Snus has emerged over the past two years as the preferred tobacco product of many of our friends. While I try to avoid tobacco entirely (successfully or not) I generally prefer smokeless tobacco. Many athletes stand by smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes due to reduced lung damage.
Is our beloved Snus actually any safer than cigarettes or other forms of smokeless tobacco? MSN recently ran an article on Snus, and the prevailing conclusion is that any tobacco use is detrimental to the health of the user. Sound off your thoughts in the comments.
"New smokeless tobacco alarms health officials" MSNBC
Note: West Potomac RFC does not condone the use of tobacco in any form, but does endorse the blasphemous depiction of its players as deities.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Snus: We love it, but at what cost?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Maybe I am a little biased, but that is a pretty weak article. It doesn't really present any scientific arguments about the dangers of snus or long-term effects to users. So, one guy thought the idea was gross, the packages might attract kids, and most of Europe has a blanket ban on smokeless tobacco?
That said, I would much rather have consistent access to the Swedish stuff rather than Camel since the have some sort of purity standards, but this is as much an anti-tobacco witch hunt as anything.
Meh. If I'm going to use tobacco, rather than going with some sort of watered down alternative I'd rather just have the real deal (a pack of tasty Newports) and do it less often.
I love snus...they go well with a PBR or 9...
Post a Comment