Copennagen

[Bret]

So just what is Copennagen smokless tobacco, and what all do they put in it? Why is it so much worse then chewing on something like mint leaves?

[Bret]

I mean “Copenhagen”

[Q.E.D]

It’s still tobacco, you just don’t smoke it. It’s bad because even though you don’t burn it, there are still plenty of carcinogenic chemicals present.

[chique]

I’m looking for a better answer than QED’s.

I don’t think Copenhagen is carcinogenically (did I just make up a word?) any worse or better than mint leaves, coca leaves, or dirt.

People don’t chew mint leaves or dirt as regularly or as often as people chew smokeless tobacco. If Billy Joe stuck as much sandy loam between cheek and gum as Jim Jack stuck Skoal, I’d think their chances of gum/lip/tongue cancer about the same.

I’ll just hang out here and wait for some more answers…

[Q.E.D]

Fine, don’t listen to me.

[Zenster]

The soft mucous membranes of the mouth provide one of the most efficacious and highest-speed uptake areas of the entire human body. Only the lungs, intestines and sinuses provide the same sort of surface area to absorption rate ratio. Despite its overall dimensions, the mouth maintains its sway in terms of chemical introduction by way of proximity to the brain. This is the reason that sinal ingestion (sniffing) of true snuff is so effective. The sinuses may represent an even more effective ingestion path than oral intake does.

Copenhagen dip is chemically engineered to deliver one of the most potent bloodstream uptake gradients of assimilable nicotine as compared to any other “chewing” tobacco. The product is chemically treated for accelerated delivery and has its drug concentration artificially adjusted in order to most quickly liberate the maximum amount of nicotine. It is as if a beer company were attempting to spike its product with 151 ethanol. While the actual percentages might differ from my example, the intention varies not one whit.

[Q.E.D]

And while we’re looking for cites.

[Q.E.D]

Shall I continue?

[Pixiesnix]

If it helps, a varsity coach in my old high school had half of his jaw removed because of cancer. He chewed smokeless tobacco.

[Desmostylus]

Here’s a decent paper:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html

5.   **Harm caused by smokeless tobacco.** Smokeless tobacco is *not* harmless. For example, smokeless tobacco products used on the Indian sub-continent and some products in the United States cause oral cancer. In India, smokeless tobacco is a major cause of oral cancer. But the evidence shows that any link between smokeless tobacco in the form of Swedish snus and oral cancer is not established[1] [2].  The largest review, Nilson (1998)[3], concluded that although: 
   

…20% of all grown-up Swedish males use moist snuff, it has not been possible to detect any significant increase in the incidence of cancer of the oral cavity or pharynx - the prevalence of which by international standards remains low in this country.”

There are other health effects that arise in the oral cavity – such as lesions and gingivitis – and a cancer risk from products other than Swedish snus must be anticipated. Smokeless tobacco may also be associated with cardiovascular disease, though the evidence is contradictory and far from clear. A literature review commissioned by ASH[4], concluded:

Smoking increases the risk of myocardial infarction, sudden death, stroke and peripheral artery disease of the legs by 2-4 times. Whether or not snuff use is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and sudden death is still controversial. If there is an excess risk, it is very much smaller than for smoking. For stroke or peripheral artery disease, there is no scientific information on possible risks of snuff use.

However, for oral tobacco to play a role in harm reduction it is not necessary to show that it does not cause cancer – it just needs to be substantially less hazardous than smoking. Even allowing for cautious assumptions about the health impact, snus – and other oral tobaccos - are a very substantially less dangerous way to use tobacco than cigarettes. Smokeless tobaccos are not associated with major lung diseases, including COPD and lung cancer, which account for more than half of smoking-related deaths in Europe. If there is a CVD risk, which is not yet clear, it appears to be a substantially lower CVD risk than for smoking. Smokeless tobacco also produces no environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and therefore eliminates an important source of disease in non-smokers and children. These are very substantial benefits in reduced risk to anyone that switches from smoking to smokeless tobacco and we believe the pubic health community has a moral obligation to explore this strategy. It is likewise ethically wrong to actively deny users the option to reduce their risk in this way.

[chique]

Hm. Nowhere did I say that smokeless tobacco wasn’t carcinogenic. I think it is.

I think that putting crushed quartz between one’s cheek and gum every conscious moment of every waking day is carcinogenic, as well.

The OP is not asking if Cope causes cancer, because any sentinent human being knows that. The OP is asking why “is it so much worse then chewing on something like mint leaves?” Which is why I compared chewing tobacco to sandy loam (a dirt, btw). I don’t doubt that chewing snuff will give one cancer; I want to know if chewing mint leaves will give me cancer faster than tobacco leaves.

[Q.E.D]

Geeze, some people are just thickheaded. Here:

Oral gratification “missing having something in my mouth”, behavioral rituals and peer pressure are powerful influences to keep a person using smokeless tobacco. Here is where using healthy alternatives like Mint Snuff All Mint Chew or Pouches becomes so valuable. They allow the patient to continue the behavior and yield to whatever pressures keep them chewing but without the danger of tobacco. Some people can quit the behavior altogether after a few weeks, others take longer. If they quit and then feel the need to relapse, they can once again use Mint Snuff until the urge passes.

[chique]

Thickheaded? Naw, boy, it’s ok. Just spit it out - I’m stupid.

But I’d like to know what is more biologically damaging in tobacco than mint. Less acid in mint than tobacco? Is nicotine itself more carcinogenic than the active ingredients in mint? And when I say “mint” does that include peppermint and spearmint and pineapple mint and chocolate mint? Or is “mint” just a catchall like “snake” is for spitting cobra and milk snake, and some versions of that plant are more damaging than others?

[amanset]

Regarding Swedish snus, I saw a documentary on Swedish TV about the introduction of snus into India. The documentary said that snus prepared for the Swedish market is treated to reduce the amount of carcinogens, whereas the snus for the foreign market is not. I remember one person sayign that this was like only sellign Volvos with a certain security feature in Sweden even though everyone else would like it.

Thus, unless you are buying the stuff from Sweden stuff like

"…20% of all grown-up Swedish males use moist snuff, it has not been possible to detect any significant increase in the incidence of cancer of the oral cavity or pharynx - the prevalence of which by international standards remains low in this country.”

is mostly meaningless.