I was smoking 60 cigarettes a day in 1992, when I permanently stopped smoking.  I did so painlessly by switching to nasal snuff (though remaining addicted to nicotine).   This is important because there is very little evidence that nicotine in the form of nasal snuff poses any serious health hazard.  This is obscured by the fact that a lot of reports on the dangers of "snuff" in the USA refer to ORAL "snuff", not NASAL snuff.  This has led to the sale of oral snuff being made illegal in the UK.
There is plenty of evidence of this.

  The Lancet, March 1, 1980  (Extract)
 Addiction Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, London; and Poisons Unit, New Cross Hospital, London.

 TOBACCO is the only source of nicotine. For four centuries or more it has been used for chewing, snuffing, or smoking, but no population has given up one form of tobacco use without replacing it with another. The only time the British gave up smoking was in the 18th century, when they switched to snuffing for almost a hundred years. The common factor is nicotine. There is no tar or carbon monoxide without combustion. Nicotine is absorbed through the lungs in cigarette smoking, through the buccal mucosa in tobacco chewing, and through the nasal mucosa in snuffing.
What about snuff? Would it be a satisfactory alternative for dependent cigarette smokers? Snuffing is simply a matter of inserting powdered tobacco into the nose, and thus has two major advantages. Firstly, there are no products of combustion such as tar, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. Secondly, it cannot be inhaled into the lungs, which eliminates any risk of lung cancer, which kills almost 30,000 British smokers a year.  Would snuff provide enough nicotine to satisfy the dependent cigarette smoker? The historical evidence suggests that it could.  We are studying the absorption of nicotine by cigar smokers and snuff users. Preliminary findings presented here show that the absorption of nicotine from snuff is very rapid; snuff could be sufficiently satisfying for cigarette smokers to switch to snuffing relatively easily.
We measured blood-nicotine and blood-carboxyhæmoglobin (COHb) in cigar smokers and in snuff users.
Even with this form of non-inhaled cigar smoking, nicotine absorption was initially very slow.
By contrast the absorption from a single pinch of snuff was extremely rapid.
The rate of nicotine absorption from snuff is very rapid. The blood-nicotine level of over 40 ng/ml matches the peak levels found in heavy cigarette smokers.  Although the snuff user does not get the puff-by-puff high nicotine boli obtained by inhaling cigarette smokers, it takes the cigarette smoker about 10 min to reach a peak nicotine level compared with 5 min or less for a snuff user.
Snuff may well be a satisfactory and acceptable substitute for cigarette smoking. In addition to its capacity to deliver nicotine, snuff could provide many other components of the smoking habit, such as a variety of aromas, attractive packaging, and intricate sensorimotor rituals which add to the pleasure and social aspects of the habit. Furthermore, it is likely to be acceptable to all social classes, since its present limited use ranges from velvet-curtained lounges to the depths of coal mines.
Switching from cigarettes to snuff could have enormous health benefits. Although some problems could arise from continued absorption of nicotine and local nasal irritation in heavy users, the absence of tar and gases such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and many other toxic combustion products, would virtually eliminate smoking-related cancer, bronchitis, and possibly heart disease. Also, snuff does not contaminate the atmosphere for non-users.<BR>
Our findings suggest that a new age for snuff is a feasible alternative to cigarette smoking. Snuff could save more lives and avoid more ill-health than any other preventive measure likely to be available to developed nations well into the 21st century.

As a result of such research nasal snuff tobacco was made tax free by the British government and remains so.

The "Cancer Research Campaign" wrote on 8th March 1985:
.  .  .  "there is no evidence of any association with cancer or other health risk in the snuff produced in this country.   For this reason, snuff seems an entirely acceptable substitute for cigarette smoking and could be recommended for addicted cigarette smokers since if they could substitute snuff taking for cigarette smoking, they would greatly reduce the risk to  their health."

 A cancer research specialist recently remarked on UK TV:
    "  People smoke for the nicotine - but it's not the nicotine, it's the tar and toxic gases that kill them. "

Professor Martin Jarvis, of Cancer Research UK, says that the health implications surrounding snuff use are significantly lower than smoking.  He explains:
"Studies show that the health hazards surrounding snuff are much less than cigarettes, and the risk is approximately one per cent compared with the
risks associated with smoking, The reason for this is that by smoking you are setting fire to the products which causes their combustion. Snuff doesn’t have the combustion products which are carcinogenic and all the user is getting is the nicotine."

>A paper by Clive Bates, Director, Action on Smoking and Health, and others states:
>"For smokers that are addicted to nicotine and cannot or will not stop, it is important that they can take advantage of much less hazardous forms of
nicotine and tobacco, the alternative being to quit or die and many die."

EEC Council Directive 92/41/EEC forced snuff retailers to affix a libel to their products:  "CAUSES CANCER".  However as a result of research by an
independent scientist of the Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg and by an independent scientist of the University of Ulm, the EEC was caused to
modify this to ""This tobacco-based product can be detrimental to your health and is addictive".

("This puts snuff on a fairly level pegging with other semi-luxury products such as wine or coffee. " -- Dr. Poeschl.
Professor Britton of the Royal College of Physicians recently said on TV that nicotine is no more toxic than caffeine)
Back to Contents