Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Vaping and E-Smoking
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:

oh look, you are unable to read! I was talking about SNUFF.


SNUFF = inhalation of powdered tobacco leaf ?

Dr.Willy wrote:
pjp wrote:
erm67 wrote:
smoke produced by a propylene glycol solution
Isn't that anti-freeze?

I don't think adding anti-freeze to a neurotixin makes things any worse.


:-)

For the moment it is working, one week later, I didn't smoke any tobacco and I am inhaling a lot less nicotine (and anti-freeze) than the first day, so apparently it is working for the moment as a smoke cessation aid.
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool. Hopefully it continues to work well. I'll be curious to hear about your progress (good or bad) so I can mention it to others if the subject comes up.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2029
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erm67 wrote:
energyman76b wrote:

oh look, you are unable to read! I was talking about SNUFF.


SNUFF = inhalation of powdered tobacco leaf ?

Dr.Willy wrote:
pjp wrote:
erm67 wrote:
smoke produced by a propylene glycol solution
Isn't that anti-freeze?

I don't think adding anti-freeze to a neurotixin makes things any worse.


:-)

For the moment it is working, one week later, I didn't smoke any tobacco and I am inhaling a lot less nicotine (and anti-freeze) than the first day, so apparently it is working for the moment as a smoke cessation aid.


no, inhalation would be sucking it into your lungs. If you get it past your sinus you did it wrong.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Cool. Hopefully it continues to work well. I'll be curious to hear about your progress (good or bad) so I can mention it to others if the subject comes up.


The antifreeze aftertaste is a bit horrible, but, in my case it is working as a replacement, since it is not sold in pharmacies here (yet, but we are all waiting for the EU to decide) it is also cheaper than nicotine patches or gums. Otherwise it is just the same as nicotine gums.
Some still prefer real cigarettes, others vape all day long just like they were doing before.
It is true that the cancer risk is reduced but the CVD (cardiovascular diseases) risk and non cancerous lungs diseases like emphysema risk is the same as with cigarettes .....




energyman76b wrote:


no, inhalation would be sucking it into your lungs. If you get it past your sinus you did it wrong.


And it never ever happens that some tiny bits tobacco powder are inhaled while snuffing? You know in just a few months most of the rats that inhaled tobacco powder got cancers....
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2029
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no, it can't. Your nose is a very good filter. So is your throat. You might swallow some - if you do it wrong. But that is a different problem.
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

energyman76b wrote:
no, it can't. Your nose is a very good filter. So is your throat. You might swallow some - if you do it wrong. But that is a different problem.

oooppps also swallowed tobacco causes cancer

Quote:
3.1 Tobacco
3.1.1 Oral administration
(a)
Mouse
Groups [numbers unspecified] of male Swiss mice, 6–8 weeks of age, were adminis-
tered a tobacco extract (ethanol extract from 50 g tobacco diluted in 10 mL distilled
water) from a commercially available Indian chewing tobacco at a dilution of 1:25 or 1:50
[actual dose unspecified] by oral intubation for 15–20 months. A further group of mice
was fed a diet that contained an extract of 10 g tobacco per 5 kg diet for up to 25 months.
A group of 20 mice received distilled water only by intubation and served as controls.
Administration of the 1:25 dilution was terminated at 18 weeks because of high mortality.
Tumour incidences at 15–20 months were 0/4, 8/15 and 4/10 in the control, 1:50 dilution
and 1:25 dilution groups, respectively. At 21–25 months, 1/20 controls and 8/10 animals
fed tobacco extract in the diet had developed tumours
. The types of tumour observed were
lung adenocarcinoma or hepatocellular carcinoma (Bhide et al., 1984b). [The Working
Group noted the incomplete reporting of the distribution of different types of neoplasm.]

_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
energyman76b
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2029
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as I said: doing it wrong
_________________
AidanJT wrote:

Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.

Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
petrjanda
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 1557
Location: Brno, Czech Republic

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So the question is, what is carcinogenic in unburnt tobacco?
_________________
There is, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. If that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded. - Gautama Siddharta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So is it true that put tobacco in your nose, or mouth do not cause cancer, but since it is very likely that sometimes tiny particles of tobacco are inhaled or swallowed (over the years) the practice of snuffing tobacco is less dangerous than smoking but not risk free, just like the statics show. There are not enough people that only snuff tobacco to have reliable data however.

@petrjanda 41 components of raw tobacco have been recognized as cancerous + some additives + some fertilizers ...
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

erm67 wrote:
There are not enough people that only snuff tobacco to have reliable data however.


Thousands of swedes would disagree. That argument is just BS on EU level, think bribes and such.

EDIT: According to Swedish Match, there is about 1 million snus users in Sweden alone, and from that about 20% are female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snuff has been banned here in Australia since 1991, as well as chewing and possibly sticking some up your bum tobacco as well.

To be honest, the smokeless tobacco alternatives are more revolting than the habit they replace, with similar dangers such as nose, throat and pancreas cancer.

My view on quitting tobacco is if you are stuffing around with smokeless tobacco then you are not really ready to quit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
erm67 wrote:
There are not enough people that only snuff tobacco to have reliable data however.


Thousands of swedes would disagree. That argument is just BS on EU level, think bribes and such.

EDIT: According to Swedish Match, there is about 1 million snus users in Sweden alone, and from that about 20% are female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus


I mean does 'only' snus and never ever smoked tobacco, that are very few even in Sweden.
Swedish statistics are among the very few available in the cited monography and show an increased cancer risk for snus users.

Quote:
Data from Sweden
A number of reports indicate that dual use of moist snuff and cigarettes is fairly pre-
valent in Sweden. In 1985–87, 47% of all male snuff dippers were also smokers compared
with 36% of non-snuff users who were smokers (Nordgren & Ramström, 1990). More
recent, official national data on the prevalence of dual use could not be located, although
a Swedish survey of current and former smokers commissioned by the Swedish CancerSMOKELESS TOBACCO
145
Society and Pharmacia AB in 2000 found that 19.8% of male current smokers also used
moist snuff (Gilljam & Galanti, 2003). A census of ninth grade students (aged 15–16
years) in the County of Stockholm found that 14.3% of boys were exclusively smokers,
5.7% were exclusively snuff dippers and 13.8% used both cigarettes and snuff (Galanti
et al., 2001a), that is, 71% of boys who used snuff also smoked and 49% of boys who
smoked also used snuff.
Some data indicate that snuff use may be a precursor to smoking among young men in
Sweden. In a cohort study conducted in the County of Stockholm that began in 1997, 2883
students in the fifth grade were recruited and followed-up 1 year later (Galanti et al.,
2001b). At baseline, 22% of boys and 15% of girls had ever smoked and 8 and 3%, res-
pectively, had ever used oral moist snuff. One year later, the overall prevalence of smoking
had increased markedly, as had the transition to more advanced stages of smoking, espe-
cially among girls. The authors concluded that, in most cases, experimentation with oral
snuff among boys marked the transition to cigarette smoking.
The extent to which snuff use may account for the decline in smoking in Sweden
during the past few decades is unclear. Ramström (2000) reported that, in national surveys
of the Swedish population in 1987 and 1988, respondents who had ever used tobacco
were asked whether their primary tobacco use was smoking or snuff dipping. Among men
aged 18–34 years, 43% were ever daily smokers; of these, 21.5% were former smokers
and 21.5% were current daily smokers. Fifty-one per cent of women of the same age were
ever daily smokers: 18.5% were former smokers and 32.5% were current daily smokers.
From this observation, the author concluded that “Since the one major difference between
men and women in Sweden is the widespread use of snuff among men and virtually no
snuff use among women, it seems probable that male snuff use has kept down onset of
smoking and increased smoking cessation” (Ramström, 2000). Similarly, the review by
Foulds et al. (2003) cited ecological data on trends of sales of snuff and cigarettes, un-
adjusted data on prevalence of smoking and male snuff use and sequential cross-sectional
surveys from a study in northern Sweden [the Working Group noted that this study was
funded by the smokeless tobacco industry] (Rodu et al., 2002) as being “strongly sugges-
tive of snus having a direct effect on the changes in male smoking and health”. [Most con-
clusions that suggest that snuff played a significant role in reducing cigarette smoking are
based largely on ecological or cross-sectional studies.]
Several studies in Sweden examined the possible contribution of snuff to quitting
smoking. In a 1-year cohort study of 12 507 persons aged 47–68 years at baseline in
1992–94, Lindström et al. (2002a) examined predictors of smoking cessation or change to
intermittent (non-daily) smoking among 3550 daily smokers. At baseline, 7.0% of all men
and 0.4% of all women were snuff users. At the 1-year follow-up, 7.2% of daily smokers
had quit and 6.5% had become intermittent smokers. In a multiple logistic regression ana-
lysis that controlled for sex and other demographic characteristics, daily smokers who
remained so were less likely than the total population to be snuff users at baseline (odds
ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.87); daily smokers who became inter-
mittent smokers were more likely than the general population to be snuff dippers at baseline146
IARC MONOGRAPHS VOLUME 89
(odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07–3.51); and daily smokers who quit smoking did not differ
from the total population in their use of snuff at baseline (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.54–
2.26). The study did not report changes in snuff use during the period of follow-up. The
authors concluded that sex differences in snuff consumption could provide “... a substan-
tial, although not major, fraction of the explanation for why there has been an increase in
smoking cessation in recent years among men but not among women, although we believe
that other social and work-related factors may be even more important”. Another analysis of
the same cohort focused on intermittent smokers at baseline (Lindström et al., 2002b), who
accounted for 4.8% of the cohort of 699 people. At the 1-year follow-up, 59.9% of inter-
mittent smokers were still intermittent smokers (intermittent/intermittent), 15.9% had
become daily smokers (intermittent/daily) and 19.2% had stopped smoking (intermittent/
stopped). Among intermittent/intermittent, 11.5% were snuff users at baseline, as were 9.5%
of intermittent/daily, 9.0% of intermittent/stopped and 3.0% of the total cohort which
included daily smokers, former smokers and never smokers. In multivariate logistic
regression modelling, snuff use was a moderately strong correlate of intermittent smoking
compared with the reference group regardless of smoking status at follow-up: odds ratios
were 3.40 (95% CI, 1.70–6.81) for intermittent/daily, 4.22 (95% CI, 3.00–5.94) for inter-
mittent/intermittent and 3.20 (95% CI, 1.79–5.71) for intermittent/stopped. The investi-
gators did not report changes in snuff use during the follow-up and did not explicitly com-
pare changes in smoking status as a function of snuff use at baseline. From these two studies,
it may be concluded that: (a) snuff use may have been more common among intermittent
smokers aged 45–69 years than among the rest of the adult population of that age group, but
did not seem to be associated with subsequent cessation or prevent transition to daily
smoking; and (b) snuff use was less common among daily smokers who remained daily
smokers than among the general population, but was associated only with their transition to
intermittent smoking and not with smoking cessation at the 1-year follow-up.
In a similar study, 5104 persons aged 16–84 years were interviewed in 1980–81 and
then followed up in 1988–89 (Tillgren et al., 1996). The cohort included 1546 daily
smokers, 418 men who were daily snuff users and 129 men who used both snuff and ciga-
rettes. At follow-up, 5% of male smokers had switched to snuff and 2% had started using
snuff in addition to cigarettes, and 5% of non-tobacco users had started using snuff.
Among male exclusive snuff users, 26% had quit all tobacco use and 10% had taken up
cigarettes in addition to (5%) or instead of (5%) snuff. Among male dual product users,
56% either had continued dual product use or exclusively smoked, 31% exclusively used
snuff and 13% had quit all tobacco use.
Rodu et al. (2003) reported findings from the MONICA cohort study: persons aged
25–64 years at study entry and who joined the cohort in 1986, 1990 and 1994 were
followed up until 1999. Among all 308 men who smoked at entry to the study, 19% exclu-
sively used snuff and 24% used no tobacco product at follow-up. Among 195 male
smokers who had never used snuff at entry [63% of all male smokers], 57% were still
exclusively smokers at follow-up, 8% had switched to snuff, 6% used both cigarettes andSMOKELESS TOBACCO
147
snuff and 29% used no tobacco product. Among 423 women who smoked at entry to the
study, 3% exclusively used snuff and 27% used no tobacco products at follow-up.
The most recent evidence that snuff may be a factor in the decline in smoking in
Sweden over the past 20 years derives from cross-sectional studies. Gilljam and Galanti
(2003) reported results from a survey in 2000 of 1000 former and 985 current daily
smokers aged 25–55 years. Among men, more former smokers than current smokers had
ever used snuff (54.7% versus 44.8%; p = 0.003) or currently used snuff (28.9% versus
19.8%; p = 0.002). Among men, snuff had been used at the most recent attempt to quit
smoking by 28.7% of former smokers and 23.0% of current smokers (p = 0.072). The
study found that having used snuff at the most recent attempt to quit was associated with
an increased likelihood of abstinence among men (odds ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09–2.20).
[The authors did not report an association between snuff use and cigarette smoking sepa-
rately for women, but it could be calculated from the data reported in the tables. Snuff use
was much less common among women than among men and did not differ between
current and former smokers: 13.1% of women reported ever using snuff, including 14.1%
of current smokers and 12.1% of former smokers, and 2.9% of women were current snuff
users, including 2.5% of current smokers and 3.3% of former smokers. Use of snuff at the
most recent attempt to quit smoking was reported by 4.8% of female current smokers who
had attempted to quit and 4.5% of female former smokers.] These findings suggest that
snuff use may be associated with smoking cessation among Swedish men but not women.

_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that's why I said "stop smoking". it's silly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum