Smoking versus Smokeless Tobacco

[I_luv_saber]

This question was originally brought with the subject being fencing, but that's (somewhat) irrelevant to the subject as a whole.

Basically, is smokeless tobacco any less risky, and should it be promoted as a "safer alternative" to cigarette smoking?

From various Google searches it seems there is a fair bit of consensus that smokeless tobacco is indeed safer (or at least, less often fatal) than cigarettes. Most times when I see this fact disputed, it is fairly plain to see they are simply worried that the promotion of smokeless tobacco as an alternative to smokers would simply draw in more non-tobacco users and work against the end goal (I have seen some actual studies however that do show smokeless tobacco is indeed as harmful, but these seem few and far between, at least to me). But the fact that it is less harmful, is less often disputed.

Now, quite obviously, smokeless tobacco IS indeed dangerous. If you don't use tobacco now, there's no reason to start. But, could it be a somewhat safer alternative to cigarettes for current smokers? And if so, would this not be a much better option for fencers who currently smoke (as smokeless tobacco does not effect your lungs, or reportedly, your heart)?

Of course quitting is the better option... but should we, as a society, really be so all-or-nothing about this? Should we really be supporting people doing more damage to themselves simply because we don't want to support a lesser harm? It must be quitting or nothing at all? I certainly see the viewpoint, I'm just not sure it's the best one to have.

Don't get me wrong, tobacco is very dangerous, and I'll be the first to say so. I've lost two people close to me from lung cancer, and my mother is a heavy smoker already showing many ill effects from it. But I can't help but think that even if they never quit, but at least switched to a smokeless tobacco, they might be with us longer, with less hacking and coughing and wheezing.

It's an interesting question at any rate, and thought it would be interesting to hear some other opinions out there.

(For those who don't know, not all smokeless tobacco must be spit out all the time, there are now dissolving tablets, as well as pouches that are removed after use. Also, as a disclaimer, I myself am an occasional pipe/cigar smoker.)

[Nolano]

From what I understand, less smoke would mean less lung damage. maybe not less cancer, but inhaling a lot of smoke is bad for your lungs regardless of what it is.

[Empty Wallet]

Smokeless tobacco -- chewing tobacco? Nasty, dirty spitty stuff.

Major implications in cancer of gums, tongue, throat etc.

Banned in some countries as a major health risk.

[whiteandbluefencer]

Neither. Gross.

[erik_blank]

If the end goal is to bring a safer, less damaging product to use by those who are addcited to both the drug of nicotine, and the "process" of smoking, then I would think that the use of nicotine patches, ot the so called smokeles inhalers would be a better choice overall. Simply because something is "less dangerous" to the lungs doesn't mean that we should be promoting it as a safer alternative. The fact that the product is a known carcinogen and a direct cause of Gum, Throat Jaw and other Mouth cancers would, in my opinion, be the wrong choice for any alternative to smoking.
While it is difficult to actually persue for many, there are groups that can help people that want to stop smoking. The real problem is actualy WANTING to stop. My wife has attempted to stop five times so far, and each time, she has gotten past the hard part of physical addiction, ony to return to smoking later due to social pressures and the simple need to do "something" when presented with "slack" time. I hope that with the (very bad) example ofmy ex-stepmother who is suffering from COPD that she can finally stop.

[I_luv_saber]

Smokeless tobacco -- chewing tobacco? Nasty, dirty spitty stuff.

Major implications in cancer of gums, tongue, throat etc.

Banned in some countries as a major health risk.

Yes and no. There are now forms of smokeless tobacco aside from chew, or snuff. There are also now "tablets" you place under your lip (about the size of a pill) you don't spit, it simply dissolves. There is also Swedish snus which seemingly has FAR fewer health risks than any other tobacco product on the market (this is thought to be due to the fact it's steam cured rather than fire cured).

At any rate, it is indeed dangerous, but it is pretty much proven to be less fatal than cigarettes.

Neither. Gross.

Here is the problem I'm having. Everyone knows this is the end goal. This is what we all would like. But we need to be realists. Obviously not everyone is going to stop the use of tobacco. But why would we not try to "wean" smokers to a safER product? Some studies showed that smokeless tobacco users lost only 1 year off of their projected lifespan, while smokers lose 8. It's a fact that the worst part of smoking comes not from the nicotine but from the tar and other nasty stuff you get from lighting and inhaling it.

If the end goal is to bring a safer, less damaging product to use by those who are addcited to both the drug of nicotine, and the "process" of smoking, then I would think that the use of nicotine patches, ot the so called smokeles inhalers would be a better choice overall.

This is a very good point. I think for many smokers (and this is the reason most won't switch to chew anyway) it's the act of smoking - the habit that is so hard to break. Slapping a patch on just isn't the same as sitting back and lighting up. Which brings another interesting alternative... the new e-cigs. An electronic vaporizer that vaporizes straight nicotine dilluted in water. No tar, far far far fewer ill effects (aside from, of course the nicotine). I think this is the best option by far, as it helps hit the habit and nicotine part of the addiction.

I think, though, that this is viewed by most smokers as a quitting smoking aid, and is shunned by many for that reason. Personally, I think you'd have a better chance of getting smokers to actually switch to smokeless tobacco, specifically these tablet things.

Simply because something is "less dangerous" to the lungs doesn't mean that we should be promoting it as a safer alternative. The fact that the product is a known carcinogen and a direct cause of Gum, Throat Jaw and other Mouth cancers would, in my opinion, be the wrong choice for any alternative to smoking.
While it is difficult to actually persue for many, there are groups that can help people that want to stop smoking. The real problem is actualy WANTING to stop. My wife has attempted to stop five times so far, and each time, she has gotten past the hard part of physical addiction, ony to return to smoking later due to social pressures and the simple need to do "something" when presented with "slack" time. I hope that with the (very bad) example ofmy ex-stepmother who is suffering from COPD that she can finally stop.

I think what I am basically getting at here is the lesser of two evils argument. Cigarettes are bad. So is chew or other smokeless tobaccos. But, I would rather that, if current smokers in my family don't quit, they at least change to a less dangerous form.

[Empty Wallet]

I had never heard of Aviva, but it is banned here. Snus is as well. Aviva-type things are still implicated in various cancers in and around the mouth. Snus does not seem to be, but with cardiac issues and pancreatic cancer.

The electronic cigarettes have also been banned recently. It was found that they released less nicotine, but that they required a much deeper inhalation and so drew more noxious material deeper into the lungs. So, the end results are not positive.

If you can, get them to use patches. Even if they don't quit, it should reduce the number of cigarettes use.

[I_luv_saber]

I had never heard of Aviva, but it is banned here. Snus is as well. Aviva-type things are still implicated in various cancers in and around the mouth. Snus does not seem to be, but with cardiac issues and pancreatic cancer.

The electronic cigarettes have also been banned recently. It was found that they released less nicotine, but that they required a much deeper inhalation and so drew more noxious material deeper into the lungs. So, the end results are not positive.

If you can, get them to use patches. Even if they don't quit, it should reduce the number of cigarettes use.

Is there any particular reason that these products are banned and cigarettes not (or are they)? Generally speaking, cigarettes can cause the same cancers as these products plus lung cancer, so I can't think of why one would be banned and not the other...

And, as far as the e-cigs, I'd dispute that. Most of the noxious materials in cigs do not come from nicotine, but the other crap in there. By inhaling pure nicotine, you've eliminated most of the crap that effects you so badly. Nicotine in and of itself is not super harmful (comparatively speaking) aside from the addiction itself.

[Empty Wallet]

Is there any particular reason that these products are banned and cigarettes not (or are they)? Generally speaking, cigarettes can cause the same cancers as these products plus lung cancer, so I can't think of why one would be banned and not the other...

And, as far as the e-cigs, I'd dispute that. Most of the noxious materials in cigs do not come from nicotine, but the other crap in there. By inhaling pure nicotine, you've eliminated most of the crap that effects you so badly. Nicotine in and of itself is not super harmful (comparatively speaking) aside from the addiction itself.

We have had a very active and effective anti-smoking campaign as part of the general public health strategy. This includes banning all advertizing (including giving away samples), age limits on purchases, no smoking in workplaces and shopping malls, no smoking at sports venues (including major outdoor stadiums), restaurants, bars, nightclubs etc. There are strict requirements on display and nasty images on packages.

Smokeless tobacco was never a major market here. However, there was evidence that the tobacco companies were going to shift their emphasis to market them. This was mirrored by the US experience and take-up rates of smokeless tobacco among younger people.

It was recognized that it was much easier to ban a product that did not yet have a market. Stricter marketing controls, and ever increasing taxes, are seen as more realistic for cigarettes.

The ban was backed by the research evidence of significant carcinogens within tobacco itself (not just all those chemicals that are added for cigarettes). Here is a link to the National Institute of Health with some evidence: http://http://www.cancer.gov/cancert...acco/smokeless

The argument about e-cigs is that they require the vaporization of liquid nicotine which is then drawn into the lungs -- which requires a stronger and deeper suck than a traditional cigarette. As this releases carcinogens deeper as well.

[I_luv_saber]

That makes much more sense as far as the banning is concerned, thanks for clearing that up.

And yes, there are significant carcinogens in smokeless tobacco, but most studies shown that, the fact is, far fewer rates of people die from smokeless tobacco (or even pipe and cigar smoking) than from cigarette smoking. This is due to the fact that 1) You aren't inhaling smoke (or at least, you are not supposed to for pipe and cigar smoke) and 2) When cancer does develop from smokeless tobacco, pipes, and cigars, it tends to be cancers of the mouth and not of the lungs, which has a higher survival rate.

As far the e-cigs thing goes... I still don't buy it. Nicotine has harmful elements, but in and of itself it's not THAT bad. By removing all other bad stuff but the nicotine (not just the chemicals in cigs, but removing the tobacco, hence all the stuff in that too), you're removing most of the stuff that kills smokers. It's not a safe alternative, to be sure, and nicotine is nicotine, so expect to get hooked... but as far as harm being done to your body, it's far far less than cigarettes. Banning an e-cig, IMO, is a huge mistake... it has the opportunity to be such a good tool for weaning smokers off of cigs to a much safer product (even if still not safe, I firmly believe a transition from cigs to e-cigs is much more realistic than cold turkey or other methods such as patch, which do not address the habitual portion of the addiction).

I do see some of the logic in the banning of smokeless tobacco though, in a situation such as yours. Stopping the market before it starts.

[foibles]

For anyone wanting to quit smoking, I had excellent success with a product called Chantix.

While taking Chantix, I kinda always felt like I just had a smoke (even if I hadn't). As such, when smoking while taking Chantix, I would snub it out half way through. Also, without really working hard at it, I found myself naturally not wanting as many cigs in a day. After a couple weeks, It was not too bad to just stop completely. Not effortless... but a hell of a lot easier than my previous attempts without it.

It's been about 20 months now- Completely smoke free.

The chemist that invented that drug should get a nobel prize.

ymmv... but it worked wonderfully for me.

[emagdnim]

personally I say use moderation as you should for everything in life but what do I know.

but anyhow i had a question for I_luv_sabre, favorite cigar? just curious

[I_luv_saber]

personally I say use moderation as you should for everything in life but what do I know.

but anyhow i had a question for I_luv_sabre, favorite cigar? just curious

Words I try my damndest to live by...

Java by Drew Estate, box-pressed cigar. Nothing compares. And yourself?