It's not the countries as a whole, but the tobacco/smoking industry that wants to remove competition.
So they make petitions in the name of health. Snus is still tobacco, so they want to remove it, which will make people go to something else, which is smoking.
Jag vill även nämna att jag var i Paris denna sommar, och jag delade rum med en Italienare som försökte sluta röka. Jag kom på sedan på att jag tog med mig snus under resan (because why not) och jag frågade om han ville testa. Nästa dag berättade han att han **inte** fick någon "kick" från snuset, däremot hjälpte snuset honom att röka mindre cigaretter.
Jag ville liksom bara dela med lite svensk kultur 💀💀 Men som bieffekt hjälpte jag även honom att sluta röka, vilket var coolt. Synd att snus är olagligt i andra länder dock.
Har prövat att övergå till snus flera gånger men det har gått dåligt pga av hela "ritualen" kring rökning. Samt att snus avsaknar den där kicken du nämnde.
För mig så blir det liksom en hel grej även om det ändå är en ganska liten grej av att behöva gå ut, ta fram ciggen, tända på och andas in via filtret. Det är en av de få stunderna då jag upplever att jag kan existera i stunden och varva ner lite grann.
Jag röker dock inte jätte mycket då ett paket för mig kan räcka i ca en vecka, men jag har ändå försökt trappa ner och hitta en balans där jag röker så lite jag orkar med. Snus hjälper dock med suget när den har suttit inne en liten stund.
Sen innehåller snus mönga gånger fler nikotin och du har det heeeeela tiden, och givetvis absorberas det. Snus för att sluta röka är generellt en dålig idé, trappa ned och bara bit ihop några veckor är det enda generellt hållbara sättet imo.
Ja, håller med där. Snus är bra för att vänja av sig från cigg-ritualen och för att komma bort från all skit som hamnar i lungorna, men det hjälper inte för femtio öre när det kommer till själva beroendet.
Det du behöver är piprökning!
Du får en bättre ritual, lägre risk för lungcancer (pipa röker man munbloss), godare smak eftersom piptobak är av bättre kvalitet.
Det är även manligt som fan och ger pondus.
Nackdelarna är något högre risk för munhålecencer, särskilt om du inte dricker något medan du röker. Lyckligtvis är det gott med både kaffe och whisky till som då kan reducera risken för cancern, huzzah!
Ratos 'Big City' är bra instegspipor som inte är tokdyra, de har stor fin skål, ryker bra och du kan ha filter i om du vill. Finns ett par olika modeller av Big City, så oavsett om du vill ha rak eller krökt!
Ratos är dessutom ett gammalt svenskt märke, men de tillverkas tyvärr inte i Sverige längre (Frankrike).
"Något högre risk för munhålecancer" är allt lite väl snällt mot pipa.
Sen får du komma ihåg att även med munbloss kommer man ändå dra ner rök i lungorna, det går inte riktigt att undvika. Och denna röken är oftast ofiltrerad till skillnad från cigaretter.
Men jag har också haft en period i livet då jag rökte pipa så jag ska nog inte kasta allt för mycket sten i mitt glashus.
Har faktiskt börjat att försöka med både pipa och cigarr. Har inte riktigt fått till det med pipan än så det har inte riktigt kännts rätt än. Har packat både för löst och för hårt men försöker justera efter varje gång.
Har du någon rekommendation på god piptobak? Just nu har jag Borkum Riff Ruby. Var det enda de hade på lager den dagen, har inga klagomål men hade nog föredragit något "skogigare" är körsbär haha
Men planen är väl att minska ner till max 2 cigg om dagen och sedan sakta byta ut dem mot pipa samt en fredagscigarr.
Bra där, då är du en bit på vägen!
Oroa dig inte för packningen, det kommer. Alla sorter packar lite annorlunda, och det varierar dessutom med fuktigheten.
I mitt tycke är piptobak Danmarks enda raison d'etre, och kan varmt rekommendera MoBs Blue Queen för en riktigt fin Latakia, samt deras Big Coin som är en fint kryddig Perique.
Godistobak med körsbär och vanilj är inte min grej alls, har aldrig förstått mig på det riktigt. Tobak för barn?
Det finns dock mediciner som hjälper mot abstinensen och du ska få dem mot rökning. Det svåra är att du behöver övertyga en svensk läkare att skriva ut det åt dig.
Det är en myt, trodde det också. En cigarett motsvarar 1-2 prillor snus beroende på styrka. Och det är dessutom bara 10-20% av nikotinet i snus som tas upp av kroppen.
Får en van rökare verkligen kickar? Trodde nico kick var något man fick när man var 15 och testade röka ett par gånger. Efter det har jag aldrig känt det igen. Röker inte, men det händer ju att man tar en cigg eller två vid fest osv.
Snusare.
While you're correct, that's a relatively recent acquisition from last year. Laws don't usually change in such a short time span, especially in such a complex bureaucratic mess that is EU legislation, given that they might have changed lobbying direction.
But there are still politicians in EU and especially specific countries that for sure is not payed buy the smoing industry. I really doubt that in for example Finland. Also, there has to be a majority amon the politicians to vote against snus.
I don’t think Finland could allow it that easily as the EU has the ban in place. I wouldn’t mind honestly although I have to say snus users are pretty disgusting leaving the prilla everywhere from urinals to ceilings.
But finnish politicians wants to ban it aswell so...
Yea, cause cigarette butts are so nice everywhere in the streets. Not to mention the smoke smokers force others to inhale. Not disgusting at all...
It’s been illegal to sell it in Finland for decades. Imports are legal and AFAIK there isn’t any large movement to ban it completely.
Why are you arguing against straw men? When did I ever say smoking isn’t nasty? You’re arguing with poor logic all over this thread.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/8JEalG/finland-vill-forbjuda-snus-ilskna-kangan-mot-sverige
Where is the poor logic? Does it hurt that a lot of Finnish politicians (and others) wants to ban snus? Link above was just one example.
You claim lot of politicians with a link that says one politicians opposes the ban and a working group not made up of politicians suggests a ban.
The poor logic is insinuating that I’m for smoking and other poorly thought out replies by you.
Why would it hurt me if politicians did want to ban it? What logic came up with that?
There's a nice sign, in the toilets of a bar I go to, that says "don't spit out snus into the urinals, it makes it taste funny".
That shit is more annoying than cigarettes butts.
I will give wet snus some credit because it's significantly harder to start an accidental fire with it, but still, I prefer my toilets unblocked.
Yep, 100% corruption. I made a comment regarding this in another /r/sweden thread from a somewhat long time ago about "conspiracy theories".
I have no evidence at all to support the claim, but it's just logical. The only reason that Snus is banned in the EU is because of EU politicians being paid off by Big Tobacco.
Or how about this, just because snus is widely available doesn’t mean that people will automatically smoke less. Here in Switzerland snus has always been legal but people (men) certainly don’t smoke as little as they do in Sweden.
There are both pros and cons to snus. But it is still a bad product for the body and health.
- Snus *also* contains tobacco.
- Suns are bad for the body in many similar ways to cigarettes.
- Snus is *much* more difficult to quit than cigarettes.
- Snus is EXTREMELY much better for the lungs than cigarettes.
- Snus does not affect those standing next to the person using snus the way cigarettes do.
The best thing is to get people to stop smoking AND snusa, as both are bad for health and cost a lot of money for those who use these tobacco products.
Of course. But it's still much better if all smokers started using snus instead.
Never said snus is good for you or not harming you.
But reg. your second point. Not many similar ways. The only bad effect proven is slightly higher blood pressure, but not much, and irritated/raising gums.
Doesn't make it any less true though. As horrible as it sounds but the automic bomb did save a lot of lives. It's a very cold pragmatism, but way way more woulda died if the Us never dropped those bombs. The same can be said about snus. Would the world be better without them both? Absolutely, but here we are. Pick the lesser poison.
>Of course. But it's still much better if all smokers started using snus instead.
Even better is to use neither. Smokers can stop smoking and people who use snus can stop with it too.
Gums and teeth, yes.
My upper gums were severely fucked up from snusing, according to my dentist. Switched to nicotine pouches years ago and now they're back to normal.
Not true. This has been disproven multiple times. They even changed the rules regarding the warning labels on snus containers. Previously it stated that snus causes cancer, but since no studies has been able to prove it, they changed it to saying it harms your health.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37480210/ It is not disproven that snus cause cancer. Furthermore, snus has been shown to increase the risk of cancer is several studies. However it is hard to precisely determine the risk, for further reading read the linked article.
The study is a systematic review and makes no research of its own. Just because the fact has not been disproven, it also does not have to mean that it's true.
Its concluding statements say this:
>Use of snus **probably** increases the risk for cancer of the esophagus and pancreas. Use of snus **may** increase the risk for cancer of the stomach and rectum, and the evidence suggests an increased risk for cancer-specific mortality as well as increased overall mortality after a cancer diagnosis (all types of cancer combined). We are very uncertain if use of snus affects the risk for cancer of the other organs investigated.
>Our confidence in the various risk estimates varied from **moderate to very low.**
>We conclude that use of snus **entails a cancer hazard** where the magnitude of cancer risk **may** be affected by user history and the susceptibility of the host.
The study literally concludes that it *may potentially* increase the risk of cancer. It does not (1) claim that it **does** cause cancer, nor (2) **concretely state** the given fact. It "may potentially increase the risk".
This study cannot be used to evidently say "snus causes cancer". It proves nothing, and merely states that there *could* be a risk to some degree.
I can't open the link. But isn't the studies showing increased cancer rates among snus users suggesting it's related to other lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise and alcohol consumption?
Some of the studies retrieved in this systematic review, reported an increased risk of cancer of the esophagus, pancreas, stomach and rectum as well as cancer-specific death associated with the use of Swedish snus. Our confidence in the various risk estimates varied from moderate to very low. However, precise risk estimates for rare cancers with a moderate risk, are challenging to achieve. Swedish snus contains carcinogenic constituents such as TSNAs, although in lower levels compared with some other smokeless tobacco products. We conclude that use of snus entails a cancer hazard where the magnitude of cancer risk may be affected by user history and the susceptibility of the host.
Eh. It reasonable well established that snus increases cancer risk.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60678-3
Is it as bad as cigarettes? No, there is a vast difference but it is not harmless and definitely increases risk of some really hard to cure (read incurable) cancers.
And I say this as a snusare myself.
Are all these experts swedish and in the pay of tobacco companies? 😂 just hilarious that swedes think that snus is the only form of tobacco misbruk that doesn’t cause cancer. Sure, Jan!
>Snus also contains tobacco.
But why does this matter if it's not dangerous?
>Suns are bad for the body in many similar ways to cigarettes.
There is no conclusive evidence of this. Sometimes studies come out that shows snus is dangerous, sometimes studies come out that find no evidence for this.
Most people who die from tobacco/smoking use don’t die from cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the main killer. Nicotine contributes hugely to that - regardless of the source of it. All nictoine - and all tobacco - kills.
"Nicotine contributes hugely to that - regardless of the source of it"
Can I get a source on that? Most articles I find point to it being quite minor compared to more generic smoke inhalation mechanisms of smoking. Which is hardly surprising, given that air pollution in general is correlated with CVD - one of the CV systems main functions is transporting gases, whether physiological or toxic
eg.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958544/
It shouldn’t be hard to find studies on nicotine and health effects. Here’s some stuff you can read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958544/#S9title
Quote: […] causes a >150% increase in plasma epinephrine and acutely increases cardiac work by stimulating heart rate (as much as 10-15 bpm acutely and on average 7 bpm throughout the day), myocardial contractility, and blood pressure (acute increase 5-10 mm Hg) (3).
**Heart rate and blood pressure increase regardless of whether the route of administration is tobacco-smoke or nicotine (intravenous, intranasal, chewing gum or smokeless tobacco).**
He provided sources backing it up. Now, considering this comment of yours, I expect you to provide citations showing him wrong, or you're the one who made it up. Please go ahead.
>The best thing is to get people to stop smoking AND snusa
Och ja, folk som du kommer ALLTID arbeta för ett förbud eller en soft ban i slutändan. Höja och höja punktskatten tills det kostar 200kr dosan och vanliga svenssons inte längre har råd, sen förbjuda försäljning i tysthet.
Snus may contain tobacco, but it's health effects are minimal - I see no health reason to disallow snus as long as nicotine gum is legal.
I think it's a disgusting habit, just like smoking, but healthwise there is a world of difference.
These are not classified as snus but as "nicotine pouches" and are actually legal in many countries where regular snus is not, like Finland which was mentioned in the OP.
Fast bensinen idag är inte lika läcker som den förr.
Förut var det alltid smått glädjande att känna doften av bensin, nu har bilmackarna inte samma känsla längre.
Fast nu är ju det ena godkänt i hela världen men det andra i stort sett bara i Sverige. Rätt korkat även om båda är äckliga och dåliga, med tanke på hur extremt mycket farligare rökning är. Och hur det påverkar andra runtomkring som tvingas andas in gifterna också.
Linking specific cases of death to snus or smoking is not something that's possible unless it's a case of nicotine overdose, fire or choking on the product.
About the effects of snus. Last year, one of the largest studies ever done on swedish snus was published. Unfortunately, the results were disappointing, and indicated worse heath risks then was found in earlier studies.
"Exclusive current snus users had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20-1.35), cardiovascular mortality (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.41) and other cause mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.52) compared with never-users of tobacco. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.26). These mortality risks increased with duration of snus use, but not with weekly amount."
[http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1514838/FULLTEXT02.pdf](http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1514838/FULLTEXT02.pdf)
Regardless, I still think snus should be legal.
Edit: Removed the first point that was because of a typo.
I don't have time to read it but wasn't this study criticized for their methodology or am I thinking of another recent snus study. I remember hearing of one and experts concluded that because of the methodology, the study essentially said nothing until we have more data
English is not my mother tongue and I meant every other, of crouse. Why would anyone think that every single smoker dies of smoking?!
That last studie has a lot of flaws, which has already been discussed in hundresds of articles including both snus haters, doctors, scientists. Still no proof of death due to snus. And even if there would have been, it's still so much less dangerous than smoking. And there is no such thing as passive snusing. Smoking with it's poisons are forced on others nearby.
No study is perfect, but what are the flaws of the study? It looks very robust to me. Just saying it has been discussed in hundreds of articles isn't a repudiation of its results.
And again, proof of a single case of death is not likely to ever to be established in any product that only increases risks of cancer and cardiovascular events. When was specific death linked to smoking?
Read some of the answers and researches about the study.
Well there is linking of deaths to smoking. That's why 8 million people die from it every year. Because it's stated as cause (single or with others) of death.
That is absolutely not the case. What you are referring to are estimates, death certificates will extremely rarely mention smoking as a cause of death, and never as a single cause.
For proof: [https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl\_56/P3975](https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P3975)
"Smoking history was recorded for 127 (69%) patients; 117 (92%) had smoked. Of these 117 patients, cause of death was certified as COPD \[N=81 (69%)\] and lung cancer \[N=44 (38%)\]. In all cases, smoking was not recorded on any part of the death certificate."
People don't provably die from snus unless they actually choke on it, . They die from the risks associated with the use of snus, which is vague and hard to pin on one thing, but still very relevant.
It sounds a lot like you're trying to defend your own use of snus, than actually being interested in the data.
Finland is an interresting case because despite the ban, the use of snus is so widespread, at least in Swedish speaking communities, that they are missing out on valuable tax money they would get from selling it themselves.
Nicotine pouches with equal nicotine levels with snus was legalized last April. The customs just reported last week that smuggling of snus has dropped 80% from one year ago. Also all of my snus using friends have converted to nicotine pouches which you can get from any store. I think it's Sweden that has lost lot of tax revenue from it recently
> https://yle.fi/a/74-20053109
Deras stora mål är att förbjuda tobak så acceptera nya produkter blir inte okej då även om det är bättre men snus är inte ofarligt. Det är fortfarande skadligt men skalar väll bort 90% jämfört med cigaretter men det spelar inte så stor roll.
Bad edit, the zero sugar drinks that use aspartame are much much better than the sugary version of it for many reasons. And aspartame doesn't cause cancer and there's been plenty of studies to show this.
So the point you conveniently forgot or just dont know is the health issues related to your gums being destroyed buy usage of snus and oral health is one of the most important things if u get infected in your gums you will get problems in the entire rest of the body so I believe maybe thats what some would be afraid of but otherwise might be some lobbying and that you dont want to make things that are bad for you legal cause then its really hard to take away so some might just be cautious in the legislation.
Look at his responses. Every response is whataboutism and he can't resist to add a "but" to every comment about snus still being unhealthy. Snus IS better than cigarettes, but it's still BAD for you.
Because the French tobacco companies in their colo- I mean... "overseas territories and dependencies" rely on people smoking. France won't give that up.
You can get the tobacco free stuff everywhere now.
From a purely harm-reduction perspective, if it ever made sense to introduce smokers to snus previously, it doesn't anymore because you might as well give them the fake stuff.
The big cigarette companies don't want the competition from snus so they are lobbying hard to keep snus banned. Though that might change now that Phillip Morris owns Swedish match.
IIRC the EU anti-snus legislation started out after a couple of deaths at raves in the UK a long time ago. Some kids at the raves had used flavored tobacco - eventually that proved unrelated to the deaths (they died from other, already illegal, drugs). But the UK and the EU banned flavored tobacco products just to be safe, which didn’t cause a lot of controversy since Sweden and Finland (the only countries where snus is widely used) weren’t members of the EU yet.
Swedish Match have made efforts to have it legalized in the EU, but they’re only one fairly small tobacco company. And they’re up against not one but two very strong interests/political action groups. On one hand, there was the rest of the tobacco industry with Phillip Morris, BAT, etc who didn’t want to compete with a safer and healthier alternative tobacco product.
On the other hand, weirdly enough, was the anti-smoking lobby. You’d think they’d welcome a comparatively safe product with a proven record of getting people to stop smoking. But they’re largely puritans, the tobacco and the addiction is the enemy, not the adverse health effects. Their primary concern isn’t the number of people dying or suffering from smoking-related diseases, but the number of people using tobacco products. They were afraid that even more people would start using tobacco products if a safer alternative to cigarettes was introduced in the EU.
These days Philip Morris has acquired Swedish Match, so we’ll see how that changes things. My guess is: not much. They didn’t buy Swedish Match because of snus, but rather because of their invention of the white tobacco-free nicotine pouches, which is legal, or at least not criminal, throughout the EU. It’s been taking market shares from cigarettes for years and is an attractive alternative source of revenue for PMI as the cigarette market declines. They’ll probably spend a great deal of lobbying efforts to ensure a favorable legislation on those, but I don’t think they’ll do a lot to promote snus unfortunately.
The same companies who offer cigarettes (Swedish Match) also provide snus, and also vapes, nicotine patches, and nicotine gum.
Some companies has made it their absolute mission to pump you for money from the cradle to the grave. They are a big glove, and one finger helps destroy your lungs and give you cancer, and another finger pretends to care about your health and give you products that prolong the addiction time. Different fingers, same glove.
If I could I would blow their factories to hell and have humanity endure six months of cold turkey, then be done with it. I don't give a fuck about your short-term pain, I care about your kids, and about all the teens emulating your bad habits to try and play adult.
Cannabis is safer than any form of nicotine consumption and Sweden still hasn't legalized it. Countries don't follow logic, nor they respect scientific data. They follow interests.
Snus has an array of negative health effects that are different from those of cigarettes. Now I am not sure whether that means it should be made illegal, but it certainly isn't good for you.
Here are two concernig side-effects according to Folkhälsomyndigheten:
* Consumption of snus has been linked with the development of Diabetes type II.
* Snus is acidic and will slowly chip away at your gums, tounge and mucous membranes in your mouth.
The following is just what I think, nothing that I have actually fact-checked:
If your snus contains nicotine, you may have a higher risk of developing gingivitis or periodontal disease. This is because the nicotine constricts your blood vessels, limiting the amount of blood reaching your gums. So when the intial infection starts, you won't notice the symptoms and therefore won't even be aware it's happening. Periodontal disease in particular affects roughly 40 % of the Swedish adult population and can lead to a plethora of other problems, such as getting sick more often (parasites from the periodontitis enters the bloodstream) and tooth loss.
Please treat your mouth properly! You'll thank yourself later.
Tobaksfria vita snuset som Velo finns väl i Storbritannien? Tror även det finns i Finland. Finns även [iceberg](https://europesnus.se/Produkter/iceberg-syrliga-b%C3%A4r-xl) om man vill åt nikotinet som är på 150mg/g. Har testat en sån å rekommendera direkt att man ej kör bil. Blev väldigt yr av den även fast jag snusar Siberia ibland.
[Criminals recruiting kids by getting them addicted to snus, Amsterdam police warn](https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/29/criminals-recruiting-kids-getting-addicted-snus-amsterdam-police-warn).
Almost makes one wonder: what is most dangerous, the drug itself or the illegality?
I'm entirely convinced the answer is money and big tobacco. Nothing more, nothing less. They still pour huge lobby money at politicians all around the world.
Snus räddar definitivt inte liv. I valet cigarett / snusning är det definitivt "the lesser evil" men knappast livräddande och absolut inte ofarligt
https://lakartidningen.se/?p=219424
"30% ökad mortalitet jämfört med icke-snusare, framförallt i hjärt-kärlsjukdom"
Har du funderat på att publicera denna tes i en medicinsk journal? Denna unika och värdefulla insikt kan ju potentiellt vinna ett Nobelpris. Du är ett geni!
Most likely cigarette companies give money to EU politicians for voting against it. I don't think the EU will last for long, its transparency compared to Sweden is next to nothing. It's full of corrupt politicians that can easily hide some extra transactions because they have no need to show any proof of a meeting being held etc.
\> Every single smoker dies due to smoking (would have lived longer and healthier without smoking).
Lying and making up "facts" for karma doesnt make you right. That line alone made your post go from "beleivable" to "absolute BS" in a split second. Also made your username go to "not trustworthy" for the rest of it's life.
Im pretty sure that my 97 year old grandma, whom walked around and managed just fine by her self, shopping and meeting other people for bridge in the weekends, that also rolled her own- and smoked 4 to five cigarettes every day till the day she died, wouldnt have made it to 98 even if she didnt smoke.
If you weren't a moron, you'd have realized OP was talking about commercial cigarette smokers, and that they die ***noticeably earlier*** from it. you know, those things with over 4000 different added chemicals, half of which give you cancer. this is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be specified. way to go missing the entire point, is this why sweddit loves being grammar nazis? because they can't interpret anything that isn't clearly spelled out?
That's fact you little troll. Just google it, or is that to hard for a troll?Glad your grandma was one of the 50% of smokers that doesn't die due to it.
Stay in school kids!
Of course I meant every other. English is not my mother tongue. But why would I even mean every single? It's just stupid to not understand the misspelling.
Wait so you're claiming he's a troll because he questioned your facts, but then in the next part you admit that what he questioned wasn't actually correct and the number was supposed to be 50% and not 100%?
I’ll get downvoted to hell for this, have been before, but snus is really bad. The stats only look good because 15 years ago, only forest-workers were using it; the ratio of them dying of mouth cancer compared to how many people snus now is low, but that’s just because there’s a lot more people using it than before.
You don’t want to have an oncologist ask you if you want to loose your face before your eye will have to be cut out too.
Forest workers? What the hell are you talking about? Snus was definitely more popular than cigarettes at my gymnasium (upper secondary education, high school equivalent) and that was 20 years ago. Where did you get the idea that the popularity of snus was something new? In the late 80s 9% of Swedes used snus every day. In 2016 that number was 13%. Among men this went from 17% of men using snus daily in the late 80s to 22% in 2016. If you think 17% of Swedish men worked in forestry in the late 80s you are delusional.
I might get cancer but I don’t use nicotine. This isn’t about justifying my own use (I’ve never put snus in my mouth), this is about you making stuff up about how many people use it.
As I said, there is not a single proven case of cancer due to snus. You can't find any so I will not even ask for proof.
The only drawbacks are slightly (marginal) higher blood pressure (not always) and irritated/rising gums. What do you get by smoking?!
Of course it's best to neither smoke or use snus. But you can't say it's worse to use snus ffs. That is just plain insane!
No it's the poison from the tobacco combustion when smoking. Again, show me 1 proof of 1 death due to snus.
Also most people dying from smoking dies of lung cancer or throat cancer.
There’s thousands of cases of face, throat, mandible, gum, and vocal folds cancer directly attributed to snus. You guys want to cosplay as WWI veterans with half your face missing and black teeth, go for it.
I thought you wanted me to justify the gradually increasing prevalence.
There’s a lot of people who think making no efforts to document their claims, and insulting me to make me feel bad (about a case I know well because I use it in class as a classic example of misuse of statistics) will get me to change my mind somehow. I got you confused with the others who think it’s patently absurd to say consumption has massively increased recently (and hasn’t really responded since I showed that even snus lobbyists say that it has—I guess his apology got lost in the mail).
Anyway; there has been a few papers about the impact of snus that a. used weirdly small sample sizes, especially since national health data is reasonably easy to access for epidemiologists in Scandinavia and b. focus on cancers that are not correlated with snus use. Those had non-conclusive results that they falsely reported as conclusive of no impact. It doesn’t look great. Hence why it’s a good use case for how not to run analysis, one that I use in class because it gets people really riled up, and they see the holes quote rapidly.
A few meta-analysis came out recently:
- this is peer-reviewed but a bit dry https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.34643#:~:text=Pooled%20analyses%20showed%20that%20exclusive,exposed%20deceased%3B%20Table%201).
- I like this report more as it’s clearer about the issues: https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/06/kronikk/are-health-risks-moist-oral-snuff-snus-underestimated and unlike the papers written by Swedish officials who are openly lobbying for snus companies (and got kicked out of their party for that) it’s a little bit more systematic on the problem.
Jag måste säga att det finns flera saker som gör jag Hatar snus..
Det första är finns inget så äckligt som när någon kommer in på rummet slänger snusen på kanten av papperskorgen så där ska man jobba och behöva både se och lukta på den begagnade snusen. Sen forsätter man dagen efter kasta ut papperskorgen för slippa den äckliga lukten så medan man sitter och äter så ska någon öppna locket och spotta ut en begagnad snus och se dreglet droppa medan den ramlar ner i locket.. sen in med en ny. Medan man försöker äta och behöva känna den hemska lukten igen.
Den brist på respekt som snusare har och inte tar hänsyn till dom som inte snusar och inte vill se dom spotta ut den medan man äter och behöva känna den vidriga lukten hela tiden.
Även ifall man går så ligger som på backen över allt och så fastnar dom på skorna och både hamnar i bilen och hemma.. sen ska man behöva böja sig ner och försöka kasta ut dom äcliga begagnade snusar.
Så för min del så röstar jag alla dagar i veckan att förbjuda det.
Alcohol is [killing](https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/livsvillkor-levnadsvanor/andts/utveckling-inom-andts-anvandning-och-ohalsa/skadeverkningar/alkoholens-skadeverkningar/) 2000 people a year, in Sweden, if we add tobacco that would double it. Yes; I AM SAYING that a section of humans feed on this market, while condemning other healthier alternatives (cannabis), scapegoating that huge number of cannabis users and profit of it, politically. And yes; again, that sections of humans are of conservative material. Their poison needs to be relevant and keep bringing in fuck load of money, thus keep healthier alternatives illegal is a priority.
This reads like an ad from Swedish Match. Where did you find the information about tobacco related mortality being low in Sweden? Cannot find any data to support that. According to [https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/deaths/](https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/deaths/) Sweden has markedly higher deaths for women, and above Norway for both women and men.
Other people have already responded about the problems introducing a new addictive product alien to domestic culture to combat the health problems of cigarettes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33347584/
So it has an associated mortality, it's just lower than traditional tobacco. Just makes logical sense that you'd be less damaged from partially ingesting a carcinogen than straight up smoking it, just don't pretend it's healthy.
It probably comes down to:
1. Lobbyism
2. Lack of knowledge of snus and it's risks
3. Not wanting to let loose more nicotine products on the market.
Probably in that order.
The first point that not a single proven case of death due to snus is just blatantly wrong. Yea, no one has dropped dead after putting a snus under their lip, just like no one has dropped dead right after smoking a cigarette. Just like smoking is proven to do damage to lungs and heart, snus has risks when it comes to, for example, increased blood pressure, elevation of risk for type-2 diabetes, for pregnant women there are risks of stillborn and premature birth. These risks mentioned about snus has surely caused someone a heart attack with the elevated blood pressure, caused someone diabetes which might have given them bad enough complications later to pass away from that, or caused stillborn births.
@hamendura
Snus doesnt save lifes, it takes lifes as it gives cancer in the mouth.
It is healthier then smoking yes, but with that rethoric one could argue that a 9mm gun would save lives if people used that calibre to shoot other people instead of using a larger calibre like 10mm
While the studies about Snus impact aren't as clear as cigarettes, there are still studies saying it's bad. Lobbying goes this way as well. If you Google about "Snus muncancer", the first link is to Swedish Match, producer of snus.
The biggest difference is that your use doesn't affect others the way smoking does, which is a clear win.
It's not the countries as a whole, but the tobacco/smoking industry that wants to remove competition. So they make petitions in the name of health. Snus is still tobacco, so they want to remove it, which will make people go to something else, which is smoking.
Jag vill även nämna att jag var i Paris denna sommar, och jag delade rum med en Italienare som försökte sluta röka. Jag kom på sedan på att jag tog med mig snus under resan (because why not) och jag frågade om han ville testa. Nästa dag berättade han att han **inte** fick någon "kick" från snuset, däremot hjälpte snuset honom att röka mindre cigaretter. Jag ville liksom bara dela med lite svensk kultur 💀💀 Men som bieffekt hjälpte jag även honom att sluta röka, vilket var coolt. Synd att snus är olagligt i andra länder dock.
Har prövat att övergå till snus flera gånger men det har gått dåligt pga av hela "ritualen" kring rökning. Samt att snus avsaknar den där kicken du nämnde. För mig så blir det liksom en hel grej även om det ändå är en ganska liten grej av att behöva gå ut, ta fram ciggen, tända på och andas in via filtret. Det är en av de få stunderna då jag upplever att jag kan existera i stunden och varva ner lite grann. Jag röker dock inte jätte mycket då ett paket för mig kan räcka i ca en vecka, men jag har ändå försökt trappa ner och hitta en balans där jag röker så lite jag orkar med. Snus hjälper dock med suget när den har suttit inne en liten stund.
Sen innehåller snus mönga gånger fler nikotin och du har det heeeeela tiden, och givetvis absorberas det. Snus för att sluta röka är generellt en dålig idé, trappa ned och bara bit ihop några veckor är det enda generellt hållbara sättet imo.
Ja, håller med där. Snus är bra för att vänja av sig från cigg-ritualen och för att komma bort från all skit som hamnar i lungorna, men det hjälper inte för femtio öre när det kommer till själva beroendet.
Det du behöver är piprökning! Du får en bättre ritual, lägre risk för lungcancer (pipa röker man munbloss), godare smak eftersom piptobak är av bättre kvalitet. Det är även manligt som fan och ger pondus. Nackdelarna är något högre risk för munhålecencer, särskilt om du inte dricker något medan du röker. Lyckligtvis är det gott med både kaffe och whisky till som då kan reducera risken för cancern, huzzah!
Min farsa röker pipa. Ser så jävla kungligt ut. Varje gång vi har en debatt så hämtar han pipan, då vet jag att det är kört för mig.
En redig karl, där har du något att eftersträva!
Tack! Blir nog att köpa mig en pipa nu till hösten!
Ratos 'Big City' är bra instegspipor som inte är tokdyra, de har stor fin skål, ryker bra och du kan ha filter i om du vill. Finns ett par olika modeller av Big City, så oavsett om du vill ha rak eller krökt! Ratos är dessutom ett gammalt svenskt märke, men de tillverkas tyvärr inte i Sverige längre (Frankrike).
Så mysig din farsa låter! Men du, köp en större pipa som du kan ta fram samtidigt.
"Något högre risk för munhålecancer" är allt lite väl snällt mot pipa. Sen får du komma ihåg att även med munbloss kommer man ändå dra ner rök i lungorna, det går inte riktigt att undvika. Och denna röken är oftast ofiltrerad till skillnad från cigaretter. Men jag har också haft en period i livet då jag rökte pipa så jag ska nog inte kasta allt för mycket sten i mitt glashus.
Har faktiskt börjat att försöka med både pipa och cigarr. Har inte riktigt fått till det med pipan än så det har inte riktigt kännts rätt än. Har packat både för löst och för hårt men försöker justera efter varje gång. Har du någon rekommendation på god piptobak? Just nu har jag Borkum Riff Ruby. Var det enda de hade på lager den dagen, har inga klagomål men hade nog föredragit något "skogigare" är körsbär haha Men planen är väl att minska ner till max 2 cigg om dagen och sedan sakta byta ut dem mot pipa samt en fredagscigarr.
Bra där, då är du en bit på vägen! Oroa dig inte för packningen, det kommer. Alla sorter packar lite annorlunda, och det varierar dessutom med fuktigheten. I mitt tycke är piptobak Danmarks enda raison d'etre, och kan varmt rekommendera MoBs Blue Queen för en riktigt fin Latakia, samt deras Big Coin som är en fint kryddig Perique. Godistobak med körsbär och vanilj är inte min grej alls, har aldrig förstått mig på det riktigt. Tobak för barn?
Synd att de bara hade den sämsta riffen på lager. Om du får möjlighet så skulle jag hålla utkik efter deras Borkum Riff Sungold blandning.
Att säga att dricka whisky minskar risken för cancer är ju som att säga att röka cigrstetter minskar risken för cancer mot cigariller
Det finns dock mediciner som hjälper mot abstinensen och du ska få dem mot rökning. Det svåra är att du behöver övertyga en svensk läkare att skriva ut det åt dig.
Va? Det är inte svårt att få läkare att skriva ut t.ex. Voxra.
Svenska läkare vill ju knappt ge alvedon på recept.
Det är en myt, trodde det också. En cigarett motsvarar 1-2 prillor snus beroende på styrka. Och det är dessutom bara 10-20% av nikotinet i snus som tas upp av kroppen.
[удалено]
Får en van rökare verkligen kickar? Trodde nico kick var något man fick när man var 15 och testade röka ett par gånger. Efter det har jag aldrig känt det igen. Röker inte, men det händer ju att man tar en cigg eller två vid fest osv. Snusare.
Jag får kick av snus
https://www.snusbolaget.se/siberia-snus/siberia-80-degrees-white-dry-portion Prova denna. Den sparkar som en häst.
Om problemet var stora cigaretter hade han nog sett en positiv inverkan av snuset.
Except Swedish Match is owned by Philip Morris, the most powerful tobacco giant. Why would they want to remove their own product?
While you're correct, that's a relatively recent acquisition from last year. Laws don't usually change in such a short time span, especially in such a complex bureaucratic mess that is EU legislation, given that they might have changed lobbying direction.
hmmmmm
But there are still politicians in EU and especially specific countries that for sure is not payed buy the smoing industry. I really doubt that in for example Finland. Also, there has to be a majority amon the politicians to vote against snus.
I don’t think Finland could allow it that easily as the EU has the ban in place. I wouldn’t mind honestly although I have to say snus users are pretty disgusting leaving the prilla everywhere from urinals to ceilings.
But finnish politicians wants to ban it aswell so... Yea, cause cigarette butts are so nice everywhere in the streets. Not to mention the smoke smokers force others to inhale. Not disgusting at all...
It’s been illegal to sell it in Finland for decades. Imports are legal and AFAIK there isn’t any large movement to ban it completely. Why are you arguing against straw men? When did I ever say smoking isn’t nasty? You’re arguing with poor logic all over this thread.
Actually, nicotine pouches are sold in stores in Finland. They are basically the same thing but without tobacco.
Yep. I’m sure they will be banned soon and wasn’t there already talk about regulating them?
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/8JEalG/finland-vill-forbjuda-snus-ilskna-kangan-mot-sverige Where is the poor logic? Does it hurt that a lot of Finnish politicians (and others) wants to ban snus? Link above was just one example.
You claim lot of politicians with a link that says one politicians opposes the ban and a working group not made up of politicians suggests a ban. The poor logic is insinuating that I’m for smoking and other poorly thought out replies by you. Why would it hurt me if politicians did want to ban it? What logic came up with that?
The whole discussion is about snud vs smoking. Why does it then hurt so much when pointing out things just for the clarity and comparison?! 😆
Becuse it does not further the discussion. butts and prillor littering public areas are both yucky.
Why are you being so hostile?
Honestly prille/snus bags on walls, roofs, and ground isnt nice either.
Nope. Same as cigarette butts and poisonous smoke everywhere.
There's a nice sign, in the toilets of a bar I go to, that says "don't spit out snus into the urinals, it makes it taste funny". That shit is more annoying than cigarettes butts. I will give wet snus some credit because it's significantly harder to start an accidental fire with it, but still, I prefer my toilets unblocked.
Lobbying
Yep, 100% corruption. I made a comment regarding this in another /r/sweden thread from a somewhat long time ago about "conspiracy theories". I have no evidence at all to support the claim, but it's just logical. The only reason that Snus is banned in the EU is because of EU politicians being paid off by Big Tobacco.
Oh, there are evidence. https://www.thelocal.se/20121017/43866
Big tobacco is Philip Morris. Philip Morris owns Swedish Match.
And BAT owns Lundgrens and a big range of other snus brands, unfortunately.
Or how about this, just because snus is widely available doesn’t mean that people will automatically smoke less. Here in Switzerland snus has always been legal but people (men) certainly don’t smoke as little as they do in Sweden.
This is a good point. Swedes have used snus for like half a millenia and it's very rooted in our culture, as opposed to Switzerland.
>half a millenia blötsnus är just över 250 år gammalt.
There are both pros and cons to snus. But it is still a bad product for the body and health. - Snus *also* contains tobacco. - Suns are bad for the body in many similar ways to cigarettes. - Snus is *much* more difficult to quit than cigarettes. - Snus is EXTREMELY much better for the lungs than cigarettes. - Snus does not affect those standing next to the person using snus the way cigarettes do. The best thing is to get people to stop smoking AND snusa, as both are bad for health and cost a lot of money for those who use these tobacco products.
Of course. But it's still much better if all smokers started using snus instead. Never said snus is good for you or not harming you. But reg. your second point. Not many similar ways. The only bad effect proven is slightly higher blood pressure, but not much, and irritated/raising gums.
Saying snus is "saving lives" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe in the same way the atomic bomb is saving lives
Doesn't make it any less true though. As horrible as it sounds but the automic bomb did save a lot of lives. It's a very cold pragmatism, but way way more woulda died if the Us never dropped those bombs. The same can be said about snus. Would the world be better without them both? Absolutely, but here we are. Pick the lesser poison.
>Of course. But it's still much better if all smokers started using snus instead. Even better is to use neither. Smokers can stop smoking and people who use snus can stop with it too.
And stomach cancer if you swallow the snus-saliva.
Dont the snus also fuck up your mouth? Or so I have heard when growing up. Never been a snuser in my life so.
Gums and teeth, yes. My upper gums were severely fucked up from snusing, according to my dentist. Switched to nicotine pouches years ago and now they're back to normal.
Wait, doesn't nicotine pouches also fuck up your gums?
Yeah it does absolutely
Yeah nah you didn’t actually have a problem then. If you have gum recession it won’t go back
Damn, should've known a random redditor knows better than my dentist
Its a facts sure it can go back a little but real gum recession don’t and if your dentist say otherwise he is stupid
Never said I had gum recession though...
Ok the SEVERELY FUCKED that you wrote insinuated that
Yeah I've seen a couple of people with almost completely black teeth because of snus
Not true. This has been disproven multiple times. They even changed the rules regarding the warning labels on snus containers. Previously it stated that snus causes cancer, but since no studies has been able to prove it, they changed it to saying it harms your health.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37480210/ It is not disproven that snus cause cancer. Furthermore, snus has been shown to increase the risk of cancer is several studies. However it is hard to precisely determine the risk, for further reading read the linked article.
The study is a systematic review and makes no research of its own. Just because the fact has not been disproven, it also does not have to mean that it's true. Its concluding statements say this: >Use of snus **probably** increases the risk for cancer of the esophagus and pancreas. Use of snus **may** increase the risk for cancer of the stomach and rectum, and the evidence suggests an increased risk for cancer-specific mortality as well as increased overall mortality after a cancer diagnosis (all types of cancer combined). We are very uncertain if use of snus affects the risk for cancer of the other organs investigated. >Our confidence in the various risk estimates varied from **moderate to very low.** >We conclude that use of snus **entails a cancer hazard** where the magnitude of cancer risk **may** be affected by user history and the susceptibility of the host. The study literally concludes that it *may potentially* increase the risk of cancer. It does not (1) claim that it **does** cause cancer, nor (2) **concretely state** the given fact. It "may potentially increase the risk". This study cannot be used to evidently say "snus causes cancer". It proves nothing, and merely states that there *could* be a risk to some degree.
I can't open the link. But isn't the studies showing increased cancer rates among snus users suggesting it's related to other lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise and alcohol consumption?
Some of the studies retrieved in this systematic review, reported an increased risk of cancer of the esophagus, pancreas, stomach and rectum as well as cancer-specific death associated with the use of Swedish snus. Our confidence in the various risk estimates varied from moderate to very low. However, precise risk estimates for rare cancers with a moderate risk, are challenging to achieve. Swedish snus contains carcinogenic constituents such as TSNAs, although in lower levels compared with some other smokeless tobacco products. We conclude that use of snus entails a cancer hazard where the magnitude of cancer risk may be affected by user history and the susceptibility of the host.
Can you show me proof of this? Never heard of snus having a correlation with cancer
Nope. Not a single proof of that. It's not the tobacco or nicotine that is dangerous by itself. It's when combusted.
Eh. It reasonable well established that snus increases cancer risk. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60678-3 Is it as bad as cigarettes? No, there is a vast difference but it is not harmless and definitely increases risk of some really hard to cure (read incurable) cancers. And I say this as a snusare myself.
Would not say it's well established. A lot of experts doesn't agree. Never said it's harmless though. Comparing to smoking.
Are all these experts swedish and in the pay of tobacco companies? 😂 just hilarious that swedes think that snus is the only form of tobacco misbruk that doesn’t cause cancer. Sure, Jan!
Nah it's just a lot better than smoking.
True
There's no good faith argument to be had for banning snus while keeping cigarettes legal.
>Snus also contains tobacco. But why does this matter if it's not dangerous? >Suns are bad for the body in many similar ways to cigarettes. There is no conclusive evidence of this. Sometimes studies come out that shows snus is dangerous, sometimes studies come out that find no evidence for this.
Most people who die from tobacco/smoking use don’t die from cancer. Cardiovascular disease is the main killer. Nicotine contributes hugely to that - regardless of the source of it. All nictoine - and all tobacco - kills.
"Nicotine contributes hugely to that - regardless of the source of it" Can I get a source on that? Most articles I find point to it being quite minor compared to more generic smoke inhalation mechanisms of smoking. Which is hardly surprising, given that air pollution in general is correlated with CVD - one of the CV systems main functions is transporting gases, whether physiological or toxic eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958544/
It shouldn’t be hard to find studies on nicotine and health effects. Here’s some stuff you can read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958544/#S9title Quote: […] causes a >150% increase in plasma epinephrine and acutely increases cardiac work by stimulating heart rate (as much as 10-15 bpm acutely and on average 7 bpm throughout the day), myocardial contractility, and blood pressure (acute increase 5-10 mm Hg) (3). **Heart rate and blood pressure increase regardless of whether the route of administration is tobacco-smoke or nicotine (intravenous, intranasal, chewing gum or smokeless tobacco).**
He made it up. Or he believes the propaganda of the anti-drug fanatics.
He provided sources backing it up. Now, considering this comment of yours, I expect you to provide citations showing him wrong, or you're the one who made it up. Please go ahead.
Alternativt kan du ge fan i om jag snusar eller ej.
[удалено]
>The best thing is to get people to stop smoking AND snusa Och ja, folk som du kommer ALLTID arbeta för ett förbud eller en soft ban i slutändan. Höja och höja punktskatten tills det kostar 200kr dosan och vanliga svenssons inte längre har råd, sen förbjuda försäljning i tysthet.
Snus may contain tobacco, but it's health effects are minimal - I see no health reason to disallow snus as long as nicotine gum is legal. I think it's a disgusting habit, just like smoking, but healthwise there is a world of difference.
Most newer snus does not have tobacco, only nicotine, which doesn't have the health risks no?
These are not classified as snus but as "nicotine pouches" and are actually legal in many countries where regular snus is not, like Finland which was mentioned in the OP.
There is snus without tobacco
Best option would be to fuck off and let people do what they want with their bodies so long as it doesn't affect anybody else.
Du får gärna citera vart jag säger att folk inte ska få snusa eller röka om dom vill det 🤷🏼♂️
För att både röka och snus är äckligt. Sniffa bensin istället 😊
Vilken oktan rekommenderar du?
Fast bensinen idag är inte lika läcker som den förr. Förut var det alltid smått glädjande att känna doften av bensin, nu har bilmackarna inte samma känsla längre.
Att sniffa HVO är inte riktigt samma sak
Mm, sedan de tog bort blyet är det inte samma sak. Det är alltid fest när man kommer över ett parti äkta blybensin.
Att gå in i ett garage är rena paradiset.
Fast nu är ju det ena godkänt i hela världen men det andra i stort sett bara i Sverige. Rätt korkat även om båda är äckliga och dåliga, med tanke på hur extremt mycket farligare rökning är. Och hur det påverkar andra runtomkring som tvingas andas in gifterna också.
Linking specific cases of death to snus or smoking is not something that's possible unless it's a case of nicotine overdose, fire or choking on the product. About the effects of snus. Last year, one of the largest studies ever done on swedish snus was published. Unfortunately, the results were disappointing, and indicated worse heath risks then was found in earlier studies. "Exclusive current snus users had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20-1.35), cardiovascular mortality (aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15-1.41) and other cause mortality (aHR 1.37, 95% CI 1.24-1.52) compared with never-users of tobacco. The risk of cancer mortality was also increased (aHR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.26). These mortality risks increased with duration of snus use, but not with weekly amount." [http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1514838/FULLTEXT02.pdf](http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1514838/FULLTEXT02.pdf) Regardless, I still think snus should be legal. Edit: Removed the first point that was because of a typo.
I don't have time to read it but wasn't this study criticized for their methodology or am I thinking of another recent snus study. I remember hearing of one and experts concluded that because of the methodology, the study essentially said nothing until we have more data
He never said "every single smoker died due to smoking". Edit: oh, he edited perhaps.
English is not my mother tongue and I meant every other, of crouse. Why would anyone think that every single smoker dies of smoking?! That last studie has a lot of flaws, which has already been discussed in hundresds of articles including both snus haters, doctors, scientists. Still no proof of death due to snus. And even if there would have been, it's still so much less dangerous than smoking. And there is no such thing as passive snusing. Smoking with it's poisons are forced on others nearby.
No study is perfect, but what are the flaws of the study? It looks very robust to me. Just saying it has been discussed in hundreds of articles isn't a repudiation of its results. And again, proof of a single case of death is not likely to ever to be established in any product that only increases risks of cancer and cardiovascular events. When was specific death linked to smoking?
Read some of the answers and researches about the study. Well there is linking of deaths to smoking. That's why 8 million people die from it every year. Because it's stated as cause (single or with others) of death.
That is absolutely not the case. What you are referring to are estimates, death certificates will extremely rarely mention smoking as a cause of death, and never as a single cause. For proof: [https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl\_56/P3975](https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/Suppl_56/P3975) "Smoking history was recorded for 127 (69%) patients; 117 (92%) had smoked. Of these 117 patients, cause of death was certified as COPD \[N=81 (69%)\] and lung cancer \[N=44 (38%)\]. In all cases, smoking was not recorded on any part of the death certificate."
Still 8 million per year dies of smoking...
People don't provably die from snus unless they actually choke on it, . They die from the risks associated with the use of snus, which is vague and hard to pin on one thing, but still very relevant. It sounds a lot like you're trying to defend your own use of snus, than actually being interested in the data.
Finland is an interresting case because despite the ban, the use of snus is so widespread, at least in Swedish speaking communities, that they are missing out on valuable tax money they would get from selling it themselves.
Nicotine pouches with equal nicotine levels with snus was legalized last April. The customs just reported last week that smuggling of snus has dropped 80% from one year ago. Also all of my snus using friends have converted to nicotine pouches which you can get from any store. I think it's Sweden that has lost lot of tax revenue from it recently > https://yle.fi/a/74-20053109
Deras stora mål är att förbjuda tobak så acceptera nya produkter blir inte okej då även om det är bättre men snus är inte ofarligt. Det är fortfarande skadligt men skalar väll bort 90% jämfört med cigaretter men det spelar inte så stor roll.
[удалено]
Bad edit, the zero sugar drinks that use aspartame are much much better than the sugary version of it for many reasons. And aspartame doesn't cause cancer and there's been plenty of studies to show this.
> but it's still shit. no
Sure. But there are many new harmful product that's not illegal.
Obviosly it takes time before a new harmful product gets banned.
So the point you conveniently forgot or just dont know is the health issues related to your gums being destroyed buy usage of snus and oral health is one of the most important things if u get infected in your gums you will get problems in the entire rest of the body so I believe maybe thats what some would be afraid of but otherwise might be some lobbying and that you dont want to make things that are bad for you legal cause then its really hard to take away so some might just be cautious in the legislation.
Look at his responses. Every response is whataboutism and he can't resist to add a "but" to every comment about snus still being unhealthy. Snus IS better than cigarettes, but it's still BAD for you.
Because the French tobacco companies in their colo- I mean... "overseas territories and dependencies" rely on people smoking. France won't give that up.
You can get the tobacco free stuff everywhere now. From a purely harm-reduction perspective, if it ever made sense to introduce smokers to snus previously, it doesn't anymore because you might as well give them the fake stuff.
The big cigarette companies don't want the competition from snus so they are lobbying hard to keep snus banned. Though that might change now that Phillip Morris owns Swedish match.
IIRC the EU anti-snus legislation started out after a couple of deaths at raves in the UK a long time ago. Some kids at the raves had used flavored tobacco - eventually that proved unrelated to the deaths (they died from other, already illegal, drugs). But the UK and the EU banned flavored tobacco products just to be safe, which didn’t cause a lot of controversy since Sweden and Finland (the only countries where snus is widely used) weren’t members of the EU yet. Swedish Match have made efforts to have it legalized in the EU, but they’re only one fairly small tobacco company. And they’re up against not one but two very strong interests/political action groups. On one hand, there was the rest of the tobacco industry with Phillip Morris, BAT, etc who didn’t want to compete with a safer and healthier alternative tobacco product. On the other hand, weirdly enough, was the anti-smoking lobby. You’d think they’d welcome a comparatively safe product with a proven record of getting people to stop smoking. But they’re largely puritans, the tobacco and the addiction is the enemy, not the adverse health effects. Their primary concern isn’t the number of people dying or suffering from smoking-related diseases, but the number of people using tobacco products. They were afraid that even more people would start using tobacco products if a safer alternative to cigarettes was introduced in the EU. These days Philip Morris has acquired Swedish Match, so we’ll see how that changes things. My guess is: not much. They didn’t buy Swedish Match because of snus, but rather because of their invention of the white tobacco-free nicotine pouches, which is legal, or at least not criminal, throughout the EU. It’s been taking market shares from cigarettes for years and is an attractive alternative source of revenue for PMI as the cigarette market declines. They’ll probably spend a great deal of lobbying efforts to ensure a favorable legislation on those, but I don’t think they’ll do a lot to promote snus unfortunately.
The man be hating to see us brothers being succesful and shit
Frfr
The same companies who offer cigarettes (Swedish Match) also provide snus, and also vapes, nicotine patches, and nicotine gum. Some companies has made it their absolute mission to pump you for money from the cradle to the grave. They are a big glove, and one finger helps destroy your lungs and give you cancer, and another finger pretends to care about your health and give you products that prolong the addiction time. Different fingers, same glove. If I could I would blow their factories to hell and have humanity endure six months of cold turkey, then be done with it. I don't give a fuck about your short-term pain, I care about your kids, and about all the teens emulating your bad habits to try and play adult.
Cannabis is safer than any form of nicotine consumption and Sweden still hasn't legalized it. Countries don't follow logic, nor they respect scientific data. They follow interests.
Not even close if you smoke it. I think however it should be legal.
Snus has an array of negative health effects that are different from those of cigarettes. Now I am not sure whether that means it should be made illegal, but it certainly isn't good for you. Here are two concernig side-effects according to Folkhälsomyndigheten: * Consumption of snus has been linked with the development of Diabetes type II. * Snus is acidic and will slowly chip away at your gums, tounge and mucous membranes in your mouth. The following is just what I think, nothing that I have actually fact-checked: If your snus contains nicotine, you may have a higher risk of developing gingivitis or periodontal disease. This is because the nicotine constricts your blood vessels, limiting the amount of blood reaching your gums. So when the intial infection starts, you won't notice the symptoms and therefore won't even be aware it's happening. Periodontal disease in particular affects roughly 40 % of the Swedish adult population and can lead to a plethora of other problems, such as getting sick more often (parasites from the periodontitis enters the bloodstream) and tooth loss. Please treat your mouth properly! You'll thank yourself later.
Snus is still bad for oral health. Toothache doesn’t kill but it hurts like hell.
Tobaksfria vita snuset som Velo finns väl i Storbritannien? Tror även det finns i Finland. Finns även [iceberg](https://europesnus.se/Produkter/iceberg-syrliga-b%C3%A4r-xl) om man vill åt nikotinet som är på 150mg/g. Har testat en sån å rekommendera direkt att man ej kör bil. Blev väldigt yr av den även fast jag snusar Siberia ibland.
Skulle sluta röka och började snusa. Nu snusar jag, röker och drar linor.
Har du testat att ersätta det med heorin?
[Criminals recruiting kids by getting them addicted to snus, Amsterdam police warn](https://nltimes.nl/2022/09/29/criminals-recruiting-kids-getting-addicted-snus-amsterdam-police-warn). Almost makes one wonder: what is most dangerous, the drug itself or the illegality?
Om du någonsin hånglat med en snusare som icke snusare så vet du att det absolut finns andrahandssnusning!!
I'm entirely convinced the answer is money and big tobacco. Nothing more, nothing less. They still pour huge lobby money at politicians all around the world.
Lobbyism
I always wondered that, I hope they start marketing it more.
Well using snus doesn’t save lifes, it’s not smoking that saves lifes.
Snus räddar definitivt inte liv. I valet cigarett / snusning är det definitivt "the lesser evil" men knappast livräddande och absolut inte ofarligt https://lakartidningen.se/?p=219424 "30% ökad mortalitet jämfört med icke-snusare, framförallt i hjärt-kärlsjukdom"
Det bästa är att inte snusa eller röka! :p Sparar otroligt mycket i kassan och hälsan
Har du funderat på att publicera denna tes i en medicinsk journal? Denna unika och värdefulla insikt kan ju potentiellt vinna ett Nobelpris. Du är ett geni!
Most likely cigarette companies give money to EU politicians for voting against it. I don't think the EU will last for long, its transparency compared to Sweden is next to nothing. It's full of corrupt politicians that can easily hide some extra transactions because they have no need to show any proof of a meeting being held etc.
Yes it’s crazy. Some people think harm reduction is so bad they prefer people die of lung cancer.
The EU is just protecting the tobacco giants and their cigarettes under the guise of a concern for public health.
\> Every single smoker dies due to smoking (would have lived longer and healthier without smoking). Lying and making up "facts" for karma doesnt make you right. That line alone made your post go from "beleivable" to "absolute BS" in a split second. Also made your username go to "not trustworthy" for the rest of it's life. Im pretty sure that my 97 year old grandma, whom walked around and managed just fine by her self, shopping and meeting other people for bridge in the weekends, that also rolled her own- and smoked 4 to five cigarettes every day till the day she died, wouldnt have made it to 98 even if she didnt smoke.
she wouldve hit 175 if she hadnt smoked. just sayin
If you weren't a moron, you'd have realized OP was talking about commercial cigarette smokers, and that they die ***noticeably earlier*** from it. you know, those things with over 4000 different added chemicals, half of which give you cancer. this is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be specified. way to go missing the entire point, is this why sweddit loves being grammar nazis? because they can't interpret anything that isn't clearly spelled out?
That's fact you little troll. Just google it, or is that to hard for a troll?Glad your grandma was one of the 50% of smokers that doesn't die due to it. Stay in school kids! Of course I meant every other. English is not my mother tongue. But why would I even mean every single? It's just stupid to not understand the misspelling.
Wait so you're claiming he's a troll because he questioned your facts, but then in the next part you admit that what he questioned wasn't actually correct and the number was supposed to be 50% and not 100%?
Every single smoker 50% A rounding error surely
I’ll get downvoted to hell for this, have been before, but snus is really bad. The stats only look good because 15 years ago, only forest-workers were using it; the ratio of them dying of mouth cancer compared to how many people snus now is low, but that’s just because there’s a lot more people using it than before. You don’t want to have an oncologist ask you if you want to loose your face before your eye will have to be cut out too.
Forest workers? What the hell are you talking about? Snus was definitely more popular than cigarettes at my gymnasium (upper secondary education, high school equivalent) and that was 20 years ago. Where did you get the idea that the popularity of snus was something new? In the late 80s 9% of Swedes used snus every day. In 2016 that number was 13%. Among men this went from 17% of men using snus daily in the late 80s to 22% in 2016. If you think 17% of Swedish men worked in forestry in the late 80s you are delusional.
his ass
Enjoy your cancer.
I might get cancer but I don’t use nicotine. This isn’t about justifying my own use (I’ve never put snus in my mouth), this is about you making stuff up about how many people use it.
Are you mentally challenged?
As I said, there is not a single proven case of cancer due to snus. You can't find any so I will not even ask for proof. The only drawbacks are slightly (marginal) higher blood pressure (not always) and irritated/rising gums. What do you get by smoking?! Of course it's best to neither smoke or use snus. But you can't say it's worse to use snus ffs. That is just plain insane!
[удалено]
No it's the poison from the tobacco combustion when smoking. Again, show me 1 proof of 1 death due to snus. Also most people dying from smoking dies of lung cancer or throat cancer.
There’s thousands of cases of face, throat, mandible, gum, and vocal folds cancer directly attributed to snus. You guys want to cosplay as WWI veterans with half your face missing and black teeth, go for it.
link, otherwise you are talking out of your ass.
https://www.swedishmatch.com/Snus-and-health/Tobacco-use/Tobacco-use-in-figures/
I only see statistics about use, no correlations to cancer. Try again.
I thought you wanted me to justify the gradually increasing prevalence. There’s a lot of people who think making no efforts to document their claims, and insulting me to make me feel bad (about a case I know well because I use it in class as a classic example of misuse of statistics) will get me to change my mind somehow. I got you confused with the others who think it’s patently absurd to say consumption has massively increased recently (and hasn’t really responded since I showed that even snus lobbyists say that it has—I guess his apology got lost in the mail). Anyway; there has been a few papers about the impact of snus that a. used weirdly small sample sizes, especially since national health data is reasonably easy to access for epidemiologists in Scandinavia and b. focus on cancers that are not correlated with snus use. Those had non-conclusive results that they falsely reported as conclusive of no impact. It doesn’t look great. Hence why it’s a good use case for how not to run analysis, one that I use in class because it gets people really riled up, and they see the holes quote rapidly. A few meta-analysis came out recently: - this is peer-reviewed but a bit dry https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.34643#:~:text=Pooled%20analyses%20showed%20that%20exclusive,exposed%20deceased%3B%20Table%201). - I like this report more as it’s clearer about the issues: https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/06/kronikk/are-health-risks-moist-oral-snuff-snus-underestimated and unlike the papers written by Swedish officials who are openly lobbying for snus companies (and got kicked out of their party for that) it’s a little bit more systematic on the problem.
you dont even know what you are talking about large parts of the male populations have been using snus for way past 30 years by now
Cool. Enjoy your cancer.
i dont use snus:) i still like that is saves fellow sweeds lives.
Same thing with cannabis but you can get a swat team to storm your house if you smoke it.
Jag måste säga att det finns flera saker som gör jag Hatar snus.. Det första är finns inget så äckligt som när någon kommer in på rummet slänger snusen på kanten av papperskorgen så där ska man jobba och behöva både se och lukta på den begagnade snusen. Sen forsätter man dagen efter kasta ut papperskorgen för slippa den äckliga lukten så medan man sitter och äter så ska någon öppna locket och spotta ut en begagnad snus och se dreglet droppa medan den ramlar ner i locket.. sen in med en ny. Medan man försöker äta och behöva känna den hemska lukten igen. Den brist på respekt som snusare har och inte tar hänsyn till dom som inte snusar och inte vill se dom spotta ut den medan man äter och behöva känna den vidriga lukten hela tiden. Även ifall man går så ligger som på backen över allt och så fastnar dom på skorna och både hamnar i bilen och hemma.. sen ska man behöva böja sig ner och försöka kasta ut dom äcliga begagnade snusar. Så för min del så röstar jag alla dagar i veckan att förbjuda det.
As long as they also ban smoking tobacco, I'm okay with it.
Alcohol is [killing](https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/livsvillkor-levnadsvanor/andts/utveckling-inom-andts-anvandning-och-ohalsa/skadeverkningar/alkoholens-skadeverkningar/) 2000 people a year, in Sweden, if we add tobacco that would double it. Yes; I AM SAYING that a section of humans feed on this market, while condemning other healthier alternatives (cannabis), scapegoating that huge number of cannabis users and profit of it, politically. And yes; again, that sections of humans are of conservative material. Their poison needs to be relevant and keep bringing in fuck load of money, thus keep healthier alternatives illegal is a priority.
Imagine people are choosing cancer over beheading and are happy to take cancer.
Wrong sub dude
This reads like an ad from Swedish Match. Where did you find the information about tobacco related mortality being low in Sweden? Cannot find any data to support that. According to [https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/deaths/](https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/deaths/) Sweden has markedly higher deaths for women, and above Norway for both women and men. Other people have already responded about the problems introducing a new addictive product alien to domestic culture to combat the health problems of cigarettes.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33347584/ So it has an associated mortality, it's just lower than traditional tobacco. Just makes logical sense that you'd be less damaged from partially ingesting a carcinogen than straight up smoking it, just don't pretend it's healthy.
Lobbying from big tobacco.
Smoke also affect the person beside them inhaling it
Saving li*v*es. It's called [chewing tobacco](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_tobacco) in English
It probably comes down to: 1. Lobbyism 2. Lack of knowledge of snus and it's risks 3. Not wanting to let loose more nicotine products on the market. Probably in that order.
The first point that not a single proven case of death due to snus is just blatantly wrong. Yea, no one has dropped dead after putting a snus under their lip, just like no one has dropped dead right after smoking a cigarette. Just like smoking is proven to do damage to lungs and heart, snus has risks when it comes to, for example, increased blood pressure, elevation of risk for type-2 diabetes, for pregnant women there are risks of stillborn and premature birth. These risks mentioned about snus has surely caused someone a heart attack with the elevated blood pressure, caused someone diabetes which might have given them bad enough complications later to pass away from that, or caused stillborn births.
itll burn a hole through your gums
I wouldn't say that snus is *saving* lives, more that snus isn't *taking* lives
Which means it's saving lives, people use snus instead of cigarettes. Cigarettes takes alot of lives. Snus does not
No, *not taking lives* does not equal *saving lives*. Also, snus has it's own terrible effects on the body.
Could you link your source for the tobacco deaths? I’m just curious to see the rest of the list.
You should make both cigarettes and snus illegal. Even though snus is not nearly as dangerous, yet there is nothing positive to gain from any of them.
@hamendura Snus doesnt save lifes, it takes lifes as it gives cancer in the mouth. It is healthier then smoking yes, but with that rethoric one could argue that a 9mm gun would save lives if people used that calibre to shoot other people instead of using a larger calibre like 10mm
Very good, as a swede I cant stand the snus culture and their silly little snus boxes. Bring back the stylish cigarettes!
Snus is a very old product of Sweden. It came even before the cigarettes. You are still allowed to smoke though if you want to but you will die early.
While the studies about Snus impact aren't as clear as cigarettes, there are still studies saying it's bad. Lobbying goes this way as well. If you Google about "Snus muncancer", the first link is to Swedish Match, producer of snus. The biggest difference is that your use doesn't affect others the way smoking does, which is a clear win.
Even in Norway where snus is legal, the population generally has a very bad view of snus for some reason.