South west smokers told roll-ups are not a healthy alternative (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
South west smokers told roll-ups are not a healthy alternative
10:00am Wednesday 2nd January 2013 in News By Katie Bond
The Wise-Up to Roll-Ups campaign urges smokers not to make their own cigarettes
QUITTING smoking is likely to be one of the most popular new year’s resolutions as 2013 gets underway, which is why Smokefree South West has launched the latest pahse of the successful campaign Wise-Up to Roll-Ups.
Despite the campaign’s past successes, the south west remains the region with the highest proportion of hand rolled tobacco smokers in the UK, accounting now for more than one in two of the region’s 810,000 smokers.
First launched in 2011, the Wise-Up to Roll-Ups campaign proved successful in both raising the awareness of the dangers of hand rolling tobacco and helping smokers to quit.
Almost 79 per cent of respondents said they have either completely quit or are smoking less as a result of the information they received from the campaign and it is hoped that this new year will act as a catalyst for more hand rolling tobacco smokers to quit for good in 2013.
The campaign aims to dispel the myths that smoking hand rolling tobacco is a less harmful and more ‘natural’ alternative to smoking manufactured, packaged cigarettes.
Smoking hand rolling tobacco contains as many harmful chemicals as manufactured cigarettes and causes the same health risks including cancer, stroke, heart and lung disease, impotence, infertility, and even amputation.
Yet many hand rolled tobacco smokers believe that rolling their own cigarettes reduces associated health risks.
Fiona Andrews, director of Smokefree South West, said: “This new year acts as a fantastic opportunity for smokers to quit for good and start 2013 afresh.
“Despite the past successes of the Wise-Up to Roll-Ups campaign, smoking hand rolling tobacco remains a popular choice amongst many smokers in the region. Wise-Up to Roll-Ups remains the only campaign nationally to depose the myths and tell smokers the real risks of smoking hand rolling tobacco.
“Rolling your own cigarettes can often be seen as a skill, where smokers can also regulate the amount of tobacco they smoke. Many indeed believe smoking in this way is even less harmful for you. This is simply not true and smoking hand rolling tobacco carries the same kinds of health risks to smokers as manufactured cigarettes, such as cancer and lung disease.
“Hand rolling tobacco smokers are often ‘immune’ to most other anti-smoking campaigns as they don’t think of themselves as ‘normal’ smokers. We hope this new campaign will prove as successful as it has done in the past and continues to reduce the large numbers of people still smoking hand rolling tobacco in the South West.”
Dr Jean King, Cancer Research UK’s director of tobacco control, said: “As the purse strings tighten smoking rolling tobacco is becoming a popular choice among many smokers. However, although it may be a cheaper alternative, smoking hand rolling tobacco remains as dangerous and deadly as any other form of tobacco consumption, something many people are still unaware of.”
The Wise-Up to Roll-Ups campaign will feature TV and radio adverts as well as eye catching billboards across the region from New Years Day. Wise-Up to Roll-Up packs will also be available, containing information about hand rolling tobacco and quitting tools.
Smokers can order a pouch by texting WISE4 to a unique text number, 81066, or by going online to our dedicated website www.wiseupandquit.co.uk.
Leaflets and posters will also be placed in GP surgeries across the South West.
Comments(31)
chas
says...
3:08pm Wed 2 Jan 13
house on the hill
says...
9:13pm Wed 2 Jan 13
Still never really understood why you would want to spend all that money to risk your health and your life and smell like an old ashtray and for what? But anything that apparently helps people stop I would be in favour of for their own sakes.
itsamess3
says...
10:46pm Wed 2 Jan 13
Perhaps you should research your claims as to the dangers of smoking tobaccos-or more wisely what manufacturers add to the product. to create addiction.
I will give you a clue--begin with the natural product and you will find there are no known carcinogens.
The only proven effect of smoking is to line the lungs with tars etc which damage and harden the miles of minute tubes in the lungs which result in emphysemia.
Perhaps you could persuade the govt to order the known dangerous chemicals be removed on health grounds.
RichardR1
says...
7:35am Thu 3 Jan 13
Studies have shown it has a totally unexpected effect on the receptors in the brain, which causes the addiction.
http://www.drugabuse
.gov/publications/re
search-reports/tobac
co-addiction/nicotin
e-addictive
As for carcinogens in an April 2012 study it was found that mice contracted cancer when nicotine was introduced into their system, the scientists concluding this clearly indicated nicotine was indeed acting as a carcinogen, although to be fair other scientists disagree.
http://whyquit.com/p
r/041812.html
itsamess3
says...
8:06am Thu 3 Jan 13
chas
says...
8:31am Thu 3 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
8:48am Thu 3 Jan 13
RichardR1
says...
11:45am Thu 3 Jan 13
'Mouse research has lead to major advances in our ability to treat a number of serious
diseases and conditions. For example, work on mice resulted in successful treatments for a
cancer (acute promyelocytic leukaemia, or APL) that was previously largely untreatable. The
EU has long been aware of the usefulness of mice in research and since 1998 has invested
EUR 550 million in over 180 projects involving mouse models.'
Tim Newroman
says...
12:32pm Thu 3 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
1:02pm Thu 3 Jan 13
As per usual in your eagerness to profess you understand the sciences and medical science you fall flat on your face.
Nicotine of course is contained in the plant--but does not create the harm you suggest. The reason being it is an alkoloid easily disposed of prior to turning the leaf into tobacco. The body likewise can easily dispose of all traces of nicotine in the lungs as they produce mucus which degrades the nicotine to a salty fluid which cleans it out-check out how much mucus the lungs can produce and dispose of every day.
The vast amount of nicotine is burned off before inhaling the smoke in any event.
Tobacco manufacturers are aware that nicotine is addictive as the fumes enter the blood stream and compares to class A drugs addictively.
So much so that when smoking started to decline the manufacturers progressively increased the nicotine from 0.3% to 1.6% over a relatively short time.
Medical science and scientists do not always agree as it does depend who their paymaster is as bias plays a part.
I do make it clear i have no bias as its all a matter of choice to smoke or not. However the proven fact is that smoking increases the carbon dioxide in the lungs leaving less oxygen which will cause breathing difficulties and lower lung function.
Common sense alone would tell you that there is a vast difference in the metabolism of a mouse to a human.
itsamess3
says...
1:12pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Good comment-perhaps if the govt ordered the removal of toxins added to tobaccos that have steadily increased smokers would not get hooked.
Countless millions of smokers - regardless of the delivery method - have died due to smoking related issues over the years. I don't really think we need research into the effects on mice to tell us that it's not a particularly healthy pursuit.
Tim Newroman
says...
1:27pm Thu 3 Jan 13
itsamess3 wrote:The government does a very good job of spending millions upon millions of our money on advising potential smokers, and existing smokers, of the health dangers involved in the activity.
Tim Newroman wrote:Good comment-perhaps if the govt ordered the removal of toxins added to tobaccos that have steadily increased smokers would not get hooked.
Countless millions of smokers - regardless of the delivery method - have died due to smoking related issues over the years. I don't really think we need research into the effects on mice to tell us that it's not a particularly healthy pursuit.
I would prefer to leave it up to the cigarette producers and their customers to decide what does, or doesn't, go into their product. Plenty of toxins and other harmful substances are perfectly legal, so I'm unsure as to why the tobacco industry should be singled out.
I also cannot believe that anyone starts smoking without knowing full well that they will likely become addicted, will endanger their health significantly and will also likely find it difficult to stop smoking should they choose to do so at some point.
The choice is personal. If people wish to smoke, good luck to them. It's not as if anyone is withholding pertinent information from them or nefariously convincing them it's a good thing to do.
RichardR1
says...
1:27pm Thu 3 Jan 13
As I said clearly medical scientists disagree with you.
As for Nicotine once again you go off on your random rant. Nicotine is the major addictive part of tobacco, fact, whether you like it or not.
I have not engaged in the other affects on smokers health so your rant as usual is totally irrelevant .
And I note you are still delusional, if I was who you claim, shouldn't I be imprisoned by now.
RichardR1
says...
1:32pm Thu 3 Jan 13
itsamess3
says...
2:15pm Thu 3 Jan 13
Really--i have never yet seen a mouse walking around with a fag in its mouth
'As I said clearly medical scientists disagree with you.'
Biologists do-thats a science.
'As for Nicotine once again you go off on your random rant. Nicotine is the major addictive part of tobacco, fact, whether you like it or notAs for Nicotine once again you go off on your random rant. Nicotine is the major addictive part of tobacco, fact, whether you like it or not.'
0.3% of which 90% burns off before inhaling as it is a water missible alkoloid. Do contact one of the major tobacco companies--or read the judgment as to the declared chemicals in the Phillip Morris case.
'I have not engaged in the other affects on smokers health so your rant as usual is totally irrelevant' .
No rant--clear and irrefutable facts that nicotine is easily removed from tobacco-as are most of the added chemicals.
"And I note you are still delusional, if I was who you claim, shouldn't I be imprisoned by now.”
No relevance to the article.
.
Tim Newroman
says...
2:43pm Thu 3 Jan 13
As a non-smoker, I fully admit I may be incorrect, but isn't it the effect of Nicotine on dopamine levels in the brain that tobacco users are seeking?
I agree with itsamess3 that is not Nictotine that causes the health problems associated with smoking. To my knowledge, Nicotine patches and chewing gums do not cause any health concerns in otherwise reasonable healthy adults.
As itsamess3 correctly points out, it's the other, numerous, additives that cause the health issues - so why seek to remove Nicotine?
RichardR1
says...
4:01pm Thu 3 Jan 13
You are of course right it is indeed the nicotine that affects dopamine levels in the brain which tobacco users are seeking, and it's because the effects wear off relatively quickly that people need to replenish the brain with nicotine to maintain the effect so smoke more and more.
itsamess3
says...
4:33pm Thu 3 Jan 13
RichardR1 wrote:Personal attacks achieve nothing. As for logic--as you claimed that despite nicotine replacement therapy results in 99% failure at a cost of billions according to you it is rather pointless and your argument is lost i.e if nicotine via patches/gum etc do not excite the dopamine levels-why indeed should nicotine via smoking make a difference?
Tim you correctly identified the resident Nuclear Scientists lack of logic. He speaks of Nicotine not being of a health concern then of it being easily removed. Why remove it indeed. Perhaps it's because it is the Nicotine that causes the addiction.
You are of course right it is indeed the nicotine that affects dopamine levels in the brain which tobacco users are seeking, and it's because the effects wear off relatively quickly that people need to replenish the brain with nicotine to maintain the effect so smoke more and more.
Consider just 2 chemicals added to tobaccos-formaldehyd
e used for centuries to embalm bodies which cannot be reversed and Arsenic-a feadly poison--can you give a valid reason for adding these to tobacco.
Empty Car Park
says...
9:44pm Thu 3 Jan 13
itsamess3 wrote:Oh I'm not so sure.
There is no comparison between a mouse and human.
Some people have a comparable amount of intelligence, manners, and social skills.
A particular barman who's life is so empty that he still smogs these threads from afar springs to mind
RichardR1
says...
7:13am Fri 4 Jan 13
Building materials, treated wood, human body care products, resins, glues, heater exhausts.
And just look at where the US found usage:
High formaldehyde levels found in common household products
But don’t think you’re off the hook if you have straight hair (in numerous hair care products)—formalde
hyde shows up in just about every room of the house and is found in everything from pressed wood products to upholstery and drapes, baseball caps, personal care products and wrinkle-free clothing. That’s right—all those clothes that promise the end of ironing use formaldehyde to smooth the fibers.
And the news gets worse—there is no requirement that the label let you know which chemicals were used in manufacturing.
The US Government Accountability Office, recently studied the levels and potential health risks of formaldehyde in 180 common items. And about 5.5 percent of the items—primarily wrinkle-free shirts, pillow cases, crib sheets and a baseball hat—had levels of formaldehyde that exceeded EPA standards.
Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Working Group, 61 percent of the children’s bath products tested contained formaldehyde.
Arsenic can also be found in children's play area equipment, picnic benches etc.
These are at greater levels than cigarettes, but don't worry, they are safe Government say so.
So Mr Expert explain that away.
Nice to see Empty Head as delusional as ever.
itsamess3
says...
11:38am Fri 4 Jan 13
Did you not learn anything when you tried to take part in parliamentary enquiries dealing with the health issues of smoking--but could not even produce a written statement--at least all the main tobacco manufacturers allowed themselves to be questioned.
Do ask the fire service why smoke inhalation causes so many deaths-or is it your ignorance of science that does not allow you to know that chemicals and poisons alter when ignited and inhaled?
The same applies to a lighted cigarette-harmless until lit and the smoke inhaled.
RichardR1
says...
3:05pm Fri 4 Jan 13
Well that makes complete sense then., a lighted cigarette lit.
As always caught out in your logic so divert. Nothing more to be said.
itsamess3
says...
4:26pm Fri 4 Jan 13
RichardR1
says...
1:40pm Sat 5 Jan 13
Pretty poor show from a world renowned scientist.
itsamess3
says...
4:31pm Sat 5 Jan 13
Keep trying though Bob as who knows one day you may stumble across some factual information--in the meantime do keep embarrassing yourself.
RichardR1
says...
7:38pm Sat 5 Jan 13
But I guess given your continual delusion as to who I am it was to be expected.
itsamess3
says...
8:39pm Sat 5 Jan 13
7:38pm Sat 5 Jan 13
Yes but that was based on the notion that not even you could be stupid enough to defend YOU incoherent statement.
But I guess given your continual PROOF as to who I am it was to be expected.”
RichardR1
says...
10:29am Sun 6 Jan 13
You really must be finding it damaging to your mental health now a certain 'barman' has moved.
itsamess3
says...
11:57am Sun 6 Jan 13
Conclusion being the smoking ban in public places was fully justified--purely on health grounds.
No court in the country would ever overturn the ban--particularly on the rantings of a barman thinking only of his pockets who turned a popular pub into a part time pub.
Empty Car Park
says...
8:53pm Mon 7 Jan 13
Had a good quiz night a few weeks back.
Robbo criticising other people's grammar is the most hilarious height of hypocrisy :-)
itsamess3 says...
2:55pm Wed 2 Jan 13
Never been a smoker--but why do these research bodies make statements that are clearly untrue?
A comparison test simply proves this.
Light a manufactured cigarette and a roll up at the same time and after one puff rest on an ash tray--the roll-up goes out--manufactured will burn until it reaches the end. What is the difference?