Quitting tabacco.

[imPsimon]

If someone is strongly addicted to nicotine I would advice not to go the "snus" route since
it's very strong in nicotine which makes it harder to quit.

I know a lot of people who used snus to quit smoking which worked but then they were
hooked on snus.

If you however want to use nicotine it's probably the healthier way to go
No smelly clothes,fingers or clogged up lungs.

 

[Entropymancer]

Exactly psimon. If someone wants to quit using tobacco, I certainly wouldn't recommend using snus to try to accomplish it. I'd only recommend it to people who enjoy nicotine/tobacco, but don't like the cancer risk and the effect that smoking has on the respiratory tract and lungs.

Yes, snus will still cause your gumline to recede, and I don't doubt that it stains the teeth. You're free not to like snus. The only thing I really object to in your post is this:

Replacing one addiction with another is fine if you want to save you lungs and die from mouth cancer instead.

OK, swap mouth cancer for pancreatic cancer.

You're missing the point. Of people who get cancer from smoking or dipping, how many of them get it in their pancreas? Using snus, your odds are much lower than that. You're free to survey the literature on steam-cured tobacco. Your odds of developing pancreatic cancer are just under 70% higher than someone who has never used tobacco (Int. J. Cancer: 114, 992–995. 2005.) That's a lower amount of risk than someone who drinks a lot of soda (which results in about a 90% higher risk vs. the general population).

But you guys are a minority. You are really an exception to the rule.

I don't doubt that. My point was simply that your previous statement denied my very existence (as well as denying the existence of your girlfriend, apparently!), which I kind of take exception to.

It's a nasty, needy, grubby little spirit.

:lol: Tell that to all the curanderos and pajes who use tobacco (picietl, mapacho, etc.) as their primary ally, teacher, and medicine. There are other experiences of tobacco besides the Western addiction-revulsion paradigm.

I guess you can tell I'm one of those ex-smokers.

I wouldn't say that's something to be proud of. Encouraging healthfulness and making sure people are aware of the risks of their behaviors is one thing. Proselytizing against smoking and being uniformly abrasive on the subject is quite another.

 

[Infundibulum]

Infundibulum, my intention is not the same as yours: having "serious arguments" is not my goal, I posted to help you.

Good to know.

So you reckon that non-serious arguments or no arguments at all are not necessary as long as one wants to save someone? Do you imply that I could even go as far as having to kill someone as long as I believe that I'm somehow saving him?

You only trust references from official sources, so I posted a reference from an official source, to help YOU avoid Cancer.

No, I trust references from many different sources, but I tend to have a preference for peer reviewed. This is different from "official" sources.

http://www.epa.gov/radtown/tobacco.html

"Naturally-occurring radioactive minerals accumulate on the sticky surfaces of tobacco leaves as the plant grows, and these minerals remain on the leaves throughout the manufacturing process. Additionally, the use of the phosphate fertilizer Apatite – which contains radium, lead-210, and polonium-210 – also increases the amount of radiation in tobacco plants. The radium that accumulates on the tobacco leaves predominantly emits alpha and gamma radiation."

You faield to fully address my previous argument. There is no question that plants accumulate radioactivity. Radioactive elements are naturally-occurring anyway whether or not man is present. I asked you to put this into perspective, that is, how does the radioactivity of tobacco compare with other plants humans commonly consume?

You also failed to demonstrate the presence of carcinogens and also put it into perspective.

I can lead tobacco lovers to the water of truth about tobacco, but I can't make you drink. Oh well, enjoy your hobby!
Someday, Infundibulum, you'll read some report from an official source you trust, and then you'll stop touching tobacco.
The danger of your technique of "waiting for reports, not jumping to any conclusions by oneself" is that will be too late.
What will you say when you develop cancer, "Oh well, at least I waited for reports, thank goodness I didn't speculate."

You think speculating is bad, I think jumping to the correct conclusion and acting on correct speculations is: Intelligent.

I don't see where you're going here but whatever.

 

[ghostman]

But you guys are a minority. You are really an exception to the rule.

I don't doubt that. My point was simply that your previous statement denied my very existence (as well as denying the existence of your girlfriend, apparently!), which I kind of take exception to.

That's a little dramatic. I am not denying the existence of either you or my girlfriend. You're drawing wayward parallels. I apologize if I have offended you in some way, it is not my intention to offend those who are not addicted to tomacco but rather enjoy it in the purest form.

It's a nasty, needy, grubby little spirit.

:lol: Tell that to all the curanderos and pajes who use tobacco (picietl, mapacho, etc.) as their primary ally, teacher, and medicine. There are other experiences of tobacco besides the Western addiction-revulsion paradigm.

Those curanderos will tell you that the spirit of tobacco is a needy one. They are using it as a medicine. We have taken that medicine and turned it into a billion dollar industry that relies on its addictive properties. I am not referring to curanderos who use tobacco leaf, I don't think we are consuming the same untreated tobacco that they are.

Are you calling cigarettes, snus and snuff medicinal? I don't think so.

I guess you can tell I'm one of those ex-smokers.

I wouldn't say that's something to be proud of. Encouraging healthfulness and making sure people are aware of the risks of their behaviors is one thing. Proselytizing against smoking and being uniformly abrasive on the subject is quite another.

I am neither proselytizing or being uniformly abrasive.

This is a thread about quitting smoking (remember?), yet here you are proselytizing that we actually indulge ourselves in various forms of tobacco. I am in agreement with the OP and encouraging them. You are free to start a thread about the merits and health benifits of tomacco.

 

[Entropymancer]

I'm not advocating tobacco use. I fully encourage people who want to quit to do so. Being slave to an addiction can be very taxing. Harming your lungs and incurring the risk of various cancers are obvious drawbacks to smoking.

I joined in this thread for two reasons: Encouraging soulfood in his effort to quit, and enthusiasm at discovering that there are other people on the nexus who take dry snuff.

I'm not encouraging anyone to indulge, but I am supporting honest information about safer (not completely safe) alternatives for those who wish to indulge. Honest information is my only real objective.

And no, I wouldn't call cigarettes, snuff, snus, etc. universally medicinal, just as I wouldn't call heroin universally medicinal. I would say that they can be used medicinally in particular contexts.

 

[Spock's Brain]

I've smoked cigs,
Pipe,
cigar...
Chew
& snuff..

I know the addiction.
snuff (dry finely powdered sniffed) is the most mildly soothing nicotine fix that doesn't call you back to it with any urgency.

 

[Spock's Brain]

"snuff (dry finely powdered sniffed) is the most mildly soothing nicotine fix that doesn't call you back to it with any urgency."

I take back what I say, now I'm feeling some urgency to smoke thanks to sniffing some dry snuff... damn!!!!