Talk:Snuff (tobacco)

The reversion issue (re: Swedish match)

Are these links valid to the issue?

http://www.swedishmatch.com/en/Media/Pressreleases/Press-releases/1996-2004/Swedish---Match-acquires-snuff-and-pipe-tobacco-company-in-South-Africa/

http://www.swedishmatch.com/en/Media/Pressreleases/Press-releases/2009/Swedish-Match-agrees-to-sell-South-African-operations-to-Philip-Morris-International/

--Lead holder (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Swedish Match had sold their South African operation. The following links suggest that the company had brands of nasal snuff other than Taxi (Singletons, Rumneys, Kensington) at least as late as 2007. The first link suggests that Singletons was manufactured in Sweden.

http://www.smokeless.org.nz/nasalsnuffMay06.pdf

http://www.swedishmatch.com/E_2007Inside2_en/index.aspx?p=14

However, the following link suggests that with the sale of the South African operation, Swedish Match left the nasal snuff business altogether.

http://snuser.wordpress.com/markets-of-snus/

So maybe the anonymous Swedish toerag is correct after all. I'll try contacting Swedish Match for clarification.

Barry Wom (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I emailed their information address and got this reply:

Dear <removed>, thank you for your email. No, Swedish Match does not produce nasal snuff. The Company sold its South African operations to Philip Morris International in 2009.
Kind regards,

Djuli Holmgren |Swedish Match AB
Manager External Communications | Corporate Communications and Sustainability
<phone numbers removed>

-----Original Message-----
From: <removed> [mailto:<removed>] 
Sent: onsdag 18 april 2012 09:01
To: Info (STO)
Subject: Nasal snuff

Hey.
I am just curious as to whether your company still produces nasal snuff.
If I remember correctly you at one point distributed Taxi snuff but I am 
unsure if you ever or still do produce it.
Thanks for your time.
<removed>.

If the original email is required I can forward it to anyone if they supply an email address.

Now, this should put and end to this silliness. Although the behaviour of the anonymous editor leaves a lot to be desired.--Lead holder (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

John Hill recanted

The article states that John Hill recanted his initial claim that snuff caused nasal cancer and the reference given is from "Techmedexperts.com", a company founded and ran by a former ER nurse and an assistant that serves as support for attorneys' legal work. Their website's expertise list is more than a page long and covers every subject know to man. While they claim to use experts in all fields listed, such are usually "experts for a price" and anyone following a trial knows how objective they are. I certainly would not use Techmedexperts.com as a reliable source of scientific information.

A quick Google search on the subject produced only a few bloggers who rehash the claim without further support.

I strongly suggest that the statement on John Hill's recantation and the bogus reference be removed from the "Snuff" or be supported by a reliable source page.Faguet (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My Granny used Square Snuff [powder consistency like cocoa drink mix] but she never sniffed it - she put it in her mouth like dipping tobacco. Was this a common occurrence or just an odd way of her using snuff? 174.111.99.141 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Western bias

The article is very Western-focused, more or less ignoring the extensive Chinese interest in snuff. The word "China" appears only once. I'd suggest that, at the very least, there should be a link to the existing article on "Snuff bottles" (but don't have the expertise to write the words or make the link). DaleLaceyNZ (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Some of the lead reads like an advertizement and does not reflect the article's content (a proper lead should simply summarize the article itself). I thus tagged it for now. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Back in fashion?

"In recent years, because of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, the practice of snuff-taking is once again gaining popularity among men as well as women."

This lacks both geographic and temporal context, but the reference (which is dead now, but I eventually found the article on the Internet archive) is to a UK newspaper, and it refers to the 2007 ban on smoking in enclosed public places. But in all my time here, I knew only one person who took snuff; I certainly haven't observed people taking it up following the smoking ban, even though I came to think they might. In any case, it makes it sound as though it's more in fashion than it is. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the article about the gender of people who have taken up snuff; besides, even if we did have evidence of this then "men as well as women" is a somewhat absurd way to express it, rather than the balanced "both men and women".

As such, I'm rewriting this sentence to try and address these issues. — Smjg (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)