestibule: a case report. Am J Otolaryngol 2007; 28: 353-356.); a 69-year-old woman who developed a nasal vestibular malignancy after 30 years of snuff usage. The third was published by Firat Medical Journal in Turkey (2011, Cilt 16, Sayı 4, Sayfa(lar) 223-225); a 57-year-old woman with a history of snuff abuse for 16 years developed squamous cell carcinoma in the columellar (fleshy external end of the nasal septum) skin. I’ve got links if anyone is interested (well, no link to the 1761 case). So, only three reported cases of nasal snuff causing cancer in the last 2½ centuries, and no known health cases filed against English snuffmakers, who’ve been in business for almost 300 years (Wilsons of Sharrow dates back to at least 1731). Have a nice day. And pass the Tom Buck.

Yes, but you must dismiss the John Hill case, one due to age and two since John Hill later recanted.

Sherlock Holmes was fictional but the idea of a private detective using snuff and pipe tobacco while contemplating and running the details through his head is totally reasonable.

Sounds like you’d like Nero Wolf stories - great reads (eschew the various TV attempts), even without actual mentions of Nero using snuff. He did drink huge amounts of beer, though, if that’s any help.

Yes, but you must dismiss the John Hill case, one due to age and two since John Hill later recanted.

Consider it dismissed! I will henceforth acknowledge that it was “reported” and recanted. Cool story.

so two cases. So probably about as average as non tobacco users nasal cancers rates. I mean it’s safe to assume.

Bob - agreed. In fact, one might argue that the snuff use actually postponed the inevitable, giving these ladies more years than they otherwise would have had. Yeah, I like that. Or alternatively, we could say it’s really just a female thing, affecting women between the ages of 57 and 69 who use snuff daily for between 16 and 30 years. Even better!

I have scoured the internet from the American Cancer Society to the World Health Organization looking for information about dry snuff and cancer. The only negative report I have been able to find about dry snuff is a flyer written by Dr. John Hill in 1761. He later recanted his report and said that he had written it because he was pissed off at his local tobacconist!

The 57 year old abused snuff. Does that mean she tossed it out, snorted it like kids in high school, or punched holes in tins or what? How do you ABUSE snuff?

she called it names and told it about how cigarettes are more popular. What I’am saying is she got what she deserved.

In my experience, those who go to the trouble of referencing their sources when they make statements about snuff and cancer cite “the medical report written by Dr. John Hill” without bothering to investigate it’s validity. Sorta’ like the “more DOCTORS smoke Camel’s than any other cigarette” campaign!

Dave, there were the two reports (2007 and 2011) referenced just a few posts up. Still, that’s only two cases in millions of us snuff “abusers”. I think a little English Rose is now in order.

All that the 2007 and 2011 reports tell you is that two people who used snuff also suffered from nasal cancer. However, correlation does not equal causation. For example, I might well notice that every time I wake up in bed fully dressed I have a very nasty headache. Working simply by correlation I might assume that sleeping in my clothes gives me a headache, and therefore resolve always to take my clothes off before going to bed. However, if I don’t cut my scotch consumption from a bottle a day, I am still going to wake up with the headaches…

Still, that’s only two cases in millions of us snuff “abusers”.

Don’t think that “us” is even 100 thousands.

@sloth357 - agreed. But even if we ASSUME CAUSATION (to be on the safe side), it’s only those two cases. So I’m not worried (except possibly about your seemingly inordinate scotch intake!). @Geok - I used “millions” to represent all worldwide snuff users in the history of the sport, rounded up for purposes of argument. Now, my fellow brown-nosers, who’ll join me in a little Tom Buck?

At least one could say that you’re much more likely to get throat cancer from alcohol right?

I just read a bit about nasal snuff on Wikipedia. I know it’s not the most credible source but it says nasopharyngeal carcinoma the most common form of nose cancer, (which actually occurs just behind the nose) is really rare.

Nasopharyngeal cancer is somthing you get from smoking.

I can see chewing tobacco is worse for someone than snus but no way in hell snuff is… they add “snuff” in the sentence so they have a “and” which adds to the “quantity” of so called “worse” things, to try and compound there claims… what a joke …

I can see chewing tobacco is worse for someone than snus but no way in hell snuff is… they add “snuff” in the sentence so they have a “and” which adds to the “quantity” of so called “worse” things, to try and compound there claims… what a joke …

that´s the point i did want to point out. that is what was totally wrong in the article and it is a shame that they provide such hiliarious (dis)information onto the public.