The late, great Irish comedian Dave Allen did this terrific routine about smoking and quitting back in 1984 - the year after Allen Carr founded the Easyway organisation. If you have a few minutes, enjoy one of the all-time greats...
Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 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.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Stop press!!!!! Nicotine is a DRUG!
Yesterday the House of Representatives at long last passed a bill giving the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), for years a thorn in the tobacco industry's side, sponsored the bill, which will further restrict tobacco advertising and will ban flavored cigarettes which are designed to appeal to young people.
The bill is almost certain to be vetoed by a tobacco industry friendly White House. President Bush's ties to the tobacco industry are strong and deep. Karl Rove, until last year Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and political Svengali, was formally on Philip Morris's payroll from 1991-1996 as a political intelligence operative. Another of Bush's close friends and advisors, Haley Barbour, who was Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993-1997 and is considered by many to be a potential Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, has strong tobacco ties. In 2001 his lobbying company Barbour, Griffith & Rogers was named by Fortune as the most powerful in the nation and it has made millions in fees from lobbying on behalf of tobacco companies.
Back in September 1999 Martin Feldman, a tobacco industry analyst with Salomon Smith Barney said "The prospect of Bill Clinton gone and a George Bush presidency makes the industry almost giddy." And President Bush has not disappointed. He has resisted federal tax hikes on tobacco products, he has advocated tort reform which heavily favours the makers of dangerous products such as cigarettes, he has refused to ratify the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - the worldwide agreement to prevent children from starting to smoke and restricting tobacco companies advertising and promotional activity designed to recruit new, young smokers.
In outlining White House opposition to the FDA taking authority over tobacco, Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt suggests that the FDA has no expertise in the field.
It's funny - I'd have thought that an organzation that was "responsible for protecting public health by assuring the saftey, efficacy and security of human drugs..." and has been doing so effectively since 1862 was EXACTLY what we needed here. If they don't have expertise in the field, who does?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), for years a thorn in the tobacco industry's side, sponsored the bill, which will further restrict tobacco advertising and will ban flavored cigarettes which are designed to appeal to young people.
The bill is almost certain to be vetoed by a tobacco industry friendly White House. President Bush's ties to the tobacco industry are strong and deep. Karl Rove, until last year Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and political Svengali, was formally on Philip Morris's payroll from 1991-1996 as a political intelligence operative. Another of Bush's close friends and advisors, Haley Barbour, who was Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993-1997 and is considered by many to be a potential Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008, has strong tobacco ties. In 2001 his lobbying company Barbour, Griffith & Rogers was named by Fortune as the most powerful in the nation and it has made millions in fees from lobbying on behalf of tobacco companies.
Back in September 1999 Martin Feldman, a tobacco industry analyst with Salomon Smith Barney said "The prospect of Bill Clinton gone and a George Bush presidency makes the industry almost giddy." And President Bush has not disappointed. He has resisted federal tax hikes on tobacco products, he has advocated tort reform which heavily favours the makers of dangerous products such as cigarettes, he has refused to ratify the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - the worldwide agreement to prevent children from starting to smoke and restricting tobacco companies advertising and promotional activity designed to recruit new, young smokers.
In outlining White House opposition to the FDA taking authority over tobacco, Health & Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt suggests that the FDA has no expertise in the field.
It's funny - I'd have thought that an organzation that was "responsible for protecting public health by assuring the saftey, efficacy and security of human drugs..." and has been doing so effectively since 1862 was EXACTLY what we needed here. If they don't have expertise in the field, who does?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
