Talk:Dipping tobacco

Better source for note 5?

Useful data there, but it's from a blogger who appears to have an axe to grind. The blogger's original source could probably be substituted. I imagine the data itself is accurate, but I'd MUCH rather see the real source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4301:1F2D:7878:A67D:5B93:3F1C (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

September 2005

Can someone qualified in statistics and medical risk read the Indian study cited on cardiovascular risks and evaluate what it means, and the quality of the work? Who Gives A Fuck?

I'm deleting the 'Health Concerns' section because it is so bad it can't be salvaged. If anyone wants to rewrite it please cite studies. Kfort 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that the original article had a good section on Health Concerns that was anonymously vandalized. I'll try to restore this and make it look nice later. Kfort 08:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks everybody who has contributed to the article. I'd like to see this article have more information, so hopefully people like you will add to it what they know.

EXTERNAL LINKS

I'd like to suggest that links to quit resources be included on this page. My site KillTheCan.org - http://www.killthecan.org/ has many articles about quitting written by quitters. It has a free community located at http://forum.killthecan.org/ where quitters can get questions answered. Iuchewie 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember WP:SOAP—oac old american century ^talk @ 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the killthecan link was added again. I've been thinking a bit about the link, and I'm not sure whether it should stay or it should go. WP:EL seems to say that this is a "maybe", but then again, also seems to prohibit primarily-forum sites. I'm not sure whether the forum or the actual content of killthecan (as well as the other quitting link - they are quite similar, although not in design) is the biggest part. I know this has been discussed previously, but I'd like to see a proper consensus on these two links. WnC? 10:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Snuff and chewing tobacco http://brosaem.info/en/snuff-and-chewing-tobacco.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.196.138 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

peach skoal

The article states that peach skoal is not available in Canada and for the longest time this was true, however I'm from Montreal Canada and I just purchased a tin of peach flavored skoal this morning. It wasn't available yesterday but there was some today. Cheers!

prices

US$3.50 for a tin of Skoal? It's more like $6.50 around here.

Wow! Come down to Jacksonville, Florida...I'm getting it from Winn-Dixie for $2.90

if you live outside the South, smokeless tobacco is ridiculously expensive. I moved from GA to MA, and have paid almost 3 times as much for the same product. 71.192.127.216 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I live in northeast Ohio, and Skoal is usually around $3.25-$4.00, depending on the area. mfmwildcat08@yahoo.com

It's crazy how different the prices are from state to state, due to taxes levied on tobacco products. Here in Las Vegas, I buy a can of Skoal long cut or pouches from $4 to $4.50. While when I lived in Oceanside last year, and visited again this year, the price of the same product is $7 to $8. Always got to load up with a couple rolls, for long trips or vacations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.193.163 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

roles

how many tins come in a roll?? in arkansas a tin of skoal is slightly less than $5. 5, 10, or 15 cans depending on the brand. Copenhagen comes in 5 and 10 can rolls, Skoal is most common in 10 can rolls, but you can find 5 can rolls in some places. Red Seal and Rooster are the only two that I know of available in 15 can rolls.

5 cans is a roll and 10 cans is a log. At least that is true for Copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.49.186 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

additives

Can anyone add to this article to discuss the rumors (or whatever) that dipping tobacco contains additives intended to act as an abrasive and provide direct access to the bloodstream?

I added the rumor to the page. If anyone has any citations re: additives/plexiglass please add them.—Old american century 12:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this rumor before although about Swedish snus, this rumor is said to be the main reason why Swedish snus cannot be distributed in the U.K - Lazersnus 06:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This rumour is known in Sweden, however, it has been said that the glass-like particles sometimes seen in snus are in fact salt (sodium chloride) crystals, possibly caused by the snus drying out. As for the "abrasion", this is claimed to be caused by the high alkalinity in snus, caused by the potash added in the manufacturing. The potash makes the nicotine more soluble, but as it is alkaline, it erodes the mucous membranes in the mouth. I don't like the way the article is worded - several sources are said to exist wrt/ the glass rumour, yet none are mentioned. I'll re-word it a bit. --Where next Columbus? (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I spoke, at length, to Jeffrey Wigand, an expert on tobacco additives, about the fiberglass story a couple of years ago. He said it was completely untrue. I realize this doesn't qualify as a citation, but hopefully it's a step in the right direction. I think perhaps the bigger issue is that consumers don't know what is in smokeless tobacco because tobacco products are not required to list ingredients. Randalllynn (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend used to work for US Smokeless Tobacco(Skoal&Copenhagen, etc.) and told me that it's a form of table salt that "abrases" the membranes, just like how eating many salty foods will abrase your mouth. -mfmwildcat08@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.195.43 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Usage

"Smokeless tobacco is sometimes used in the workplace by employees, especially if the employer does not provide many cigarette breaks or the employee is constantly using both hands during work (which doesn't provide opportunities for Cigarette smoking)" was edited to: "(which does provide opportunities for Cigarette smoking)."

I think it only makes sense using doesn't, because the article is explaining that if an employee is constantly using two hands (making it difficult to smoke cigarettes), some will use smokeless tobacco instead.

Swallowing dip has no unusual effects? Is stomach cancer not worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.232.61 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Throat Cancer is actually more common —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.49.186 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

could someone who has access to the statistics please cite some information about dipping tobacco usage in the military, specifically in the infantry? i have reason to believe that the rate is much higher in the military than in the civilian community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.135.2 (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Slang

I removed all slang. It became too excessive and unencyclopedic. There was a page for slang, but it was deleted per unanimous votes. Should we even keep slang on this main page? It gets spammed a lot. -- Old american century 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oral disease?

Their is a lot of information about people who have gum disease have higher heart attack rates, is it safe to assume chewing is also bad for the heart?

Yes.[1]. I'll add that now. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, there is no discussion on oral and other cancers of the bone, esophogus, lymph nodes, etc. caused by smokeless tobacco use. How could this be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.105.97 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably because this article was written by a dork in the employ of a smokeless tobacco manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.47.106 (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over health effects

An anonymous user removed a bunch of information, which I reverted, that discussed the harm of smokeless tobacco. The removed information had, if I remember correctly, 5 citations (two from PubMed). Smokeless tobacco dangers are misrepresented across the internet (I added a citation for this claim, again from PubMed), and there are many studies to back up that smokeless tobacco is less harmful than smoking tobacco, which are cited in the article. Wikipedia is to retain a NPOV stance, and withholding the above information significantly causes this article to have a POV perspective. Please discuss controversy re: how to display health effects here. I stand by the current content. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

July 2008

Somewhat irrelevent, but I changed "$6-7 in Canadian funds" to "$6-7 Canadian Dollars"; it's a more direct wording and is more technically correct. 70.179.86.82 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the late 19th century, during the peak of popularity of chewing tobacco in the Western United States, a device known as the spittoon was a ubiquitous feature throughout places both private and public. The purpose of the spittoon was to provide a receptacle for excess juices and spittle accumulated from the oral use of tobacco. As chewing tobacco's popularity declined throughout the years, the spittoon became merely a relic of the Old West and is rarely seen outside museums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.247.149 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Stating that dip has a high risk for oral cancer is not bias, it is the truth. I have yet to see a credible study that actually states that dipping tobacco has a low risk for oral cancer. It may be lower than some types of tobacco, but the risk is still pretty high. All of the sources that state otherwise, such as number 4, are hardly credible studies as they were done with small sample groups and not conducted over a long period of time. Source number 4 watched users for 2 years; 2 years of using dip is not nearly long enough to show that it causes cancer. The whole reason we didn't discover that cigarettes cause cancer for so long is because they weren't around for long enough until we hit the 80s after everyone had been smoking for over 40 years. Then we were able to do a real study and show the correlation. Quit putting incorrect information on this article.

Source number 4 states that West Virginia chews the most tobacco and that their "oral/pharyngeal mortality" rates from 1950 to 1980 were lower than the US average. Seems pretty reliable to me. A study cited in the article from BMC Public Health states that about 1/3 of government/advocacy/educational websites contain inaccurate information on the dangers of smokeless tobacco use. Maybe you're familiar with these inaccuracies and haven't read up sufficiently on other studies, maybe none of these studies are credible and you are correct (although I disagree with your position that this article is excessively POV). Regardless, the studies should be cited so the reader can consider the credibility themselves.—oac old american century ^talk @ 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem with smokeless tobacco studies is they're hard pressed to differentiate people who just dip versus those who dip and smoke or smoke then later dip, and so on. I did some health writing a ways back and figuring out what tobacco product did the most harm in a person was an interesting discussion. But we need to make clear the dangers of nicotine use itself. Besides being highly addictive, nicotine spikes blood pressure and, of course, passes through the bloodstream from a mother to her unborn baby. Less dangerous than smoking, definitely, but we shouldn't go around claiming it's safe. 66.57.225.6 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The article never states that dipping tobacco is safe, to my knowledge. Studies are cited that claim it is less harmful than cigarettes. The dangers of nicotine are in the nicotine article; I don't see the need to add them here considering this article alreadylinks to the nicotine article.—oac old american century ^talk @ 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty shameful. With all of this "inconclusive" talk, the article appears painfully bias and does not properly warn people of the well established negative health effects of chewing. I can't believe all of this debate about whether chewing tobacco is more or less harmful than smoking... it's just like arguing whether jumping off a highrise or walking out in front of a bus going 50 MPH is more harmful! This looks like an article written by the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company and its lobbyists. 63.254.129.228 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Snus

For encyclopedic purposes, dipping tobacco seems to be identical to what Swedes and Norwegians call snus ("snuff"). Regional variations in flavoring and that it happens to have a slightly different name in Norwegian and Swedish doesn't seem to be a valid excuse for keeping separate articles about identical topics. Please merge as soon as possible.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel like merging would be similar to *not* allowing Kretek it's own article. Snus is typically placed under the upper lip, dipping tobacco is typically placed in the lower lip. Also, saliva accumulated while dipping is typically 'spat' out, whereas snus (generally, if not always?) is spit-less. Also, according to the article, snus originated from snuff, whereas 'dipping/chewing' tobacco was used by Native Americans (before snuff use was prevalent). I think the differences between their use and history warrants individual articles.—oac old american century ^talk @ 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So... yeah. I just deleted a paragraph of weakly punctuated redneck babble; is there any way to keep these people from changing articles? I mean, really, would it be that hard to add a stupidity filter to wikipedia, perhaps something that determines whether your 'contribution' exceeds the allowable number of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and ignorance mistakes? Is this too un-democratic? Maybe I'm the one who's off-base here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.60.99 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

dipping tobacco is really not that bad it does give you more nicotine than cigarettes but, it doesn't give you those long term addictions like cigarettes. anyone can quit if they chose too and the only reason people even do it is because it has a better flavor than than cigarettes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.112.217 (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Slang Again

I've never heard "enjoying a lip snack" and google shows 0 pages with that phrase, so I'm removing it for now. This will get out of control if it's everything anyone calls it with their friends. GatorOne (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The same for "loading a doozie", this is the only page google sees with that phrase. The rest are pretty accepted and widespread I think. GatorOne (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Arterial circulation?

The 2nd paragraph of the lede claims that the nicotine is delivered to arteries. Wouldn't it make more sense that the nicotine is actually delivered to a capillary bed, which would then lead to the venous system? I don't have a source for this; the original is also unsourced. Antelan 06:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Health effects

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, "Some health scientists have suggested that smokeless tobacco should be used in smoking cessation programmes and have made implicit or explicit claims that its use would partly reduce the exposure of smokers to carcinogens and the risk for cancer. These claims, however, are not supported by the available evidence. " Oral and spit tobacco increase the risk for leukoplakia a precursor to oral cancer. Chewing tobacco has been known to cause cancer, particularly of the mouth and throat.

References

Please don't move health effects out of sight by putting them in a separate article. Concealing health effects is a necessary and favorite ploy of tobacco sales.

Do not "merge" health effects off this page. Practical effect is moving health effects out of sight -- favorite ploy of tobacco sales.

This article is well organized by putting health effects first, right where they should be. Please keep them there.

Ocdcntx (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

smokeless tobacco increased risk of fatal myocardial infarction and especially of stroke

PMID 19690343

An association was detected between use of smokeless tobacco products and risk of fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, which does not seem to be explained by chance

Ocdcntx (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oral cancers, fatal heart disease, severe addiction

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02qna.html?ref=health

Q. When adolescent boys (and others) substitute smokeless tobacco, the kind held inside the lip or cheek, for cigarettes, what are the health effects?

... an emerging set of risks, including oral cancers, heart disease and several other severe health problems.

In 2009, a review of studies in Sweden and the United States, published in The British Medical Journal, found a clear and significant elevation of the risk of death from fatal heart attacks with the use of smokeless tobacco.

... severe nicotine addiction

... A pattern of combined use of smoking and smokeless tobacco is emerging in young adults, which is of special concern because dual use may be harder to give up

Ocdcntx (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the information about cancer?!

Seems like a fairly serious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Garagiola, Who Quit, Warns About Chewing Tobacco

“I tell these guys, ‘You may not like what I say, but with lung cancer you die of lung cancer,’ ” Garagiola said the other day, with the zeal of a convert. “With oral cancer, you die one piece at a time. They operate on your neck, they operate on your jaw, they operate on your throat.”

"Garagiola, Who Quit, Warns About Chewing Tobacco" Sports of The Times By GEORGE VECSEY Published: May 29, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/sports/baseball/30vecsey.html?ref=health —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.83 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is clear and present vandalism. I am referring to the lines "Aesthetically it makes you look like a complete dork" and "And, you look like a dork."

I have removed these lines. The anti-tobacco wiki is (---->) that way. Keep your crap off of this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.5.171 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Chewing Tobacco

There is a problem with Hawken. It is labeled as 'Chewing Tobacco' by American Snuff Co. and the tobacco leaves are shredded (a little finer than whole leaves) but not at all like Longcut or Finecut Dipping Tobacco. Since it says 'Chewing Tobacco' on the can itself and only Dealers list it under Dipping Tobacco, I removed it from the wiki today. I can provide a photo of a brand new can if needed.

Page Misrepresents Long-Term Effects

Definitely seems that someone has tailored this section to essentially state that dip isn't credibly associated with cancer. The first cite (#3) quotes one single line, solely from the abstract, which leaves out other pertinent information (in other words, one line is selectively cited which misrepresents the whole of the article); the second (#4) is a blog that is run by a doctor who is funded by tobacco companies (meaning it is reasonable to assume that that content is biased). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.124.146 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference #15 URL Provides No Applicable Information

NOTE: Only after writing this did I notice another user had kindly left a note stating not in citation given

  Relevant Section:  Section 6.5 [Section URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipping_tobacco#Additives] 

Relevant Reference#: 15

My complaint pertains to reference #15 [2] which should have technically contained information supporting the following claim: "Although small, glass-like particles can be seen, this is due to the formation of salt crystals - there is no fiberglass in dip".

After spending a more than generous amount of time checking virtually (if not literally) all the links provided including the seemingly irrelevant ones, I came to the conclusion that the reference provided is bereft of any pertinent information.

Strangely, not only did the URL cited as the reference contain nothing of relevance, but not a single link I visited on the page resulted in any evidence substantiating the claim. After a little bit more inspection, I noticed that I could not find even a single occurrence of the word "fiberglass" on any of the webpages. Once I had reached that point I pretty much thought it safe to assume that the source provided is completely devoid of any usable information. To be quite honest, I am confused as to how the given user actually justified the use of this website as a legitimate source of information. The website contains information collected based solely on Snus products. Although commonly confused due to the shared usage of the terms "dipping tobacco" or "chewing tobacco", to compare Snus Dipping Tobacco to Normal Dipping Tobacco would be the same as comparing apples to oranges. Sure oranges and apples are both fruit, but that is basically where the similarities end. The kind of Dipping tobacco most people in the USA would envision has a higher nicotine content and comes as loose tobacco without any sort of pouch. This was the least ideal reference to use because any obtained information would have been applicable to Snus products only (pouched chewing tobacco).

One last thing, I did notice that the next sentence provided a Reference #16 [3] that did contain information that was relevant to the claim above. Check out Reference #16 used on the next sentence and scroll down a bit till you reach the section that reads 3.9

Silverblade34 (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dipping tobacco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210020704/http://www.ash.org.uk:80/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html to http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Condensing Additives section

The reason I removed some of the claims from this section is because while relevant, they need to be sourced before the content is restored back to the page. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Source with a wealth of information

I will attempt to gradually add additional information from this WHO study from 2007. If anyone is interested in reading through it to help, that would be great (it's a fairly easy read).