Vaping and Smokeless Tobacco

In My Humble Opinion
1

I read a lot on many topics which include health and marketing.

Smoking tobacco is unhealthy due to dozens of hazardous by-products, which is hardly breaking news. Nicotine is addictive, but much, much less unhealthy than tobacco. Smoking rates have dropped, but in many countries about fifteen percent of people still smoke tobacco.

One book (Power of Bad) claims that smokeless chewing tobacco, known in Sweden as “snus”, were banned by the European Union in countries other than Sweden. It claims that this should not be, as the number of tobacco users and associated health problems supposedly plummeted in Sweden. It blames the ban on big companies and lobbying.

Similarly, it claims vaping is relatively safe since a nicotine addiction is not dangerous in the same way as tobacco. Most people who vape do not stick with it. The small percentage that do, it is claimed, are still much better off than smoking tobacco. It calls the opposition of many health lobbies a March of Dimes syndrome. This is a charity founded to curing polio. Having fulfilled this mission, it turned to other causes. The book implies continued employment was a major factor. That opposition to vaping is a natural battle if smoking has been reduced, but the numbers do not justify it, and that flavoured capes should be permitted.

This seems an odd view, but there may be something to it. On the other hand, another recent book (Hooked) claims tobacco companies claimed their product was addictive as a legal strategy. They defined addiction so generally that food or almost anything might be addictive. And it did so with an eye on the future, planning to produce less tobacco and more nicotine products that would be popular but less unhealthy. It states that these companies just were not as effective as Juul in capturing market share.

Both books are academic and interesting. Our local medical association, like many, thinks vaping is harmful and flavoured vapes are gimmicks meant to entice younger people.

Thanks for having read this far. In addition to peoples’ opinions and perceptions of vaping, smokeless tobacco, snus and nicotine products - wondering what you think of the arguments of either book. I do not use these products.

2

Filthy Habit.

3

Oh, yeah, when done right.

4

Smokeless tobacco, Skoal or Copenhagan etc, which is the same product as the Swedish snus, is not a safe alternative to smoking. Long term use leads to various mouth cancers, throat cancer.

This is a shame since it can be quite an effective and enjoyable nicotine delivery system.

5

I vape when I drink.

What’s interesting to me is, I’m able to resist my nicotine urges when I don’t drink. That’s something I was never able to do when I smoked.

I’d like to know the science behind that. Bc I’ve heard rumors cigarette companies put additives in their product to make it even more addictive than nicotine alone.

6

Nicotine in e-cigs has been found to be just as addictive as nicotine in conventional cigarettes, and chronic health risks of e-cigs (including increased risk of COPD and asthma) are just starting to be fully understood.

E-cigarette use among young people has recently dropped, but remains concerningly high.

“…the data shows an alarming increase in the number of youth who use disposable e-cigarettes and more than 8 out of 10 youth e-cigarette users report use of flavored products. In addition, almost 40 percent of high school users are using an e-cigarette on 20 or more days out of the month and almost a quarter of them use e-cigarettes every day, indicating a strong dependence on nicotine among youth.”

http://fda.gov/tobacco-products/youth-and-tobacco/youth-tobacco-use-results-national-youth-tobacco-survey

Odd that you’d think so. That bit suggesting that health organizations/agencies are being alarmist about e-cigarette use in order to justify their continued existence and jobs, reeks of conspiracy theorist nonsense. And big tobacco companies have happily pursued “alternatives” to traditional smoking such as e-cigs and smokeless products and poured a ton of investment into marketing them, to continue to reel in nicotine addicts’ business. From the CDC:

“The five major U.S. smokeless tobacco manufacturers spent $576.1 million on smokeless tobacco advertising and promotion in 2019. Smokeless tobacco products include dry snuff, moist snuff, plug/twist, loose-leaf chewing tobacco, snus, and dissolvable products.”

7

The books are academic, and interesting too. However, their focus and expertise is on other topics. That’s why these “throwaway” comments surprised me since this is not at all what 99% of the books are about. These comments are problematic.

Smokeless tobacco still causes mouth cancers and other problems. Nicotine is addictive and though smoke is the most harmful part, the fact of nicotine addiction is not harmless or trivial. Risk reduction is important, but risk avoidance is still a better strategy. Advertising to vulnerable age groups is an old strategy and ethically problematic too.

However, the claim for snus interested me. Some say American and Swedish snus are different, with different risk profiles.

8

@SacFly Smokeless tobacco, Skoal or Copenhagen etc, which is the same product as the Swedish snus

This is wrong. Swedish snus does not cause mouth or throat cancer. Is is a different product.

@Jackmannii

I only quickly skimmed the article by Blaha, stopping short when he persisted in stating that EVALI is connected to e-cigs. It was not and we know it was not. It was caused by black-market THC devices but he and others continue to spread this load of crap.

Nicotine isn’t really all that bad you. The original research, done, I think, by an anti-smoking pharmacist somewhere around the 1860s (could be wrong on the date) who claimed all sorts of delusional effects became the definitive paper and was widely circulated and quoted. It was only recently that his work was found to be totally unrepeatable BS. New research is showing many positive uses for nicotine.

E-cigs are far superior for quitting smoking compared to the FDA approved smoking cessation options.

The youth vaping epidemic is crap; no evidence for it, and even if there was, I would rather see kids vaping than smoking. It’s the epidemic that didn’t happen.

I smoked heavily for 42 years. I couldn’t climb the cellar stairs without stopping for breath. I started vaping. Within a couple of weeks I started taking longer and longer walks and after a few months was going on 12 mile bike rides. The last time I checked my nicotine habit from vaping was costing me 43 cents a day. I used to spend over $600 a month on cigarettes.

The anti-smoking crowd has morphed into the anti-nicotine crowd. It has been said that if all the smokers today switched to vaping, a billion lives would be saved in this century. Please don’t try to take my nicotine away from me.

Turble,

10+ years vaping

9

This is largely the argument made by the first book - vaping and nicotine is far better than smoking. This risk reduction is a big part of addiction medicine.

The issue is getting people who have never smoked addicted to nicotine. What restrictions on advertising or marketing are reasonable?

10

After I had a stroke a few yeas ago, I gave up smoking. Didn’t even switch to vaping. Just gave it up. Also quit drinking.

Nice to save that $400+ a month

11

Uh, what you cited in the articles (and what I responded to) is what’s “problematic”.

Who are the “some” who “say”?

It’s not difficult to find research publications showing that labeling oral tobacco products “Swedish” doesn’t magically eliminate their carcinogenic potential. For instance:

“We present a case series of patients with oral squamous cell carcinomas diagnosed at the sites where the patients had used Swedish snuff for several years. Sixteen male patients were referred to and treated at Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Departments and Ear, Nose and Throat clinics at seven different hospitals in Sweden. The mean age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 72.9 years and the mean time of snuff use prior to cancer diagnosis was 42.9 years. This case series shows that Swedish snuff may not be a harmless alternative to smoking.”

I did see that there’s a 2019 published report trumpeting “compelling harm reduction” from use of snus compared to cigarettes. Interestingly (see, I can play Arte Johnson too), several authors of that paper worked for Imperial Brands (world’s 4th largest tobacco company) and another had worked for a Japanese tobacco firm, so no possible conflicts of interest.

No one will take Turble’s nicotine away from him. The tobacco giants have billions to spend (and more to make) to ensure that will never happen.

A lot of people would like to see that future generations don’t wind up addicted and with lives shortened by tobacco products, even if those products aren’t as bad as cigarettes.