Should MLB Ban Smokeless Tobacco?

[RG33]

The Tony Gwynn story has ignited the conversation of whether or not smokeless tobacco should be banned by MLB. Although its usage has declined significantly over the years, there is still certainly a sub-culture of chew throughout all levels of baseball.

The arguments for banning it include: 1.) bad example for kids, 2.) it like, kills you.

The arguments for not banning it include: 1.) This is America, 2.) Players can't smoke butts in the dugout so why should they be able to chew, and 3.) This is America.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/allstar14/story/_/id/11219208/bud-selig-players-association-aim-rid-mlb-smokeless-tobacco-use

What say you SoSH?

 

[TSC]

No.
 
Might as well ban gum, drinks with sugar in them, and chicken and beer.
 
Smoking is banned because because of the effect on the surrounding people who haven't chosen to smoke. Dip/chew/chaw/whatever has no effect except to the person using it.
 
edit: And fuck the kids. The second this country stops looking at athletes as role models, and instead parents try to be something for their shit kids to look up to, the better off we'll all be.

 

[Tharkin]

No.  These are grown men and they can do it if they want to.  It's a bad decision, but so are a million other things.
 
My favorite chaw-related moment was when the Sox won it all in '04 (or maybe it was game 7.)  Tito jumps up and a big ol' plug falls out of his mouth. He looks down briefly and I swear he's thinking of the 5-second rule but then realizes he's definitely on camera.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Yes. I say this as I play The Show and have a lip full of wintergreen Grizzly. It's awful for you.

 

[Rasputin]

There are very few habits that are more disgusting than smoking and chewing tobacco is one of them. It should be banned on those grounds alone.

 

[radsoxfan]

I don't particularly care either way.  It's bad for you, lots of things are bad for you.  I suppose it's  not a good example for kids, but whatever, lots of things are a bad example for kids. 
 
Interesting how Tony Gwynn's death has sparked the idea to ban smokeless tobacco even though his cancer was almost certainly not smokeless tobacco related.  

 

[Darnell's Son]

nm 

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

No.  These are grown men and they can do it if they want to.  It's a bad decision, but so are a million other things.
 
My favorite chaw-related moment was when the Sox won it all in '04 (or maybe it was game 7.)  Tito jumps up and a big ol' plug falls out of his mouth. He looks down briefly and I swear he's thinking of the 5-second rule but then realizes he's definitely on camera.

What about the grown men in the minors?

 

[Fred not Lynn]

Someone said something along these lines;

"Baseball spends one game a year fighting breast cancer, and 161 games a year promoting throat cancer"

And the problem isn't whether pro athletes should be role models guiding kids, it's more that the game of baseball has a strong smokeless tobacco culture at ALL levels. Your kid isn't nearly as likely to pick up dip because his favorite MLB star does it, as he is because the coaches of his U14 team do...
 
Simply banning it at the MLB level won't really change that culture of the game, although my vote in this poll was to go ahead and do that. To change the culture of the game, though, will take a whole lot more than that. 
 
Yes, players are grown men, but on the field of play you voluntarily accept restrictions on your personal freedom. There are all sorts of non-"example for the kids" reasons that smokeless tobacco really shouldn't be used directly on the field of play in the game, like safety, hygiene and facility maintenance (I'm betting that grounds staff, especially in Toronto and Tampa Bay, aren't big fans of dip, despite the fact I'd also bet many use it too.) 

 

[MuzzyField]

I don't particularly care either way.  It's bad for you, lots of things are bad for you.  I suppose it's  not a good example for kids, but whatever, lots of things are a bad example for kids. 
 
Interesting how Tony Gwynn's death has sparked the idea to ban smokeless tobacco even though his cancer was almost certainly not smokeless tobacco related.  

Can you expand on 'certainly' with some context?

 

[TheGoldenGreek33]

What about the grown men in the minors?

Ever heard of Snus?

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Ever heard of Snus?

 
Not until now. I see it's almost a palindrome.

 

[drtooth]

I don't particularly care either way.  It's bad for you, lots of things are bad for you.  I suppose it's  not a good example for kids, but whatever, lots of things are a bad example for kids. 
 
Interesting how Tony Gwynn's death has sparked the idea to ban smokeless tobacco even though his cancer was almost certainly not smokeless tobacco related.  

 
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6257656
 
 
Reading this article is a classic case of a squamous cell carcinoma.  This oral carcinoma has been linked to the use of smokeless tobacco.  I (unfortunately) have seen a couple of cases of this in my years of practice.  This is a very aggressive carcinoma, tends to leads to disfiguring surgery and is often fatal once it metastasizes. The toxins in the the tobacco lead to tissue alterations that greatly increase the risk of a SCC.   There are research articles all over Pub Med that detail the link of smokeless tobacco usage and SCC. 
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=smokeless+tobacco+cancer
 
I included a couple of abstracts as well.
 

 
Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC) is the most common epithelial malignancy in the oral cavity. OSCCs and their variants constitute over 90% of oral malignancies, and the disease is associated with poor prognosis. OSCC is a complex malignancy where environmental factors, viral infections, and genetic alterations most likely interact, and thus give rise to the malignant condition. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2007 concluded: "there is sufficient evidence in humans to establish smokeless tobacco as carcinogenic, i.e. smokeless tobacco causes cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas". ST products contain a large array of carcinogens, although the number found is actually smaller than in cigarette smoke. Worldwide, ST products have many different names depending on the region where it is produced. However, there are two main types of ST, chewing tobacco and snuff. It is estimated that approximately 150 million people in the world use ST. Herein, we review available literature regarding smokeless tobacco and oral Carcinogenesis. We also discuss the role of viral infections in combination with ST in OSCC development.

 

 

BACKGROUND:
The scope of this work was to study synergism between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and tobacco in vitro, both known to be independent risk factors for oral cancer.

METHODS:
HPV-positive and HPV-negative oral keratinocytes and oral HPV-negative fibroblasts were exposed to smokeless tobacco extract (STE) prepared from the Scandinavian (STE1) and US-type (STE2) snuff. Cell cycle profiles were determined with flow cytometry, and HPV E6/E7 mRNA expression in HPV-positive cells was assayed using RT-qPCR.

RESULTS:
The exposure of HPV-positive keratinocytes with STE2 increased the number of aneuploid cells from 27% to 80% of which 44% were in S-phase, while none of the diploid cells were in S-phase. The changes after STE1 exposure were less than seen after STE2: from 27% to 31% of which 34% were in S-phase. STE had no effect on HPV16 E6/E7 expression in HPV-positive keratinocytes. In oral spontaneously transformed, HPV-negative keratinocytes, the number of aneuploid cells at G2-M stage increased after STE1 and STE2 exposure from 3% to 9% and 7%, respectively. In HPV-negative oral fibroblasts, the number of cells at G2-M phase increased from 11% to 21% after STE1 and 29% after STE2 exposure.

CONCLUSIONS:
The effect of STE varied in the cell lines studied. STE2 increased significantly the proportion of aneuploid cells in HPV-positive oral keratinocytes, but not HPV16 E6/E7 expression. This indicates that tobacco products may enhance the effects of HPV 16 and the risk of DNA aneuploidy increasing risk to malignant transformation.

 

 

[Tharkin]

What about the grown men in the minors?

I don't follow. What about them?

 

[HurstSoGood]

Reading this thread just made me want to throw in another dip….ok, that's better. I say ban the shit {spit}. If it wasn't for all my old man league teammates dipping {spit}, I would never have bought my first tin at the ripe age of 35. Damn pushers. Looking forward to quitting… again {spit}. 
 
I was talking to a tobacco farmer down here in Virginia who said he has worked tobacco fields and chewed/dipped every day since he was about 15. He is 61 and has no health problems.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6257656
 
 
Reading this article is a classic case of a squamous cell carcinoma.  This oral carcinoma has been linked to the use of smokeless tobacco.  I (unfortunately) have seen a couple of cases of this in my years of practice.  This is a very aggressive carcinoma, tends to leads to disfiguring surgery and is often fatal once it metastasizes. The toxins in the the tobacco lead to tissue alterations that greatly increase the risk of a SCC.   There are research articles all over Pub Med that detail the link of smokeless tobacco usage and SCC. 
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=smokeless+tobacco+cancer
 
I included a couple of abstracts as well.
 
 
 

 
Thanks for the lesson.
 
Obviously smokeless tobacco is bad for you and causes squamous cell carcinoma.  This is not in doubt, and well known.  I agree people should not use smokeless tobacco, and if they do, their risk of squamous cell cancer will go up.  
 
Tony Gwynn didn't die of squamous cell carcinoma.  He died of a rare malignant parotid tumor. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Jun/16/tony-gwynn-parotid-cancer-death/2/?#article-copy
 
I'm not sure which specific kind, but it almost surely was either mucoepidermoid carcinoma or adenoid cystic carcinoma. These are rare tumors so its hard to be absolutely sure, but as his treating doctor said in that article, it was unlikely related to his tobacco habit. 
 
If Gwynn's death leads to people quitting, that's great.  I just find it interesting that his death, which was likely not tobacco related, has become a turning point for some people. 

 

[Tharkin]

His point is that it is banned in the minor leagues. So if these are all grown men, why the distinction as to who can make the decision for themselves and who can't?

Oh. Thanks for explaining. I don't think it should be banned in the minors either as long as the user is of legal age.

 

[BigJimEd]

If Gwynn's death leads to people quitting, that's great.  I just find it interesting that his death, which was likely not tobacco related, has become a turning point for some people. 

Similar to Alzado and steroids.

I don't feel strongly either way on whether they should ban it or not. Doesn't bother me that some do it but I could see if MLB wanted to prohibit it's use on the field.

 

[PEDs]

I'm not sure I agree with even looking to ban it, one guy passed and claimed it was related to his smokeless tobacco addiction.. What's going on with the health of guys that were around him that did it?