|
On October 23 2012 04:12 heliusx wrote:
I don't really have an opinion of snus and it's pretty dumb to be illegal anyway but if this is true that's some grade A corruption from Malta. Snus still runs the risk of esophageal cancer also I'm sure, and that shit is not pretty.
It is dumb for smoking/cigarettes/cigar/nicotine/lung cancer to be banned?
|
On October 23 2012 04:39 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:12 heliusx wrote:
I don't really have an opinion of snus and it's pretty dumb to be illegal anyway but if this is true that's some grade A corruption from Malta. Snus still runs the risk of esophageal cancer also I'm sure, and that shit is not pretty. It is dumb for smoking/cigarettes/cigar/nicotine/lung cancer to be banned?
No the point would be that since it wont give you lung cancer but can be a substitute to cigarettes it is stupid to ban it. Especially if youre going to allow cigarettes that obviously is worse.
|
"It's basically harmless compared to other tobacco products." - from OP
Does anybody else really hate this phrase? Every tobacco product is bad for your health, regardless of the way it is used. Saying something is "basically harmless" in relation to the other ways you can use tobacco is a pretty terrible argument. The wording of it is very misleading. When you can still get gum disease and cancer from tobacco, it is not "basically harmless". It's like comparing cigarettes to more hardcore drugs like meth in that cigarettes are "basically harmless" compared to meth. It's still really bad for you.
|
On October 23 2012 04:28 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity. Well you guys have a long list of things you need to ban then. smoking, drinking alcohol, fatty foods...
Television increases the likelihood of obesity. Ban that.
Nascar encourages you to drive fast. They crash on a fairly regular basis. Ban that.
Google "Jenkem". We better ban taking a dump.
See how quickly this can turn ridiculous? Just because someone can abuse it doesn't mean we should ban it altogether. Btw, obesity causes a larger stress on the public health care system. Might wanna get on that one first.
|
On October 23 2012 04:45 Robinsa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:39 either I or wrote:On October 23 2012 04:12 heliusx wrote:
I don't really have an opinion of snus and it's pretty dumb to be illegal anyway but if this is true that's some grade A corruption from Malta. Snus still runs the risk of esophageal cancer also I'm sure, and that shit is not pretty. It is dumb for smoking/cigarettes/cigar/nicotine/lung cancer to be banned? No the point would be that since it wont give you lung cancer but can be a substitute to cigarettes it is stupid to ban it. Especially if youre going to allow cigarettes that obviously is worse.
Even though snus is practically harmless compared to many of our legal substances, the counter argument would be that as it isn't exactly healthy, there's no point in legalizing it.
It's not run by drug cartels, but by very qualified and regulated companies, so there's no "take it off the streets" argument that is found in the marijuana debate.
I'd like to see it legalized because as you said it's a substitute, it can be compared with bad fats and sweeteners when it comes to health effects, rather than smoking which is horrible in comparison. Imo it gets an undeserved bad rep because it contains tobacco.
I'd like to once more point out that it's not the same as chewing tobacco or the American version. The way it works is that you put a tiny tea bag with steam processed tobacco behind your lip and the thin skin absorbs the nicotine. You don't swallow juices, you don't spit around, you don't chew anything.
The man way of doing it is that you skip the bag and have it loose. Still the same idea, but it's moister, so you swallow more. Both are about as popular, with the bags more popular in the cities, and the man way is more spread in the countryside.
On October 23 2012 04:50 Epishade wrote:
"It's basically harmless compared to other tobacco products." - from OP
Does anybody else really hate this phrase? Every tobacco product is bad for your health, regardless of the way it is used. Saying something is "basically harmless" in relation to the other ways you can use tobacco is a pretty terrible argument. The wording of it is very misleading. When you can still get gum disease and cancer from tobacco, it is not "basically harmless". It's like comparing cigarettes to more hardcore drugs like meth in that cigarettes are "basically harmless" compared to meth. It's still really bad for you.
It's like saying that sugar and fats are basically harmless. Obviously it's not completely true. It's still bad for you, but it won't hurt you much as long as you don't overdo it or are particularly sensitive.
|
On October 23 2012 04:50 MutaDoom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:28 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity. Well you guys have a long list of things you need to ban then. smoking, drinking alcohol, fatty foods... Television increases the likelihood of obesity. Ban that. Nascar encourages you to drive fast. They crash on a fairly regular basis. Ban that. Google "Jenkem". We better ban taking a dump. See how quickly this can turn ridiculous? Just because someone can abuse it doesn't mean we should ban it altogether. Btw, obesity causes a larger stress on the public health care system. Might wanna get on that one first.
I agree. His point was that it causes others no harm, my point was that it does but in a more indirect way. Second hand smoking, people becoming aggressive with alcohol and destroying stuff, healtchare burden, etc. I never said that you should ban it altogether.
|
"I'm myself a 'snuser' and love it, and I'd like to see it be exported, as it's just a great alternative to smoking."
I am a meth head, it's a great alternative to heroin...
Either way, it's not good, get rid of it all...
|
I don't see why this should not be allowed. As previous posters said, everybody should be in theory be free to do whatever they want with their body. The problem of smoking was that you also damage the health of the people next to you while you smoke.
|
On October 23 2012 05:07 GreEny K wrote:
"I'm myself a 'snuser' and love it, and I'd like to see it be exported, as it's just a great alternative to smoking."
I am a meth head, it's a great alternative to heroin...
Either way, it's not good, get rid of it all...
Uhmhm.. Comparing snus to meth are we?
I guess we should ban beer and apple pie too. I mean it's not good for you after all.
|
United States43468 Posts
On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity.
Not actually true. It works out that with universal healthcare plus social security it's cheaper to have people smoke themselves to death. It's not like only people with risky lifestyles die, everyone dies, the difference is that the long healthcare costs of smokers and drinkers happen around the same time they stop working whereas the morally superior healthy people claim pensions, spend years with their great grandchildren and eventually require hospice/full time care before they get some other type of cancer.
|
It gives you more nicotine overall than smoking, but in smaller portions
What does this mean? So is it, or isn't it, more nicotine overall?
|
eww this looks disgusting wouldnt this make your teeth really yellow
|
On October 23 2012 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity. Not actually true. It works out that with universal healthcare plus social security it's cheaper to have people smoke themselves to death. It's not like only people with risky lifestyles die, everyone dies, the difference is that the long healthcare costs of smokers and drinkers happen around the same time they stop working whereas the morally superior healthy people claim pensions, spend years with their great grandchildren and eventually require hospice/full time care before they get some other type of cancer.
That makes sense.
|
|
|
On October 23 2012 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity. Not actually true. It works out that with universal healthcare plus social security it's cheaper to have people smoke themselves to death. It's not like only people with risky lifestyles die, everyone dies, the difference is that the long healthcare costs of smokers and drinkers happen around the same time they stop working whereas the morally superior healthy people claim pensions, spend years with their great grandchildren and eventually require hospice/full time care before they get some other type of cancer.
source please
|
On October 23 2012 04:39 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:12 heliusx wrote:
I don't really have an opinion of snus and it's pretty dumb to be illegal anyway but if this is true that's some grade A corruption from Malta. Snus still runs the risk of esophageal cancer also I'm sure, and that shit is not pretty. It is dumb for smoking/cigarettes/cigar/nicotine/lung cancer to be banned?
I recently read that the vast majority of lung cancer cases are unrelated to smoking. Interesting factoid.
|
On October 23 2012 05:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:What does this mean? So is it, or isn't it, more nicotine overall?
You get more nicotine out of snus, but that's because you constantly got one in during the day. Smoking gives you overall less nicotine, but in much higher shock doses.
It's like drinking beer and drinking vodka. The beer drinker might get more alcohol, but as it's spread out over a longer period of time he doesn't get as drunk.
|
On October 23 2012 05:25 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:17 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2012 04:24 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 04:22 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On October 23 2012 04:16 MutaDoom wrote:On October 23 2012 04:15 Tiegrr wrote:
Seems pretty much like the "chewing tobacco" we have here in the states. Personally, I find it disgusting and I support this ban. My friend is 26 and already had to get prosthetics to replace his four front lower teeth a few months ago (he's been using it as an alternative to smoking for about 6 years). Because you find it disgusting, it should be banned? And because his friend is too dumb to limit his intake or stop when it begins to cause obvious damage. My thoughts are that if you wanna fuck up your body (Alcohol does it too, are we going to enter prohibition again?) then be my guest. I don't think anyone should push their views on others, especially if it's causing no harm (direct or indirect) to anyone else, that's morally presumptuous. Oh shit. Well, someone's gotta do it, again. The problem isn't that it hurts your body, you can jump off a goddamn cliff if you want, and be kind enough to die. The problem is that with universal healthcare everyone has to pay for your stupidity. Not actually true. It works out that with universal healthcare plus social security it's cheaper to have people smoke themselves to death. It's not like only people with risky lifestyles die, everyone dies, the difference is that the long healthcare costs of smokers and drinkers happen around the same time they stop working whereas the morally superior healthy people claim pensions, spend years with their great grandchildren and eventually require hospice/full time care before they get some other type of cancer. source please
The study was conducted by Arthur D. Little and found that smokers' early mortality and cigarette-tax revenue, outweighed the costs of health-care and lost tax revenue from early death.The study concluded through cost-benefit analysis "based on up-to-date reliable data and consideration of all relevant contributing factors, the effect of smoking on the public finance balance in the Czech Republic in 1999 was positive, estimated at +5,815 mil. CZK."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smoking_in_the_Czech_Republic
|
On October 23 2012 05:26 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:It gives you more nicotine overall than smoking, but in smaller portions What does this mean? So is it, or isn't it, more nicotine overall? You get more nicotine out of snus, but that's because you constantly got one in during the day. Smoking gives you overall less nicotine, but in much higher shock doses. It's like drinking beer and drinking vodka. The beer drinker might get more alcohol, but as it's spread out over a longer period of time he doesn't get as drunk.
Nicotine =/= Alcohol
Even smoking cigarettes 24hrs a day wouldn't be enough to overdose on nicotine.
Shock doses doesn't exist for nicotine.
Addiction on the otherhand does.
|
On October 23 2012 05:10 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 05:07 GreEny K wrote:
"I'm myself a 'snuser' and love it, and I'd like to see it be exported, as it's just a great alternative to smoking."
I am a meth head, it's a great alternative to heroin...
Either way, it's not good, get rid of it all... Uhmhm.. Comparing snus to meth are we? I guess we should ban beer and apple pie too. I mean it's not good for you after all.
You are being ridiculous and your addiction to nicotine is typing the words you are posting here, it's actually kind of sad to see.
The gums of long term snus users look absolutely terrible, several of which can fit a small sized potatoe cut in half behind their lip due to the hole from snus usage causing gum retraction. 6 years is not long term, especially if you started at a young age when the body is at its peak physical condition. The problems from nicotine don't arise in such a short timespan, I used to smoke for 10 years between the age of 14 to 24 and had no negative effects on my health during that time, I also used snus on and off.
I havent smoked a single cigarette or used nicotine in any way shape or form since. The short term effects were amazing, the feeling of accomplishment after going to the gym when your brain is free to stimulate your reward system is just something on a whole different level, sex becomes so much better and the feelings you experience when you accomplish difficult tasks is extatic.
You start encountering issues with poisoning your body and getting addicted to dopamine stimulation from drugs when you get older, making it that much harder to stop. Snus users run an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, have a dysfunctional metabolic system due to high nicotine intake and their blood vessels become increasingly ineffecient.
Just this year, type 2 diabetes was linked to the metabolic system and accepted in generally all medical journals, and studies have started not to determine <if> the metabolic dysfunction caused by nicotine increases the chance of diabetes, but by how much.
With nicotine being more addicting than both cocaine and heroin due to it's profound impact on the mesombilic pathway ,the psychological risks you take when becoming addicted to something that is 100% proven to retard your brains reward system are tremendous. It alters your whole persona and transforms your way of thinking, they way you experience good things that happen in life becomes less impactful due to the retardation caused by nicotine.
Basically, taking a snus is like writing a cheat code that causes you to feel good about yourself, now if you write that cheat code and have that experience 3-10 times a day, when you actually do something awesome your brain just goes "meh".
Your whole way of arguing by comparing snus to anything else is warped, you should take something for what it is on itself, you shouldn't cloud your judgement based on your own extreme nicotine addiction, the simple fact is you are a different person both mentally and physically in a negative way when addicting yourself to nicotine or any drug designed to retard your reward system.
And yes, alcohol should be illegal, but it will not because of the financial and cultural impact, mainly to how easy it is to produce for the general population, not because of the health risks.
Apple pie is delicious.
edit:
Take it from someone thats "been there and done that", breaking free of a 10 year+ nictoine addiction is one of the hardest things I've had to do in life. What I got in return is a perspective on certain things that nobody can teach you. Quit while you can, the feeling nicotine gives you is replaceable by being awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
