|
|
General
Started by Anonymous at 07-31-2007 10:53 PM. Topic has 13 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 07-31-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to believe everything written in this site. I used the most popular brand of American Smokeless Tobacco for many, many years. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The only thing I hated about the habit was worrying about cancer. I'm sure many dippers can relate. I quit around 1997, but in late 06, for whatever reason (stress), I decided to use the product again. Over the last 10 months, I have used sporadically, and never let myself get of control. Fear and guilt have a lot to do with my ability to "control" myself with this unbelievably addictive product. However, websites like this tempt me to "give in" and enjoy this product once again. It's been very difficult not to. What would you say to a former user of smokeless tobacco thinking of using again? If I enjoy it as I do, and the odds of cancer are virtually nil, is there any reason not to start using a product I really enjoyed? This site wasn't around when I quit. I quit because I didn't want to die of cancer, but according to you, all the horror stories of people getting oral cancer from dipping are lies, or as you conveniently put it, "coincidences". LOL
Excuse my sarcasm, but although you address "invenerate smokers" as the main focus on your tobacco harm reduction strategy, you fail to address former addicts who would love to start using the product again if it is as safe as you say it is. And believe me, THERE WOULD BE MANY..What do you have to say to us? Did we give up something we loved for no real reason? Am I really supposed to believe an organization who got contributions from the U.S. Tobacco Company? Believe me, I would love to!!......but for whatever reason...I just can't bring myself to.
Oh and by the way, the TSNA levels in the most popular American products are waaaay more than Sweden's. The Swedish argument is weak.
Sleep well,
MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2007, 9:39 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to believe everything written in this site. I used the most
popular brand of American Smokeless Tobacco for many, many years. I
thoroughly enjoyed it. The only thing I hated about the habit was
worrying about cancer. I'm sure many dippers can relate. I quit around
1997, but in late 06, for whatever reason (stress), I decided to use
the product again. Over the last 10 months, I have used sporadically,
and never let myself get of control. Fear and guilt have a lot to do
with my ability to "control" myself with this unbelievably addictive
product.
All nicotine containing
products can be addictive though this varies by individual (both
by how much nicotine appeals to you and what
exactly you mean by "addictive").
Alternatively, we can just observe that some people have a very strong
desire to use nicotine and presumably that means they get some substantial
benefit from it.
However, websites like this tempt me to "give in" and enjoy
this product once again.
Other websites like this?
We would be interested in knowing about others.
It's been very difficult not to. What would
you say to a former user of smokeless tobacco thinking of using again?
If I enjoy it as I do, and the odds of cancer are virtually nil, is
there any reason not to start using a product I really enjoyed?
Though the increase in risk
is small, it is still an increase.
Our primary goal is to suggest
to smokers that they switch to reduce their risk, not to
promote the use of smokeless tobacco for either new or previous users.
Your comments bring up the mix of motivations that make
the question difficult to answer. Those of us who are honest about
the risks and genuinely concerned about people's well being (not just
their longevity) note a phrase like "really enjoyed" and find
it unethical to say "no! don't do it". After all, we
do not tell you that you should absolutely
not bicycle or eat french fries even though you really enjoy that,
though the risks from those activities are comparable to those from
using smokeless tobacco (all of which are much less riskier than smoking).
So, as an adult, you should be allowed to make your own decisions after
you are fully informed. Of course, when you mention "fear",
"guilt", and "control", you suggest that it is not
a simple matter of a free choice to do something that might be slightly
bad for your health but that you really enjoy. If you
feel bad that you are doing it, that seems like a good reason to not
do it. Of course, if you find yourself failing to
quit nicotine despite trying (which is the story with many smokers),
it is much better that you use smokeless tobacco rather than taking
up smoking.
This
site wasn't around when I quit. I quit because I didn't want to die of
cancer, but according to you, all the horror stories of people getting
oral cancer from dipping are lies, or as you conveniently put it,
"coincidences". LOL
Be careful about this: it
may not be the case that every case of oral cancer is a coincidence,
and I hope that we do not imply that. The evidence suggests that
most cases of oral cancer among smokeless tobacco users are
coincidence, but it might be that a few of them (perhaps 10% or 20%)
are caused by the exposure. We mention that the cases that get highlighted
in the media, tongue cancer cases in young people, do not seem to be
caused by smoking (the main cause of oral cancer in North America) or
any other behavior, so it is almost certainly coincidence when one of
those victims used tobacco.
We are not trying to tell anyone that there is no risk of oral cancer,
only that the risk is much less than is generally assumed and more importantly,
that it is much much less than the risk from smoking tobacco.
Our point is to get people who have not been able to quit the most dangerous
method of using tobacco over to a much safer method. We spend
a lot of time discussing oral cancer because it has been a major barrier
for smokers looking for alternatives.
Excuse
my sarcasm, but although you address "invenerate smokers" as the main
focus on your tobacco harm reduction strategy, you fail to address
former addicts who would love to start using the product again if it is
as safe as you say it is. And believe me, THERE WOULD BE MANY..What do
you have to say to us? Did we give up something we loved for no real
reason?
You do raise an important
issue. We know that it is possible that some people might use our
information for justifying resuming an old habit or continuing one they
might have quit. However, and especially given the vast differences in
health effects, we think the overriding issue is to try the information
out to smokers. That’s where the real difference can be made. Someone
who uses smokeless tobacco might increase their health risk a little
but someone who switches from smoking will definitely reduce their
health risk a lot. As well, we believe it is important that people
know the truth about any issue, rather than only the truth that people
think you should know. If, upon learning the truth, you or another
adult makes an informed decision to take a small risk in exchange for a
bigger benefit (perhaps relief from psychological symptoms, perhaps
just basic enjoyment), it is inappropriate for public health officials
or anyone else to tell you not to, and clearly unethical for them to
lie to your to manipulate your choice.
Am I really supposed to believe an organization who got
contributions from the U.S. Tobacco Company? Believe me, I would love
to!!......but for whatever reason...I just can't bring myself to.
Everyone gets funding from
someone. We are university scientists whose work is not affected
by the opinions or desires of our funders, who have provided money with
absolutely no strings attached. I think you might find that many
of the anti-harm-reduction advocates can make no such claim about not
being answerable to their funders. In any case, it would be a
mistake for you to just accept anyone's assertions in this controversial
field. Take a close look at what we are saying and what we base
it on, and then compare it to the anti-harm-reduction messages.
I think it will become apparent who is lying to you.
Oh
and by the way, the TSNA levels in the most popular American products
are waaaay more than Sweden's. The Swedish argument is weak.
This is a common red herring
in the anti-smokeless-tobacco literature.
Both U.S. and Swedish products have TSNA levels that are lower than
the levels for products that have been shown not to raise the risk of cancer.
Whatever small differences remain among products, there is no scientific
reason to believe they have different health effects. If there
are differences, they are likely in the range of 99% less harmful than
smoking, vs. 98.9% less harmful than smoking. Either way, smokers
should switch.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2007, 7:38 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If I could, I would like to respond to your comments.
Of course, when you mention "fear",
"guilt", and "control", you suggest that it is not
a simple matter of a free choice to do something that might be slightly
bad for your health but that you really enjoy. If you
feel bad that you are doing it, that seems like a good reason to not
do it.
I wouldn't feel fear or guilt if I believed everything you said....controlled maybe.
ll nicotine containing
products can be addictive though this varies by individual (both
by how much nicotine appeals to you and what
exactly you mean by "addictive").
Alternatively, we can just observe that some people have a very strong
desire to use nicotine and presumably that means they get some substantial
benefit from it.
By addictive I mean the physiological process by where my body becomes dependent on the drug nicotine and I become physically ill and psychologically distressed by its absence. Because of these "intense, uncomfortable feelings", the need to use nicotine to function "normally" again causes repeated use even though there is a desire to stop. Isn't that the exact reason why you suggest smokers to switch if they can't quit?
Be careful about this: it
may not be the case that every case of oral cancer is a coincidence,
and I hope that we do not imply that. The evidence suggests that
most cases of oral cancer among smokeless tobacco users are
coincidence, but it might be that a few of them (perhaps 10% or 20%)
are caused by the exposure.
That seems unrealistic. As I understand it, oral cancer is a somewhat rare disease in America...especially among younger people( under 50). So given the rarity of the disease (compared to other cancers), it seems logical that the cause of oral cancer of a smokeless tobacco user would almost certainly be from the products. It seems ludicrous to suggest that ANY smokeless tobacco oral cancer victims, INCLUDING TONGUE CANCER, would be a coincidence. ....especially if they are relatively young.
After all, we
do not tell you that you should absolutely
not bicycle or eat french fries even though you really enjoy that,
though the risks from those activities are comparable to those from
using smokeless tobacco (all of which are much less riskier than smoking).
How would you quantify that? I agree that bicycling and eating french fries can be dangerous. However, I have a hard time believing they are comparable to using smokeless tobacco. I feel it is reasonable that most addictive dippers use the product frequently throughout the day. For arguments sake , let's say 5 times. How many bike rides and french fries equals the danger risk of 5 dips? If I biked to McDonalds through city traffic to order french fries 5 times a day I may consider the comparison...but no one does that.
By the way, what are your thoughts regarding non cancerous lesions, gum disease and tooth loss with use of smokeless? Are these overexaggerated as well?
Anyway. I appreciate your feedback. thanks for reading.
Respectfully,
MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2007, 8:28 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. If I could, I would like to respond to your comments.
Of course, when you mention "fear",
"guilt", and "control", you suggest that it is not
a simple matter of a free choice to do something that might be slightly
bad for your health but that you really enjoy. If you
feel bad that you are doing it, that seems like a good reason to not
do it.
I wouldn't feel fear or guilt if I believed everything you said....controlled maybe.
ll nicotine containing
products can be addictive though this varies by individual (both
by how much nicotine appeals to you and what
exactly you mean by "addictive").
Alternatively, we can just observe that some people have a very strong
desire to use nicotine and presumably that means they get some substantial
benefit from it.
By
addictive I mean the physiological process by where my body becomes
dependent on the drug nicotine and I become physically ill and
psychologically distressed by its absence. Because of these "intense,
uncomfortable feelings", the need to use nicotine to function
"normally" again causes repeated use even though there is a desire to
stop. Isn't that the exact reason why you suggest smokers to switch if
they can't quit?
To clarify the previous our previous comments about addiction; we were not meaning to suggest that we do not understand what most people mean when they say "addictive", and we certainly know what you are talking about. It is sometimes useful to note that there is not really a meaningful scientific definition of the term that is widely accepted. And yes, you are right, it is because there are people who
consistently fail to quit when they want to that we suggest this
alternative.Its pure harm reduction: If a person won't
stop using nicotine let's give them options that are much less
harmful.
You bring up an additional tough question. There is no
doubt that given a choice between smoking and using smokeless tobacco, someone
is better off using smokeless tobacco. However, what about your
choice: Between craving nicotine and suffering from not being able to
have it, and using smokeless tobacco. Harm reduction experts
disagree on how to react to that. Some of them say that it is definitely
better that you stay off of all nicotine if you can, even if that leaves you
distressed, and would find it unfortunate if you
(upon learning the truth about the health effects of smokeless
tobacco) decided you would be better off using it again. On the other
hand, others would say that if you decide that a little bit of physical
health risk is justified in order to get the relief/pleasure/etc. benefits
from nicotine, then your life (and thus the average health of the world) would
be improved if you did it. Of course, none of us would encourage you to
start again, but many would say that if starting again is your educated
choice, then you have every right to make that choice and we have an ethical
duty to respect your own choice about your own
body.
Of course, even if you are
better off using reduced-risk nicotine products now, it begs the question
about whether you might have been better off still if you had
never used it. This is an entirely different important
question. <
Be careful about this: it
may not be the case that every case of oral cancer is a coincidence,
and I hope that we do not imply that. The evidence suggests that
most cases of oral cancer among smokeless tobacco users are
coincidence, but it might be that a few of them (perhaps 10% or 20%)
are caused by the exposure.
That
seems unrealistic. As I understand it, oral cancer is a somewhat rare
disease in America...especially among younger people( under 50). So
given the rarity of the disease (compared to other cancers), it seems
logical that the cause of oral cancer of a smokeless tobacco user would
almost certainly be from the products. It seems ludicrous to suggest
that ANY smokeless tobacco oral cancer victims, INCLUDING TONGUE
CANCER, would be a coincidence. ....especially if they are relatively
young.
You are right that oral cancer is rare in America, at least in nonsmokers. (Smoking is believed to cause about 3/4 of all oral cancer in America.) Alcohol is known to cause many of the others. But like most diseases, there are multiple causes, and the health science community does not know many of them. So there is no reason to assume that the cases that are not caused by smoking or alcohol are caused by a particular product, or by any product at all. Even though we do not know what causes them, our scientific methods let us draw negative conclusions. In particular, that smokeless tobacco causes very few, if any, of the cases.
As for tongue cancer and younger people, there seems to be a distinct group of oral cancers that are not caused by any known risk factor, including smoking. There are relatively few of these (perhaps 200 per year), but enough that they get noticed. The cause might be a virus or something else, but it is clearly not an epidemic of tobacco-caused cancers in young people (as some uninformed observers have claimed).
After all, we
do not tell you that you should absolutely
not bicycle or eat french fries even though you really enjoy that,
though the risks from those activities are comparable to those from
using smokeless tobacco (all of which are much less riskier than smoking).
How
would you quantify that? I agree that bicycling and eating french fries
can be dangerous. However, I have a hard time believing they are
comparable to using smokeless tobacco. I feel it is reasonable that
most addictive dippers use the product frequently throughout the day.
For arguments sake , let's say 5 times. How many bike rides and french
fries equals the danger risk of 5 dips? If I biked to McDonalds through
city traffic to order french fries 5 times a day I may consider the
comparison...but no one does that.
That is not exactly how we would approach it. Here is one way to do a rough calculation: Start with the portion of smokers that are believed to die from smoking, about 1/3. The best estimates show that smokeless tobacco causes about 1/100th that risk. So if you use smokeless tobacco, it may have about a 1-in-300 chance of hastening your death. (Note that this is *very* rough. It ignores how long you use it. It is based on fairly rough estimates of very small numbers, which are hard to estimate. And it has other limitations.) Note that this compares to about a 1-in-100 chance of dying in a motor vehicle accident. A regular french fries habit exposes you to trans-fats, as well as increasing your weight by at least a bit, and probably crowds out foods that are better for you. Science does not have terribly good estimates for how likely one of these is to accelerate your death, but it difficult to imagine that the total is less than 1/300. Cycling, like any other exposure, depends on intensity of exposure, but someone who substitutes cycling for driving probably increases their chance of dying due to transport by a factor of 5 or 10. Of course, no one substitutes cycling for all of their driving, so exactly how big the net effect is would be difficult to calculate, but again, we are talking numbers that are almost certainly bigger than 1/300.
By the way, what are your
thoughts regarding non cancerous lesions, gum disease and tooth loss
with use of smokeless? Are these overexaggerated as well?
Actually they are, at least in comparison to smoking. Many people find that using smokeless tobacco causes superficial changes in their oral mucosa, though these are really only a problem if they irritate you. There is actually very little evidence to suggest there are problems with tooth loss and such. Smokeless tobacco is not good for your mouth but it is preferable to smoking and at the risk of being redundant, that is our point. Smokeless tobacco is not something you should use but if you are a smoker, and you want to continue to use tobacco but want to dramatically reduce your health risks, switch.
Anyway. I appreciate your feedback. thanks for reading.
Thank you for raising some of these difficult questions.
Note from admin: due to
formattting issues this post was re-edited and a couple of words may
have changed. If this occurred it was not intended and reflects only problems associated with the software.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2007, 3:34 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could possibly say that only 10%-20% of oral cancer patients who use smokeless tobacco are caused by smokeless tobacco. So 80%-90% of smokeless tobacco users who develop oral cancer IS NOT from the tobacco use? The only word that comes to mind is-absurd. Just to make sure, I have to ask whether or not you believe smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic? You've already agreed that oral cancer is somewhat rare, so it makes sense to me that most of the users who got cancer would not have developed the disease without the exposure. If you were to meet Sean Marsee (Copenhagen user, died at 19 after 7 years of use) before he died or Gruen Von Behren (tongue cancer at 17), would you tell them to their face that it is unlikely smokeless caused their tongue cancer?
If you were to say that there is a somewhat significant number of smokeless tobacco users who have or will develop oral cancer, but it is still OVERALL safer than smoking, I'd be more apt to believe you. The website gives the overall impression that smokeless is completely harmless....or.. I'm sorry, 99% harmless.
What am I missing? It seems to me that you protect yourself by saying smokeless can cause cancer at a very low level but very few people get it. But when specific examples are brought up of users developing the disease you say "coincidence!". So you're "protected" on both ends of the argument.
Furthermore, I understand that you are targeting smokers to switch. I agree wholeheartedly that smokeless doesn't carry the same risks as smoking. However, with regards to oral cancer, I'm still not convinced.
Also, another side note. When I dipped tobacco, the part of my oral cavity that I worried about most was my tongue. I developed more sores there that any other part of mouth.
One more thing:
If the USTC were smart, they would have the TSNA levels regulated by the government. If I knew for sure that the TSNA levels of Copenhagen could be reduced and was reduced to the lowest possible level, I would be more inclined to keep using the product. I know you've stated that levels are lower than ever before, but they are still much higher than most other products. ...and also without goverment regulations the USTC have none and don't deserve the trust of the public. With that being said, it is hard to trust an organization funded by them.
If after you did your studies and you found smokeless tobacco not to be a reasonable alternative to smoking, would you have website stating your conclusions? I doubt it. Has the USTC ever funded a research project that didn't produce results favorable for their company? I doubt that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-23-2007, 10:28 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Note to readers: Some of the content of this
particular string creates a fair bit of doubt about whether the author is
really who he claims to be. We would like to remind everyone that we
strongly encourage open dialogue with those who disagree with us,
including anti-harm-reduction advocacy groups, such as the
American Cancer Society. It is our experience that these groups are
afraid of open discussion where they might have to defend their claims, and
they prefer to engage in subterfuge and attempts to censor our work, but we
will nevertheless continue to encourage dialog. That said, we will go
ahead and respond to this thread based on the assumption that the poster is
authentic because even if he is not, *we* are always happy to openly respond to
challenging questions.]
I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could
possibly say that only 10%-20% of oral cancer patients who use smokeless
tobacco are caused by smokeless tobacco. So 80%-90% of smokeless tobacco users
who develop oral cancer is not from the tobacco use? The only word that comes
to mind is-absurd.
Some of the concepts
in epidemiology might be a little confusing to those who are not familiar with
the field. Instead of getting technical,
let’s substitute a couple of words just to show why that is “not absurd”. 10 to 20% of morbidly obese individuals who
drink soda are obese because they drink soda and 80 to 90% of soda drinkers who
become morbidly obese are not so because of the soda. Does that still seem absurd to you?
Coincidences happen. The reason we do careful
studies that compare multiple groups is that if you pick a particular case in
isolation, it may be coincidence. If you checked the pockets of everyone
walking past on a sidewalk for dimes dated 1968, a fairly rare occurrence,
you would find that after you had checked enough people to come up
with enough such dimes, many of them would have been in the pockets of people
wearing blue jeans. Mostly this would be
coincidence: Some people wear jeans, so some people carrying 1968 dimes
wear jeans. It might be that there is actually some small causal
relationship (perhaps people wearing business suits are more likely to not
carry any change, so people wearing jeans will actually have a slightly higher
than average rate of having a 1968 dime), but mostly it will still be
coincidence.
Just to make sure, I have to ask whether or not you believe
smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic?
There are two words in that question
that make it difficult to answer very usefully. The first is
"carcinogenic". At the right dose and under the right
circumstances, there are very likely few chemicals that cannot cause
cancer. What matters is whether the actual dose used in a specific manner
by individuals actually causes cancer in a measurable fraction of them.
The second challenging word is "believe". While it is widely
accepted in modern thinking that all science is subjective to some extent,
the common use of that word implies that different opinions about something are
equally valid (as is widely accepted for political pluralism), and that we have
a choice about what is or is not true. The most useful answer to the
question is that the epidemiologic evidence clearly shows that smokeless
tobacco does not cause cancer at any level that is great enough to measure;
this is not to say that it never causes cancer -- like most every other common
exposure to chemicals, it very likely has caused some cancers.
You've already agreed that oral cancer is somewhat rare, so
it makes sense to me that most of the users who got cancer would not have
developed the disease without the exposure.
Rarity is unconnected
to determination of exposure. The lower
the incidence the harder it is to be sure what the cause is. If for example there were five equally strong
associations with a given condition, if that condition were common then the
five or some of the five might be discernible; if the condition were rare, the
five might be next to impossible to discover or to disentangle. Ultimately, the question is, why do so few
smokeless tobacco users (in the West) get oral cancer at all?
If you were to meet Sean Marsee (Copenhagen user, died at 19 after 7 years of
use) before he died or Gruen Von Behren (tongue cancer at 17), would you tell
them to their face that it is unlikely smokeless caused their tongue cancer?
Those examples do a nice job of making our
point about why scientific research requires comparisons of different
populations and not just individual cases. Given that some people use
smokeless tobacco and that some people get cancer, there will
inevitably be people for whom both of those are true. This does not
mean that there is any causal relationship (nor, of course, does this by itself
mean that there is not a causal relationship -- it just means that we
learn nothing from finding a single case). One thing that is
notable about both of those individuals is that they had a version
of oral cancer that does not seem to be associated with the behavior
that causes most oral cancers, smoking, which strongly suggesting
that even if smokeless tobacco does cause some oral cancers, it did not cause
these particular oral cancers.
If you were to say that there is a somewhat significant number of smokeless
tobacco users who have or will develop oral cancer, but it is still OVERALL
safer than smoking, I'd be more apt to believe you. The website gives the
overall impression that smokeless is completely harmless....or.. I'm sorry, 99%
harmless.
If we say or suggest anywhere in what we
have written that smokeless tobacco is completely harmless, please point
that out to us, because we would like to make sure to change it. If we
use the phrase "99% harmless", please point that out also, since I am
not sure what that phrase would even mean. I believe that
we repeatedly clearly point out that using smokeless tobacco is about 99%
less harmful than smoking.
What am I missing? It seems to me that you protect yourself by saying smokeless
can cause cancer at a very low level but very few people get it. But when
specific examples are brought up of users developing the disease you say
"coincidence!". So you're "protected" on both ends of the
argument.
Furthermore, I understand that you are targeting smokers to
switch. I agree wholeheartedly that smokeless doesn't carry the same risks as
smoking. However, with regards to oral cancer, I'm still not convinced.
We are happy to try to clarify and to educate any
reader. But as you noted yourself, you are not
really our target audience. More importantly, your health concerns and anxiety seem to
outweigh any benefit you might obtain from using tobacco. If you
can quit nicotine, then you should. We
are certainly not trying to convince you, someone who does not
smoke, to use nicotine in any form.
Also, another side note. When I dipped tobacco, the part of my oral cavity that
I worried about most was my tongue. I developed more sores there that any other
part of mouth.
I understand your
worries. If I had sores on my tongue I
would worry too. But worries (and sores)
are not the same things as cancer. It is
not uncommon for smokeless tobacco users to develop some local responses to
irritation (which is why it is recommended to vary the site of the packets) but
studies have not born out that these develop into anything of concern. See the recent Studies on Smokeless Tobacco
Use entry in this forum for a relevant reference.
One more thing: If the USTC were smart, they would have the TSNA levels
regulated by the government. If I knew for sure that the TSNA levels of Copenhagen could be
reduced and was reduced to the lowest possible level, I would be more
inclined to keep using the product. I know you've stated that levels are lower
than ever before, but they are still much higher than most other products.
...and also without government regulations the USTC have none and don't deserve
the trust of the public. With that being said, it is hard to trust an
organization funded by them.
There are a lot of
discussions about regulation going on right now. ASTER is not directly involved
with those (let alone with company marketing) -- we stick to science and
education. The science on this point, by the way, does not support the
claim that the differences in levels of TSNAs among currently
popular Western products have any health implications. [For readers not as
familiar with this topic as Anonymous is, TSNAs are a group of chemicals in
tobacco that are widely believed to cause cancer in sufficient concentrations,
though limitations of research methods make it impossible to really establish
the accuracy of that belief one way or another.]
If after you did your studies and you found smokeless
tobacco not to be a reasonable alternative to smoking, would you have website
stating your conclusions? I doubt it.
Sometimes lay people and
anti-tobacco advocates (you are presumably one or the other of those) do
not understand how honest scientists conduct themselves: Whatever
our studies on this or any other topic show, we report that. Many
anti-tobacco advocates seem to be so focused on hating tobacco that they
stop being concerned about public health, and thus perhaps find it easy to
accuse others of doing the same. Those of us who are concerned about
public health would, of course, be quick to inform people about any change in
the scientific knowledge that suggested that they make a particular change in
their behavior (it is too bad that the American Cancer Society and others do
not feel the same way).
Has the USTC ever funded a research project that didn't
produce results favorable for their company? I doubt that as well.
There is not a company in the world
that has had the opportunity to fund a substantial amount of independent
research that has not funded research that produced results the company found
to be unfortunate. That is the nature of scientific research that
you may not understand: If it is real science, then the results
are not known in advance, so they might prove to be bad news.
Your choice of the word "favorable" suggests another mistaken
(practiced cynical, or perhaps just naive) impression: Most people
at most companies (including at smokeless tobacco companies and pharmaceutical
companies -- despite the bad press that they often get) care about
providing good products, and especially want to know about any
problems with their products. Thus, if good research shows
something bad about a product, most people at most companies would still
consider it "favorable" in the sense that it is better to know the
truth, even though it turns out that this truth is unfortunate.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-23-2007, 6:39 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for responding. This will most likely be my last response, but I felt I needed to say a few things.
I have to say, I think it's kind of funny you have doubts about who I say I am (lol)..... (and I don't mean that disrespectfully). I just never would have expected that. Just to let you know, I am educated person and I do hold a master's degree, but I am certainly not qualified to discuss research, scientific probabilitites, or the politics surrounding this issue at the level you are. However, if I have a question, I ask it. If something seems absurd, I say it. I'm not part of any anti-tobacco group.
THE FACT is that I was a user of Copenhagen Snuff for many years(and still an occassional user). In your post you stated "your health concerns and anxiety seem to
outweigh any benefit you might obtain from using tobacco"...but please remember, we all have been bombarded by every source imaginable that a smokeless tobacco habit will MOST LIKELY lead to terrible suffering unless stopped....cancer, tooth loss, gum disease, etc. Any tobacco user with half a brain would have anxiety. So, when I read that your scientific research has established that smokeless tobacco is a VERY minor health hazard it's as though I read headlne that reads "Shooting Heroin Erases Every Form of Suffering and Promotes Immortality" .....of course that's ridiculous, ....but I'm just tryng to make a point. Nevertheless, it compelled me to ask questions.
Furthermore, through this whole dialogue, as I stated in the first post, I really want to believe...and that's the truth. That's why I asked the questions. I feel you detected a mode of me challenging you, while I was really just hoping for conviction.
With that being said, I'm sure I've wasted enough of your time, considering I'm not even a smoker. lol. I'm sure you didn't expect someone like me to come out of the woodwork. However, I do feel that I've asked questions that many former, current or sporadic users who enjoy(ed) smokeless tobacco poducts would like to have answered. Thank you for that. Again, I realize your message is strictly for smokers, but as you can see by our discussions, it may not be that simple. My hope and prayer is that you are ethical and honest with the gathering of data and the presentation of the results of your research.....for the sake of all who subscribe to your message.
As for me, I'm still deciding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-27-2007, 2:20 PM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
We apologize if we misread you. Part of what might have made us think this is that you had a greater depth of knowledge in this area than most seem to and a few of your arguments and comments were ones we were all too used to seeing in anti-harm reduction literature. We stand corrected and hope you are not too offended (GBG).
This discussion has been helpful to us to expand
on some of those tangential issues that we might not have paid quite enough
attention to. When you put together a
resource like this website, it is only through these kinds of interchanges that
you can tell if the desired message is getting across. And as your postings pointed out, we cannot
control our audience; we are writing to smokers but other people will be
reading and using our information as well.
If we had to boil down our message to one sentence it might be: what you
do with your health is your right and responsibility but you should know what
risks are associated with your behaviors.
Thank you again.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 6:13 AM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another smokeless tobacco user,
I can relate to the former tobacco user. The situation for peaple like us is, we do not realy want to qiut smokeless tobacco. We don't want to quit because we are hoplessly addicted. The information you put out is good news for me, if it is true. I have trouble beliving that peaple who have goted cancer and chew di not get it from the tobacco. I know peaple i my locak area who got oral cncer and used chew. This worries me, but your info is there to relieve those worries. Even so, I have trouble believing your information with so many others contrnicted it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2007, 10:23 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Former Smokeless Tobacco User
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you feel you are "hopelessly addicted" you are obviously concerned about your smokeless tobacco use and the best thing for you might be to try quitting. Consult your doctor; they may have some good suggestions on how to quit and gain a greater piece of mind. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-29-2007, 3:01 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
What would conventional medicine say
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used ST off and on for an aggregate of 4 years. I would chew or dip for 3 months and then quit for 3 months. I did this for about 3 years, quit toally, and then did this for about another 3 years. Of course, your site would argue that any pattern of use would suggest, at best, a minimal risk for oral cancer. I have never had leukoplakia or erythroplakia. I have had mild gum recession and usually quit dipping when that happened.
So, what would conventional medicine say about my past habit? Am I at increased risk for some sort of oral cancer? If so, how much at risk? I have quite using ST and will never use it again - conventional medicine scared me enough not to use.
I am sure that you guys would say that the risk is minimal, no matter what. But I am interested to hear your thoughts on what conventional medicine would say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2007, 10:02 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: What would conventional medicine say
|
|
|
|
|
|
We cannot speak for "conventional medicine" because we're not quite
sure what that means. Your own doctor is a representative of
conventional medicine so you might start there. Since we are
associated with an official institution of health, and among us have
medical and epidemiological training, you could call us conventional
medicine as well.
Ironically, the misinformation campaign about smokeless tobacco has
been so successful that when we apply traditional methods of analysis
to the evidence, our results cause us to be labelled as a fringe
element. We are only radical in the sense that our answers don't agree
with the general message; our answers agree with the evidence and with
centuries of traditional scientific methods.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2007, 8:32 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: What would conventional medicine say
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what some scientists/researchers in "conventional medicine" might say:
University of Florida College of Dentistry, Gainesville, Florida.Moist
snuff is the most popular form of orally-used smokeless tobacco in
North America and parts of Europe. Because moist snuff use conveys
lower risks for morbidity or mortality than does cigarette smoking, its
use has been proposed as a tobacco harm-reduction strategy. This
article critically reviews new and published epidemiologic evidence on
health effects of moist snuff and its patterns of use relative to
smoking in the United States, Sweden, and Norway. The available
evidence suggests that: (1) moist snuff is a human carcinogen and
toxin, (2) increased promotion of moist snuff has led to increased
sales in those countries, (3) the uptake of moist snuff in these three
countries during the past several decades has occurred primarily among
adolescent and young adult men, (4) increased prevalence of snuff use
has not been associated consistently with a reduction in smoking
initiation or prevalence, (5) moist snuff use apparently plays a very
minor role in smoking cessation in the U.S. and an inconsistent role in
Sweden, (6) U.S. states with the lowest smoking prevalence also tend to
have the lowest prevalence of snuff use, (7) there are no data on the
efficacy of snuff as a smoking-cessation method, (8) the prevalence of
cigarette smoking is relatively high among people who use snuff, and
(9) snuff use is more consistently associated with partial substitution
for smoking than with complete substitution. The evidence base for
promotion of snuff use as a public health strategy is weak and
inconsistent. PMID: 18021914 [PubMed - in process]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2007, 11:37 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: What would conventional medicine say
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the passage here has neglected the most important piece to the puzzle as to why rates of smokeless tobacco use in The United States do not interact with rates of smoking. The consistent message that smokeless tobacco is as, or more harmful than, smoking has been a barrier to smokers switching. You would only expect an effect if most people knew that using smokeless tobacco was less harmful than smoking but this is far from being the case. Most people, smokers included, think that switching will increase their odds of oral cancer, and in general be no improvement. Why would any smoker switch given this situation? And what's to stop smokeless users from taking up smoking if they don't know how much more harmful it is for you?
The reference above comes from the University of Florida College of Dentistry, an institution which is a particularly poor example of "conventional medicine" as for the last few years they have been one of the major sources of misinformation regarding tobacco harm reduction. The message coming out of this institution discourages smokers from switching to smokeless tobacco which they then interpret as some sort of evidence for their position. Isn't it a little strange that though they acknowledge that it conveys "lower risks for morbidity and mortality", in other words, is safer, that they still think smokers shouldn't switch? Why are they promoting the maintenance of a high risk activity when there is an alternative?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|