Jump to content

Talk:Snus/Archives/2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Linkspam

Resolved
 – The removals were not controversial.

Since we're no longer listing Snus dealers here, would whomever is adding "www.swedish-snus.com" please not do it again? Here's who owns it: 

Domain Name: WWW.SWEDISH-SNUS.COM

Registrant:
   Not Applicable
   northerner scandinavia ab        (info@northerner.com)
   hantverksvagen 15
   askim
   vg,43633
   SE
   Tel. +00.4631681991
   Fax. +00.4631681993

Creation Date: 24-Sep-2002
Expiration Date: 24-Sep-2006

Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Seems like we have some vandals here. 213.50.9.50 -> just removed my comments above and replaced them with linkspam. I reverted the edits of my comments. --NightMonkey 11:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed these two links from "General Media Links":

The first was a link to a Press Release from Swedish Match (the Swedish tobacco giant). The second was a link to a fake "blog" from "The Swedish Institute" that is fully funded by the Swedish Government. Here's a snippet from it's mission: "...The Swedish Institute (SI) is entrusted with precisely this task: to inform the world about Sweden and to organise exchanges with other countries in the spheres of culture, education, research and public life in general. In performing this task, the Institute seeks to promote Swedish interests. The SI also has special assignments in the field of international development cooperation. Much of our work is undertaken in cooperation with Swedish embassies and consulates-general around the world.

The SI has some 90 members of staff and receives annual government funding of approx. SEK 220 million. The SI Board, which is appointed by the Government, comprises the Director General and representatives of various public sectors."

Sorry, no pres releases (unless novel - i.e. not referencing already publicly available information), and no government propoganda. --NightMonkey 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Brands listed, or not?

Moved to Talk:Snus/Archives/2015 § American "Snus"; Brands and manufacturers

I just took a look at Cigarettes article, and noticed that, at least when I looked, there were no brands listed there. Should we remove the wikilinks to specific brands? Is that a form of advertising, and thus a no-no? Thanks. --NightMonkey 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Brands and manufacturers" list is a mess. Jakob Ljunglöf, Swedish Match and various single brands (most with red Wikilinks) all in the same list. I came upon the snus article whilst trying to clean up after a linkspammer who has been creating sub-par articles for various brands in order to post links there; it seems like the brands list is an invitation to people like that. If specific brands are to be mentioned, which I think they might, it would be better to have a short description of each brand rather than just a list of names. --Bonadea 12:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
See also #American "Snus"; Brands and manufacturers, about the removal of the "Brands and manufacturers" section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

At some point the notable brands should be mentioned (and listing them here with encyclopedic descriptive content would be a good alternative to launching a large number of stub article that no one ever improves further).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a kind of snuff!

Resolved
 – The two articles are completely distinct now, and mutually reference each other.

Snus simply isn't a kind of snuff. Calling snus snuff is a bad translation, plain and simple. Snuff is a dry, finely ground powder consumed nasally. Snus is a moist, less finely ground material (couldn't be described as powder) put in the mouth temporarily.

I've seen Swedes do some pretty strange things, but snorting a Göteborgs Rapé vit portion isn't one of them.

Although a few Swedes translate "snus" as "snuff", it's a bad translation not used either by Swedes with good English (although all Swedes have what I consider good English, I mean the really good ones) or native English-speakers --- as a native English-speaker living in Sweden, I can personally attest to that fact. Everybody just calls it "snus" in English. It is commonly used as a verb in both languages ("Do you snus?"/"Snusar du?").

Unless there are any objections within a couple of days, I propose to remove the reference to snuff. EmmetCaulfield 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if Swedes who live in Sweden (the overwhelming majority of whom aren't trained translators and, in fact, don't speak "good English") don't translate what they perceive as a uniquely Swedish product into "snuff", doesn't mean that it should dictate the use of the term in this article. If you look up snus in Swedish-English dictionaries, the translation is "snuff"; snusa is "take snuff" and snusdosa is "snuff box". Swedish makes absolutely no linguistic distinction between the type of snuff that is inhaled and the type that is placed under ones upper lip.[1] If you look up the article snus in Nationalencyklopedin, the article covers both the dry and wet types of snuff without any need for finger-wagging warnings about confusing the two. It's very, very obvious that the snuff that goes under your lip is a direct development from the type that goes into your nose. No one denies that Swedish and Norwegian snuff is fairly unique, but please stop patronizing and boring our readers by inserting tedious and overly partial disclaimers about what to call the product.
Peter Isotalo 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point you are trying to make, but think you might need to also see that English speakers use the term "snus" to refer to specifically the smokeless tobacco marketed as "snus" in Sweden and Norway that is meant for oral use. I reverted that edit, however if you have English well-sourced articles to confirm your point of view, I'd accept it. However, I reverted the deletion of the paragraph on second-hand smoke and the lack thereof as well - you don't mention why you deleted that one, and don't see a valid reason on it's face. Edit: I see that I misread the diff, sorry. Cheers! --NightMonkey 23:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making a point, I'm saying the article appears to be pretty misleading. English speakers seem to be calling this type of snuff (or whatever) dipping tobacco. As for providing sources that snus translates to "snuff", in English, I've already referred to NE and something tells me this is not what you're actually questioning.
Peter Isotalo 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


The word snuff to me, and (I suspect) most other native English speakers, conjures up an image of a Dickensian fop snorting pinches of powder taken from a little silver box. That there is no linguistic distinction in Swedish is irrelevant, since 1) the lack of distinction between things in not portable between languages, and 2) the use of the word snus in modern vernacular Swedish to mean "nasal powder" appears (to me) to be archaic. Swedish does not require a distinction between snuff (nasal powder) and snus (oral non-chewing tobacco) because the former is obsolete.

Maybe the problem arises because Americans use the word "snuff" to mean what I call "snus" and the use of "snuff", in the sense of nasal powder, is as obsolete in American English as it is in Swedish. However, the word "snuff" has exactly one meaning in Hiberno-English or British English and that is the sense of nasal powder. Perhaps the best solution is a qualification along the lines of "called snuff or dip in American English" or somesuch?

I have no problem whatsoever with snus being classified as a kind of dip (I only became aware of this word today while watching NCIS), but it simply isn't "snuff" in the English that I speak natively. Going further, to merge the snus article with the "dip" article seems sensible, but to merge it with "snuff" would, IMHO, be wrong.

Finally, my intention to delete what I perceived to be an inaccurate translation was a good-faith effort to increase the accuracy and improve the quality of the article. I don't think the use of dismissive and insulting words like patronizing, boring, tedious, and partial is constructive or useful.

EmmetCaulfield 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

American "Snus"; Brands and manufacturers

See also: § Brands list, or not?

OK, here's some problems I see with the page as it is now.

  • Section: Brands and Manufacturers

I've been using Cigarettes as a major guideline for the structure and content of this page. Notice that on that page most mention of tobacco companies is absent. Since Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and this information is easily obtainable elsewhere, it doesn't belong here.

  • American "Snus"

All of the scientific research referenced here is based on experiments done with European-made Snus. Some discussion among the researchers indicate that the preperation of the tobacco may be the reason for its differing health effects as compared with other tobacco products (steam cured vs. fire cured, etc.). In the absence of evidence that the American branded "Snus" is created in the same way and with the same "recipie", until other evidence is presented by reputable sources, I think that we should be very careful not to conflate the two in this article.

I'm removing "Brands and Manufacturers", and references to American Snus, though I'm not against having some mention, provided that there is some mention of the lack of evidence of similarity between the American version and the European.

Cheers! --NightMonkey 03:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On second look, I just moved and embellished the mention of American Snus introduction. --NightMonkey 03:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And, to be clear, I should have said in my first note above "...I'm not against having some mention of American Snus." --NightMonkey 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider: While Taboka is made in America, and I agree that its similarity may come into question. However, Camel SNUS is made in Sweden and imported and sold here as Camel brand. It is the first American company to sell it, but its still made in Sweden... thus, it is real SNUS! 70.152.73.35 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, anonymous IP. Do you have any good sources to prove that the recipe for this new American "Snus" is the same as the Swedish preparation? --NightMonkey 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Best I could find is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/business/09adco.html?ex=1312776000&en=c124fd2a328758e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.73.35 (talk)
Hrm, that article conflates Snus with "smokeless tobacco" in general, and doesn't delve anywhere near the studies we've presented here. It really muddles the issue more than clarifying, but specifically to our discussion, it doesn't detail recipies or ingredients. --NightMonkey 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And the Camel product bears pretty much no resemblance to the Swedish product. It's essentially Camel's version of Skoal Bandits. It is also not made in Sweden; US labeling laws would require that disclosure on the package. It simply isn't plausible that R. J. Reynolds, the largest tobacco company in the world, would import tobacco from somewhere else for a product like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The problems with including "American snus"

Hi. I've been doing more research on the current scientific literature and scientific discussion available concerning snus, and it has become apparent that, within the medical and scientific communities, there is a growing apprehension about the potential confusion among current and potential users of smokeless tobacco between the various types and brands marketed as "snus". There is concern that the American tobacco companies' recent embrace of "snus" creates questions about its similarity or non-similarity, materially, to Swedish snus, and whether, at a basic level, it is the same substance with the same medical effects as the Swedish variety. Since, in the research, the specific source of oral tobacco being studied is important (Swedish snus vs. American snuff (Skoal, et al)), I think that the article should be more explicit, reflecting this distinction. It would appear that, to be more accurate, the article must start to identify the specific origin and location of manufacture of the "snus" being discussed. This seems inelegant in terms of article bloat (replacing every instance of "snus" with "Swedish snus", where it is ambiguous), but the only other option I can think of is to break out separate articles on each sub-type, and have this article become a "disambiguation" page linking to the sub articles. Any comments? --NightMonkey (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever its merits, the new Camel brand snus is being promoted by many leaflets containing a sample offer of free snus-- if the customer purchases "another" tobacco product (which of course could include cigarettes). Is this a sneaky technique to get youngsters hooked, thus worth reporting in article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
WP:Be Bold - if you have a good source, just follow the easy guidelines and you can put it in. :) --NightMonkey (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've held off editing as more references to American Snus has been added to the article. The problem American snus presents for the article in its present form, as I see it, is as follows:

  • All of the research that is cited by the article, as far as I recall, has been performed where snus produced in Sweden, by Swedish manufacturers to Swedish standards, is the subject of analysis.
  • No scientific medical research has been done which includes American snus, as far as I can tell.
  • By muddying the subject of the article to include American snus when discussing "snus" generically, much of the article can be read to apply to both American and Swedish snus.

When we take into account statements in the article as it exists as of this writing, like this sentence in the article's leading paragraph, "Snus is also unique in that it is steam-cured rather than fire-cured, is not fermented, and is lower in TSNA compounds, making it less carcinogenic than American snuff or cigarettes.", we can see that the impact of conflating the two substances, which have unknown differences in manufacture and ingredients, becomes clear. Can it be said, with citations, that American snus is the same in its health effects as Swedish snus? Without citations to notable sources, no. So, we must be careful to differentiate statements concerning significant medical effects of snus between what has been researched and what has not.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do to correct this yet, but I'll be scanning the article for these sorts of flaws. Cheers! --NightMonkey (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are no significant differences in the manufacture of Swedish and American snus, and even if there was, Swedish Snus is readily available in the United States. 174.22.87.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC).
The first half of that is false; they're totally different products. The second half is irrelevant; this thread is about American snus products, not availability of Swedish exports.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this may need to split off into an article called American snus to avoid reader confusion. If not, we're going to have to be clear in repeated places that the health and manufacturing information pertains to the Scandinavian product, not the American one (which may be more trouble than it's worth, and thus suggest a split). In essence this is a WP:COATRACK problem, of glomming material about one subject into the article on another because of the name similarity and some other connections.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Research needed: smoking cessation multitherapy

It may be hoped this article will eventually report studies showing whether quit-rates improve when would-be ex-cigarette-smokers simultaneously use snus, vaporizer, e-cigarette, nicotine gum (nicorette, etc.), screened single-toke utensil (long-stemmed one-hitter for 25-mg. servings) and other strategies, each once or twice daily, abstaining only from one thing: the 700-mg. hot-burning overdose commercial cigarette.Tokerdesigner (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope doesn't write articles. You do. :) --NightMonkey (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with NightMonkey, I will soon try to be bold. Meanwhile:
  • An overzealous editor removed e-cigarette from my list, above, doubtless concerned because the WHO and other authorities have not endorsed it. Further proof of safety is being held out for. Not one fatal illness caused by e-cigarette use has ever been reported in the history of the planet, meanwhile the 5.4-million/year cigarette death toll goes on... are they joking? Isn't ANY alternative better than what we have now?
  • Same goes for Snus! A "67% increase in pancreatic cancer" might be worth enduring to get a 33-1/2% decrease in lung cancer -- check the demographics on different cancers! The excuses made for holding up Snus don't hold water.
  • As for what the cigarette companies, who have most to lose if Snus is popularized, are doing about it, besides possibly secretly supporting its enemies? 8-1/2"x11" leaflets flood American cities, with R. J. Reynolds offering a deal where if you "buy any tobacco product" and produce a little blue card, you get a free tin of Camel Snus! Imagine a (so-far) non-smoking young person interested in trying Snus, and there in view behind the counter are all those cigarettes you can buy in order to get your free tin of Snus! Are they hoping to use the Snus as a Trojan horse (and while I'm here I'll buy some Trojans too...) to lure the youngsters into sucking a few cigarettes and getting hooked on those...? Does this bit of current history belong in a -pedia article?Tokerdesigner (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Most people I know (including myself) tried Camel Snus and immediately went online and ordered some "real" Swedish snus, which costs less even after shipping, tastes better, has a better nicotine delivery, and is a higher quality product. (ie: they must list ingredients and they must all be food grade). Camel appears to be marketing their sugar flavored snus as an addition to smoking, so smokers don't have to go hours without nicotine. I'm not impressed with their efforts, or products. Granted, all tobacco companies have much to be gained from users continuing to use their products, but Camel's marketing is based on you continuing to smoke, and using snus only on the plane, in non-smoking areas, etc. 98.26.254.61 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Marlboro and Camel Snus

Some mention of the marketing context and profitability of this product line to industry would be appropriate to add to the article.

Philip Morris successor Altria is hoping the F.D.A. will go easy on its Marlboro Snus, a spit-free smokeless pouch.

Smokeless tobacco products contain nicotine and carcinogens. To say such products are less hazardous to health than cigarettes (as their manufacturers do) is like saying that Russian roulette with one bullet is less hazardous than with four in the cylinder. True, but very faint praise. Yet to those not understanding the context or actual risks, "less hazardous" may be taken for "not hazardous."

Health authorities are concerned about use of the products to addict youthful smokers to nicotine, and to keep smokers addicted who might otherwise successfully break free. Specifically,

"... promoting smokeless products — some in tiny packages in the shape of cigarette packs — would attract new, perhaps younger customers and maintain the addiction for smokers who might otherwise quit. They note that Altria is adding flavorings to its smokeless products that have long been used in candy.
"Furthermore, critics say, Altria’s suggestion to the F.D.A. that it be allowed to market its products as less risky is part of an effort to dodge indoor-smoking laws (which are credited with encouraging more smokers to quit) and to encourage smokers to use oral tobacco products as supplements.
"“If you look at how they’re marketing smokeless now, they’re marketing for dual use, and to protect the cigarette market, which is their big money maker,” says Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of cardiology and a specialist in tobacco research at the University of California, San Francisco.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/31altria.html?ref=health&pagewanted=all

—Preceding [Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Malboro branded "snus" is not really snus, as the production process is more like dipping tobacco. It is fired and not steam pasturized. This is probably worth mentioning, along with edits to omit references to the Marlboro brand portion tobacco as an example of an American snus.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2008/03/marlboro-snus-isnt-really-snus.html
66.41.65.237 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A compressed version of that material is probably useful to add (see also earlier thread which include a third brand called Taboka that I've never seen). But some of it's bullshitty, especially the "they're using candy flavors!" appeal to emotion; they're exactly the same flavorings [tobacconist jargon: casings] used in dipping tobacco products for generations. The real story with these products is a) they're not steamed but fermented, so they're just as dangerous as normal American "dip", and b) they're full of sugar and thus strongly promote tooth decay and gum disease. That's something that badly needs sourcing, and we shouldn't go on about any claims made by producers/promoters of these "faux-snus" products without balancing them with such facts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Price information

swedish snus in america does not retail for 3-4 dollars as stated in the article, its more around 6-8 dollars, depending on state tax and whatnot. its 3-4 dollars if you order it from sweden, but if you buy it in an american store, its twice the price. someone who can confirm this, please do so and also change the article.

I can add two examples I have come across lately. One can of General purchased in Cary NC sold for 3.89. When I was in New Jersey last year the same can cost about eight dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.74.171 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed an incomplete sentence on Scandinvian prices, as it was just sitting in the article with empty data. We do put put placeholder content in articles, or sandbox in them. I also removed the pointless sentence that price varies by brand and location; that's true of all products of all kinds. If we want to include price information, this will need to be sourced, and added in a way that actually provides encyclopedic information to readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gateway to or from smoking

Resolved
 – There is no action to take for which any sources have been provided.

there as been a bit of talk wether snus is a gateway to or from smoking. i think it's worth writing about if anyone has the bandwidth. this link has some text on it: http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/TC12349.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.129.143 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These aren't the same topic. "Gateway" substances means something mild used to transition to something worse and more addictive. There's a distinction between "primary uptake" (i.e. people who were not tobacco users) of snus as the first and often only form of tobacco, which our article already mentions with a source, and an alleged effect of snus use leading to smoking or whatever. Evidence for that would need to be very strong, given all the evidence already provided that the opposite occurs, that users tend to stop smoking, to smoke less, or to not take up smoking at all. That's the opposite of a "gateway" effect. And for that matter, the source is already used in the article, so I don't see any action item here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

define NRT

Resolved
 – Fixed

Somebody needs to define NRT. Quote:

"a growing consensus among researchers of smoking cessation have found NRT products to be minimally effective because tobacco users are often seeking the combination of MAO inhibitors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.91.98 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tried to add a ref

I just added a line to this article, but I were unable to add my reference. Maybe links to Youtube are regarded as insufficent as references, but I guess CBS 60 minutes should be OK (although I consider its quality questionable, but americans seem to have less requirements for journalistic integrity). The link: (youtube)/mr_tuvbUCLo 83.233.139.17 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Sweden

That video is almost certainly a copyright violation since it's not uploaded by CBS. See Wikipedia:YOUTUBE. If you write here what you wanted to add maybe a different source can be found. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
We can actually use it as a source, without citing that particular URL. It's perfectly legitimate cite major TV news stories, and it's not required to provide URLs to them. Paper and Web sources are preferred because they're more easily verifiable, but we should not fail to include a fact or provide a citation for one just because the sources was 60 Minutes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Pakistani "Neswar"

Resolved
 – It's mentioned in the article, and has its own article now.

For reference: HM Revenue & Customs in the United Kingdom classes Pakistani "Neswar" for import and export purposes as "Snuff" See: HM Revenue & Customs Classifying tobacco for import and export. On page 139 of "Pakistan: A Country Study", Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, 1995, Edited by Peter R. Blood, indicates Neswar "a tobacco-based ground mixture including lime that is placed under the tongue". Nightsturm (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "inhaled"

Resolved
 – Fixed.

"used to refer to both the inhaled form and the placed under the lip form of snus/snuff."

Nasal snuff is not inhaled. It is used intranasally, that is, it is drawn into the nose. It is not inhaled which would mean breathed into the lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.95.163 (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing cleanup

The excessive "Further reading" section, which has almost doubled the length of the table of contents, needs to be merged into the article as inline citations, almost entirely. Very little of that is appropriate for such a section, which is for general works that may be of interest but which are not appropriate as article sources. Virtually everything in there is studies and literature reviews about medical facts, NRT, etc., and should be used as normal sources. Some of it already is, and is redundantly listed in the FR section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Totally agree. Snus had a bump in popularity here in the states a few years back and that seems to have led to a bunch of inserts. I added a couple of images and some copy myself, but haven't found time to really clean this thing up. Have to be really careful with the medical claim stuff as well. There are plenty of good med sources, avoiding SYNTH is the key. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snus/Archives/2015&oldid=871258729"