The truth is we have all been lied to about smokeless tobacco (ST). We've all seen pics of people missing half their face and been told that this will happen to us if we dare to use this evil substance, a substance which was almost certainly conjured up in the pits of hell by the devil himself. Most of us probably believed it too. I know I did. After all, smoking does cause cancer and therefore the idea that cigarettes = lung cancer while ST = mouth cancer seems plausible enough. So like the ignorant masses, I fumbled my way through life believing in the lie that ST was just as hazardous as cigarettes.
However, one day, after learning that emphysema kills far more smokers than cancer, it hit me: ST must be one hell of a carcinogen, when you consider that in order to rival cigarettes in deadliness, it must find a way to off all those people it simultaneously saves from the slow agonizing death of emphysema. Only recently however, did I bother to do the research and confirm my hunch. Not only is ST far safer than cigarettes, it actually doesn't appear very harmful at all. The evidence that it presents any sort of significant risk for mouth cancer (or any type of cancer for that matter) simply isn't there. Here is some information:
- www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
Yes, you read that right. You are actually at a much greater risk of contracting mouth cancer from smoking cigarettes (which actually do cause mouth cancer, in addition to lung) than from ST.
Well Ok, but I know many of you will say that's great but I would prefer not to substantially increase my risks of any sort of cancer at all even if the risk is not as great as with cigarettes. How much risk is there if I were to use ST?
- www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
What about other potential harmful effects? Heart disease? Stroke?
www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
Now I know what you guys are thinking. What about that guy we've all seen pictures of who was an ST user and got oral cancer?
Please see the source I posted for more information. Also feel free to do your own research. This just confirms what already makes a ton of sense: Inhaling smoke all day long every day is really bad for you and do yourself a huge favor by sparing your body all that smoke. Of course ST is still highly addictive, so I don't recommend anyone who is not already a nicotine addict to try it. Addiction is a bad thing, even when the substance you are addicted to isn't particularly harmful.
However, one day, after learning that emphysema kills far more smokers than cancer, it hit me: ST must be one hell of a carcinogen, when you consider that in order to rival cigarettes in deadliness, it must find a way to off all those people it simultaneously saves from the slow agonizing death of emphysema. Only recently however, did I bother to do the research and confirm my hunch. Not only is ST far safer than cigarettes, it actually doesn't appear very harmful at all. The evidence that it presents any sort of significant risk for mouth cancer (or any type of cancer for that matter) simply isn't there. Here is some information:
Quote:
In one of the most remarkable marketing successes ever, anti-ST activists have convinced people that, "if I switch from smoking to dipping, I will just trade lung cancer for mouth cancer." In reality, switching from cigarettes to ST will dramatically reduce your oral cancer risk (and your risk of lung disease, heart disease, and many other diseases), and even if that were not true, the tradeoff would still be a good one because the risk of oral cancer for non-smokers is so low in the first place. |
- www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
Yes, you read that right. You are actually at a much greater risk of contracting mouth cancer from smoking cigarettes (which actually do cause mouth cancer, in addition to lung) than from ST.
Well Ok, but I know many of you will say that's great but I would prefer not to substantially increase my risks of any sort of cancer at all even if the risk is not as great as with cigarettes. How much risk is there if I were to use ST?
Quote:
It turns out that the evidence clearly shows there is very little risk. When looking at scientific research, it is necessary to look at all of it, not just one or two particular studies. As with most things we study in health science, the results vary. A few studies find that people who use ST have a higher risk for oral cancer but most studies have found that the risk is very low. Some even show a negative association. This is the same to say, if someone just picked out those studies and ignored the rest, they might conclude that using ST protects you against getting oral cancer. Of course, picking just a few studies with extreme results is just bad science. |
- www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
What about other potential harmful effects? Heart disease? Stroke?
Quote:
There may be some small risk, though there is no definitive evidence. Most studies of cardiovascular disease and smokeless tobacco have found no increased risk. However, because nicotine is a mild stimulant, it might increase the risk of certain cardiovascular outcomes, such as stroke. Many stimulants have been linked to some risk for fatal cardiovascular events. This does not prove that nicotine causes such risk, but it suggests that it is plausible. |
www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/
Now I know what you guys are thinking. What about that guy we've all seen pictures of who was an ST user and got oral cancer?
Quote:
Just because two things coincide does not mean that one caused the other. These cases are almost certainly coincidences. You can understand the reasoning behind this point without needing much math. In a large population (like North America), even if we are talking about something that relatively few people do (such as use ST) and a fairly rare disease (e.g., oral cancer), there will still be quite a few people who fall into both categories just by chance. For example, if 1-in-100 people are exposed to a substance, and 1-in-1000 people get a disease, then by chance (coincidence) alone we would expect about 1-in-100,000 people to both have that exposure and get the disease (1/100 x 1/1000 = 1/100,000). That does not seem like a lot, until you realize that there are over 300,000,000 people in North America. So it is not strange then that you will find someone with oral cancer who used ST. There will be quite a few such people, just by chance. In our example above, 3000 people would have both the exposure and the disease by chance alone. That is why epidemiology (the science that explores whether a disease is caused by an exposure) always uses a "comparison group" (people who do not have the exposure) to see if those with the exposure have more cases of the disease. The evidence does not show that ST users have more cases of various diseases than the regular population, but of course they will have some cases. |
Please see the source I posted for more information. Also feel free to do your own research. This just confirms what already makes a ton of sense: Inhaling smoke all day long every day is really bad for you and do yourself a huge favor by sparing your body all that smoke. Of course ST is still highly addictive, so I don't recommend anyone who is not already a nicotine addict to try it. Addiction is a bad thing, even when the substance you are addicted to isn't particularly harmful.
via Social Anxiety Forum http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f24/the-truth-about-smokeless-tobacco-292058/
Posts
