Like most of you, I try to find all types of snuff(snorten kine). I live in SW USA, Comifornia! Santee that is, the place you want to be, anyways. The conversation I had with one of the tobacco store owner’s about SNUFF, goes as follows. (The best I can transcribe) I had bought some Toque snuff from him, Toque Lime, and Toque Citrus, and had asked him if he could get me some Toque Quit and Rustica. The next time I asked, I got the usual (damn whitey I forgot) and he said he would check. Well this time he told me, “pick what I got in this distributors magazine” he kept pointing out dip(cowboy stuff for your lip) then he came to a page with US Tabaco Snuff, (he did not carry Garret Scotch, which I have ) and I said “Yea, here, I want the Peach and the Dental and the,” when he interrupted me so I wouldn’t waste air and said pointing at the shelf’s, " “They own Marlboro and all of these dips(his entire shelf and brands), I can not get those because their program say’s that they would lose all of those sales to the Snuff in our area” then he said, “my distributor said you have never had Quit and that I’m a liar, because it has never been distributed here”. I then told him that he had sked me what I wanted and those where the ones I wanted to try! He then became very friendly and we discussed it further. Snuffs in California do not have Tax stamps and they are trying to force the manufactures to comiform, and what we have here now is what we can get unless we order on line. They are also hitting up the Vaporizer’s and they all will have to have a Tabaco tax stamp too. This whole long winded post was to start a discussion about how Snuffing is lumped in with the full anti Tabaco campaign and the companies not wanting to open some of their products to other markets from fear of losing sales to more expensive products. I now step down from my soap box and have my fire suit on, all I hope for is Roderick to accept paypal knowing my source’s are going to dry up. Because I have no need to get another make it easier for me to shop on line. CL
^which is nonsense, tobacco isn’t evil what the Big Tobacco companies do to their cigarettes is evil. What they do to their cigarettes is the equivalent of putting antifreeze in grape juice so it tastes like wine, when antifreeze wine started making people go blind did everyone start blaming grapes? Big Tobacco companies have invested a hell of a lot of time and money convincing the world that tobacco is killing people NOT the countless chemicals their spraying on it so they can continue to spray chemicals on their tobacco because mass produced cigarettes would not exist if they had to naturally age their tobacco. They would never be able to produce anywhere near the quantity of cigarettes if they had to age their tobacco.
@n9inchnails https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yskYG-EVlBY
oh god, im usually quite sturdy, but seeing those lungs inflate like that has creeped me out a bit. and i will say, smoking tobacco does do the damage, its not just the added chemicals.
That’s a sad story and to make it worse PayPal say they will never let snuff be sold through them. As far as they are concerned all tobacco is evil.
Just stab me why don’t you, F, get it over with!
oh god, im usually quite sturdy, but seeing those lungs inflate like that has creeped me out a bit. and i will say, smoking tobacco does do the damage, its not just the added chemicals.
Really, then why for hundreds of years did no one even suspect tobacco was harmful until after mass produced cigarettes flooded the market? If tobacco was as harmful as people say it is then we would have discovered this hundreds of years ago
Really, then why for hundreds of years did no one even suspect tobacco was harmful until after mass produced cigarettes flooded the market? If tobacco was as harmful as people say it is then we would have discovered this hundreds of years ago
Actually, cigarettes have become popular at the turn of 19 and 20 century. Before that - how could have cancer develop if a decent people lived around 30 years? They were dying from diseases, wars etc. Cancer hadn’t had time to grow.
This is the average life expectancy for an adult (someone who survived to adult hood) 1200–1300: to age 64 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69 1500–1550: to age 71 Back in those days two-thirds of children died before adulthood which brings the average life expectancy right down, those that survived to adulthood lived a hell of a lot longer than 30 years, do you honestly believe grandparents didn’t exist until the 19th century? You should read articles before you start pulling numbers out of them. They were dying from diseases and war, guess what so are we
^which is nonsense, tobacco isn’t evil what the Big Tobacco companies do to their cigarettes is evil. What they do to their cigarettes is the equivalent of putting antifreeze in grape juice so it tastes like wine, when antifreeze wine started making people go blind did everyone start blaming grapes? Big Tobacco companies have invested a hell of a lot of time and money convincing the world that tobacco is killing people NOT the countless chemicals their spraying on it so they can continue to spray chemicals on their tobacco because mass produced cigarettes would not exist if they had to naturally age their tobacco. They would never be able to produce anywhere near the quantity of cigarettes if they had to age their tobacco.
The burning tobacco is still the source of most of the problem. You could grow your own natural tobacco in paradise, you still might give yourself lung cancer if you burn and inhale it all the time.
You’re right with this one, but still, notice that most of lung cancer appears above 50 year of living. Smoking was not so popular and there were no good healthcare back then, people were just dying, no one cared because of what they are dead. Nowadays more and more people die on cancer mostly because something else didn’t kill them first.
Any charred or burned organic matter is carcinogenic. Even barbeque chicken or grilled ribs are cancer causing due to both burnt native proteins and the fuel used to cook them. Tobacco smoke has the further addition of TSNA present and the carbonmonoxide produced by the combustion. It is true that big name cigs are made with unnecessary and toxic substances to expedite manufacture and consumption rates, and that these have likely killed more people than would have died had the tobacco been naturally aged, but smoking ANYTHING, especially inhaling into the lungs, is a very dangerous habit. OP brings up a great point regarding Big Cig, and I’m sure I’m not the first to wonder if the decline of snuff to near extinction was as accidental as it has appeared.
This is the average life expectancy for an adult (someone who survived to adult hood) 1200–1300: to age 64 1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague) 1400–1500: to age 69 1500–1550: to age 71 Back in those days two-thirds of children died before adulthood which brings the average life expectancy right down, those that survived to adulthood lived a hell of a lot longer than 30 years, do you honestly believe grandparents didn’t exist until the 19th century? You should read articles before you start pulling numbers out of them. They were dying from diseases and war, guess what so are we
They might well have been grandparents at the age of 32. Not that uncommon in the villages in Indonesia. If you look at the figures the big agencies use, they give life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at the age of five, with the latter figure designed to eliminate the impact of early childhood deaths. Its just a fact that people tend to lice longer these days. On the other hand, the average age at which people first have heart attacks, strokes and diabetes hasn’t gone up that much. People just survive longer iin sick old age.
[…] Its just a fact that people tend to lice longer these days. On the other hand, the average age at which people first have heart attacks, strokes and diabetes hasn’t gone up that much. People just survive longer iin sick old age.
Apropos of life expectancy, this also leads to interesting conversations when applied to conversations with most rabid anti-smokers. They often like to accuse smokers of, not only killing others with the nasty ETS they spew, but also being a huge burden to society’s healthcare costs. However, when scientists have looked into this matter they found out that actually the opposite is true. Smokers (along with obese) tend to die younger than people with more healthy lifestyles, and it’s the latter in their old age accrue much more costs than the obese or the smokers. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?\\_r=0 Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure
@Jari_T, Haha. The old BBC series, Yes Minister, had an episode about what a disaster it would be if people REALLY gave up smoking. “These patriotic cirltizens who lay down their lives so that others can enjoy subsidized national health care.” But on a serious note, it only really works if you assume that smokers are healthy and suddenly drop dead. If the still get sick ten years before they die, it would still cost a lot.
@Jari_T, Haha. The old BBC series, Yes Minister, had an episode about what a disaster it would be if people REALLY gave up smoking. “These patriotic cirltizens who lay down their lives so that others can enjoy subsidized national health care.” But on a serious note, it only really works if you assume that smokers are healthy and suddenly drop dead. If the still get sick ten years before they die, it would still cost a lot.
I remember that episode. What a great comedy series! Reminds me little of this Mitchell & Webb sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO\\_yg But about the study I linked. They actually did count all the lifetime health-care costs and found that:
…total lifetime health spending was greatest for the healthy-living people, lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the obese people.
This study didn’t include any reduced productivity, just the total lifetime health-care expenditure in these groups.
and who sponsored that study seems kind of bull pucky to me.
in defence of the smoker http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm . Doctor only practice medicine. Insurance Companies profits are the root. Smoking is bad but so are most things. 7% chance of getting cancer. I neither condone nor condemn smoking. Enjoy life anyway you seem fit.
Yes, its worth remembering when people look horrified at a number like 7 percent that it means 93 percent chance of NOT getting something. Like tap water in my city, we always get dire warnings about drinking it unboiled. I spoke to WASH man about it. He shrugged and said you got about 1/1000 chance of getting sick, but the gummint has to worry in a city where 15 million people drink water every day.
Just like its a 1/1000 chance to get salmonella from raw eggs! Well in modern countries. Eat that raw cookie dough. EAT IT!
If you would like to try Indian snuffs, look for an Indian store owned by somebody from India. Since they already import most of their products from India, they might be pursuaded to import snuff as well if they knew that there is a market for it.
Damn it Jim! It’s not about the kids! Next they will attack my blueberry snuff! I say NO! NO to tobacco haters!