|
|
General
Started by Anonymous at 05-27-2009 5:36 AM. Topic has 13 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 05-27-2009, 5:36 AM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
I switched to Smokeless tobacco (ST) in my early twenties, 25 yrs ago, to get oof smoking. It did work, but now I'm addicted to ST.
I was just diagnosed with Diabetes. I know smoking is even more unhealty to a person with Diabetes. Considering Diabetes, is ST much more worse to a persons health too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2009, 8:16 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
If you, like some diabetics, are more susceptible to high blood pressure, then you might want to limit your use of nicotine from any source. Possibly of greater concern is being exposed to the sugar content common to many chewing tobacco brands. If you are going to continue to use chewing tobacco, it might be worth looking for one with a low sugar content, or moving over to snuff which is usually sugarless.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2009, 2:34 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that a person with diabetes should quit smokeless tobacco? I read that some studies show no link to any cardio effects with ST, and some studies do show a effect on the cardio system. What is the truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2009, 8:13 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
Ultimately the only person making the decision to use or not use a substance is you. Our function is to make sure you get the information you need to make an informed decision. If, for instance, you know that smoking is bad for you, and you know that there are available safer ways of getting nicotine, but you choose to continue to smoke, that is your decision.
If you want specific direction on what to do, consider seeing your physician.
As to cardio effects, because smokeless tobacco contains nicotine, there is some cardio effect. There is no doubt that there is an effect, just like there is no doubt about a similar effect with caffiene. The relevance comes with determining whether this matters for some individuals; for most it is a negligible effect but for a few it could be critical. Again, this is a question for a physician who is familiar with your condition.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-29-2009, 2:31 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
I know that it is my dissicion to use snuff or not, that is not the question. Your saying for a fact that ST effects the cardio system the same way that caffiene does. If this is true then a diabetic person who has thier surgar under control, and with no acute cardio issues, need not to worry about ejoying suff. In fact if snuff helps a person to controle eating and maintaning a good weight, it is actually more healthy. IT is more healty then trying to quit ST and gaining weight. Do you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2009, 7:58 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
Your comment seems reasonable but when it comes to such serious conditions as diabetes, I would say this is more a question for your doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-21-2009, 8:35 AM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Dr. Rodu and Dr. Phillips, thier statistical evalation of empidemiolgical studies of ST health effects claims, that ST users remain healty the same as a non-tobacco user. If this is true, then a diabetic ST user as no more of a risk of health complications from the diabetes then a non-tobacco user. You seem reluctant to state this comparison has fact. Is it because ST is a sireous health risk for anybody, and that people shold not be placing a posion like tobacco into their mouth? I belive this is the case. Dr. Rodu and Dr. Phillips do care about the money from the tobacco company. How did they get so mis-guided. It truely is a same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-22-2009, 9:07 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
I think we might disallow any messages from now on from persons who either cannot be bothered with using a spell checker or who are pretending to be less educated than they are (the latter I am pretty sure). Even though you like to present a false front I will pretend you are not, for the hopes that even your misrepresentation and cowardice might harbour a question that someone else might have.
1. Yes, all other things being equal, the proven risks associated with smokeless tobacco use are so small that it is hard to reliably distinguish them from quitting altogether. The key here is "all other things being equal". All substances hold some dangers for some special groups. Diabetics have a condition that might leave them more vulnerable to certain exposures. We know that for the average person switching to smokeless tobacco is almost as good as quitting; it might be true for diabetics but we don't know and we would not like to guess about that. Experts on diabetes have a much better idea of the effects of nicotine, smokeless tobacco, and smoking on the disease.
2. Rodu and Phillips both were doing this research before any tobacco companies offered any financial support. If it had not been for the support, it is quite likely that the research would have ended some time ago given the present quit or die philosophy that remains dominant in this culture. As long as political positions outweigh health concerns, some research, like ours, will continue to find it difficult to secure funding. It is only by all interested parties working together that we will get the best solutions. Ironically almost all of the money coming from tobacco companies goes not to our kind of research but to support the anti-smoking industry.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
06-23-2009, 1:49 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
Seriously, My education is a BA in Organizational Managment. My occupation is, I'm a Senior Maintanance Technician with Bayer Consumer Health Care. I did not use spell check, nor did I spend anytime proof reading. I did swicth from smoking to snff, Happy Day, 30 years ago. It was not easy to switch back then. I could not have done it without the dip. I enjoy dip, I have been tring to quit for the last 10 years because of the percieved health effects. I have been researching info about ST and health for about 4 years now. I know about both sides of this argument. I'm pointing out that ST is in itself very adictive. I do not want to quit because I can not handle the withdraw from tobacco. The Tobacco Harm Reduction Research I believe is true. So why should I need to quit ST?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-24-2009, 7:51 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on being smoke free for so long; you are a true success story!
Of course, there is no doubt that any nicotine product can be addictive. Our view is that addictiveness is not as important as to whether something is harmful or not (and addiction itself is not necessarily harmful). People often argue against switching with saying something like "you're no better off because you are still addicted". Few things could be more wrong. And yet, for some people, being addicted causes its own stress, and for that reason, they might have a good reason to try to quit some behavior or substance entirely.
Given how low the health risks of using ST are, its more a case of whether you want to quit it rather than whether you should. It would be a pretty long list of things you should quit if it was based purely on the same low level of risk. Only you can decide whether the benefit you are getting from it is worth it.
The only issue here that was of concern to me was that the issue of diabetics using smokeless tobacco, and that though we know quite a bit about the population effects of its use, we do not have the kind of knowledge of diabetes that would allow us to help someone decide whether ST use would be harmful or not for them, if they were diabetic.
I do apologize for impugning your identity but if you take a look at the previous correspondence you should not be surprised. Even now I find it hard to believe you wrote this and the last one.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
09-19-2009, 1:21 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
"Rodu and Phillips both were doing this research before any tobacco
companies offered any financial support"
I find that you make this point, in one form or another, often when reading various studies or posts on the THR website. I also find it to not be a very good "argument". For example, I often read something along the lines of -"although we get funds to do our research for the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company, they had no influence on the methods or findings of the research." Well, so what? You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. Furthermore, why would they bother when everything you've said so far has potential to make them more money? Start publishing data that competes with their bottom line, and then let's see how long the funding continues. So, although I'm not saying you're being disingenuous with your research, I am saying that it's possible, "you find want you want to find" to continue to get money from them.
Again, you may be an ethical organization with the best intentions of helping people live longer and healthier lives, and your research conclusions may be completely alligned with the truth, but that argument doesn't mean anything to a reasonably intelligent person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-21-2009, 8:32 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
You are right but your argument applies to anyone doing research with any kind of funding in place. And yes, you will have to take our word for it just as we accept the word of researchers working with other sources of funding. If you can figure out a way of proving these things let us know.
We would never argue that funding is not given in the hope that it results in sales or in furthering a political goal. Of course, tobacco companies and pharmaceutical firms will give funding in the hope that they increase profit but both have supported research that does not further their aims.
As an example, presently we are advocating smokers consider ecigarettes aa a good alternative to smoking. The vehicle we use was created partly thanks to smokeless tobacco company funding but the message undermines their sales. The more people take up ecigarettes the fewer will use smokeless tobacco.
There are few examples (none that I have ever heard of) of tobacco companies withdrawing funding due to the direction research is taking or the nature of the research whereas it is common for a government agency or anti-tobacco source cutting off support as soon if they do not like the direction of the results of a study.
Ultimately, the only reason we even make the argument you refer to has been because it seems to be the first response of many activists to our communications. We too believe it has little merit, that the results should be considered independent of the funding but the problem is that seems to form such a substantial part of the discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-01-2009, 10:24 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TobaccoHarmRedu... » Administrators » General » Diabetes
|
|
|
|