Yesterday we received an email from Ann Garner of Pittsburgh, PA. She wrote: "I'm a smoker who has just become pregnant and my doctor keeps recommending that I use the nicotine patch to quit, but I've done some research and I'm not convinced it's going to help me. What should I do?'
Whilst we are reluctant to question the advice of doctors, it's difficult to understand how Ann's baby will benefit from regular doses of an addictive drug, so this is a great question.
Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) was first introduced as a quitting aid in the 1980s. Today, it comes in a variety of forms: nicotine patches, gum, nasal inhalators, lozenges, e-cigarettes, nicotine water, nicotine lollipops - the list is endless.
The idea behind NRT is that the smoking problem has two components; physical addiction to nicotine, and the psychological 'need' to smoke. Nicotine replacement is used to maintain the physical aspect of the addiction while giving the addict the chance to deal with the psychological aspect. Once that is successfully dealt with, then they can address the physical side. The only problem is that this theory is complete nonsense: nicotine addiction is the problem, how can it also be the solution? Would you give an alcoholic alcohol to get off alcohol or crack to a crack addict to help him stop using crack?
According to Clive Turner, Director of Action on Smoking and Health and long-time advocate of NRT, the long-term success rate for NRT products is around 6%. An article on whyquit.org shows that the success rate for second- or third-time NRT users is less than using nothing at all.
By contrast, Allen Carr's simple, drug-free Easyway method delivered via webcasts, books and live seminars has a 12-month success rate of 63.6% for a pack-a-day smoker. This rises to 75.8% for people who are able to take advantage of our support programme.
For a commonsense approach to quitting visit us at www.TheEasywayToStopSmoking.com
Showing posts with label nicotine gum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nicotine gum. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
If you are addicted to nicotine gum...
I'm ordinarily a really big fan of John Tierney's Science blog in the NY Times, but I have to take exception with today's entry entitled Should Obama Take Nicotine Pledge? (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/should-obama-quit-nicorettes/?scp=3&sq=smoking&st=cse)
Here are my concerns.
Firstly, Sen. Obama is described as using nicotine gum 'successfully', but then we are told that he is still ocasionally smoking. I struggle to characterize this as success because (i) he is still addicted to nicotine and (ii) he is still smoking. What is successful about this?
Secondly, Mr. Teirney speculates 'What if the nicotine gum strategy is so successful that Mr. Obama is capable of weaning himself from nicotine altogether? If he reaches the White House, should he give up the chemical that he relied on during his career and his campaign?'
The most obvious problem with this is that Mr. Teirney implicitly assumes that at least part of Sen. Obama's success came because he is addicted to nicotine. But where is the evidence to support this claim? Perhaps Sen. Obama's success is nothing to do with nicotine. Perhaps he is successful because he's smart, hard-working and dedicated. In fact, with the stigma associated with smoking so profound these days, we might even argue that he is successful despite being addicted to nicotine, not because of it.
In support of this theory that weaning himself off nicotine might be a bad thing for Sen. Obama and for America, Mr. Teirney (also a nicotine gum chewer) quotes his colleague Jane Brody, 'Among the...effects of nicotine are arousal, relaxation, improved mood, reduced anxiety and stress, better concentration and faster reaction time.'
It reads like an ad for nicotine gum. Who wouldn't want these things?
But let's think about this for a moment: how can a drug that creates arousal also relax you? Aren't they more or less opposites? And how does a drug that relaxes also improve reaction time? Doesn't this seem contradictory to you? And if nicotine reduces anxiety and stress, then why aren't smokers less anxious and less stressed than non-smokers? In fact, recent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates the opposite - that smokers are substantially more prone to depression, anxiety, high blood pressure and panic disorders than non-smokers. And if smoking aids concentration, then why aren't smokers smarter than non-smokers?
It gets worse. Ms. Brody goes on to explain "When deprived, smokers report withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, depression, restlessness, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, increased hunger, insomnia, a craving for tobacco, difficulty getting along with others and a feeling that life lacks pleasure."
Like most addicts, including myself when I was a smoker, Mr. Teirney appears to accept that the removal of these 'withdrawal symptoms' is a good reason to continue to consume nicotine. But we don't see the obvious: that non-smokers do not feel irritable, depressed, restless, anxious, distracted, hungry, sleepless, anti-social or dysphoric because they can't smoke. In fact, it is smokers, not non-smokers who suffer from these symptoms. So instead of giving nicotine the credit for alleviating these symptoms, perhaps we should be blaming the previous dose for creating them.
Mr. Teirney poses the question: 'Do do we really want someone in the White House going through nicotine withdrawal?' The answer, I think, is no. Mr. Teirney concludes that Sen. Obama should therefore continue to chew the gum if voted into office. However this would merely guarantee that he would continue to experience withdrawal indefinitely. People who do not smoke or chew nicotine gum do not go through nicotine withdrawal. Those who do, do. On that basis, Sen. Obama should stop chewing the gum.
Mr. Teirney's piece is a classic case of really smart people falling for illusions due to the subtlety of the drug nicotine: Smokers spend most of their time in very mild withdrawal and over time they begin to perceive this as their 'normal' state; smoking temporarily removes this feeling. In this way smokers begin to get tricked into seeing the removal of withdrawal symptoms as genuine pleasure or relief.
If a smoker sleeps for six hours at night, when they wake up they're 97% nicotine-free! Even very heavy smokers do this as a matter of routine. You are 100% nicotine-free and technically no longer an addict after just 3 days.
These 'withdrawal symptoms' - depression, anxiety, over-eating etc. are actually nothing to do with nicotine withdrawal. For a start many of them come weeks or even months after all the nicotine has left your body. They can't be anything to do with nicotine.
They are the symptoms of mental conflict experienced by people who are trying to stop using nicotine but still believe that it provided some benefit, pleasure or crutch. They want to quit, but they still want nicotine and this conflict can create all manner of symptoms. Allen Carr's Easyway removes this conflict: remove the conflict, remove the symptoms.
Here are my concerns.
Firstly, Sen. Obama is described as using nicotine gum 'successfully', but then we are told that he is still ocasionally smoking. I struggle to characterize this as success because (i) he is still addicted to nicotine and (ii) he is still smoking. What is successful about this?
Secondly, Mr. Teirney speculates 'What if the nicotine gum strategy is so successful that Mr. Obama is capable of weaning himself from nicotine altogether? If he reaches the White House, should he give up the chemical that he relied on during his career and his campaign?'
The most obvious problem with this is that Mr. Teirney implicitly assumes that at least part of Sen. Obama's success came because he is addicted to nicotine. But where is the evidence to support this claim? Perhaps Sen. Obama's success is nothing to do with nicotine. Perhaps he is successful because he's smart, hard-working and dedicated. In fact, with the stigma associated with smoking so profound these days, we might even argue that he is successful despite being addicted to nicotine, not because of it.
In support of this theory that weaning himself off nicotine might be a bad thing for Sen. Obama and for America, Mr. Teirney (also a nicotine gum chewer) quotes his colleague Jane Brody, 'Among the...effects of nicotine are arousal, relaxation, improved mood, reduced anxiety and stress, better concentration and faster reaction time.'
It reads like an ad for nicotine gum. Who wouldn't want these things?
But let's think about this for a moment: how can a drug that creates arousal also relax you? Aren't they more or less opposites? And how does a drug that relaxes also improve reaction time? Doesn't this seem contradictory to you? And if nicotine reduces anxiety and stress, then why aren't smokers less anxious and less stressed than non-smokers? In fact, recent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates the opposite - that smokers are substantially more prone to depression, anxiety, high blood pressure and panic disorders than non-smokers. And if smoking aids concentration, then why aren't smokers smarter than non-smokers?
It gets worse. Ms. Brody goes on to explain "When deprived, smokers report withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, depression, restlessness, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, increased hunger, insomnia, a craving for tobacco, difficulty getting along with others and a feeling that life lacks pleasure."
Like most addicts, including myself when I was a smoker, Mr. Teirney appears to accept that the removal of these 'withdrawal symptoms' is a good reason to continue to consume nicotine. But we don't see the obvious: that non-smokers do not feel irritable, depressed, restless, anxious, distracted, hungry, sleepless, anti-social or dysphoric because they can't smoke. In fact, it is smokers, not non-smokers who suffer from these symptoms. So instead of giving nicotine the credit for alleviating these symptoms, perhaps we should be blaming the previous dose for creating them.
Mr. Teirney poses the question: 'Do do we really want someone in the White House going through nicotine withdrawal?' The answer, I think, is no. Mr. Teirney concludes that Sen. Obama should therefore continue to chew the gum if voted into office. However this would merely guarantee that he would continue to experience withdrawal indefinitely. People who do not smoke or chew nicotine gum do not go through nicotine withdrawal. Those who do, do. On that basis, Sen. Obama should stop chewing the gum.
Mr. Teirney's piece is a classic case of really smart people falling for illusions due to the subtlety of the drug nicotine: Smokers spend most of their time in very mild withdrawal and over time they begin to perceive this as their 'normal' state; smoking temporarily removes this feeling. In this way smokers begin to get tricked into seeing the removal of withdrawal symptoms as genuine pleasure or relief.
If a smoker sleeps for six hours at night, when they wake up they're 97% nicotine-free! Even very heavy smokers do this as a matter of routine. You are 100% nicotine-free and technically no longer an addict after just 3 days.
These 'withdrawal symptoms' - depression, anxiety, over-eating etc. are actually nothing to do with nicotine withdrawal. For a start many of them come weeks or even months after all the nicotine has left your body. They can't be anything to do with nicotine.
They are the symptoms of mental conflict experienced by people who are trying to stop using nicotine but still believe that it provided some benefit, pleasure or crutch. They want to quit, but they still want nicotine and this conflict can create all manner of symptoms. Allen Carr's Easyway removes this conflict: remove the conflict, remove the symptoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
