NRT doesn't help quitters?

[DanielO]

May I add something to this......

The really dumb Idea wasn't necessarily to smoke the tobacco, but to inhale the smoke. I was recently diagnosed with heart disease, and was told by my cardiologist that cigarettes are out of the question but pipes are OK. Good for me, since I'm a pipe smoker. Of course, a nicotine-free lifestyle is ideal, but if you've got to consume nicotine, smoke a pipe. Or use snus. Or snuff. Don't smoke cigarettes.

May I also posit that the anti-smokers aren't anti-smoking because of anything having to do with health. They are anti-smoking because cigarettes smell bad. When our local university banned smoking on campus that was their official reason. My father was a doctor and an adamant anti-smoker, and his reason for hating smoking was the smell. We are damaged greatly by automotive exhaust, but you can't smell it, so no one is complaining. This has mushroomed in to an all-tobacco-is-bad attitude that hurts everyone because most tobacco use is in the form of cigarettes. If nobody smoked cigarettes and everyone used snus, I bet tobacco wouldn't be a political issue because it wouldn't smell bad.

[chainsnuser]

Apparently the obsessive anti-tobacco crowd is completely unaware of the concept of proportionality. To them the demonstrated fact that snus is 99.9 percent less harmful than smoking is almost an irrelevancy.

Yes, but I think that this kind of puritanism is not the main problem. The crazed, brainwashed perceptions about tobacco and nicotine that can even be found among fellow snusers could easily be adjusted back to normal, if not so many "reputable" scientists continued to tell nonsense, lies and horror stories.

The main problem is the fact that many people's jobs depend on the current anti-tobacco policy. All the (often self proclaimed) scientists who didn't get a normal employment and ended as "professional anti tobacco workers" don't have any interest to tell the truth about tobacco. It's a billion dollar industry with thousands of jobs depending on it. And it's even a fact that the jobs of these people are the more secure the more people continue to smoke. That's the reason why there's so much anti-smokeless-bogus-propaganda and even bans like here in the EU, like in Switzerland or Iceland.
I don't think that all the anti-tobacco-workers are as crazed as they appear to be. The professionals are just telling lies to protect their jobs, and that's a tremendous motivation.

Tobacco is a medical plant with overall positive effects for many people. It's a normal part of life to use medical plants, even if they contain addictive substances or aren't totally free of side effects. The same applies for most pharmaceuticals. The perception of tobacco as a "demonic" plant that "enslaves" the users is puritan nonsense. It was just a dumb idea to smoke the tobacco. All the real dangers of tobacco-use come from the smoke with it's thousands of randomly generated combustion-byproducts, neither from the tobacco nor the nicotine.

Cheers!

[wa3zrm]

some more info on nicotine and cardio.

http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_75.php

THIS IS AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!

Since I have CAD, I'm always interested in the latest research in this area. Thanks, Truthwolf1.

[spirit72]

I imagine spirit takes the definition of "risk free" liberally, as I do. Nothing in life is risk free, but some things are so low as to not be a concern. If you're gonna enjoy life, you're gonna take risks. Petrochemicals outgassing in the car, nitrates(ites) in food, fat, salt, cosmic radiation... Hell, even oxygen is bad for you. I think risk free is close enough when describing nicotine.

And you imagine correctly. In my opinion, a negligible risk is nearly as good as 'risk free'. In the absence of an existing condition which would be complicated by the use of nicotine, I view the risk of nicotine use, in moderation, as being negligible. Not using nicotine, caffeine, etc. would obviously be the best choice, of course.

[Darwin]

Apparently the obsessive anti-tobacco crowd is completely unaware of the concept of proportionality. To them the demonstrated fact that snus is 99.9 percent less harmful than smoking is almost an irrelevancy. The horrifying demon nicotine must be harried from the company of humans at all any and all costs however intrusive and freedom destroying the means have to be. It is in fact all about "the children" since in the "modern" interventionist mindset all humans are children who must be protected from any possible harm by any means whatsoever which of course will be determined by our enlightened betters, i.e them.

The prohibitionist instinct is evergreen except nowadays it is being advanced by our self-proclaimed intellectual superiors instead of the the Bible-thumping justifications of a hundred years ago. The tendency may have switched sides in the political spectrum but is it still alive, well, and as snooty and high-handed as ever.

[BadAxe]

I imagine spirit takes the definition of "risk free" liberally, as I do. Nothing in life is risk free, but some things are so low as to not be a concern. If you're gonna enjoy life, you're gonna take risks. Petrochemicals outgassing in the car, nitrates(ites) in food, fat, salt, cosmic radiation... Hell, even oxygen is bad for you. I think risk free is close enough when describing nicotine.

I agree with you. In my next reply i had stated I am fine with the risk I am taking as it is MUCH less than smoking. But I was responding to someone who said that nicotine represents no health risk at all. And that is just not true. But I will take that risk, as SNUS has helped me eliminate a MUCH MUCH bigger health risk (smoking).

[lxskllr]

Well its not a carcinogen, but nicotine is a health risk.

I imagine spirit takes the definition of "risk free" liberally, as I do. Nothing in life is risk free, but some things are so low as to not be a concern. If you're gonna enjoy life, you're gonna take risks. Petrochemicals outgassing in the car, nitrates(ites) in food, fat, salt, cosmic radiation... Hell, even oxygen is bad for you. I think risk free is close enough when describing nicotine.

[spinyeel]

Everything that I've read about Swedish Snus suggests minimal health issues.
It's safer than most of the food we eat every day,or the materials on a construction site.
I'll go with that.

[heders]

New study: Snus does not cause high blood pressure

"Snus does not cause high blood pressure, accoarding to a new Swedish study from Umeå university. Also, the prilla does notincrease the risk of diabetes, heart attacks or stroke. For people who can't quit smoking, snus can be an alternative, says surgeon general Mats Eliasson.

The debate about snus possible dangers is hotter than ever. A new study of 4 000 men in northern Sweden, which where published in the latest issue of "Läkartidningen" (doctors magazine), show that snus does not lead to high blood pressure. Earlier studies have given contrarious results.

Heart diseases
High blood pressure increases the risk of heart and vascular diseases, above all; stroke. Mats Eliasson, scientist and surgeon general at Sundeby hospital, thinks the strength of this study is that they have made a difference of snus users who have never smoked before, and snus users who have smoked before.

"No links"
- Now we have gotten the true and real effects if snus. The study shows that we don't have to worry snus users that snus could induce high blood pressure.
The same study have earlier showed that snus use does not increase the risk of diabetes, heart attack or stroke. Mats Eliasson points out that the study is lead by the county council and Umeå university, and that he has no connections with the tobacco industry.
- As a doctor I stand for a tobacco free society. But if a patient, who has suffered from a heart attack and a stroke, can't quit smoking in other ways, it's clear that you should try quitting with snus."

http://www.snuson.com/forum/showthre...blood-pressure

I believe that heavy nicotine use is not good for the heart and arteries, especially if you already have high blood pressure. Although, moderate use I don't think does any harm, even in the long run.

Caffeine and nicotine have very similar effects on the body, and caffeine has been proven not to contribute to heart disease, stroke or high blood pressure in moderate amounts for healthy individuals. Therefore, I can't see any reason why nicotine would do this. Subconsciously when we hear "tobacco" we think of cigarettes and the damage caused by smoking. Nicotine alone though isn't that dangerous. The main negative parts are the nicotine addiction and gum recession/irritation with snus.

Since nicotine is a stimulant though, it can, in some people, contribute and make you more sensitive to stress. This can be risk factor for heart diseases etc.

[precious007]

Nicotine acts much the same as caffeine in that it temporary raises blood pressure and heart rate, but smokeless tobacco does not cause hardening of the arteries or heart disease.

theoretically it does, read more on nicotine effects and you'll get your answer.

Smokeless tobacco does a lot less harm than smoking tobacco but definitely comes with some long-term side effects on the ciruculatory system mainly.

[stubby2]

"Although many of the health problems associated with tobacco products are related to smoking and other chemicals in the tobacco, nicotine is associated with a number of health problems when taken chronically. Nicotine causes vasoconstriction, increased heart rate, and increased blood pressure. Over time, these effects are associated with increase risk of cardio vascular problems (heart attack), poor blood circulation in the extremities, and stroke."

I love my SNUS, and I don't mind my addiction to nicotine. But I am not a fool who believes nicotine is not a health risk. (Not calling you a fool). I will accept the risk considering it enabled me to give up my much worse 2 pack a day smoking habit. But there are health risks involved with digesting nicotine.

From everything I have read, and I keep up with the likes of Brad Rodu and Carl Phillips, the symptoms you state are temporary. Nicotine acts much the same as caffeine in that it temporary raises blood pressure and heart rate, but smokeless tobacco does not cause hardening of the arteries or heart disease. Having said that it's likely a good idea not to do more then is needed. I do just fine with 8 mg portions, and if minis where more reasonably priced or at least we got 24 portions, I would do them of them at least occasionally.

[precious007]

Honestly speaking, NO, NRT didn't help and seemingly doesn't help anyone in quitting smoking.

Snus did help. I am aware about 100 ex-smokers that quit smoking with snus from this forum alone.

Apart from that, NRT (the nicotine patch) has gave me a nasty rash on my body, my joint's area were literally invaded with rashes, so I turned to gum from the patch, and gum is not helping either. Snus was all different, really stop the craving to smoke and in just days a smoker turn into a snuser. :^)

[spinyeel]

I think that pharmaceutical companies have a lot to do with Snus being hard to get hold of in many countries.N.R.T. is a multi-million dollar industry,alongside dodgy weight loss meds. Something reeks of corruption in this area.

[Crow]

I am only going from bad memory but I think there were studies that stated NRT products from BIG PHARMA had a 2-10 percent rate of success and SNUS was at a solid 30%.

Sounds like you could use some nicotine patches...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...-loss-in-study

[muddyfunkstar]

The only time I ever used nicotine gum was on the second long haul flight I ever took, because of the state I was in after the first. It didn't really help that much.