* The journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research, in November 2008. Supervision of Nitrosamines Moist Snuff, nicotine and tobacco. For Richter, Hodge, Stanfill, Zhang, Watson. A detailed analysis of the content of smokeless tobacco.
* Smokeless tobacco is a known carcinogen (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the report on carcinogens, December 2002)
* Approximately 31,000 new cases of oral cancer are diagnosed in the U.S. in 2006; almost two-thirds are male. Estimated number of deaths from oral cancer in 2004 is at 4830 men and 2400 women. (American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures 2004)
* Long term tobacco users may be 50 percent greater risk of developing cancer of the cheeks and gums. (American Cancer Society) Note that the use of snuff in the U.S. is lower than in other smokeless products. (OCF)
* Smokeless tobacco is also believed to contribute to cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure, because the nicotine enters the bloodstream through the mucous membranes of the mouth and / or gastrointestinal tract. Nicotine causes the heart to beat faster and blood pressure rise. (American Cancer Society)
* Smokeless tobacco increases the risk of cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx and esophagus compared with people who do not use tobacco products. (American Cancer Society / OCF)
* Nearly 600 000 women older than 12 years in the U.S. use of smokeless tobacco (National Institute of Drug Abuse – Agency of the National Institutes of Health, March 2001)
* Leukoplakia, oral lesions, which appear white spots on the cheeks, gums or tongue, which are commonly found in current smokeless tobacco products. Leukoplakia may be precancerous lesions, which can convert oral cancer. About 75 percent of daily users of smokeless tobacco will get leukoplakia. (American Cancer Society)
* Dive 8 to 10 times a day may bring as much nicotine as smoking 30-40 cigarettes (chewing tobacco: Does Smokeless Mean Harmless Mayo Clinic report, 2001)
* Smokeless tobacco consumes two to three times the amount of nicotine as those who smoke cigarettes. (National Cancer Institute) Note: While not considered a major cause of malignancy related to tobacco, nicotine is responsible for people addicted to tobacco products, and the following prolonged use.
* “I can not conclude that the use of any tobacco product is a safe alternative to smoking. This message is especially important to communicate with young people who may perceive smokeless tobacco as a safe form of tobacco use.” (U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, MD, June 2003 testimony) Although OCF agree with this statement, especially in relation to young people, there may be some benefits of harm reduction, when the traditional loose leaf chewing tobacco, snus products over the style and Of course, compared with tobacco smoking, where the burning of tobacco there. This does not mean that we endorse the use of smokeless products, and their contribution to disease processes outside the area is known for oral cancer are not fully understood. (OCF)
* 46.4 percent of current smokers who are in high school at Ohio State living in a home where someone else uses smokeless tobacco. (2002 Ohio Youth Tobacco Survey, Ohio Department of Health)
* Chewing tobacco contains 28 carcinogens, including tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Other carcinogens include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, crotonaldeyde, hydrazine, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, benzopyrene, and polonium (which emits radiation). (National Cancer Institute) Although some of them are found in trace amounts, there are no published studies to prove these amounts are harmless, or that relate to long-term effects and cumulative effects. (OCF)
Tips for reducing the prevalence and use of smokeless tobacco use among youth and adolescents
Support organizations that are opposed to advertising, and the glorification of tobacco and tobacco products.
* Support for warning labels on all of these products.
* Support your dentist and physician anti-smoking messages and efforts.
* Encourage young people to focus on a strong example to follow, including athletes who did not support the use of smokeless tobacco use policies.
* Stress how much you can save money by not using tobacco products.
* Schools and communities to combat the use of the program proved successful in the reduced incidence and prevalence of and above the influence, not to be used in adolescents, according to the CDC.
* Restrict access of minors, the creation and implementation of more stringent restrictions and penalties. Support the business that refuses to sell to minors.
* Parents, coaches and others with influence must learn about the dangers of smokeless tobacco, and informative talk to young people. Parents, coaches and others with influence, who smoke or use smokeless tobacco, will create a better example for young people quit smoking. The emphasis should be on not starting tobacco use.
* Talking with youth about how to give without feeling pressure from their peers.
* Explain that the romanticization of tobacco products to a false image.
* Ensure that youth activities, whether at home or in other conditions, tobacco, drug and alcohol free.
* Encourage your school district does not accept to use, no-tolerance policy on tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Then, to maintain this policy, and claim that coaches and teachers adopt this policy, even when the athlete is participating.
“People who consume 8 to 10 dips or chews per day receive the same amount of nicotine as a heavy smoker who smokes 30 to 40 cigarettes a day.”
“For smokeless tobacco, the risk of cancer of the cheeks and gums of almost 50 times more than non-users.” (American Cancer Society, 1998).
“Many athletes, especially baseball players, the use of smokeless tobacco. A study conducted in 1988-1990 showed that 37.5 percent were smokeless tobacco products. Most preferred moist snuff.”
“In 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Dependence, 92 percent of smokeless tobacco are men.”
“Smokeless” Spit “tobacco contains over 2,000 chemicals, many of which were directly linked to cause cancer.” While some are found in trace amounts, which may indicate a reduction in risk, conclusive evidence about their safety does not exist.
There are two types of smokeless tobacco – snuff and chewing tobacco. Tobacco and tobacco finely ground, packed in dry, wet, or in sachets (tea bag like pouches). Typically, the user places the rise or fall between the cheek and gum. Test (breath), dry snuff through the nose is more prevalent in Europe than in the United States. Chewing tobacco is available in loose leaf, plug, or twist forms, with the user to put a packet of tobacco in his cheek. Smokeless tobacco is sometimes called “spit” or “spit” tobacco because people spit out the tobacco juices and saliva that accumulates in the mouth.
Chewing tobacco and tobacco contains 28 carcinogens (carcinogens). The most harmful carcinogens in smokeless tobacco are the tobacco-specific nitrosamines (Cna c). Snuff dippers consume on average more than 10 times more cancer-causing substances (nitrosamines) than cigarette smokers. They are formed during curing, fermentation and aging of tobacco. Cna were found smokeless tobacco products at up to 100 times higher than that of other nitrosamines that are allowed in bacon, beer and other products. Other cancer-causing substances in smokeless tobacco include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, hydrazine, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, benzopyrene, and polonium (a radioactive element from the soil it grew more about the dangers of this) Some may argue that many of them are in chewing tobacco in very small volumes, and the amount of exposure determines the risk. Nevertheless, we have no serious studies that exposure to even very small amounts of some of them, when a person is exposed to them for decades, intimate exposure / use.
Another element found in smokeless tobacco is nicotine. Nicotine is absorbed by the smokeless tobacco at a rate of 2 to 3 times higher than in smokers, which facilitates the rapid habituation. In addition, nicotine stays in blood for a long time. It is reported that some chewing tobacco products actually contain microscopic abrasives which accelerate the absorption of nicotine and carcinogens in cell membranes. It denies the tobacco manufacturers. According to the OCF, a group that has proven its willingness to lie under oath (not admitted that they knew nicotine was addictive in conflict with their internal company notes) can not be trusted as a source of information. NO peer-reviewed published study examines this question with any conclusion. In this light, the recent tobacco research dollars have been spent to convince the public that “light” cigarettes are safer alternative to conventional cigarettes. This was later proved that wrong, and recent scientific revelations have forced them to stop reverse such statements. The history of the big tobacco companies was one of fraud, and misuse. In August 2006, U.S. District Court said that the ruling, tobacco companies deliberately misled consumers claim that low tar and “natural” cigarettes are less harmful than other cigarettes. These so-called “harm reduction” cigarettes in the market between 1998 and 2004 delivered more nicotine than their predecessors, increasing the supply of drugs in each factor of cigarette smoking on average 10 percent. People should be very skeptical of the latest tobacco industry’s claims about smokeless tobacco, given their history of deceit and lies.
Smokeless tobacco is not completely secure replacement for cigarettes. There are those who argue that if he replaced the smoking of tobacco use in the U.S., we see a reduction in tobacco use (smoking) related deaths, and they are right, if all smokers have used chewing tobacco, it would reduce the incidence of lung cancer, and possibly disease heart significantly. We agree that this is a likely scenario. But we do not think that, other nicotine replacement strategies (nicotine-containing gum, patches, lozenges, nicotine nasal sprays, inhalers nicotine, lotions, as well as among different nicotine-containing chewing on grass, even black tea, chewing tobacco is based currently on the market (blue whale), which seems to contain no known carcinogens, but the nicotine in tobacco spit existing), that their argument is a justification for the approval of smokeless tobacco. These options are running out of OTC products with a low level of nicotine in the product Rx power.
It seems that those who favor “harm reduction” are only interested in tobacco is a delivery vehicle for nicotine. If they are interested in the public good, the difference in their delivery mechanism? It seems that the wings of their interest in the smokeless as a method of choice … This, of course, is the smokeless tobacco companies. We find their passion for this term, a suspect in connection with significant tobacco dollars, which was in its direction, its own research, and their chairs of harm reduction. Arguments that they had other sources of funding will only be met with skepticism, until the revelation of all sources of funding in specific circumstances will be obvious. Thus, for the record OCF in favor of nicotine replacement therapy. We simply do not believe that tobacco is an ideal vehicle for delivering it to the patient / consumer.
There is a prescription medicine to help people quit tobacco use. The most common of these is Zyban (bupropion hydrochloride), which can significantly reduce withdrawal symptoms when trying to quit smoking. OCF prefers no tobacco nicotine replacement therapy, with the ultimate goal of liberation from dependence completely, and not a continuation of long-term dependence on another product, even without some tobacco. Other strategies for nicotine replacement, such as inhalers, nasal sprays, etc. allow the individual to wean itself from dependence, without introducing additional risk for other diseases. Chewing tobacco, in addition to its relationship with oral cancer, is also associated with other major cancers such as pancreatic cancer, and a lot we do not know about all the possible adverse biological effects of its use for long periods.
Truth is that the supporters of harm reduction do not say that there is more that we do not know about long-term adverse effects than what we are doing. Studies conducted in Sweden (the decade in depth), for example, is widely quoted them on a product that does not coincide with products manufactured in the United States. Research dollars are subject to extensive damage from tobacco smoke, and shot down any belief that smoking is harmless, is not focused on the study of smokeless tobacco spit. As a result, they will often talk about how little scientific evidence there are serious arguments against chewing tobacco as a harm reduction strategy from the viewpoint of evidence. But remember, if you find that appealing argument that research dollars are spent only now examine adverse biological effects of spit tobacco. The absence of numerous published studies, now shows that there are NO long-term studies the U.S., it does not mean that the product is safe. In our opinion, the beginning of the use of smokeless tobacco is a step in the wrong direction, and their use as a harm reduction strategy is wrong, when other options exist.
Having occupied the position of the approval of nicotine for those who can not quit, but we want to reduce the risk of harm, OCF also recognizes that there is conflicting information about the long-term use of nicotine and its effects on the body. It is probably not as benign as caffeine, some Insinuate, but as yet there is evidence, we find that the lesser of two evils when it comes to the bigger picture of harm reduction. As a result, OCF can not support a policy of adding to the case of other types of cancer, including a very deadly pancreatic cancer, but also as a contribution to other serious diseases, even if there sa good (harm reduction in tobacco smokers), to be served, if it means that the additional mortality and morbidity of the victims with the help of new cancer patients with different types and other painful conditions. If we are prepared to defend the various poisons of tobacco only on the grounds that it would help one group, but the pain of another, to a lesser extent, that is moral, not a science is a question that must be addressed.
Studies show that regular use of snuff and chewing tobacco is associated with increased risk of developing oral cancer. Our patient is a Survivor message board has a lot of real people living who can speak with their addiction and their development of oral cancer, for those who doubt. This is particularly worrying that an increasing number of young people when using such products. Marketing strategies of tobacco companies to sell these products with fruit flavors that are particularly bait for our young people is particularly deplorable. Smokeless tobacco increases the risk of cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx (throat), larynx and esophagus. Oral cancer can include cancer of the lips, tongue, cheeks, gums, as well as floor and roof of the mouth and tonsils, and or pharynx (back of the throat), and it kills easily through metastasis from the oral cavity to the vital organs of the body. People who use tobacco have a much greater risk of developing cancer of cheek and gum than people who do not use tobacco.
While some proponents argue that smokeless tobacco companies are not aggressively marketing their products in our youth, they mistakenly believe that the viral spread of tobacco marketing on the Internet is transparent.