I have been using tobacco sinceI was 12 years old. I am 30 now. In the most recent years I have tried to quit numerous times. Obviously worried about mouth cancer from using Copenhagen as many of you know. I have been studying the net and talking to Doctors for two years and what I have concluded is that it is not so much the tobacco that cause cancer but the processing of it. This explains why Swedish snus is dubbed safer than American tobacoo because it is pasturized rather than fire cured. American fired cured tobacco has a high risk due to the burning, charing and aging of the tobacco during processing. It is also said that nasal snuff is safe because it has a different process as well. Although some nasal snuffs are made using charred aloe stems they can and have caused nasal cancer. Basically what I have found says that its the tobaccos that have been introduced to some type of burning or charring that cause cancer. I cant quit nicotine so i figured i would start this thread and make myself feel better about harm reduction. anyone else have any info to share?

To be quite honest, I don’t believe in cancer.

Nice. LOL. well some of us do. Personaly I think some are more genetically apt to get it thatn others. I remember hearing a doctor say once that cancer is more common now days than in the past and his belief is because people are living longer. living longer = more time time be exposed to carcinogens. I guess you could say long life causes cancer. Either way I just wanted others opinions

Notice that even your medical doctor has an “opinion” or a “belief” on the matter. It’s supposed to be science, and yet faith always enters into it. I just wish that medical doctors had a little more conspicuous humility, given the shaky foundation upon which so many of their so-called medical “facts” rests. My opinion is that living too long is at least as bad as not living long enough. I stand no chance of not living long enough, so using tobacco in any form poses no risk that is of any concern to me. All I can say is that among the many tobacco users on both sides of my family, all of them lived until at least 62 if they’re not still alive, and most lived to over 80. In my opinion, the most dangerous thing you can do to tobacco, which completely swamps all the “way it’s prepared” stuff, is to ignite it and inhale the smoke. Among the people I’ve known in my life, by far and away the most significant cause of “premature” death, (if there is such a thing outside of Statistics) is being in a car at the wrong place at the wrong time, followed distantly by alcohol, with heroin in an even more distant third place. In the latter case, in all but one instance, it was an inexperienced heroin user combining the drug with alcohol. When I compare that with all the people I know who suffer from chronic, debilitating illnesses like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, HIV, and Diabetes, not to mention poverty, physical and psychological abuse, loneliness and mental illness, tobacco use isn’t even on my supplemental list of things to worry about. Just my opinion.

“To be quite honest, I don’t believe in cancer.” Sorry man, but fuck you. My sister has battled through pancreatic cancer, and as I speak now, she is battling inoperable liver cancer. She’s on the waiting list for a liver transplant and without it, she will die. She doesn’t smoke, drinks very rarely, and overall, takes very good care of herself. And for you to say that, makes me believe that there are some INCREDIBLY stupid ignorant people out there. And my hope is that karma catches up and bites you squarely in the ass.

Yeah, right there with you snuff_noob. My mother died of cancer at 53 a little over a year ago. Of course, in this medium it can be hard to tell the spirit in which a statement is truly meant. So I hope kidnapper deserves the benefit of our doubt. A hot button topic for sure. And one hell of a contribution from kidnapper.

I think the reason cancer was less common a couple generations ago is the same reason HIV wasn’t, the government hadn’t invented it yet!

I imagine that kidnapper was attempting to be facetious. Why, I have no idea. With regard to the thread starter’s questions, it is known and widely accepted that the fire-curing method of tobacco produces more carcinogens, namely tobacco specific N-Nitrosamines (TSNAs). It is also widely accepted that the combustion method of consuming tobacco makes matters even worse. Swedish snus manufacturers use carefully selected, air-cured, low TSNA tobacco leaves. They also pasteurize the tobacco with steam, which further reduces the TSNA levels. If properly kept in the recommended refrigerated state, the snus’ TSNA level will remain quite low. Nasal snuff TSNA levels are all over the map, depending on the specific tobacco used and its curing process. I would imagine that an obviously fire-cured tobacco-based snuff like Rooster has a higher TSNA level than, say, Toque SP Extra, but whether that makes any real difference is an unanswered question. No useful scientific studies on nasal snuff users exist. Indeed, there is no medical evidence that the use of nasal snuff is cause for any concern, but then again no one has really looked into it either. However, one thing we can agree upon – and the known medical evidence bears this out – is that the use of any smokeless tobacco product is a hell of a lot safer than one that produces combustible smoke. As for the specific dangers of oral tobacco, I have no idea. I never used those products. Gum recession, teeth stains and spitting have always been things I can happily do without. Still, those infamous photos of rotted teeth and flesh strike me as extreme and manipulative examples. There is no way that is what the typical chewer/dipper’s mouth looks like. I also understand that a lot (most?) of those products contain quite a bit of added sugar, which I am sure must be wreaking more havoc on the user’s teeth than the damn tobacco is.

@LHB: Are you familiar with Dr. Brad Rodu? He is the leading tobacco harm reduction researcher in North America – and has the qualifications to back it up. He also has a blog: [url]http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/[/url]

My metaphysical meanderings above notwithstanding, the key to better health (if you’re concerned about the harm of tobacco use and unwilling or unable to abstain entirely) is to reduce the probality of experiencing adverse consequences from tobacco use. Note that even the government warning labels make the subtle semantic distinction: “This product is not a SAFE alternative to cigarettes.” Which is correct. What is? What smokeless tobacco manufacturers are forbidden to say by law, and what is indisputably true, is that practically all forms of smokeless tobacco are SAFER alternatives to cigarettes. I think it’s also fairly well documented that Swedish Snus and most nasal snuffs are safer still, the the point that any statistically significant difference between the risks of health problems from use relative to complete abstinence are of vanishingly small practical significance. For example, if you can demonstrate that Swedish Snus doubles your risk of a certain type of oral cancer at the 99% level of confidence, but if your risk is elevated to .00002 percent, your study has uncovered a “significant” link according to the formal standards of statistical hypothesis testing, but your findings are of little practical significance since the risk is so small even under the worst case scenario. BTW, of the three people I’ve known who have died from cancer in the last 10 years, one was a young woman of incredible promise who had no vices at all who tragically died in her late 20s from uterine cancer, one was a very well known MD in Dallas who was both a non smoker and anti tobacco zealot who died from a pernicious type of lung cancer, and the other was my great aunt, who died from lung cancer at 80 after an incredibly active life filled with love and service to others. Perhaps the finest, most decent person I’ve ever known, she was a smoker for 65 years. I believe in cancer, but I don’t believe we have any idea why it strikes down some people who are brimming with good health and so deserving of long life, and leaves people like me who have abused their bodies in every conceivable way unscathed.

Why are you so quick to judge on my opinion? For one, I certainly do not talk down on anothers opinion whether I agree with them or not. I guess I should have written it as I don’t believe in cancer through tobacco. My mistake and my apologies, however, be not so quick to judge on a typed statement which gives no intonation or proper emphasis. Also, may I add, that I have plenty of non tobacco cancer related deaths in my family and friends. Including my biological and step-parents. Edit: The latter people stated are all under the age of 40, my mother being diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 33.

If you fear your opinion being called into question, then I suggest that you avoid discussion – or at least refrain from inserting your not-to-be-questioned monologues into a forum for discussion. Ample evidence of smoking-related cancer exists a million times over. If you wish to refute it, then please do provide us with convincing evidence to the contrary.

I believe the causes of cancer are not even close to understood, or at this point in history, even being researched properly. Alcohol and tobacco are both said to cause oral cancers. No other causes are ever mentioned, but people who never touched tobacco or alcohol get oral cancer. Cigarettes are said to cause lung cancer , but less than 10% of smokers get lung cancer. I think there are a lot of other factors behind the current levels of cancer that are not being looked at because they have already assumed that tobacco is the only major cause of lung cancer . Yes, it’s a cause, but not THE cause. Personally I believe I’m exposed to a lot more poisons and dangerous air by taking a two hour walk through the downtown of a major city than smoking a few cigs.

@kidnapper If you’re going to come out and say it like you did, you have to expect people to come back at you. Maybe you should think about how you word something before you type it.

I believe the risk of cancer from smokeless tobacco is pretty much nil, and theoretical at best. The carcinogens from tobacco occur when smoking it. And as others have said, even in theory, mouth, and throat cancers are considering higher from smokers, not to mention lung, and then we have the people who get these cancers and never even used tobacco.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it is said about 85% of American men smoked, especially cigars. The rate of cancer, particularly lung cancer was very low. The obvious question is what changed? In my humble opinion the use of insecticides (read poison) is a large factor. I used to sell a popular brand of insecticide. The brand was owned and developed by a tobacco company. The poisons had been developed for use on tobacco crops. My Grandfather and Grandmother on my father’s side both died of lung cancer, my Grandfather in his 30s and my Grandmother in her 50s. Neither had ever used tobacco in any form. My Grandfather was not exposed to second hand smoke in the home. My Grandmother to some extent was because my father was told to smoke asthma cigarettes at the age of 12. They used to put the asthma medicine in cigarettes and you could buy them at the drug store over the counter to treat asthma. My father on the other hand lived to 82 and died of complications of prostrate surgery after a long life of smoking over a pack a day (70 years of smoke and the doctors killed him) My theory of cancer is that it is not a disease, but a collection of diseases which we don’t understand so we lump them together. Most forms, I think, will eventually be linked to viruses. (disclaimer: These are not based on scientific data, but on life experience, but what else can we order our lives on, but what we have personally experienced. If I based my beliefs on what I have been told, I would be sure there is a Santa Claus and a Tooth Fairy.)

Here’s my Statement of Belief: Cancer exists, and is caused by one of more of the cells in the body starting to reproduce aggressively - some of these form lumps that grow and damage surrounding tissues, others travel around the body to do the same elsewhere. For this to happen, the normal rules that your cells are supposed to follow have to be broken. Those rules are packaged up in our DNA, molecules of which exist in each of our cells. Because DNA is just a big chemical, it can be, and is, damaged by other chemicals or by radiation. Happily, our cells contain mechanisms for repairing DNA (as well as for duplicating it and switching bits on and off (which is how liver cells behave like liver cells despite having the same DNA as kidney cells)), and these mechanisms can usually mend damaged DNA. However, the repair systems are also big molecules which can be damaged. And they’re not perfect, either. So as we get older it becomes more difficult for our DNA to be repaired or duplicated accurately, and errors add up. As our DNA accumulates more and more errors, each cell becomes more and more likely to turn into a cancer cell. If we add carcinogens to the mix (chemicals that are more likely than others to damage DNA), we will accelerate the process. But damage alone isn’t the sole cause of cancer. Some people inherit DNA that’s got a naturally higher chance of turning into cancer, anyhow. And the chances also depend on which parts of the DNA are ‘active’ (which is why different types of cell have different chances of turning cancerous). In short, cancer seems like an unfair lottery because that’s what it is. We can try to rig the chances in our favour. Stopping smoking is a good one, as smoke contains lots of proven carcinogens that are delivered in fairly high doses. Tobacco, being a plant, will contain some carcinogens in any case (most plants do, the maker being exempt from regulation), but the burning process of smoking creates more of them, and, because they are vapourised and inhaled, they’re delivered very effectively. The health effects of smoking aren’t just cancerous. It’s implicated in lots of other ailments, such as emphysema, and the carbon monoxide in smoke is enough to slow down your natural healing processes. Unburnt tobacco, however, isn’t especially harmful (it’s a processed leaf that contains natural insecticides, but so is tea). The nicotine it contains, though apparently addictive, has some benefits - it seems to delay the onset of dementia and ameliorate psychological condiditons. When smoked, these benefits are outweighed by the downside. But wnen taken as snuff, the benefits seem to prevail. Although there’s not much research on this, it’s clear that using snuff is immensely better than smoking and, so far, the risks haven’t been proven to be significantly higher than sunlight or alcohol. Besides, even if there’s doubt about the risks, taking snuff doesn’t affect the health of anyone else. Thus, for my money, it’s the most gloriously inoffensive of vices and I’m happy to stick with it.

I’m of the belief that it’s a culmination of factors that increase the susceptibility to the big Casino. As I get older (now 35) I am believing more and more that diet, stress, and exercise (or lack thereof) are bigger contributing factors to almost all of life’s maladies than tobacco, alcohol or most other guilty pleasures. That being said there is the opinion of predisposition of which I also subscribe to. As humans we can probably influence this predisposition a little but we can’t actually control it. I think many of us believe we can control it, or better yet we believe that others can control it. In my 15 year pack-a-day habit I never really thought about the big C itself but I was fearful of the other conditions that came along with it. Emphysema, Heart disease, etc are what really scared me. My dad died at 58 from heart valve failure. He never smoked but when your dad’s heart gives out you begin to question things. IMO my dad walked on water. He’s dead almost eight years now. I feel good about snus and snuff. I think this is mainly because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. There are clear medical benefits to nicotine, not in everyone, but it’s a provable fact that nicotine can have benefits in some people. For me it’s comfort, stress relief, and just plain enjoying the little moments in life that many of us let slip by unnoticed. Maybe I’m only justifying it in my own mind (a typical addict’s way of thinking) but it brings a little less stress to my life rather than more. I think that goes a long way even though traditional medicine does not yet quantify it.

Wicked, I agree. I think the diseases of today, being more prevelant than before, are not due to smoking, tobacco, or alcohol, generally speaking, but more due to our diet and lifestyle. People generally don’t exercise much, I know I don’t, and our modern diet, is mostly refined and processed bad carbs, which is proven to feed cancer cells. So, if anything, it’s a culmination of lifestyle, predisposition(genetics), and just general abuse of one’s body. But I do believe smokeless tobacco use, in itself, is way down the line in a list of harmeful activities.

Cancer can be caused by simply breathing the air in any given city, which tend to be very polluted. Take Mexico City for example. I read a statistic once which stated simply living there and breathing that air is the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes per day. This is because the city is located in a valley and all the pollution just stagnates there with nowhere to go. Since snuff is not burned, I would say it is one of the best nicotine delivery system in terms of health. In addition you re not breathing in all the other chemicals associated with cigarettes, for example carbon monoxide.

Oh LHB herion is actualy safer then many prescription drugs. There are actualy a greater percent of users how die from prescriped meds (including opiates). Often becuase either people think they are safe or medical errors. Funny thing about saftey it’s often the rarer dangers that frighten us the most. More people under a certain age are killed by cars then anything else at all, yet more people are afraid of guns and how they kill the young. Look at the fear of terrorist statisticly one of the most unlikely ways of dying even if you live in the hotbed areas. People do the most dangerous things everyday casualy. The single leading killer of americans is diet and lack excerise (after a certain age) and food companies do manipulate their product as severly as cigarette companies do and target as much “brand loyalty” as possible, yet buy a kid a happy meal everyday and encourage them to play nintendo all day you’re doing more to cut their life expectancy then if you feed them their veggies and got them excercising but let them try cigarettes. Yet which one of these is completely not tolerated and which is just considered not very good. (both are terrible in my opnion, my oponion doesn’t count as I’ve never had kids). My whole point is that our sense of danger is really not very accurate at all in any way. Plus there is so much we don’t know about health (less then ever though it seems). I don’t worry about my snusing and snuffing ways too much though. Oh here is one that is never talked about, if you want to increase you life expectency significantly don’t read or watch the news daily. The world view it creates by telling you we are all in so much danger all the time creates a low level state of chronic panic and often a high level of panic at certain times.

Well if you look at the big picture of it all, on any tobacco product it will say something along the lines of "this product MAY cause (insert body part) cancer. It only increases your chances of getting “cancer” by introducing additional free radicals into the body via carcinogens As for the discussion above with snuff_n00b and kjoerup, since I respect your opinions of me, I call them over. I stated my opinion and apparently some of the uneducated or inexperienced members of the forum decided to let it rub them the wrong way. Say what you will to that but I couldn’t care less, for I no longer respect the opinions and thoughts of those who think and act the way you have.

“I think the reason cancer was less common a couple generations ago is the same reason HIV wasn’t, the government hadn’t invented it yet! ;)” Lol. Finally something we can all agree on. No H1N1 shot for me, nope, no thankyou. *Visions of Manchurian Candidate scenarios dancing in his head*

@kidnapper: I wasn’t trying to give you a hard time. I just wasn’t sure what you were trying to say. I worked my way through university as a technician in the medical field. One thing I learned is that the problem with “smoking-related death” statistics is that “TOBACCO” will be put down as a contributing cause of death if there is any evidence at all that the deceased was a smoker. It doesn’t matter if that person weighed 350+ pounds, had kidney failure, diabetes, etc. “Oh? The poor bastard also smoked a few Marlboros per day, or had a cigar once a week? SMOKING WAS A FACTOR IN WHAT KILLED HIM.” In other words, the stats are very dodgy indeed. I am NOT saying that smoking doesn’t carry dangers (it most definitely does), but the manner in which the stats are compiled is a joke. This much we do know with a confident degree of certainty: smokeless tobacco DOES NOT cause emphysema, heart disease, lung cancer or esophageal cancer. I had several good reasons for quitting smoking. Yes, lung cancer was a concern, but far down on the list. Emphysema and the like was my number one concern. I could no longer tolerate the congested, wheezy feeling in my lungs. I did not want to feel short of breath when going for a run. And, no, it’s not only tobacco that will cause that. A friend of mine who has smoked marijuana obsessively for 20 years is always wheezing and short of breath – and he has never used tobacco in his life. I’ve told him countless times that he is better off eating hash brownies. Has anyone ever made marijuana snuff? Hmmmm. I would surmise that nasal snuff is safer than dip or chew because 1) a very small amount of tobacco is used, and 2) said tobacco does not stay there for very long. Moreover, the nasal passages naturally cleanse themselves in a way that the mouth does not. I definitely believe that people who eat fast food and processed food products have a far greater risk of cancer than do tobacco users.

Thanks everybody for your inputs. I found it a lot easier to buy a roll of Copenhagen this morning than I had previously. I am down to about 4 pinches a day so maybe I can make the switch to nasal snuff entirely beofore too long.

Wow… I love how intense some threads can get. I would like to briefly share my opinion on the subject since some have hinted at it but it doesn’t seem anyone has actually said it. It is my belief that it is not the “tobacco” that is the cause of the cancerous/ill effects. I think it is the chemicals that they pump into cigarettes and other products that are the culprits. Tobacco has long been used by many cultures, and I’m sure at first it was pure tobacco, perhaps mixed with other herbs, that was smoked. I do not believe these chemicals are added due to necessity and am pretty sure they are not needed for production. Maybe things would be better/safer if they were cut out entirely or at least cut back. Just an extra: My best wishes to those with loved ones lost- I myself have lost my father to cancer (non-smoking-related) and I found nothing at all offensive or rude about kidnapper’s comment. This being a tobacco related forum, I believe kidnapper was perfectly in the right to assume that the actual meaning of what he said would be implied. Just my two cents, though.

@ Mr Nemo My Mother had breast cancer when I was a young boy, she prayed all she wanted to do was see her 4 boys grow up. She fought the cancer back and forth in remission until it finally came back 6 years ago when she passed away. She survived 30 years after the cancer was discovered when I was a boy. It is a terrible thing and many folks who have lived and seen someone with cancer have strong opinions on the subject. Interesting point you brought up about the chemicals added. I had family members, as I’m sure others did, who smoked their whole lives many years ago and, other than being short on breathe, did pretty well. Then when I was doing a bit of research when I was growing a patch of tobacco last year, found so much information on the history of insecticide, sucker chem., chemicals to change the color of the crop, burn and flavor enhancers…pretty amazing shit, and that is just the chemicals that are revealed. Anything burned and taken in is surely bad but the cigs today HAVE to be worse than the early 1900’s. I guess if I ever go back to having a smoke from time to time, I’d only smoke my own, tobacco worms and all.

@MrNemo636: Which chemicals are you talking about? The “it’s not the tobacco, it’s the added chemicals” meme is a popular one, but the assertion is not borne out by reality. Cigarette smoking is largely a 20th century phenomenon; this particular form of tobacco consumption – inhaling smoke deep into the lungs on a regular basis – is nothing like the prevalent forms of tobacco use found in earlier eras. So, no, earlier cultures were *not* consuming tobacco – no matter how “pure” – in this manner. Not at all. If incidents of lung cancer amongst tobacco users were low or nonexistent in the 19th century, there is a simple explanation: hardly anyone then was using tobacco in such a way that may potentially cause such afflictions. As for tobacco crop pesticides, it is quite possible that some nasty toxic crap is being sprayed on them. If so, all of that industrial sewage is also in every tin of snuff as well. I refer you to a post in a credible and balanced tobacco harm reduction blog. Both R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris USA have published their complete list of cigarette ingredients. All of this stuff may not make for the highest quality or best tasting smoke, but there is no smoking gun to be found here. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/rj-reynolds-publishes-cigarette.html [quote][color=#0033FF]R.J. Reynolds Publishes Cigarette Ingredients by Brand; Shows Stupidity of FDA Tobacco Law and Demonstrates that Anti-Smoking Groups are Full of Crap Proving untrue the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ assertion that the FDA tobacco law will allow us, for the first time, to find out the ingredients in cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company has published online the complete list of ingredients for each of its cigarette brands, along with the maximum amount of each ingredient. As R.J. Reynolds points out, most of the additives are either commonly used in foods and beverages, explicitly approved for use in food by the FDA, or generally recognized as safe for use in foods. Here is the complete list of ingredients, other than tobacco, used by R.J. Reynolds in the manufacture of its cigarettes: Acetanisole Acetic Acid Acetoin Acetophenone 2-Acetylpyrazine 3-Acetylpyridine Ammonium Alginate Ammonium Hydroxide Amyl Butyrate Amyl Octanoate Amyris Oil trans-Anethole Anisic Aldehyde Ascorbic Acid Balsams, Peru Beeswax Resinoid Benzaldehyde Benzaldehyde Benzoic Acid Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl Benzoate Benzyl Cinnamate Bornyl Acetate Brown Sugar Butanoic Acid, 3-Methyl-, 4-Methylphenyl Ester Butanol, 3-Methyl-, Benzoate, 1- Butyl Alcohol n-Butyl Isovalerate Butyric Acid Caramel Color Caramel (Plain) Carbon Carbon Dioxide Cardamon Oil Carob Bean Extract Carrot Seed Oil l-Carvone Caryophyllene Caryophyllene Oxide Celery Seed Oil Cellulose Fiber Chicory Extract Chocolate Liquor Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamon Bark Oil Citral Citric Acid Citronella Oil Clary Sage Oil Cocoa (Extract, Powder, Extractive, Tincture, Distillate, Absolute) Coffee Beans, Ground Coriander Oil Corn Syrup Damascenone Davana Oil delta-Decalactone gamma-Decalactone Decanoic Acid Dextrose Diammonium Phosphate Diethyl Malonate 2,6-Dimethoxyphenol Dimethyl Benzyl Carbinol Butyrate Dimethyl Sulfide 3,4-Dimethyl-1,2-Cyclopentadione 4,5-Dimethyl-3-Hydroxy-2,5-Dihydrofuran-2-one 2,5-Dimethylpyrazine Dodecahydro-3A,6,6,9A-Tetramethylnaptho-(2,1-b)-Furan delta-Dodecalactone gamma-Dodecalactone Ethyl Acetate Ethyl Benzoate Ethyl Butyrate Ethyl Caproate Ethyl Cyclotene Ethyl Decanoate Ethyl Heptanoate Ethyl Levulinate Ethyl Maltol Ethyl Methyl Phenyl Glycidate Ethyl Myristate Ethyl Nonanoate Ethyl Octanoate Ethyl Pentanoate Ethyl Phenylacetate 3-Ethyl Pyridine Ethyl Vanillin 4-Ethyl-2-Methoxy-Phenol Ethyl-2-Methylbutyrate 2-Ethyl-3,5(or 6)-Dimethylpyrazine 5-Ethyl-3-Hydroxy-4-Methyl-2(5H)-Furanone 2-Ethyl-3-Methylpyrazine Eucalyptol Fenugreek Absolute/Extract Fenugreek Seed Fig Juice Concentrate Furaneol Geraniol Geranium Bourbon Oil Geranyl Acetone Glycerides, mixed decanoyl and octanoyl Glycerol Graphite Guaiacol Guar Gum Helichrysum Absolute gamma-Heptalactone Heptanoic Acid omega-6-Hexadecenlactone gamma-Hexalactone Hexanal Hexanoic Acid 3-Hexanoic Acid 1-Hexanol 2-Hexen-1-ol cis-3-Hexen-1-yl Acetate cis-3-Hexenol Hexyl Acetate Hexyl Phenylacetate High Fructose Corn Syrup Honey Hydroxyphenyl)-Butan-2-one, 4-(para- Invert Sugar alpha-Ionone beta-Ionone alpha-Irone Isoamyl Acetate Isoamyl Butyrate Isoamyl Isovalerate Isobutyl Phenylacetate 2-Isobutyl-3-Methoxy Pyrazine Isobutyraldehyde Isovaleraldehyde Isovaleric Acid Jasmine Absolute Labdanum Absolute Lactic Acid Lauric Acid Lemon Oil Lemongrass Oil Levulinic Acid Licorice Licorice Extract Powder Lime Oil Linalool Linalool Oxide Linalyl Acetate Linoleic Acid Lovage Root Maltol Mate Extract para-Mentha-8-Thiol-3-one Menthol l-Menthone 2-Methoxy-3-Methyl-Pyrazine 2-Methoxy-4-Methylphenol Methyl Dihydrojasmonate Methyl Linoleate/Methyl Linolenate 2-Methyl Pentanoic Acid Methyl Salicylate trans-2-Methyl-2-Butenoic Acid Methyl-2-Furoate Methyl-2-Pyrrolyl Ketone 2-Methyl-3((5 or 6)Furfurylthio)pyrazine 6-Methyl-3,5-Heptadien-2-one 6-Methyl-5-Hepten-2-one 4-Methylacetophenone 2-Methylbutyric Acid Methylcyclopentenolone 2-Methylpyrazine 5-Methylquinoxaline 3-Methylvaleric Acid Myristic Acid Myrrh Absolute Myrrh Extract Myrrh Oil Nerol Neroli Bigarade Oil Nerolidol 2,6-Nonadien-1-ol gamma-Nonalactone Nonanoic Acid gamma-Octalactone Octanal Octanoic Acid 1-Octen-3-ol 2-Octenal, (E)- Olibanum Oil Orange Oil Orange Oil Terpenes Orange Sweet Terpeneless Oil Orris Root Extract Palmitic Acid Patchouli Oil Pogostemon cablin Benth Patchouly Absolute omega-Pentadecalactone 2,3-Pentanedione Pepper Oil, Black Peppermint Oil, Terpeneless Peru Balsam Oil Phenyl-2-Propenoic Acid Ethyl Ester, 3- Phenyl-2-Propenoic Acid, 3- Phenylacetaldehyde Phenyl Acetic Acid Phenethyl Acetate Phenethyl Alcohol alpha-Pinene Piperonal Potassium Carbonate Potassium Sorbate Propyl Acetate Propylene Glycol Prune Juice Concentrate Rose Oil (Turkish) Rosemary Oil Salicylic Aldehyde Sandalwood Oil, Yellow Sodium Carbonate Sodium Citrate Scotch Spearmint Oil Sucrose alpha-Terpineol alpha-Terpinyl Acetate 5,6,7,8-Tetrahydroquinoxaline 2,3,5,6-Tetramethylpyrazine Thymol para-Tolualdehyde Triethyl Citrate 3,5,5-Trimethyl-1,2-Cyclohexanedione 2,6,6-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexene-1, 4-Dione 4-(2,6,6-Trimethylcyclohex-1-enyl) but-2-en-4-one 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine delta-Undecalactone gamma-Undecalactone 2-Undecanone Urea Valerian Root Oil gamma-Valerolactone Vanilla Oleoresin Vanillin Veratraldehyde Vetiver Oil Violet Leaves Absolute Water Wheat Absolute R.J. Reynolds also provides the specific combination of ingredients present in each brand of its cigarettes. For example, the ingredients in Camel Filters Hard Pack are: tobacco water; glycerol; brown sugar; propylene glycol; high fructose corn syrup; sucrose; cellulose fiber; cocoa; licorice; diammonium phosphate; ammonium hydroxide; and natural and artificial flavors. The Rest of the Story The stupidity of the FDA tobacco law, crafted by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and supported by the major, national anti-smoking groups, is that in response to this list of ingredients, the FDA has the authority to eliminate every single one of them … … except for the tobacco. This may come as a surprise to the anti-smoking groups, but the one ingredient in the cigarettes which makes them the most hazardous consumer product on the market is … … the tobacco. I feel like organizing a “It’s the Tobacco, Stupid” march on Washington, D.C., and show up at the doorstep of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids to inform them of the breaking news that the tobacco is the ingredient which makes cigarettes deadly, and they can remove all the other ingredients if they wish, but cigarettes will still be deadly and kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that Camel Filter Hard Packs will be any less hazardous if the FDA bans the use of glycerol, brown sugar, propylene glycol, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, cellulose fiber, cocoa, licorice, diammonium phosphate, ammonium hydroxide, and natural and artificial flavors. …[/color][/quote]

Some say the 1700’s were dominated by snuff, the early to middle 1800’s a rival between cigar and introduction of cigarettes, and 1900 on dominating cigs. 1847- Philip Morris opens shop 1884- Duke forms a cartel that will eventually be American Tobacco Co. "1830s: First organized anti-tobacco movement in US begins as adjunct to the temperance movement. Tobacco use is considered to dry out the mouth, “creating a morbid or diseased thirst” which only liquor could quench… " ( Hahah, yes, I agree with this!) Interesting tidbit: 1860 Lorillard wraps $100 bills at random in packages of cigarette tobacco called “Century” in order to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the firm. I would think there was cancer cases in the 19th century but you could argue it wasn’t documented well or there wasn’t as much from the use being not as wide spread with cigs. I don’t think anyone disputes the addition of chemicals in their tobacco, even snuff. As the need for more tobacco kept coming, one of the ways to make that happen was change the traditional way tobacco was grown and harvested. I think some high end cigar manufacturers still prime their plants, (physically go through the field and strip the leaves by hand from bottom up as they become ripe and line them on racks for their preferred drying method, whether that’s sun dried or heat curing. But no one can go through acres of fields any more and manually top the plants, manually go round pulling off tobacco worms, then manually pull suckers as they sprout off. So chemicals are sprayed down the plant, running down the stalk to stunt the growth of the suckers, they are sprayed for worms and disease, and harvested by machine for the most part on larger farms. An old farmer was telling me, the plants are sprayed with a chemical when the plant is topped. It is the farmers job to begin counting the days from when he has sprayed. The reason being there are coloring agents in the spray that causes the tobacco to turn a golden color, whether it is ACTUALLY ripe or not. Without counting the days, you will not know whether it’s ready or not. So yes, there are many strange practices in tobacco growing. I would still venture to guess there are less additives in tobacco used in snuff, but it is still there, just not burned. I am by no means an expert and I find the history of tobacco harvesting and production very interesting,( my Grandfathers first job was printing labels for American Tobacco cigarette packs). Very fortunate to have this forum with intelligent folk to discuss the things we find interesting.

A confidential Philip Morris (PM) memo from 1980 written by Roger Comes (a Associate Senior Scientist in PM’s Research and Development department in Richmond, Virginia) responds to news reports about a research article that was published at the time by Edward Martell that revealed that cigarette smoke contained low levels of the radioactive alpha particle-emitting constituent Polonium-210. The memo confirms that PM was aware at that time that smoke from their cigarettes contained radioactive lead and polonium, and that it was derived from the uranium contained in the calcium phosphate fertilizers that farmers regularly used on tobacco-growing soils. Comes states that “210-Pb [radioactive lead] and 210-Po [radioactive polonium] are present in tobacco and smoke…” He also suggested that switching to another fertilizer could probably help the situation: “…using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point…”

Test plants were grown within a chamber enriched with radon-222 in the atmosphere, in tobacco fields with different sources of phosphate-containing fertilizer, and in culture containing lead-210 in the nutrient solution. Harvested leaves were subjected to three curing conditions. The major portion of the lead-210 in the plant was probably absorbed through the roots. Airborne radon 222 and its daughters contributed much less to the plant’s content of lead-210 and of polonium-210.The stage of leaf development and the methods used to cure the leaf affected the final amount of polonium-210 in tobacco leaf.

How many people are exposed to radioactivity in cigarettes? According to the American Lung Association, there are about 48 million adult smokers in the U.S., and 4.8 million adolescent smokers. This means that the U.S., population, directly exposed to radioactivity in cigarette smoke, is approximately 53 million. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 80 percent of adult tobacco users started smoking as teens; 35 percent had become daily smokers by age 18. Thirty nine percent of adult smokers smoke one pack of cigarettes per day, and 20% smoke more than a pack a day. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S., with 440,000 deaths per year attributed to smoking. And, there are 123,000 lung cancer deaths annually attributed to smoking cigarettes. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking, more than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined. In addition to smokers, those exposed to secondhand or side-stream smoke have been shown to risk disease as well. In some studies, it has been found that side-stream or secondhand smoke is two to five times more concentrated in some carcinogens than the mainstream smoke inhaled by a smoker. Each year, approximately 3,000 nonsmoking adults die of lung cancer as a result of breathing the smoke of others’ cigarettes. Environmental tobacco smoke also causes an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokers. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, including 69 known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and radioactive polonium 210. Top of page How does radioactive material get into a cigarette? The tobacco leaves used in making cigarettes contain radioactive material, particularly lead-210 and polonium-210. The radionuclide content of tobacco leaves depends heavily on soil conditions and fertilizer use. Soils that contain elevated radium lead to high radon gas emanations rising into the growing tobacco crop. Radon rapidly decays into a series of solid, highly radioactive metals (radon decay products). These metals cling to dust particles which in turn are collected by the sticky tobacco leaves. The sticky compound that seeps from the trichomes is not water soluble, so the particles do not wash off in the rain. There they stay, through curing process, cutting, and manufacture into cigarettes.Lead-210 and Polonium-210 can be absorbed into tobacco leaves directly from the soil. But more importantly, fine, sticky hairs (called trichomes) on both sides of tobacco leaves grab airborne radioactive particles. For example, phosphate fertilizers, favored by the tobacco industry, contain radium and its decay products (including lead-210 and polonium-210). When phosphate fertilizer is spread on tobacco fields year after year, the concentration of lead-210 and polonium-210 in the soil rises. Top of page What happens when I smoke a cigarette? Research indicates that lead-210 and polonium-210 are present in tobacco smoke as it passes into the lung. The concentration of lead-210 and polonium-210 in tobacco leaf is relatively low, however, this low concentration can accumulate into very high concentrations in the lungs of smokers. As it passes into the lungs, the smoke impacts the branches of the lung passages, called bronchioles, where the branches split. Tar from tobacco smoke builds up there, and traps lead-210 and polonium-210 against the sensitive tissues of the bronchioles. Studies show filters on ordinary commercial cigarette remove only a modest amount of radioactivity from the smoke inhaled into the lungs of smokers. Most of what is deposited is lead-210, but polonium-210 (whose half life is about 138 days) quickly grows in as the lead-210 (half life = 22.3 years) decays and becomes the dominant radionuclide. Over time, the concentration of polonium-210 directly on tissues of the bronchioles grows very high, and intense localized radiation doses can occur at the bronchioles.

This is all cut and paste stuff.

There’s a simple rule at snuffhuse - we debate in a civilised way, we don’t swear at each other which has happened on this thread. Thanks for everyones input - but I think this has gone its distance. Closed

Thanks for closing.