Fine with me, it's the idea of praising MJ smoking and persecuting tobacco smoking that I don't understand. They should be treated equally.
I suspect they eventually will be as more people openly smoke MJ and the health effects become more openly known.
MJ smokers reek, too. Nobody wants to smell that anymore than they want to smell a walking tobacco ashtray.
Whoa.. this guy's totally a victim of drug war propaganda. How's that koolaid of hate and misinformation taste?
Fine with me, it's the idea of praising MJ smoking and persecuting tobacco smoking that I don't understand. They should be treated equally.
I suspect they eventually will be as more people openly smoke MJ and the health effects become more openly known.
MJ smokers reek, too. Nobody wants to smell that anymore than they want to smell a walking tobacco ashtray.
Not at all
How many people die each year from MJ?
How many people die from Tobacco?
HUGE difference!
America always HAS and always WILL smoke LOTS of pot. It's as much as part of American culture as Alcohol.
Not if you don't smoke it (eat it or use a vaporizer)
But it's been mostly an underground thing, making it difficult to see overall effects on the public. If MJ is largely legalized, we will have much more accurate info on the health effects, I think.
I remember reading not long ago that MJ was the second largest cash crop in NC behind tobacco. It was probably actually #1, but it's hard to get an accurate number on MJ sales.
P.S., Lighten up, Francis!
Fact remains
Tobacco kills MILLIONS every year
MJ kills......well, actually, you tell me cause I never heard of anyone dying due to MJ. Does it happen? Sure, but I can certainly tell you that it happens no where as much as tobacco.
So no your comparison is WAY off
I don't think that death should be the only criteria for adverse health effects.
Regardless of one's attitude on smoking... cigarettes are a legal, non-intoxicating product. Smoking doesn't really affect job performance unless you're taking frequent smoke breaks. It's not like pot, drugs, or alcohol that impair performance and present safety risks. I can't see how this will possibly hold up in court. There will definitely be a fat law suit.
There will definitely be a fat law suit.
Obesity is a major cause of illness and death in our state..."
Regarding lxskllr, I understand why people are getting upset by him because he comes across very harshly, but I don't think he is trying to troll anybody. I'm not sure what exactly he was getting at with the sunflower comments, but I do agree that smokeless tobacco is not nearly as dangerous as we have been lead to believe. Understand that I'm not saying it's safe, but it is far less dangerous than smoking. Most people don't realize, for example, that smoking puts you at a much higher risk of oral cancer than chewing tobacco.
American chew and dip is fermented, a process which results in the creation of carcinogenic chemicals called nitrosamines from the tobacco. These same nitrosamines are also present in high quantities when tobacco is fire-cured for use in cigarettes.
In chewing tobacco, nitrosamines are found in concentrations high enough to cause cancer, but only after a very long (lifetime of) exposure. When you smoke, you are inhaling these nitrosamines along with hundreds of other chemicals from the combustion of tobacco, including carbon monoxide, directly into your mouth and lungs. To classify these habits as equally risky is really kind of silly, but in our crusade to label all tobacco use as unequivocally dangerous we sort of lost sight of what is rather obvious - one is a lot worse for you than the other.
Furthermore, Swedish snus is pasteurized rather than fermented, a process which results in only trace levels of nitrosamines. Snus has been used for hundreds of years in Sweden, and it is still very popular and ubiquitous over there even today. The rate of tobacco use in Sweden is comparable to that of any other first-world nation (roughly 25% of adults use tobacco), yet they have BY FAR the lowest lung cancer rates of any developed country in the world (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/images/graphics/g1-04-02.gif).
The primary reason? More men in Sweden use pasteurized tobacco (aka snus) than smoke cigarettes. Their government also closely controls snus production and sets strict standards for allowable nitrosamine levels in their snus, which are a small fraction of the levels found in American dip. Note that American snus products (like Camel SNUS) are not held to any such standards - so they are generally not considered to be real snus.
So I am not saying there is any such thing as "safe" tobacco. But there absolutely is a difference in risk factors, and there absolutely has been a lot of misinformation given to the American people in this regard. Here is an article that discusses this issue: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/10/tobacco_truth_gets_smoked_99840.html
I particularly like this quote: "A 2005 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that only 11 percent of smokers who were aware of smokeless tobacco think it is safer than cigarettes, while 83 percent disagree -- which is the equivalent of believing it's safer to drive without a seat belt than with one."
To use my own highly scientific model (adapted for consumption by ATOT), the risk graph looks something like this:
(BAD FOR YOU) smoking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dipping >>>>> snus >> coffee (NOT AS BAD FOR YOU)
I don't understand how existing smokers could be forced to quit or be fired, smoking is not illegal and yes, it's bad for you as are a LOT of things that are perfectly legal as smoking. I can see it coming, BMI indexing, blood-work draws then the holy grail, DNA testing, "I',m sorry Mr Smith, we see a prevalence in yo genetic makeup that gives you a very high preponderance to pancreatic cancer, we can't use you, bye.."
Regarding lxskllr, I understand why people are getting upset by him because he comes across very harshly, but I don't think he is trying to troll anybody. I'm not sure what exactly he was getting at with the sunflower comments, but I do agree that smokeless tobacco is not nearly as dangerous as we have been lead to believe. Understand that I'm not saying it's safe, but it is far less dangerous than smoking. Most people don't realize, for example, that smoking puts you at a much higher risk of oral cancer than chewing tobacco.
American chew and dip is fermented, a process which results in the creation of carcinogenic chemicals called nitrosamines from the tobacco. These same nitrosamines are also present in high quantities when tobacco is fire-cured for use in cigarettes.
In chewing tobacco, nitrosamines are found in concentrations high enough to cause cancer, but only after a very long (lifetime of) exposure. When you smoke, you are inhaling these nitrosamines along with hundreds of other chemicals from the combustion of tobacco, including carbon monoxide, directly into your mouth and lungs. To classify these habits as equally risky is really kind of silly, but in our crusade to label all tobacco use as unequivocally dangerous we sort of lost sight of what is rather obvious - one is a lot worse for you than the other.
Furthermore, Swedish snus is pasteurized rather than fermented, a process which results in only trace levels of nitrosamines. Snus has been used for hundreds of years in Sweden, and it is still very popular and ubiquitous over there even today. The rate of tobacco use in Sweden is comparable to that of any other first-world nation (roughly 25% of adults use tobacco), yet they have BY FAR the lowest lung cancer rates of any developed country in the world (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/images/graphics/g1-04-02.gif).
The primary reason? More men in Sweden use pasteurized tobacco (aka snus) than smoke cigarettes. Their government also closely controls snus production and sets strict standards for allowable nitrosamine levels in their snus, which are a small fraction of the levels found in American dip. Note that American snus products (like Camel SNUS) are not held to any such standards - so they are generally not considered to be real snus.
So I am not saying there is any such thing as "safe" tobacco. But there absolutely is a difference in risk factors, and there absolutely has been a lot of misinformation given to the American people in this regard. Here is an article that discusses this issue: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/10/tobacco_truth_gets_smoked_99840.html
I particularly like this quote: "A 2005 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that only 11 percent of smokers who were aware of smokeless tobacco think it is safer than cigarettes, while 83 percent disagree -- which is the equivalent of believing it's safer to drive without a seat belt than with one."
To use my own highly scientific model (adapted for consumption by ATOT), the risk graph looks something like this:
(BAD FOR YOU) smoking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dipping >>>>> snus >> coffee (NOT AS BAD FOR YOU)
Is Snus consumed the same way as chewing tobacco? If so, I'd imagine you wouldn't see much lung cancer from chewing it but would see more oral cancer.
You'd imagine wrong, cause there isn't any ;^)
Well yes because you're not inhaling it. There's still the oral cancer.
That's what I'm saying. There's no oral cancer. I'm eating a pizza right now, but I'll do your work for you and post some science. I expected someone to after I was gone for four pages, but imagine my shock when no one did. Shock I tell you! :^D
That's what I'm saying. There's no oral cancer. I'm eating a pizza right now, but I'll do your work for you and post some science. I expected someone to after I was gone for four pages, but imagine my shock when no one did. Shock I tell you! :^D
Ah, finally someone who knows what they're talking about. You got it partially right. Leaf chew has TSNAs that are comparable to Swedish snus, and has for a very long time. The moist snuff(dip) levels have dropping like a rock over the last two decades, and are close to, but still a bit higher than snus.
No, and neither does smokeless tobacco, not that that's any concern of an employer anyway. You're there to do a job, and your private life is private.
That's what I'm saying. There's no oral cancer. I'm eating a pizza right now, but I'll do your work for you and post some science. I expected someone to after I was gone for four pages, but imagine my shock when no one did. Shock I tell you! :^D
what about the health insurance premium they pay for the workers?
Want to smoke? pay your own damn insurance and dont beg the state for support when you go down with lung cancer due to smoking.
Want to be tough and independent? take care of your own crap when crap hits the fan.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22987222
Current studies suggesting that smokeless tobacco use increases the risk of head and neck cancer are hampered by small numbers. Consequently, there remains uncertainty in the magnitude and significance of this risk. We examined the relationship between smokeless tobacco use and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in a population-based case-control study with 1,046 cases and 1,239 frequency-matched controls. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), adjusting for age, gender, race, education level, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption. A nonsignificant elevated association between having ever used smokeless tobacco and HNSCC risk (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.67-2.16) was observed. Individuals who reported 10 or more years of smokeless tobacco use had a significantly elevated risk of HNSCC (OR = 4.06, 95% CI: 1.31-12.64), compared to never users. In an analysis restricted to never cigarette smokers, a statistically significant association was observed between ever use of smokeless tobacco and the risk of HNSCC (OR = 4.21, 95% CI: 1.01-17.57). These findings suggest that long-term use of smokeless tobacco increases the risk of HNSCC.
Use of Swedish moist snuff, smoking and alcohol consumption in the aetiology of oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. A population-based case-control study in southern Sweden.
Rosenquist K, Wennerberg J, Schildt EB, Bladström A, Hansson BG, Andersson G.
Source
Department of Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. Kerstin.Rosenquist@od.mah.se
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
The results of this study confirm that both smoking of tobacco and alcohol consumption are risk factors for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOSCC). The use of moist snuff had no effect on the risk of OOSCC, probably due to the low levels of tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines in Swedish moist snuff.
OBJECTIVE:
The aims of this population-based case-control study in southern Sweden were to establish risk estimates for cigarette and alcohol consumption and to evaluate whether Swedish moist snuff is a risk factor for OOSCC.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Between September 2000 and January 2004, 132/165 consecutive cases (80%) diagnosed with OOSCC and 320/396 matched controls (81%) were investigated. All subjects were interviewed and examined according to a standardized protocol.
RESULTS:
Individuals who drank > or =350 g of alcohol/week showed an increased risk of OOSCC (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.3-5.4). Total lifetime consumption of tobacco for smoking (>250 kg) had a dose-response effect on the risk of OOSCC (OR 4.7; 95% CI 2.4-9.1). We found no increased risk of OOSCC associated with the use of Swedish moist snuff (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.5-2.5).