It seems when I use Schmalzlers I get more of a nicotine rush then when I use dry toasts or any other type of snuff. They just hit me harder is it me or do youz agree. I wonder if the nose juicing makes for faster more deep nicotine absorption.
This happens to me too. Perhaps you’re not aware of how much of it you snuff. It’s easy to take large bumps of schmalzlers off the back of your hand while the drier, finer varieties are usually taken in much smaller pinches.
2 Likes
Running theory and I’m looking for pub med confirmation- nicotine can’t freebase in a dry environment. If it’s wet it has lots of unprotenated vitamin N. Dry the same one out and the freebase shifts back over to not being bioavailable. Scotches, whites etc all seem low in nicotine to me. It’s there but it’s the slower acting protenated N. But you get the skull hit from the weaponized aerosol tobacco, by the time it subsides the nicotine should be there. With a moist coarse ground it’s a pH hit and the freebase starts absorbing like crazy. I only really notice the difference first hit of the day or if it’s been a while. Running theory only, but one I’m testing on myself. One thing I’m starting to suspect is that once moistened and freebased, if product dries you can’t remoisten it to it’s original glory. Reading over old Copenhagen company records supports this too. They refer to it with words like freshness and satisfaction, and used the best technology of the day to ensure a “fresh” moist product reached buyers so they would be “satisfied”. In markets far from the distribution centers they mentioned people could be satisfied with the somewhat older drier product but that someone " accustomed" to fresh product would not be “satisfied.” This led to them trying to make powdered mixes where you add water to moisten and wait a week, but it didn’t work because it takes that time for the pH adjuster to freebase the N and people were using it as soon as it was moist, but not finding “satisfaction.” So in response directly to oiled snuffs, the oil might be acting as a seran wrap to each individual granule of moistened snuff, holding pH steady and protecting from drying out. I made an experiment, I ran up a snuff that when moist was so freebased and strong I nearly vomited after about 10 minutes of dipping it. Dried and rehydrated was only slightly satisfying. N=1 so take it for what it’s worth, but I think that’s why you are finding schmalzers so satisfying.
1 Like
Mmm…that’s quite a theory, but if I had to I would guess no. Especially trying to extrapolate from Copenhagen company records and then assuming that “satisfaction” and “freshness” as they use them in said documents mean what you say they do instead of what they usually mean, and on top of that trying to apply it to nasal snuff…it’s just too far to stretch. Find some more glutinous material or putty or something and it might hold.
Sternecker sells a dry version of Echt Fresko which the end user is supposed to moisten with fat. It is a very good snuff, and I don’t know anypony who snuffed the reconstituted version who thought it was somehow inferior.
Also, many scotches have unprotonated nicotine in them. There’s an entire thread about it somewhere, but I haven’t laid eyes on it in years.
And lastly–your perception that white snuffs and scotches are weak does not accord with the observations of the vast majority of snuffers who have tried them.Â
More putty.
So you’re basing your opinions on hearsay from message boards? Run my tests, I’d like to hear your conclusions.
786Â
? My methodology may be weak, but it is no weaker than yours.Â
I’m basing my opinions on my subjective experience combined with observations of other snuff-takers and third-party charts provided by these snuff-takers.
Yours is based on your own subjective observations combined with the observations of far fewer snuff-takers.
Additionally you seem to suggest that a personal bioassay using your methodology may provide me with data which favors a conclusion different from the one I hold.Â
If I were to do this, and the results I obtain thereby are indeed different from the results I get from snuffing, then all it proves is that subjective data relevant to dipping does in fact not translate to snuffing, since it contradicts the result obtained by insufflating the same product. Thus the test as it stands adds nothing to the discussion.
The thread I mentioned about protonated vs unprotonated nicotine was not hearsay either; there was a breakdown of lab results on snuffs by somepony. I’ll have to do some digging and find it.Â
Oo, here is the document in question uploaded by ermtony; relevant charts are on pp 62-70, with a range chart on p.71:
http://ermtony.pbworks.com/f/mono89-6.pdf
The moisture in chewing tobacco has a mean of 22.8% vs 8.2% for dry snuff; but dry snuff has a higher level of unprotonated nicotine with a mean value of .71%, vs .11% for chewing tobacco.Â
Dipping tobacco has more moisture and higher mean levels of unprotonated nicotine than dry snuff or chewing tobacco; but the nasal snuff with the least unprotonated nicotine (at .05 mg/g) contains more unprotonated nicotine than the weakest dipping tobacco (at .03mg/g).
So moisture in itself is neither a guarantor nor a sine qua non of the presence of unprotonated nicotine; nor is there a direct correlation between moisture content and unprotonated nicotine.
As I indicated earlier in the convo, I’m still maintaining an open mind about this; it’s all one to me which one has more unprotonated nicotine per gram as I enjoy them both. But I have yet to see enough information to change my mind.
I suspect that the effect of snuff on the user’s nose will make a difference here. I can (and frequently do) shovel up large quantities of Jockey Club or Tom Buck without noticeable effect - I think this is because they don’t make my nose run. No moisture, no nicotine transfer. On the other hand, schmalzlers make my nose run in an insane fashion (which is why I never take them in public) and also deliver a more noticeable nicotine hit - plenty of moisture, plenty of nicotine transfer. Just a thought.
That PDF confirms what I’m saying, thanks. Obviously we would use numbers for dry snuff and dipping tobacco/snus and not chewing tobacco which has no detectable nicotine to any but a non tobacco user. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind I’m trying to get the real answer, and I’m not a chemist, nor do I even have a shadow of memory of the subject from chemistry class. However there are some I snuff for the nice scents but know it’s not something I should take to work with me without having something else also that will do the deed. I think it’s obvious that moisture plays the role in transport, but what I’m wondering is if it needs to be unprotenated in a snuff for a dipper to be satisfied. And if so, how much? The process to get the unprotenated form higher makes the snuff harsher. Once dried out the snuff doesn’t seem to deliver it to the same degree anymore, upon rehydrating with water it never comes back to where it was. Does the unprotenated form go somewhere and isn’t reclaimed simply by rewetting? That was why I mentioned cope, company memos always tiptoed around the freebasing part. Don’t feel like I’m asking you for the answers slobandtom, this is a topic that has me very interested that OP brought up and is clearly above both our heads. I’m hoping someone that actually does know the answer one way or the other or has read something citable runs across the topic. All tobacco snuff being equal, moist delivers several orders of magnitude greater than dry. Is oil added to keep the freebase from dissipating for longer? Or is it just a pH sliding scale moving bioavailability back and forth and oil slows down the process? Thanks 
Unfortunately I haven’t seen any analysis of European snuffs for nicotine content; I’ve seen plenty of papers which had analyses of their nitrosamines but none for strength. One would think that Poeschl or Bernard might have data lying around, maybe even online; but I haven’t been to Germany in over twenty years so my German is half-@ssed at best.