Nicotiana sp. and cancer

[twich]

Is chewing fresh/homegrown Nicotiana leaves as cancerous as comercial "Chewing tobacco" preparations. As I hear the commercial products may only be so carcinogenic due to the way in which they are prepared i.e they are cured using a smoking process.

Is chewing various pituri preparations known to cause high cancer rates?

Edited December 26, 2006 by twich

[Pala]

Just from the wikipedia chewing tabacco article:

This method of consumption is associated with elevated cancer risk, as are other methods of tobacco consumption.

And from a cancer.org page:

The most serious health effect of spit tobacco is an increased risk of cancer of the mouth and pharynx. Oral cancer occurs several times more frequently among snuff dippers compared with non-tobacco users. The risk of cancer of the cheek and gums may increase nearly 50-fold among long-term snuff users.

It's quite likely that the extent of the health risk is biased considering the source. Nevertheless...

Edited July 26, 2006 by Pala

[Rev]

that research is dodgy

TMK nicotine is NOT carcinogenic

its the SMOKE thats carcinogenic

like weed, i you dont smoke its the health risks drop precipitously

maybe even reversed for weed

[Pala]

I dunno about that. Using google scholar with the keywords 'carcinogenic' and 'nicotine', there were quite a few papers about nicotine's inhibition of apoptosis (some studied in vivo). And while this effect alone would not cause a tumour (although it might transform cells in vitro, I don't know), there is of course, no "cancer gene", and cancer is an accumulation of mutations.

Of course, I haven't really looked into all the papers (and (unfortunately more importantly) their sources), I think it can be supposed that nicotine may well have a carcinogenic effect.

Edit:

Just looking into the connection between bong use and cancer rate. Well, didn't find that (got distracted, gee that scholar search can be fun), but did find papers stating the anticancer effect of cannaboids (link).

Edited July 27, 2006 by Pala

[Auxin]

TMK nicotine is NOT carcinogenic

its the SMOKE thats carcinogenic

True benzo-a-pyrene, aminobiphenyl, benzene, carbon monoxide, etc, etc, etc are products of combustion but tobacco has its own signature nitrosamines too- so reliable in their presence that they are what are tested for to see if people are tobacco users... and nitrosamines are generally carcinogenic. (they could be bred out of tobacco but tobacco companies see no profit in it since, at least in my country, it's illegal to even imply that one type of tobacco is less harmful than another.... anyone have a GC/MS? )

Commercial tobacco also has radioisotopes built up from over-application of cheap fertilizers.

Rev... how many people have died of tobacco induced mouth/throat cancers... and your encouraging someone saying its safe?

[Torsten]

Possibly the best research on oral nicotine is that which is hidden in the betel chewing data. So much money has been spent trying to prove that betel chewing is carcinogenic that in the process they have proved almost everything else to be carcinogenic except for betel nuts

Tobacco is a common additive to betel quids in guam, PNG and Taiwan among many other places. It is not used as an additive in many parts of asia though. When comparing cancer rates between three types of betel quids there is an interesting trend.

The most inconclusive type is the betel quid that consists of just betel nuts and possibly betel leaf. This quid does not contain nicotine and only contains tiny traces of safrole.

The second type, which quite clearly causes a higher incidence of adducts in the oral mucosa is the type that uses betel flowers in the quid, such as in Tonga and parts of Indonesia. Betel flowers are very high in safrole.

The third type is pure evil and should carry warnings similar to cigarettes. It contains both safrole bearing herbal material as well as high nicotine tobacco. Users of this type of quid have a high rate of mouth and oesophagal cancers.

While it may be the combination of nicotine with other things like lime, safrole or the various spices, it does seem quite clear that nicotine has a major role to play in this.

[Rev]

Rev... how many people have died of tobacco induced mouth/throat cancers... and your encouraging someone saying its safe?

well i dont want to have people going beyond what is proven

there are a lot of demonised susbtances out there

nicotine though highly addictive and all these other things may also be neuroprotective

it seems taboo these days to question the anti tobacco lobbies propaganda or to suggest tobacco and nicotine might even have some benefits to life and welbeing - which of course they must have for it to have been so widely used prior to 20th century marketing drives

round here itd not raise an eyebrow but to say chewing coca is good for your health would be herecy to many people outside our circles.

if nicotine is carcinogenic and u have relaible the data then so be it. To my previous knowledge from toxic. texts it wasnt

authorities jumping the gun and banning herbs with pyrrilizidone alkaloids and over safrole content in root beer from some dodgy rat studies makes me tend not to believe much i read against herbs till i see the fine print

[Evil Genius]

Hi,

This area really interests me. I would be interested in some more details.

I´d be intersted in the way commercial chewing tobacco is getting prepared. Especially if chewing tobacco gets fermented. I unfortunately know too few about a few steps of this process to be sure about this. I personally think radioactive fertilization plays a role. Nicotiana SP. seems to take up more radioactivity from nature because of their fine hairs. I personally think that sugar might also play a role in the cancerogen process. Does fermenting mean that natural sugar is produced through this process? Could it be cancerogen too?

I´d also love to see a study that goes more in detail about the lifestyle and habits from tobaco users. I think tobacco users differ pretty much from people which are living more healthy alltogether. Also i´m still not sure how cancerogen the TSNA´s and other nitrosamines really are overall. I´m confused because of the long time delay effect. I´d also love to see some food pattern statistics. Especially if people are pork eaters, commercial grown and fertilized fruits and vegetables compared to biologically grown,

hormones in food and the cancerogenity overall,

is it possible that using tobacco highers the risk of fungal infections or viral diseases which are cancerogen?

are there other alkaloids or food that people usually eat or drink and which damages the p53 gene ?

What about Alcohol? Is it possible that tobacco induced MAO-Inhibition also mean a highered cancer risk?

Do you think that MAO-Inhibition even has something to do with cancer?

the cancer rates of fertilized tobacco compared to unfertilized tobacco and the ones with or without additives.

....

If you have some more infos or links, i´d love to see them.thanks and bye EG

Edited July 28, 2006 by Evil Genius

[twich]

Well all I know is that "Chewing Tobacco" was aparently banned because it was so carcinogenic, (more-so than ciggies). So I'm just wondering about the adverse effects of chewing a bit of fresh homegrown. I can't imagine it would be as cancerous as the processed stuff but I'd like to hear some of the arguments at least. And how 'bout that sylvestris? I hear it may be a parent of commercial tobacco hybrids.

[Alice]

Sean Marsee

[Benzedrine]

You guys are getting it wrong seriously,

First off the worst chewing tobacco is american snuff and your third world chews like gutkha and that sudanese nameless stuff. As has been said from the growing of the tobacco, to the curing, to processing. Carcinogenic and toxic compounds are added or left alone to enter the final product. No other product would be allowed such a blatant disregard of its consumers health. However from the statistics I've seen it is still safer to chew then use cigarettes. Unfortunately the research seems to being changing all the time in the field of american snuff but its still fairly conclusive that it is a safer alternative to smoking. It is not however anything close to a safe alternative.

However other chewing tobaccos like swedish snus or Camel's snoose or Lucky strike snus are far safer then smoking or trad. american snuff. Swedish snus is steam cured and is not carcinogenic. To get as many nitrosamines from snus as a pack of cigerettes you would need to consume a small cars worth. At that sort of weight ratio a lifetime of snus using could be equivalent to one pack of cigarettes. In my personal opinion it really is a safe alternative to smoking.

With home grown tobacco, I would say your looking at gum recession and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the gum recession in chewing is not thought to be linked with periodontitis tooth loss. Also ammonia and other compounds aren't going to be filtered from the natural herb so there are probably minor problems associated with that. I couldn't say if the nitrosamine content is going to be significant as don't know of actual research done on raw herb. I would say the health concerns of untreated tobacco herb are about halfway between snus and american snuff.

[Alice]

is commercial snus/snuff available from tobacconists in aust?

i have never looked for it or known anyone who uses it so i have no idea! but curious nonetheless.

[Benzedrine]

Commercial snus/snuff of the chewing kind is not available in Australia. The government has banned sale of chewing tobacco within Australia. A few tobacconists in a certain eastern state sell it but it is pretty risky IMO. Importation is allowed if under 1.5 kilos is imported over that number and you need a permit. Possession may or may not be legal depending on the state you live in. I have never heard of the state tobacco acts being enforced in any regard other then homegrown tobacco so I wouldn't worry about it.

I import snus all the time and have had no problems so far. In many ways I like it a lot more then smoking and not being carcinogenic is a big plus for me. I'm biased however as I enjoy looking and experiencing the world in a heavily nicotine charged state a lot more then sobriety. Hell, I'm snusing as I write this.

[occidentalis]

An interesting report, not on cancer, but on other health effects of tobacco

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/tb/3959

[Evil Genius]

Hi Guys,

i just found a new large study about second hand smoke and tobacco smoke in general!

bye EG

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

[BlackDragon]

From what i can remeber(cant find the source atm) i thought the carcinogenic qaulities are also directly related to the ammount of sugars in the final product. Its not just the actives and other crazy added compounds, but the breakdown products of the natural or added sugars in the leaf play a major roll in the degree of carcinogens.

Anyone herd this also? So curing properly may also play a big roll?

[Evil Genius]

Hi Blackdragon,

i´m sure that sugar plays an important role in it. As far as i know, Cigarette smoke contains Acrylamide which is a cancerogen. As sugar and other sweets are getting added to commercial tobacco i assume this would raise the actual amount of acrylamide and other carcinogen components. Smokers have a higher amount of acrylamide in their blood. But i´m not sure if Acrylamide is the only one lung cancer causing agent in Cigarette smoke as there are also some Tobacco specific nitrosamines which have proven to be cancerogen too. And lets not forget about polonium and lead that comes from the fertilization.There are many studies that can´t be trusted as the tobacco industry has paid for them. And There are too few concrete works about this difficult topic anyways. I wouldnt wanted to be the first who finds out that the cancer doesnt comes from the acrylamide but from the nitrosamines which are contained in any kind of commercial smoking tobacco. Even in pure American Spirit Tobacco. I´m sure it gets fermented too. It would be important to know if it is really true that the not fermented swedish snus really arent causing cancer. If thats true, there is a reason to look at the tobacco specific nitrosamines. Torsten wrote that betel containing tobacco has caused some cancer too. I don´t think that this is because of the natural sugars but from some chemical originating from the nicotiana plant. Surely not nicotine but some byproduct like the nitrosamine NNK for example. Ive read studies about the cancer causing agent would have something to do with the fertilization but i´m sure that these studies have been paid. It would be very easy for the tobacco industry just to change to another fertilizer(not calcium phosphate which decomposes to lead) and they´d be done with everything and could sell their cigarettes again. I´m sure theyd did this allready if it would be so easy to get the carcinogens out of the cigarettes. At the moment they are losing more money than ever and it doesnt look good for the future. Why dont they just change the fertilizer? I dont think its just about the additional costs for another organic fertilizer. It would be interesting to see some AMERICAN SPIRIT Cancer Rates but such things are hard to get. I dont think that i will be able to see some true data in my life. And the next Problem is that in germany everyone smokes everywhere. Its disgusting as you cant say for sure if the lung cancer came from the second hand smoke or from your own brand of cigarette. You cant go clubbing or to Mac Donald without smoking one whole cigarette every day by second hand smoke. You cant even stand somewhere outside without inhaling it. When im going out, i´m holding my breath anytime i meet smokers. It looks pretty funny but i dont see another way to avoid it. We will have new laws next year which are better but its really a social Problem not to smoke!

bye EG

Edited December 6, 2006 by Evil Genius

[faustus]

anyone seen thank you for smoking? pretty good film.

here's one linking nicotine's biotransformation to a carcinogen:

2'-Hydroxylation of nicotine by cytochrome P450 2A6 and human liver microsomes: Formation of a lung carcinogen precursor

Smokers or people undergoing nicotine replacement therapy excrete approximately 10% of the nicotine acid (keto acid) and 4-hydroxy-4-(3-pyridyl)butanoic acid (hydroxy acid). Previously, these acids were thought to arise by secondary metabolism of the major nicotine metabolite cotinine, but our data did not support this mechanism. Therefore, we hypothesized that nicotine is metabolized by 2'-hydroxylation, which would ultimately yield keto acid and hydroxy acid as urinary metabolites. This pathway had not been established previously in mammalian systems and is potentially significant because the product of nicotine 2'-hydroxylation, 4-(methylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (aminoketone), can be converted to the potent tobacco-specific lung carcinogen, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone. Incubation of nicotine with cytochrome P450 2A6 and cofactors did indeed produce aminoketone, which was identified as its N-benzoyl derivative by GC-MS. The rate was 11% of that of cotinine production. Incubation of human liver microsomes with nicotine gave keto acid by using aminoketone as an intermediate; keto acid was not formed from cotinine. In 10 human liver samples, rates of formation of keto acid were 5.7% of those of cotinine and production of these metabolites correlated. These results provide definitive evidence for mammalian 2'-hydroxylation of nicotine and elucidate a pathway by which endogenous formation of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone could occur in humans.

dose as 4-oxo-4-(3-pyridyl)butanoic

[Evil Genius]

Hi Twix,

i dont know the movie yet but ill see if i can get it on bittorrent. I just saw that Robert Duvall plays a role in it. Looks interesting. Thanks for the biotransformation too. I didnt knew this one yet. bye EG

[Lono]

Bio chemistry is really not my thing, at least at the level some of you guys are working.

But I remember hearing that chaw had finely crushed glass added to it to speed up the absorption through the lips. The main reason I've always refused a "dip".

Maybe bullshit, but if its true it must have a bearing on whether homecured is safer, since it presumably wouldn't be have the glass added.

I guess it could be that if the chemicals are not absorbed through cuts in the epidermis of the mouth they may run down the back of your throat potentially coming into contact with yet more fragile tissues, causing throat or stomach cancer. But you'd have to expect the concentrations would be lower in this scenario, right?

[Evil Genius]

Hi Guys,

i´ll use this Thread in order to post some more about this stuff on a regular basis.

Here is another work about the contained nitrosamines in tobacco and the influencing factors. Its very detailed but if you have the time its fruitful...I´m not sure if some of the data could also be interesting to MJ-growers but it might be worth a closer look. bye

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6135121.html

[Pala]

Hey EG,

I don't quite understand what that site is. Is it a non-legal means whereby people "patent" ideas. Ie. regardless of whether the idea has any empirical backing?

Also: you said that there's a lot of info in the link provided. Do I have to click on something to see more info?

[Avaricial]

hmm when i was a smoker on tailored cigarettes, i used to wake up feeling like crap. felt a lot like my lungs were compressed and/or shrivelled up.

quit for 2 years, and started smoking again although this time i'm on rollies (without filters). Somehow rollies don't make me feel as bad as when i was smoking tailored ciggies.

I think its something to do with additives and crap they put into tailored cigarettes.

Or am i deluded and trying to justify my reasons for smoking? The answer is up in the air :D

i guess if you have to use nicotine.... go as natural as you can? heh

[Evil Genius]

Hi Pala,

if i have understood it right the site is about different possibilities to reduce the nitrosamine content of commercial tobacco. These methods seem to be patentable; because of this there are countless patents with diffrent methods. You´ll need about 100 years to read all this stuff.

I loved smoking tobacco but i always felt like a living cancer when doing it. Meanwhile it doesnt suit my lifestyle as i just can´t doing things that are potentially bad for my health. My Body has become my castle. As soon as recognized that nicotine dominated my life i had to quit. Again and again and again. lol. I only smoked organic american spirit tobacco in a pipe. But since i read the swedish mouth cancer rates i got convinced that the nitrosamines are the cancerogen factor and i´ve never smoked again. I always thought it would be the lead from the radioactive fertilizers but the swedish statistics are very convincing.

Smoking a tobacco hit was the first thing i did when i woke up and also the last thing i did in the evening. Meanwhile i´m sure i´ll never smoke again as it makes me feel sick like a dog. But i really loved the Flash.

As i have the feeling that nicotine helps me with my morbus crohn i´m testing around with nicotine gums and swedish snus. I´ve read about the snus in one of sobriquets posts and i thought i should check it out if it´s really not cancerogen. I´ve ordered me 10 cans of general snus for trials. I wanted a snus which is getting made with the gothiatek. It tastes disgusting and unfortunately i havent found an organic brand from sweden. I think i will switch to nicotine gums again as it still has nitrosamines in it. Besides i don´t know if there are pesticide residues in the tobacco. But it´s surely a nice feeling as it contains a huge lot of nicotine in one gram.

At the Moment i have enormous Problems with second hand smoke. My Family has a restaurant and it´s very hard for me to escape the second hand smoke all around me. But as it was very hard for me to quit smoking i don´t want to get sick from second hand smoke.

This years christmas was terrible as the whole family smokes and i didnt wanted to celebrate with them because of that. Nobody understands that i have become such a strict nonsmoker as i once smoked like an indian. But well, times and people are changing. You have to do what makes you feel good and for me it´s not to smoke. I´ve spent months reading all about smoking in order to find a noncancerogen way to smoke tobacco but now i´m sure there is none. Sometimes It can be hard to face the truth

Edited December 26, 2006 by Evil Genius

[John_Barleycorn]

i'm on rollies (without filters). Somehow rollies don't make me feel as bad as when i was smoking tailored ciggies.

I think its something to do with additives and crap they put into tailored cigarettes.

Or am i deluded and trying to justify my reasons for smoking?

Yes. If I smoked, I'd much rather have the filter and put up with the gunpowder. Once you start sucking on the products of combustion, the arguments about chemicals in the source material become kind of academic. Besides, the tobacco in tailors seems more thoroughly cured than in rollies.