Article: Snus—the safer option for smokers (Slate)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ice
    Member
    • Oct 2005
    • 142

    Article: Snus—the safer option for smokers (Slate)

    Slate Magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2170141/

    Snus—the safer option for smokers. And more.


    By Sydney Spiesel
    Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007

    Snus snuff may be less deadly than cigarettes

    This week, Dr. Sydney Spiesel discusses snus, a snuff product that's safer than smoking, the link between malnutrition and immune deficiency, and a new treatment for stress incontinence.

    Got snus?

    Question: Snus, prepared from ground tobacco leaves, is a form of snuff that's usually tucked inside the cheek, where its nicotine payload can be slowly absorbed across the mucous membranes of the mouth. Snuff is generally regarded as harmful—in South Asia, for example, it's associated with a higher risk for mouth cancer. Is snus lower risk?

    New research: That is the question examined in this recent Lancet paper. The researchers followed more than 125,000 Swedish construction workers, for 12 to 26 years, who were nonsmoking users of snus. They found no increase in oral or lung cancers, compared with nonsmokers who did not use any form of tobacco. But they did find an approximately double risk of developing pancreatic cancer, resulting in about 40 more cases of this disease in the 125,000 snus users. Other studies of snus users in Sweden show only tiny increases in heart disease and stroke, two conditions that are significantly higher in cigarette smokers. It would appear, then, that snus—though not risk-free—is safer than smoking.

    Implications: Another Lancet paper examined whether introducing snus in Australia (where snuff is illegal, but cigarette smoking is not) would lead to an increase in tobacco use. The authors come out pro-snus: They argue that if snus were made legal, between 14 and 25 nonsmokers would have to start using to offset the gain in average life expectancy from every one smoker who quit and switched to snus.

    Conclusion: Currently, more than 5 million people a year die worldwide as a result of tobacco use—in most developed countries, it's the cause of about one out of five deaths. The chronic illnesses associated with it are also terrible. So, these papers on snus put public-health people in a quandary. Should we promote a less hazardous tobacco product? If the goal is to reduce the harm done by tobacco, snus seems a pretty good choice. And yet I find it very hard to get the words out of my mouth. Which leaves me with a troubling question: Are doctors like me—blocked by prejudices from making rational choices—contributing to the harms caused by smoking? I'd better reform my ways.
  • Zero
    Member
    • May 2006
    • 1522

    #2
    Amen 8)

    Comment

    • darkwing
      Member
      • Oct 2007
      • 415

      #3
      Wow indeed.

      Comment

      • chainsnuser
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2007
        • 1388

        #4
        Indeed!

        I'd say though, that most of the anti-(smokeless)-tobacco-workers are rather scared of losing their jobs, than blocked by prejudices.

        Isn't it, that all the anti-tobacco-propagandists make money out of everyone, who continues smoking?

        If everyone would quit smoking, maybe by finding an (almost) risk-free alternative, like snus, these anti-tobacco-professionals would be unemployed. That's the main reason for all the bogus-propaganda about smokeless tobacco, IMHO.

        The world would be better, if governments would no longer spend our money for self-proclaimed health-experts, spreading useless propaganda for their own account. They should spend our money on independent tobacco-research, instead.

        I better stop my rant, before I get carried away and start talking about other things, than tobacco.

        Cheers!

        Comment

        • Paladinx
          Member
          • May 2009
          • 71

          #5
          U forgot to mention that the study with the construction workers said that snus users have a more than doubled risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. That study is the most frightening to me of all the snus studies. People use that study to show positive things which is misleading cause that study is very negative.

          Comment

          • paulwall9
            Member
            • Nov 2008
            • 743

            #6
            Well Paladinx, what you say is also true. But look at it like this I more than double my mortality rate when i get into the car in the morning but that is a neccasary risk i must take in order to live. I just try to be more careful about which risks i take but in the end it doesnt really matter your time comes when it comes as i am sure you have heard numerous times people that never use tobacco but are extreme drinkers of say WATER develope forms of cancer as well. Cancer is just a naturall way of things i guess natures way of controlling the population LOL.

            Comment

            • lxskllr
              Member
              • Sep 2007
              • 13435

              #7
              Originally posted by Paladinx
              U forgot to mention that the study with the construction workers said that snus users have a more than doubled risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. That study is the most frightening to me of all the snus studies. People use that study to show positive things which is misleading cause that study is very negative.
              I haven't read the study in awhile, and I can't find the full paper now, but I don't remember that being correct. I remember it stating that mortality due to heart conditions increases, but not the heart conditions. In other words there's a higher likelihood of dieing from a heart attack, but not a higher likelihood of getting one in the first place.

              Comment

              • paulwall9
                Member
                • Nov 2008
                • 743

                #8
                Good point lx

                Comment

                • Jason
                  Member
                  • Jan 2008
                  • 1370

                  #9
                  I can't remember where, but someone also mentioned in a thread a long time ago that a noticeable percentage of the people in that study were former smokers who had quit and become regular snus users....that would also affect the outcome of those figures.

                  Comment

                  • uk.user
                    Member
                    • Jul 2009
                    • 31

                    #10
                    Yes it the sense...we need

                    Comment

                    • snupy
                      Member
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 575

                      #11
                      Huhtasarri's studies completely contradicted the construction worker study, even demonstrating that snus users had LESS risk of myocardial infarction than non-smokers.

                      Comment

                      • Paladinx
                        Member
                        • May 2009
                        • 71

                        #12
                        "Huhtasarri's studies completely contradicted the construction worker study, even demonstrating that snus users had LESS risk of myocardial infarction than non-smokers."

                        rofl. Would you really believe that? From a common sense point of view alone? How is consuming high levels of nicotine and salt on a daily basis less risk than not doing either?

                        Comment

                        • lxskllr
                          Member
                          • Sep 2007
                          • 13435

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Paladinx

                          rofl. Would you really believe that? From a common sense point of view alone? How is consuming high levels of nicotine and salt on a daily basis less risk than not doing either?
                          See this study...

                          http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/TC12349.pdf

                          Nicotine and salt aren't necessarily bad. Just because the tobacco zealots say something over and over, it doesn't make it true. I'd rather read scientific studies, and draw my own conclusions ;^)

                          Comment

                          • MasterGuns
                            Member
                            • Jun 2009
                            • 312

                            #14
                            very negative? really? That's not the study I read. the "most frightening" part to me was the double risk for pancreatic cancer, a whopping increase from 4:10,000 to 8:10,000. To date I understand that snus has indeed been shown to lead to no significant increase in Pancreatic cancer, though I don't have the source on hand so don't quote me :wink:
                            The most important part of the Construction Worker Study was the occurrence of Oral Cancer, and it showed that users of snus had no increased risk for it. It's not the only study, of course, but as far as I understand other studies corroborate it. Even a study which claimed to prove that snus causes oral cancer had to admit that in order create cancer in lab animals, they had to give them the equivalent dose of a small carload of snus per day.
                            just my thoughts, I can't wait for the "Truth" crusaders to start misrepresenting these studies as proof that snus is just as bad as dip.
                            EDIT: My numbers above were wrong, they stand corrected ops:
                            Also amended the "stats" bit since I'm no statistician, and can't say what's negligible and what's not.

                            Comment

                            • Paladinx
                              Member
                              • May 2009
                              • 71

                              #15
                              I have said this before, Statistics and those studies are more of an art form than a science. There are many ways to pick and choose data you want to present.

                              What annoys me is even that conclusion does not give you the full picture. The first study about the construction workers, That was the biggest negative study done on snus lol. But t hey use it to reflect something positive. That study suggested that snus users faced an increase risk of cardiovascular disease and DEATH, by 40 percent. Thats what i mean about statistics. If your gonna quote a study to say something positive tell the whole story ya know?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X