Discussion:
Cigarette Alternatives
(too old to reply)
camelopard
2006-08-02 16:16:03 UTC
Permalink
The problem with cigarettes is that both the nicotine and the smoke are
bad. An alternative should be either safe or better, promote health. So I
am just trying to think of possible healthful alternatives to cigarettes.
There are cigarettes with no nicotine, but that produce probably harmful
smoke from tobacco combustion.

1. The simplest, and perhaps the best, is to conceive of a cigarette
alternative as an inhaler, and perhaps the best inhalant would be eucalyptus
oil, because eucalyptus oil knocks out respiratory infections, and even
increases the amount of oxygen taken from the lungs to the bloodstream. So a
cigarette alternative would seem to be something that affects respiration
positively.

2. Another idea is an inhaler that would produce oxygen. Perhaps it
might consist of a sort of air moss, genetically bred to taken in CO2 from
the breath, and rapidly produce oxygen. So one would inhale oxygen, and
exhale or partially exhale C)2 through the inhaler.

3. One could conceive of an inhaling tube crammed full of herbs good
for various aspects of respiration, such as boswellia, or glutathione.
Glutathione is an over-the-counter supplement, but someone has marketed it
in an inhaler as available by prescription only. Herbs in an inhaler might
have to be ground very small so that they could be inhaled, or possibly they
could be carried along by water vapor.

4. A cigarette alternative as an inhaler would probably have a
permanent plastic tube, into which one could insert various substances, and
a cork or non-plastic tip for the lips.

5. Maybe the idea alternative would be a mixture of herbs or chemicals
that release only healthful gases upon combustion, such as oxygen. But it
seems as if combustion produces harmful smoke. Is the road of combustion
blocked up ahead?

6. Maybe a tube would come with permanent small beads of cooling gel.
One would take the tubes out of a freeezer, and when one inhaled the cooled
air would meet warm air in the mouth, and turn to a visible vapor,
substituting as smoke. Or maybe just inhaling would somehow produce a
cooling effect, perhaps by another means than gel. It might be inconvenient
to only smoke in the garage where there is a freezer. But what else is new?

7. Perhaps a cigarette alternative could produce smoke by combining two
chemicals, as in the laboratory. It would then produce copious smoke, which
would have to be safe, but perhaps have no health benefits. However, if
there is a smoke, or vapor, perhaps it will be full of negative ions, or
ozone, and purify the air. It should have a fragrant odor, to please the
more refined ladies. (Not that there are any that are coarse.)

8. However, as a practical alternative, we men can forget about good
cigarette alternatives, and just switch to good cigars.
Rodney Long
2006-08-02 17:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by camelopard
The problem with cigarettes is that both the nicotine and the smoke are
bad. An alternative should be either safe or better, promote health. So I
am just trying to think of possible healthful alternatives to cigarettes.
There are cigarettes with no nicotine, but that produce probably harmful
smoke from tobacco combustion.
People smoke to get nicotine, it is the only reason to smoke, the rest
of the garbage, is just what they claim the reasons people smoke, it's BS

The reasons that other means of taking in nicotine, do not totally the
decrease the desire to smoke is because they deliver less nicotine, and
in a less efficient manor than smoking does

I quit smoking two days ago, I went from 60 cigs a day, to nothing, I am
learning everything about what withdrawal is all about. I don't know how
long I will make it, I don't want to just substitute my source of
nicotine, I want to be free of it, and I will not put any weight on, it
took me too long to loose it.
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com
Mark Fortune
2006-08-02 22:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rodney Long
People smoke to get nicotine, it is the only reason to smoke, the rest
of the garbage, is just what they claim the reasons people smoke, it's BS
The reasons that other means of taking in nicotine, do not totally the
decrease the desire to smoke is because they deliver less nicotine, and
in a less efficient manor than smoking does
I quit smoking two days ago, I went from 60 cigs a day, to nothing, I am
learning everything about what withdrawal is all about. I don't know how
long I will make it, I don't want to just substitute my source of
nicotine, I want to be free of it, and I will not put any weight on, it
took me too long to loose it.
Glad to hear you've made the choice to quit rodney, I know it takes a
lot of strength to take that first step and I hope it works out for you.

If you're not with a support group at present, i'd recommend quitnet -
http://www.quitnet.com/ they helped me quit before (although
unfortunately I relapsed after 9 months) and I seem to recall there's a
fair amount of support material on there. They also send you a daily
email relating to why you're experiencing the multitude of withdrawl
symptons etc.

Good luck and may the force be with you!
Mark
Rodney Long
2006-08-03 01:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fortune
Glad to hear you've made the choice to quit rodney, I know it takes a
lot of strength to take that first step and I hope it works out for you.
It took me 36 years to wise up
Post by Mark Fortune
If you're not with a support group at present, i'd recommend quitnet -
http://www.quitnet.com/ they helped me quit before (although
unfortunately I relapsed after 9 months) and I seem to recall there's a
fair amount of support material on there. They also send you a daily
email relating to why you're experiencing the multitude of withdrawl
symptons etc.
I looked at this like I looked at my weight loss (110 lbs so far), there
has to be a better way than what people have went through in the past,
too many fail, so I came up with my own plan, one that I believe will
work, and work without gaining weight, or just converting to another
form of nicotine addiction (guns or patches)
Post by Mark Fortune
Good luck and may the force be with you!
Only time will tell, and yes the "Force" is part of my plan :-)
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com
Mark Fortune
2006-08-03 02:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rodney Long
I looked at this like I looked at my weight loss (110 lbs so far), there
has to be a better way than what people have went through in the past,
too many fail, so I came up with my own plan, one that I believe will
work, and work without gaining weight, or just converting to another
form of nicotine addiction (guns or patches)
I have heard that weight gain is expected when you quit smoking, and
i've heard its because the nicotine receptors in teh brain are also
closely linked to the "food reward" system of the brain, so in a way it
is like replacing one drug with another. The reason I didnt put on any
weight when I quit was because at abotu the same time, I started cycling
20 miles a day because of work, yes I did eat more, but I suppose I ate
more healthy. and believe you me - when you're doing some harsh exercise
(I was doing a total of 1 hour a day), it only takes a few weeks to
really feel the difference getting your lung capacity back can make!

regards,
Mark
Mark Fortune
2006-08-02 22:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by camelopard
The problem with cigarettes is that both the nicotine and the smoke are
bad. An alternative should be either safe or better, promote health. So I
am just trying to think of possible healthful alternatives to cigarettes.
There are cigarettes with no nicotine, but that produce probably harmful
smoke from tobacco combustion.
I'm guessing you've never actually smoked yourself have you? Tobacco is
a drug, and the reason we smokers continue to smoke it is because we're
addicts. It has hardly anything to do with the fact that we like the
taste or presence of smoke - i'd even say cigarette smoke tastes
horrible, but I continue to smoke because i'm hooked on the stuff - and
it's not from a total lack of willpower - i've "quit" more times than I
can remember, for as long as 9 months in some cases. As for the idea
that "smoking makes you look cool" most people get past that when they
leave school.

That's not to say there isnt a market for your idea, just that as a
cigarette replacement therapy I wouldnt expect people to be queuing up
to buy it.

respectfully,
Mark
camelopard
2006-08-08 16:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fortune
I'm guessing you've never actually smoked yourself have you?
Wrong. I've smoked p[retty heavily for years. I have been buying a
native american cigarette, at a low price, that is 100% tobacco and additive
free. I liked it for its strong kick.

However, it also drives my blood pressure up 5 or 10 points with each
cigarette, with up to 30 minutes or even more to return to normal. So chain
smoking has racheted my blood pressure up over 160 several times, and the
smoke has filled my lungs with mucus and probably damaged my eyes. Oh,
well. The price is right, though.

I'd still like a safe, affordable cigarette, but I don't think there is
one. Perhaps the best would be one could light but the smoke of which would
be healthful. There was a gadget called a Smoke-Ring once that said it made
a cigarette burn at a temperative so low no carcinogenic compounds were
formed. So it burned, did not just warm.

Burning seems to be a random process; maybe there could be some kind of
controlled, chemical burning.

Maybe a cigarette that burns non-tobacco at a low temperature creating
health-promoting smoke, or a vaporizer that either cools or warms. However,
I wouldn't want to have to carry around a vaportizer or a hookah in a
backpack.

Anyway, I just think it may be possible that sometime in the future one
or more safe and healthful alternatives to cigarettes may be made that are
about the same size and are as or more 'satisfying'. I'd rather not revert
to sucking from baby bottles, unless absolutely necessary, for those diapers
can be expensive, baby!

Hmm...what about a bubble gum that releases smoke when the bubble pops?
Or, for the more mature baseball player and bull-rider, a chewing tobacco
that generates clouds of smoke. Yeah!
Mark Fortune
2006-08-08 18:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by camelopard
Post by Mark Fortune
I'm guessing you've never actually smoked yourself have you?
Wrong. I've smoked p[retty heavily for years. I have been buying a
native american cigarette, at a low price, that is 100% tobacco and additive
free. I liked it for its strong kick.
However, it also drives my blood pressure up 5 or 10 points with each
cigarette, with up to 30 minutes or even more to return to normal. So chain
smoking has racheted my blood pressure up over 160 several times, and the
smoke has filled my lungs with mucus and probably damaged my eyes. Oh,
well. The price is right, though.
I'd still like a safe, affordable cigarette, but I don't think there is
one. Perhaps the best would be one could light but the smoke of which would
be healthful. There was a gadget called a Smoke-Ring once that said it made
a cigarette burn at a temperative so low no carcinogenic compounds were
formed. So it burned, did not just warm.
Burning seems to be a random process; maybe there could be some kind of
controlled, chemical burning.
Maybe a cigarette that burns non-tobacco at a low temperature creating
health-promoting smoke, or a vaporizer that either cools or warms. However,
I wouldn't want to have to carry around a vaportizer or a hookah in a
backpack.
---------------8<-----------------8<-----------------

How about distilling pure nicotine, diluting it with something harmless
such as water so it doesnt deliver a lethal dose, and then passing it
through a vaporiser?
Rodney Long
2006-08-09 12:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Fortune
How about distilling pure nicotine, diluting it with something harmless
such as water so it doesnt deliver a lethal dose, and then passing it
through a vaporiser?
That's the nicotine inhaler, available by prescription now,, I have a
scrip for it , If I want to try it
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com
Dripnot
2006-08-03 06:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by camelopard
The problem with cigarettes is that both the nicotine and the smoke are
bad. An alternative should be either safe or better, promote health. So I
am just trying to think of possible healthful alternatives to cigarettes.
There are cigarettes with no nicotine, but that produce probably harmful
smoke from tobacco combustion.
1. The simplest, and perhaps the best, is to conceive of a cigarette
alternative as an inhaler, and perhaps the best inhalant would be eucalyptus
oil, because eucalyptus oil knocks out respiratory infections, and even
increases the amount of oxygen taken from the lungs to the bloodstream. So a
cigarette alternative would seem to be something that affects respiration
positively.
2. Another idea is an inhaler that would produce oxygen. Perhaps it
might consist of a sort of air moss, genetically bred to taken in CO2 from
the breath, and rapidly produce oxygen. So one would inhale oxygen, and
exhale or partially exhale C)2 through the inhaler.
3. One could conceive of an inhaling tube crammed full of herbs good
for various aspects of respiration, such as boswellia, or glutathione.
Glutathione is an over-the-counter supplement, but someone has marketed it
in an inhaler as available by prescription only. Herbs in an inhaler might
have to be ground very small so that they could be inhaled, or possibly they
could be carried along by water vapor.
4. A cigarette alternative as an inhaler would probably have a
permanent plastic tube, into which one could insert various substances, and
a cork or non-plastic tip for the lips.
5. Maybe the idea alternative would be a mixture of herbs or chemicals
that release only healthful gases upon combustion, such as oxygen. But it
seems as if combustion produces harmful smoke. Is the road of combustion
blocked up ahead?
6. Maybe a tube would come with permanent small beads of cooling gel.
One would take the tubes out of a freeezer, and when one inhaled the cooled
air would meet warm air in the mouth, and turn to a visible vapor,
substituting as smoke. Or maybe just inhaling would somehow produce a
cooling effect, perhaps by another means than gel. It might be inconvenient
to only smoke in the garage where there is a freezer. But what else is new?
7. Perhaps a cigarette alternative could produce smoke by combining two
chemicals, as in the laboratory. It would then produce copious smoke, which
would have to be safe, but perhaps have no health benefits. However, if
there is a smoke, or vapor, perhaps it will be full of negative ions, or
ozone, and purify the air. It should have a fragrant odor, to please the
more refined ladies. (Not that there are any that are coarse.)
8. However, as a practical alternative, we men can forget about good
cigarette alternatives, and just switch to good cigars.
Smoking anything is generally labeled as BAD for you regardless of the
source or material. Once materials reach combustion/flame temp they
release nasty volatile fumes like carbon monoxide among others.
Cigarettes are probable the worst thing as the tobacco is laced with
other chemicals that are bad for you by themselves.

Anything in the 'ene or ine" sounding group are usually BAD stuff:
Nicotine, Caffeine, Benzene, and on and on. Too bad Nicotine and
Caffeine are so habit forming...legalized drugs for sure.

In reference to 'inhalers' with tubes they already have those and have
had them for quite awhile. The difference between them and 'burning'
materials like pipes or cigarettes do, is that they do it at a much
lower temp. This allows the heating element to 'vaporize' the oils and
such without burning them. Here's a site with pretty much all those
things you described.
http://www.vaporwarehouse.com/store/shop.php?p=vb.html?r=6

My deepest condolences to anyone unfortunate enough to be enslaved by
nicotine or caffeine...both are very evil drugs. ; (
Rodney Long
2006-08-03 12:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dripnot
My deepest condolences to anyone unfortunate enough to be enslaved by
nicotine or caffeine...both are very evil drugs. ; (
Wrong on caffeine, it has actually many benefits, there are no studies
that claim it shortens life span, and many showing where it has saved
many lives, it has saved my life hundreds of times over the years, as I
would have fallen asleep at the wheel, going to work, back when I had to
do that :-)
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com
Marshall Price
2006-08-09 19:25:39 UTC
Permalink
The problem with most cigarette alternatives is that they don't deliver
*nicotine*, which is the only thing cigarettes are good for. It's the
only reason people use them. And, yes, it's bad.

Back in the late 50's or early 60's, my dad helped start up a company
(Vanguard, I think) that made cigarettes from lettuce. It failed, of
course.

As for getting large molecules into your bloodstream through the lungs,
I think you're headed not only for failure (They're great for CO2, O2,
and H2O, but _not_ amino acids!), but serious legal trouble -- in the
form of class-action lawsuits. People don't like to part with their lungs.

Perhaps the "cigarette alternative" you're looking for is something like
a hand-held incense-emitting toy. Something to play with, enhance your
body language, and cheer up the atmosphere.

But I doubt it'll fly.
Post by camelopard
The problem with cigarettes is that both the nicotine and the smoke are
bad. An alternative should be either safe or better, promote health. So I
am just trying to think of possible healthful alternatives to cigarettes.
There are cigarettes with no nicotine, but that produce probably harmful
smoke from tobacco combustion.
1. The simplest, and perhaps the best, is to conceive of a cigarette
alternative as an inhaler, and perhaps the best inhalant would be eucalyptus
oil, because eucalyptus oil knocks out respiratory infections, and even
increases the amount of oxygen taken from the lungs to the bloodstream. So a
cigarette alternative would seem to be something that affects respiration
positively.
2. Another idea is an inhaler that would produce oxygen. Perhaps it
might consist of a sort of air moss, genetically bred to taken in CO2 from
the breath, and rapidly produce oxygen. So one would inhale oxygen, and
exhale or partially exhale C)2 through the inhaler.
3. One could conceive of an inhaling tube crammed full of herbs good
for various aspects of respiration, such as boswellia, or glutathione.
Glutathione is an over-the-counter supplement, but someone has marketed it
in an inhaler as available by prescription only. Herbs in an inhaler might
have to be ground very small so that they could be inhaled, or possibly they
could be carried along by water vapor.
4. A cigarette alternative as an inhaler would probably have a
permanent plastic tube, into which one could insert various substances, and
a cork or non-plastic tip for the lips.
5. Maybe the idea alternative would be a mixture of herbs or chemicals
that release only healthful gases upon combustion, such as oxygen. But it
seems as if combustion produces harmful smoke. Is the road of combustion
blocked up ahead?
6. Maybe a tube would come with permanent small beads of cooling gel.
One would take the tubes out of a freeezer, and when one inhaled the cooled
air would meet warm air in the mouth, and turn to a visible vapor,
substituting as smoke. Or maybe just inhaling would somehow produce a
cooling effect, perhaps by another means than gel. It might be inconvenient
to only smoke in the garage where there is a freezer. But what else is new?
7. Perhaps a cigarette alternative could produce smoke by combining two
chemicals, as in the laboratory. It would then produce copious smoke, which
would have to be safe, but perhaps have no health benefits. However, if
there is a smoke, or vapor, perhaps it will be full of negative ions, or
ozone, and purify the air. It should have a fragrant odor, to please the
more refined ladies. (Not that there are any that are coarse.)
8. However, as a practical alternative, we men can forget about good
cigarette alternatives, and just switch to good cigars.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
Known to Yahoo as d021317c
Mark Fortune
2006-08-10 21:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marshall Price
Perhaps the "cigarette alternative" you're looking for is something like
a hand-held incense-emitting toy. Something to play with, enhance your
body language, and cheer up the atmosphere.
But I doubt it'll fly.
Have you ever tried smoking incense? (dont ask!), it's seriously rank
tasting.
Pam Somers
2006-08-10 23:41:45 UTC
Permalink
I know of a great product that does exactly what you want!
=============================

A Smokeless Alternative To Quitting [Unabridged Version]
by Sally Satel M.D.

The New York Times | April 6, 2004

For decades, public health advocates have championed harm reduction for
people who cannot stop taking health risks - or do not want to. Needle
exchange is a classic example. Intravenous drug users get clean needles
because, the reasoning goes, contracting and spreading AIDS is worse than
making heroin use a little easier.

But harm reduction for hard-core smokers is another matter. It is
politically incorrect.

At issue is a form of smokeless tobacco, a popular Swedish product called
snus (rhymes with loose) that satisfies smokers' nicotine addiction with
negligible health risks of its own. But to many foes of smoking, it is not a
lifesaver, but the devil's instrument.

Snus, moist oral tobacco, comes in a tiny tea bag. It sits discreetly
between lip and gum, releasing nicotine. Because it does not stimulate
saliva production, there is no spitting. Even better, there is no smoke.

"It is the tobacco smoke, with its thousands of toxic agents, that leads to
cancer, heart disease and emphysema," says Dr. Brad Rodu, an oral
pathologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Eliminate the smoke, and you significantly reduce the risk. Indeed, Dr. Rodu
found that a 35-year-old snus user will live on average as long as a
35-year-old who quits nicotine altogether - eight years longer than a
smoker. Snus, or snuff, is especially attractive to smokers - who crave
nicotine - because it produces nicotine levels comparable to smoking. Other
nicotine replacement products like gum and the patch administer too little
nicotine to reliably prevent craving and withdrawal symptoms.

The health benefits are impressive. Forty percent of Swedish men use tobacco
products, and that is also the rate for men in the other 14 countries in the
European Union. Yet Sweden has the lowest rate of lung cancer by far. Why?
Largely because of snus, which represents half of all the tobacco that
Swedish men use. (The other half smoke.)

Snus has not caught on with female smokers, though, and they make a morbid
comparison group, ranking fifth, behind Denmark, Norway, Britain and the
Netherlands.

Smoking opponents, one could argue, should herald snus. But instead, the
very notion of harm reduction seems to inflame them.

"It's like trying to play God trading oral cancer for lung cancer," said Dr.
Gregory Connolly of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.

More than 20 epidemiological studies show that smokeless tobacco is far
safer than cigarettes for mouth cancer. Even traditional smokeless tobacco
products bring one-third to one-half the risk as smoking.

Users of Swedish snus, which contains very low levels of tobacco-specific
nitrosamines, the carcinogens that cause lung cancer, among other diseases,
incur a risk of developing oral cancer that is no greater than nonsmokers'.

The five large studies that examine snus in relation to oral cancer "are
consistent in finding no increased cancer risk," according to an article
last year in the journal Tobacco Control.

What about gateway effects? Clearly, if using smokeless tobacco turns people
on to nicotine and they "graduate" to smoking, it fails as a public health
strategy.

This was not the case in Sweden, however.

If snus induced young people to smoke, then Sweden would be expected to have
a poor record of smoking reduction. Instead it has the best record in
Europe.

Moreover, the proportion of current smokers who are former snus users is far
less than the proportion of snus users who were once smokers.

In short, snus has largely been a pathway away from smoking, not vice versa.
In the United States, Dr. Lynn T. Kozlowski of the biobehavioral health
department at Penn State, found that more than three-fourths of men from 18
to 34 who used smokeless tobacco never went beyond it to cigarettes or had
used cigarettes before using smokeless products.

Swedish snus and other brands of smokeless tobacco like Ariva, Exalt and
Revel are available in this country but are hard to find. Most smokers have
never heard of them, and many doctors are unfamiliar with the products.

The government, rather than clearing the air, is muddying it. Last year, the
surgeon general, Vice Adm. Richard H. Carmona of the Navy, told Congress,
"There is no significant scientific evidence that suggests smokeless tobacco
is a safer alternative to cigarettes."

This is quite simply wrong in the case of smokeless tobacco in general, and
snus in particular.

A set of "Tips for Teens" from the Department of Health and Human Services
answers the question, "Isn't smokeless tobacco safer to use than
cigarettes?" with an emphatic - and erroneous - "no."

"I suppose you could argue that shooting yourself in the leg poses less of a
health risk than shooting yourself in the head," a former president of the
American Dental Association, Dr. D. Gregory Chadwick, said. "But do we
really need to have that discussion?"

Yes, we do. Public health experts have for years endorsed harm reduction as
a pragmatic last resort for hard-core users of heroin, cocaine and alcohol,
because the experts are convinced of the relative safety that accrues to the
user and society.

No one disputes that quitting is optimal. But in the real world, that is not
practical in every case. Snus in particular, and smokeless tobacco in
general, provide clear, lifesaving advantages over smoking that antitobacco
activists refuse to acknowledge.
====================
Here is a testimonial from a snus user.

"I read the above article in the NY Times. Didn't believe it. I had tried
nicotine replacement therapy before with very poor results. I was a very
heavy smoker - about four packs a day. I tried the patch, the gum, and
nicotrol inhalers. At one point I even used several of those pharmaceutical
nicotine replacement therapies together, i.e. the inhaler and patch
together. I still smoked.

The best I achieved was a 50% smoking reduction. I resigned myself to
probably being unable to quit.

Then I ran across the above article, and decided I'd give it a try. To say
I was impressed would be an understatement. The snuse enabled me to stop
smoking right away. It was almost effortless. Like turning off a light
switch.

No only does snus work well, but it is inexpensive. I pay about USD $3.30
per can of 24 that replaces four packs of butts. Your own cost benefit
analysis may differ, but for me it costs about 1/6th as much as smoking."

===========================

To order snus go to The Northerner:

https://northerner.com/

To read more about snus go here:

http://www.smokersonly.org/
Rodney Long
2006-08-11 05:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pam Somers
I know of a great product that does exactly what you want!
=============================
A Smokeless Alternative To Quitting [Unabridged Version]
by Sally Satel M.D.
I think we have just been "set up" for a spam :-)
Post by Pam Somers
But harm reduction for hard-core smokers is another matter. It is
politically incorrect.
Agreed
Post by Pam Somers
Eliminate the smoke, and you significantly reduce the risk. Indeed, Dr. Rodu
found that a 35-year-old snus user will live on average as long as a
35-year-old who quits nicotine altogether - eight years longer than a
smoker. Snus, or snuff, is especially attractive to smokers - who crave
nicotine - because it produces nicotine levels comparable to smoking. Other
nicotine replacement products like gum and the patch administer too little
nicotine to reliably prevent craving and withdrawal symptoms.
Well this I checked out, as the Dr. did all his work 12 miles from my
house, and at the same University my wife works at
Post by Pam Somers
Smoking opponents, one could argue, should herald snus. But instead, the
very notion of harm reduction seems to inflame them.
Again I agree
Post by Pam Somers
The five large studies that examine snus in relation to oral cancer "are
consistent in finding no increased cancer risk," according to an article
last year in the journal Tobacco Control.
Actually they found this out in most oral tobacco use,, this is where
the spam really gets going
Post by Pam Somers
Here is a testimonial from a snus user.
Now we are really spamming
Post by Pam Somers
No only does snus work well, but it is inexpensive. I pay about USD $3.30
per can of 24 that replaces four packs of butts. Your own cost benefit
analysis may differ, but for me it costs about 1/6th as much as smoking."
===========================
https://northerner.com/
Whoops there is the spam.

Was this whole thread set up for this ?

Sure looks like it :-)
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com
luccy moroco
2023-07-03 10:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Do you know the early signs and symptoms of cancer of the lungs? We all know the fact that the rate of survival from cancer of the lung is much better the sooner it's diagnosed. The five-year survival rate from 60% to 80% on level 1 lung cancer drops into a shattering 10% having level 4 illness, but around 50% of individuals have been elevated to the advanced stage in the time of diagnosis. You may ask about the early signs and symptoms of lung cancer that you need to know. Remember, that knowing the early signs and symptoms of cancer of the lungs is recommended for those who do not smoke along with smokers. At the moment, half of individuals that develop cancer of the lungs were smoking before, and those who never smoked were around 15%.

https://livingwithlungcancer.asia/zh-HK/LungCancer360/Knowing_Lung_Cancer/About_Lung_Cancer/What_is_Lung_Cancer
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...