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]
Everyone takes in carcinogens everyday. http://www.eufic.org/article/en/food-technology/food-processing/artid/What-happens-when-we-cook-food-understanding-acrylamide-formation/ As a scientist, I worked with pure acrylamide. My co-worker had to stand behind me with a syringe ready to jab into me if even one drop landed on my double layered gloves and still got into my skin (I would still be screwed, and get cancer and have birth defect riddled children in the future). This is one of the most dangerous carcinogens known to humans, and basically everyone takes in a little each day (not as bad as pure stuff, but still…), and it accumulates in your body for the rest of your life. Funny how someone can smoke incessantly, but never get cancer from smoking, while someone who eats bread everyday can get cancer from acrylamides.
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.