“The EU allows the sale of nasal snuff and chewing tobacco that are more hazardous than Swedish snuff.” I feel, they have some misconception about nasal snuff. Discuss. http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/the-evidence-says-that-snus-should-not-be-banned/74925.aspx

Not much of an article there and I don’t see any evidence on that link either. All I know is that when people tell me I’m going to get nose cancer from snuff I tell them I’d be the first documented case of that happening.

Not much of an article there and I don’t see any evidence on that link either. All I know is that when people tell me I’m going to get nose cancer from snuff I tell them I’d be the first documented case of that happening.

Exactly. I think the same way. There is no such case in the looonnnngggg history of nasal snuff. It is hiliarious to write something like that.

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.

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.

I am totally sure that it would be a VERY hard to find proven evidence of people who got something like that from snuffing.

it is such a rare form of cancer that there are no known causes. It does not happen enough for there to be any trends

I have to log in to read the article. Can someone who is registered there re-post it?

It’s quite simple. The Swedes have spent $$$ funding the scientific study [link] of Swedish snus. This proved, scientifically, that there was no increased incidence of cancer over 3 decades of use. There have been no long-term, scientific studies of EU nasal snuff. Any ‘evidence’ we currently have is anecdotal and doesn’t mean anything to anyone who wants real evidence. Personally, I think it’s fair to say that one is proven safe, and one might be more dangerous. They have evidence, and we have anecdotes. Yes, in the original poster’s links, the ‘might be’ part was skipped, but my point is still valid. It doesn’t bother me, either way. I believe that taking snuff has stopped me from smoking cigarettes, and I feel better. But I’ll be honest, I’d love to see a long term study of snuff use. Come on, manufacturers. Pony up the cash, and let’s get it done. Only then will you have the scientific evidence to argue with these people. It’s expensive, but I think it would be worth it in the long run, unless it proves to be less safe than we all would like to believe. I think it’s a safe bet that snuff is safer than cigarettes. But doctors said cigarettes were safe in the 50’s, too. Let’s get some real evidence. When they actually studied rates of disease in cigarette smokers, it was pretty clear it caused problems. I believe that snuff is (generally) safe, but I’ll argue indignantly that it’s true only after the studies have been done. I think one of the problems is that ‘EU nasal snuff’ isn’t all made by the same process. I suspect that some are very safe, and others less so. General Match snus is all made following the Gothiatek process which was designed specifically to reduce the nitrosamine (read: carcinogen) count in snus. Nasal snuff is all over the map. Some is fermented, some has additives, others are made with smoked tobacco. Some are just air-cured, ground tobacco. It would be sad to see a study done on ‘nasal snuff’ in general, that found a link to cancer. It might be true that only some types of snuff cause cancer. I think snuff usage patterns (variety, different types) makes it much harder to study in a scientific fashion.

youtube.com/watch?v=2r4Book3JQQ

doctors said cigarettes were safe in the 50’s

funny thing is alot of doctors smoke still. they just don’t recomend it.

Every form of tobacco has some risk, whether high or low. It’s just not a very good plant for the human body. I don’t think we could ever say that nasal snuff is completely safe and has no risks whatsoever. It’s just the “risks” (that we see at the moment, anyways) are so low that they aren’t even acknowledged.

My grandma told me one day I’d snuff it straight up to my brain and die or something ridiculous like that. I told her I’ll take my chances. I’m not invincible but death is part of life. I’d rather die doing something I love than something I hate.

I just feel that since I do like the effects as well as the history and idea of tabacco, that snuff is the best all around use. That said, I still smoke a pipe, cigar and occasional sisha. But snuff, nose nectar!!!

one of the thing people forget with snuff is how good the body is at cleaning things out of the nose. Very little of the snuff stays in the body. Most is dumped into the stomach where powerfull acids destroy it. (if that worries you then think about the shit you breath in every single day without thinking about it.) it can’t get stuck in the body like smoke in lungs.

OI didn’t want to register with the website in order to read one article but doesn’t swedish snuff go through some type of process? Maybe this process removes some of the known carcinogens?

The Swedish ‘snuff’ is snus, no connection or similarity with nasal snuff in either form or use. They have a pasteurising process that reputedly reduces the carcinogens. It’s a very safe form of tobacco - in comparison to smoked tobacco, all oral forms are. Nasal snuff would seem to be the least harmful of all by historical precedent and the admittedly small amount of serious, scientific studies.

there have been science studies on nasal snuff users that have used a sizeable sample of people who’ve used snuff longer then anyone on this site (cept for a few but we’ll pretend they’re a little younger then they are). More importantily there has never been any health issues associated with nasal snuff ever.

I don’t know where I heard, but the band on snus has something to do with the amount of litter on streets and the youth . more WHO propaganda http://tobaccowatch.blogspot.com/

what b.s. I quote “we’ll end up with another generation of nicotine addicts not able to reach their full potential” Wait a second who ever has reached their full potential? Nicotine or not. Secondily it seems like there will always be nicotine addicts cause we’re freaking humans and it’s one of the things we do. God some people must love the smell of their rectums since it’s clear their heads spend so much time up there.

God I hate that blog (yeah don’t feel like editing it’s a second though o.k.). They congrate wegmans (a grocery chain) for not selling tobacco products. The funny thing I just have to ad is I worked for that company and in our news letter they admited they stoped selling tobacco because it wasn’t profitable and they lost money on it. I hate when people try to make their selfish behaviors look like sacrifices.

what b.s. I quote “we’ll end up with another generation of nicotine addicts not able to reach their full potential”

Einstein and Darwin were nicotine addicts, what the fuck has that nicotine fearing fool done thats greater than them :-??

This is a study on snuff and nasal cancer. https://mrsnuff.com/store/poschl\\_study.php?osCsid=bf7b2079e85f0ea0c585dee1b82ffb26

what b.s. I quote “we’ll end up with another generation of nicotine addicts not able to reach their full potential”

Einstein and Darwin were nicotine addicts, what the fuck has that nicotine fearing fool done thats greater than them :-??

Yeah no shit and there is evidence that nicotine helps the brain function in a smoother manner. It actualy helps it use the nuerotransmitors more effectivily.

Einstein even said “I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs,” . If that’s the case we should get together with the antis, pack some pipes, and talk it over.

@Nachman Thanks for the link! I can’t believe I’ve missed this in the past.

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.

I don’t care ,if any tobacco product shortens my life. Its those last ten years I am trying to avoid. I think rigamortis has already set in at lease it feels that way at the end of the work day.

I would worry more about throat cancer than nasal cancer personally. Throat cancers are definitely more common and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the drip (even if you can’t taste it) that inevitably goes down your throat raises your chances a little bit. Almost certainly not as much as smoking though. This is just speculation on my part but we should bear in mind the dearth of large studies on the health effects of nasal snuff (I know we can point to several but it’s still under-researched), Also effects on the heart, it’s debatable but I’ve seen studies showing smokeless tobacco users had slightly higher risks of hypertension etc. Definitely safer than smoking there too though. And finally there’s nasal irritation and benign metaplasia (your normal nasal cells being replaced with hardier cells to handle the irritation), chronic congestion etc. which have been found in South African and Indian studies.

Spending a lot of time in central London I would be far more concerned about the health effects of traffic pollution than any potential risks from snuff. It has always made me laugh when people sitting outside pubs in the centre of London complain when someone lights a cigar or cigarette but are quite happy to breath in massive amounts of pollution every time they take a breath.

^ what I always say to people who complain about the “dangers”’ of my pipe smoke is “I can breathe in a few pipe fulls of smoke and be none the worse for it but stick your mouth on a muffler and take a couple of nice deep breathes and we’ll see if you live to tell the tale, now take a look at all the cars driving around the city and try to imagine how much of that crap your breathing in right now” that usually shuts them up.

@horus92 Are you familiar with the “Occam Razor” principle. Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. It will save you much worry and speculation as the spectacular lack of evidence that snuff does any harm to people past or present should be your guiding light. Worrying and stress on the other hand have a strong track record for making people unwell.