snuff can it realy?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak6p3p9Qz3BpD1eUQ2SjcBUjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070714120348AAPYPN2
I just read th question on the above link and people say that this stuff tastes awfull and can give you cancer of the mouth but i always thought snuff was taken through the nose so how on earth could it give you mouth cancer?.

I have always taken it through my nose and in very small ammounts. I have never got through a whole tin of snuff ever and i believe that it could be better then smoking in some ways.

Answer 1

I think a lot of people get snuff,which is tobacco powder for sniffing, confused with dipping tobacco a.k.a moist snuff/spit tobacco, which is used for dipping [i.e. to pinch a little clump out of the tin, place it between the lips and gums, and let it rest while nicotine is carried through the body), and chewing tobacco, which is moist tobacco used for chewing. I've never used either of the three. But I would think that, although snuff is generally taken through the nose, at least SOME of it would get into the throat and mouth. And I think a few people do put it directly into their mouths. (I have no idea why they would want to since they could just as easily purchase dipping or chewing tobacco.)

Anyway, like I said, I don't do either of the above. However, I do smoke. And I think the so called cancer risk is hooey. In my opinion, it's junk science that's constantly recycled to "feed" the rich and to support specific political agendas.

"In epidemiologic research [research involving the study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations], relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually very difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (The National Cancer Institute, "Abortion and Possible Risks for Breast Cancer; Analysis and Inconsistencies", October 26, 1994).

Even risk elevations smaller than 200% (Some even say 300%.) do NOT prove that the risk even exists. There are too many variables, errors, biases, and so on.... That being said, I highly doubt that ANYONE can name a single study involving tobacco that has yielded results showing a risk elevation of less than 200% or even 100%.

Conning people about their health is a rapidly growing industry, and it's all about politics and money. Enjoying tobacco (particularly smoking) is politically incorrect. What's more, the pockets of politicians and big pharma are being lined by the anti-smoking activists. How? Simple- Big pharma foots the bills of the anti-smoking nut jobs and their junk science. And, in turn, big pharma rakes in on the cash from campaigns that induce so-called addicts to quit using tobacco with cessation "therapies" made available by.... Yup, BIG PHARMA, of course. And big pharma provides money and support to politicians in exchange for spreading their bull sh*t. The reason for smoking bans is nothing more than a scare tactic deceitfully used in order to convince people of the "risks" so they'll throw their money and support at politicians, big pharma, and the anti-smoking movement.

DON'T BUY INTO THE LIES!



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course doctors are going to say that. With all the second hand smoke floating around, making people believe that there's a cancer risk is going to constantly send them running to their doctors in droves. [Money, money, money, and more money!] Additionally, medical students are propagandized throughout their education.

I don't think there is anywhere remotely close to enough evidence to indicate that tobacco use causes cancer. As I said, too many variables.

As for second hand smoke- Let's assume for a moment that smoking can indeed cause cancer- Take lung cancer, for example... Decades pass from the time HEAVY smokers start smoking to the time they develop lung cancer. If smoking is truly the reason for their cancer then wouldn't it take at least a few hundred years for those exposed to second hand smoke to catch up? How do we know that cigarette smoke causes the cancer as opposed to, let's say, smog? We don't. A bunch of smokers inflicted with cancer isn't evidence. Neither is a bunch of cancer patients who have been exposed to second hand smoke. There are far too many factors to consider. There are far too many possibilities.

At one time, marijuana was thought to turn people into maniacs. All the "experts" agreed and produced a mountain of "evidence" to back up their claims. Conning people about their health has been going on for a while and has become increasingly popular. The powers that be employ dubious methodology, manipulation of statistics, and facts out of context in order to dupe people into believing their nonsense. They cause us to obsess over cancer, because they know that cancer scares the crap out of us (and, therefore, rakes in the big bucks).

Most of the so-called "evidence" that the anti-smokers rely on consists of statistics. Well, statistics are unreliable. They can be fudged to reflect whatever the statistician wants to be believed. (For instance- There's a computer program called SAMMEC that produces many of the estimates of smoking deaths. And it will feed you whatever number you want depending upon your data input.) Likewise, with any gathering of statistics, there is the potential for error. And they're certainly not science. Furthermore, they can be re-packaged to give a particular impression. To illustrate [clever re-packaging]: Estimates of "increased risk" are often used to frighten. Take Professor Sir Richard Doll's figures for example- Professor Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer. This could be expressed by saying that there is a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. But it could also be expressed by saying that you have a 99.8% chance of NOT getting lung cancer.

Another issue that I have with statistics is that they don't provide enough information. They only reveal one reality. FACT: Cancer is mostly a disease of the elderly. Cancer is increasing because, contrary to what many believe, people are living longer and healthier lives. This is why the "increased risk" statistics provided by the anti-smoking movement don't mention the fact that most lung cancer occurs within or beyond the normal range of death (a time at which SOMETHING will most likely cause us to die whether or not we smoke tobacco).

I haven't even touched on the several contradictory statistics- such as those which show that Chinese women have one of the highest lung cancer rates in the world even though very few of them smoke- and such as those which show that, while Japan is one of the heaviest smoking countries, it's also among those with the highest life expectancy. Statistics further show that more people smoked in the U.S. during the World Wars than at any other time in our history. But the 1950's brought a baby boom. (There goes the claims that smoking causes impotence and infertility!) There are statistics which show that smokers who exercise regularly have less disease than sedentary non-smokers. What's more, until cervical cancer was proven to be caused by a virus, 13% of cases were randomly claimed to have been caused by smoking.

The trickery doesn't end with statistics. Claims are cleverly worded so as to lead us into thinking one way or another. We are being programmed without realizing it. For example: Instead of being told that someone has decided that smoking MIGHT be a factor that contributes to such-and-such disease, we're told that the disease is "smoking-related" (thereby leading us to believe that the disease is actually directly caused by cigarette smoke).

It's laughable that the anti-smoking movement wants us all to buy into the fallacy that any level of cigarette smoke is harmful. This is a scientific howl! There are safe and unsafe levels of EVERYTHING. This is common knowledge.

And what is it about tobacco that's so harmful anyway? Oh yea, it's the nicotine. HA! That's another laughable claim. If nicotine is so harmful then why is it marketed to us in gum and patches? And why aren't the powers that be trying to scare us away from gorging ourselves with tomatoes, potatoes, black & green tea, peppers, and so forth? (Yes, they contain varying levels of nicotine.)

Talk about receiving regular doses of lies! I could go on all day.....

Answer 2

My Gran used to snuff....'till she snuffed it aged about 85..
She didn't die from snuff tho..

However Back in action.... I got news only yesterday about a female friend in Holland.

She suddenly ( just months ago) got throat/lung cancer even tho she doesn't smoke.

Doctors have given her 3-6 months to live and say it was mostly likely caused by passive smoking as she allowed her 3 daughters to smoke in the house.

I think that there is enough evidence that smoking is deadly.

That's why it's getting banned everywhere..

In the UK at night there are often more people smoking outside the pubs than drinking inside...Huddled together in the cold..I'ts a sad sight...

Is it worth it?

Answer 3

i dont use normal snuff but i do dip (moist snuff) the snuff in the question above is moist snuff, which is placed in your cheek, spitting the juices as to not swallow them, seeing as it causes most people to get sick. that is where the mouth cancer comes from. about the cancer: you have to use moist snuff every day (and a lot of it) for many years. the most cases of cancer are mouth cancer but there is a chance to receive throat cancer if u swallow the juices (again, but very few do swallow it) if u do swallow it, many people take a sip of water before they swallow in an attempt to "dillute" the juices. it comes in all types of flavors, from various mints to vanilla and even fruits like peach and apple

Answer 4

Its chewing tobacco that gives people cancer of the mouth. You are right - you do sniff snuff so if its going to give you cancer it would seem logical that its going to be up your nose.

Answer 5

I don't know... But I know it can give you throat cancer.
When you sniff things it goes right down your throat. I'm sure it's possible to get cancer in your mouth from it since they're all connected.

Answer 6

Um. My gran takes it in her mouth. She is 85, don't know how its affected her she has been taking it since she was in her 40's. But my advice, try to stop. It's very addictive I know.

Answer 7

u put the snuff under your lips......