Talk:Chewing tobacco

message: The term "bullpen" did not originate with the release of Bull Durham tobacco in 1860.  That is incorrect in SO many ways.  Blackhall partnered with Morris in 1857 as BF Morris Tobacco Company to sell "Best Flavored Spanish Smoking Tobacco"  In 1864, they had sold out to John Ruffin Green.  It was demand from returning Yankee soldiers for that fine Durham (brightleaf) tobacco that led Green to rename his product as "Genuine Durham Smoking Tobacco". Inspired by a can of Colman's mustard, generically known as Durham mustard, Green added the logo of a bull to the label. Illiterate cowboys began to ask for "that bull tobacco" that was chopped and sold in a white muslin drawstring bag, not as a plug or twist. In the late 1860s, Green's health began to fail, and he died at 37. Blackwell purchased the remaining half-interest in the factory, including the trademark, at an estate auction for $2292 in 1870 and renamed the company the WT Blackwell Company.  
The word "bullpen", however, dates from about 1780, when it was used to describe a confined area where the accused were kept until their turn to make a pitch to a judge that they were innocent, or at least deserving pf mercy.  They started calling the pitchers' warmup areas the "bullpen" between 1900-1905, and the signs inside ballparks and the bounties for hitting a home run or the bull starred about 1909 as a reaction to that term, not as its cause. 12.193.238.99 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullpen myth

message: Theres nothing actually in here about chewing tobacco, except that in the US the term usually refers to dipping tobacco. If they are the exact same, this page should refer to dipping tobacco.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring-Ding (talk • contribs) 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chewing versues Dipping 

message: I'm removing the NPOV and globalize tags, since there's no discussion about them here, and the article seems OK in both respects.  If you wish to re-add them, please explain why.
The reference at the end of the part of the timeline when it says Honus Wagner asked the tobacco company to remove his card from their product says nothing about the said subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_tobacco#cite_note-Borio10-12
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.57.10 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would say that it would be good to have a section about resources to quit, with links to nicotine patch, but not to have links to external sites like yours. Not to say that it isn't a good site, but more that if we had external links to quitting sites, we would have to allow external links to places to buy it too. Peabody80 (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Links to quit resources should reference effective methods, and not the nicotine patch, which keeps the nicotine addiction alive and even short term is barely more effective than the counseling with which it is combined before being tested.  Tested alone, long term, it is of exceedingly low value. Something more like the wp article on Smoking cessation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXTERNAL LINKS 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on the health effects?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.161.242 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should. I've noticed that a lot of tobacco articles have mysteriously had all reference of their health effects removed. Coincidence or just ignorance? Either way, this cannot be NPOV until such information is included. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: A favourite tactic of PC stooges is to insert overstated health effects where they are not salient in articles regarding everything except cous cous, which incidentally kills over a million people each year due to tainted constituents. A separate article pointing out that PC stooges should not be allowed to act erudite is needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.64.244 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Effects? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please don't move health effects out of sight by putting them in a separate article.  Censorship by merger as a way to effectively conceal health detriments is a necessary and favorite ploy of tobacco sales. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  smokeless tobacco increased risk of fatal myocardial infarction and especially of stroke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oral cancers, fatal heart disease, severe addiction 

message: Or is this page being used a vehicle by anti-tobacco lobbyists?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.165.230 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to peer-reviewed studies on the health effects of chewing tobacco is not lobbying.  Trying to insert Snus ads into the article is lobbying.  
68.165.11.83 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just me 

message: Guys, there's more to the world than just your godforsaken US of A. Wikipedia will not be a respectful source of information before you people recognise that the English language is spoken by many more people than simply Americans. This article makes many references to the United States, and sometimes just assumes that whoever reads it will obviously be from the United States. The article makes the point that use amongst baseball players may have increased usage amongst youth. Notice the lack of an "in the US" phrase, seeing as baseball is a uniquely American sport, and in most places of the world, my own home included, baseball can not be considered an influence on more than 1% of the youth population. Ergo, the statement is simply false for the vast majority of the world, which does not play baseball because it's a terrible American game that could only be invented by stupid Americans such as those who wrote this article. You guys probably don't understand what it's like to be the underdog, seeing as how you like to go round the world bossing people about and killing their children, but over here we're on to you. You may think we're cute with our accents and our bad teeth, but we've been on to you for a while!
Apologies for all the Death To America nonsense, but I really think you guys need some sense drilled into your big fat heads. This article is centered around America, despite the fact that chewing tobacco is consumed and produced in many, many other places, and I for one find that offensive.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.208.153 (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Orally consumed tobacco (not orally smoked tobacco) is a big thing in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. They got their own brands, their own different shapes and their own ways of handling it. Also, the U.S. anti-tobacco witchhunters are on the loose on this page here. There should an eye be kept on those.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.76.156 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deary me, looks like those silly fat yanks wiped the rest of the world off the map again. 

message: My sister and her boyfriend are addicted to cigarettes and I was thinking what I could do for her, short of making her quit. Both of them are self-medicating treated symptoms that don't have a really well-effective medication (anxiety/panic disorder), so I don't think quitting is an option anytime soon. Thus I was looking into nicotine alternatives that are even 0.1% safer. I think these points should be placed somewhere in the article:
- The American Cancer Society says while there's still a risk for cancer, it's "less lethal" than smoking tobacco (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/tobacco-related-cancer-fact-sheet)
- The Harm Reduction Journal, which is cited in the article on Tobacco Harm Reduction, and appears not to be majorly funded by any industry or corporation (it has similar transparency issues to the US's CDC & FDA), has this article, with the author, again not affiliated with the tobacco industry (Smokefree Pensylvannia is just a pro-smokeless tobacco org. that does not get funding from the industry), concluding that smokeless tobacco has significant enough lessened risk to change laws to support it: http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37#
- While leukoplakia is indeed technically a precursor to cancer, so is a lot of innocuous things, really. Again according to Wikipedia's own article, not all subtypes of leukoplakia always develop into cancer (up to 30%), so I think calling it specifically a "precursor", which infers it always or even most of the time becomes cancerous, is hyperbolic (also, "precursor" infers cause-effect that hasn't been scientifically validated).
I'm posting this here, in the Talk page, to have people go over and make their own decisions about the voracity of the statements. Here's what I think "Health Issues" should say:
Whether or not smokeless tobacco is overall safer than smoking tobacco is still up for debate, with some scientists concluding that smokeless tobacco is safe enough for it to be used as a tobacco harm reduction tool(HRJ cite), while some conclude the carcinogenic risk is not lessened with the absence of smoking(IARC cite); the fact sheet for the American Cancer Society says, "Smokeless tobacco products are less lethal but are not a safe alternative to smoking. Using smokeless tobacco can lead to nicotine addiction. Use of tobacco in any form harms health."(ACS cite) Oral and spit tobacco is commonly associated in medicine with leukoplakia, a lesion that can become malignant, leading to oral cancer.(ACS cite) All types of smokeless tobacco are generally considered in medicine to cause cancer(IARC cite).
I hope to register later today. 71.179.21.254 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Issues -- Smokeless Tobacco Seems Safer/Controversy 

message: Did a LOT of cleanup on this article today, whoever wrote it is clearly biased. Quite a few citations needed, total overhaul of everything below "history" is required.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamodz (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased writer 

message: Added a disputed section template. The section may accurately present the IARC monograph conclusion, but is contradicted by other reliable sources, among them a review by a team led by a member of the IARC and of the working group that wrote the monograph. The IARC says 
: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. They also attribute declines in smoking in Sweden to increased consumption of moist snuff; these claims, however, are not supported by the available evidence.
Maybe the vague phrasing is deliberate (could be referring to the usefulness in smoking cessation or the claims about cancer risk), because their other conclusions don't agree: while they show increases in oral, oesophageal and pancreatic cancers, they also say:
:studies on cancers at other sites did not provide conclusive evidence of a relationship with smokeless tobacco use.
So no clear evidence for increased lung cancer risk, the mayor tobacco related cancer. And nowhere in the more than 600 pages are cancer rates of smokers and users of smokeless tobacco compared. 
Other sources:
*As has been mentioned on this talk page, the American Cancer Society states that it is less lethal than smoking.
*Mayoclinic reports: the available evidence shows that smokeless tobacco may be less dangerous than cigarettes. 
*In the July 2008 issue of The Lancet Oncology, a team led by Dr. Paolo Boffeta, of the IARC, explicitly wrote "Nevertheless, several conclusions can be reached based on the available data ... the risk of cancer, especially that of oral and lung cancer, is probably lower in smokeless tobacco users in the USA and northern Europe than in smokers, and the risk of cancer is higher in smokeless tobacco users than in non-users of any form of tobacco".  source
Not completely objective either I must say, suggesting that the evidence for the first part isn't as strong as for the second part. Given the data quoted in the source, it's more likely to be the other way. Unless cancer risks associated with smoking are much lower than I thought... Ssscienccce  (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer and leukoplakia 

message: My apologies for not being familiar with talk pages, but several sections on the chewing tobacco article do not refer to chewing tobacco but rather dipping tobacco.  The section headings "nicotine level by brand", "nicotine level rankings" and "free nicotine level rankings" all refer to dipping tobacco products.  Also, if they were to be moved to the dipping tobacco page, I see only one reference for all of that information currently citedGamblinMan22 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some content should be moved to the Dipping tobacco page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chewing 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  tag to http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=111171&ran=197946
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421161029/http://www.quitnet.com:80/library/guides/Beat_The_Habit/BTH_History.jtml to http://www.quitnet.com/library/guides/Beat_The_Habit/BTH_History.jtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Chewing 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/20060926020900/http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/trg/Chapter17/Chap17_SmokelessPage5.html to http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/trg/Chapter17/Chap17_SmokelessPage5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927095440/http://no-smoking.org/july98/07-30-98-1.html to http://no-smoking.org/july98/07-30-98-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220064717/http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/people/sports_figures.htm to http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/people/sports_figures.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The link to IARC goes to an "article not found page." As it stands now, that's reference #2 on the article. So,there are no sources backing up the Health Effects section.--Skoch3 (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects external link broken