“ In summary, while using dip or chew is not perfectly safe as a way of consuming nicotine, it is vastly safer than burning tobacco and inhaling smoke.”
This statement seems fair but illustrates that the issue really hinges on how you frame the question.
Is just about any delivery vehicle for nicotine safer than smoking it (Other than apparently this dry stuff)? Almost certainly.
Is consumption of nicotine via a non-smoked (and non-dry) format as safe as non-consumption? That seems unlikely.
So again it is a double-sided issue. Should we make alternate non-cigarette products available for current smokers? Absolutely.
But whilst doing so, should we discourage people (esp young people) from taking up a habit of long term nicotine consumption to begin with? I would very much think so.
Fantastic, so wonderful to learn something today! Thank you again, Sensible Medicine, for bringing this to “light”, providing a forum for a thoughtful and nuanced perspective based on facts and evidence.
Now, when the patient’s wife says “tell him to quit chew because it causes cancer”, I will restrict my comments to “it may not be causal, but maybe he should quit because its disgusting?” (Oops, a slight value judgment there, I better re-read Dr Cifu’s latest piece😆)
It never seemed logical to me that nicotine per se was the carcinogenic agent. It seemed more likely that the inhalation of concentrated smoke into the depths of the respiratory tree would be a more likely cause. The relative absence of risk in pipe and cigar smokers that mostly do not inhale the smoke reinforces this concept.
I love myth busters 🎉
“ In summary, while using dip or chew is not perfectly safe as a way of consuming nicotine, it is vastly safer than burning tobacco and inhaling smoke.”
This statement seems fair but illustrates that the issue really hinges on how you frame the question.
Is just about any delivery vehicle for nicotine safer than smoking it (Other than apparently this dry stuff)? Almost certainly.
Is consumption of nicotine via a non-smoked (and non-dry) format as safe as non-consumption? That seems unlikely.
So again it is a double-sided issue. Should we make alternate non-cigarette products available for current smokers? Absolutely.
But whilst doing so, should we discourage people (esp young people) from taking up a habit of long term nicotine consumption to begin with? I would very much think so.
Fantastic, so wonderful to learn something today! Thank you again, Sensible Medicine, for bringing this to “light”, providing a forum for a thoughtful and nuanced perspective based on facts and evidence.
Now, when the patient’s wife says “tell him to quit chew because it causes cancer”, I will restrict my comments to “it may not be causal, but maybe he should quit because its disgusting?” (Oops, a slight value judgment there, I better re-read Dr Cifu’s latest piece😆)
It never seemed logical to me that nicotine per se was the carcinogenic agent. It seemed more likely that the inhalation of concentrated smoke into the depths of the respiratory tree would be a more likely cause. The relative absence of risk in pipe and cigar smokers that mostly do not inhale the smoke reinforces this concept.
I love this post! The conventional wisdom is wrong again!