Skimmed through that PDF and as far as I can tell, it's a jedi mind trick. Once you see through what he's trying to do, it simply won't work.
Here's the important part:
The author ignores (either on purpose or through ignorance) the very real physiological effect of Nicotine. In fact, it's what the whole thing hinges on. Cigarettes don't do anything for you, any positive effect you experience is simply the alleviation of the withdrawal. Sounds nice, shame it's simply not true.
Now, I don't mean to say that the cost/benefit ratio of nicotine is very favorable, in fact, when using cigarettes, it's pretty unfavorable, but there ARE benefits to consuming nicotine. It IS a stimulant, much like caffeine, and while a person can live perfectly fine without coffee, many people use it to focus and combat fatigue.
He also states:
I believe a great number of people here know full well how wrong this is.
Finally:
I don't care about the addiction, I care about the health problems it creates. And so should everybody else. If one can take a drug all their life and suffer little or no ill effects from it, why shouldn't they?
To be brutally honest, I think that Mr Carr would, overall, have contributed far more to the health of his readers if he'd recommended smokeless tobacco or, more recently, electronic cigarettes. Sure, his overblown motivational speech probably did help quite a few people, but the success of snus in Sweden and of e-cigs as evidenced on this forum seems to me to exceed the one his book has generated.
Peace.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I find the author's tone to be VERY condescending.
I must humbly disagree with one of your arguments, at least partially. I haven't read the pdf, so maybe I missing some of the context, but the statement:
"The fact is the cigarette gives nothing; it only takes away and then partially restores to create the illusion."
is actually quite true, in a sense. I have a pretty extensive knowledge when it comes to addictive substances and their effects on the mind. I can't say I have studied the effects of nicotine nearly as much as other addictive drugs, but if they act in a similar manner then Carr may deserve more credit then you are giving him.
The one word explanation for this argument is: "Tolerance". Simply put, any drug that is administered repeatedly (or habitually) will eventually lose it's effects, unless the dose is continually raised to combat tolerance.
For an example: I have smoked roughly a pack of cigarettes a day for 8 years. I have been a smoker for 10 years. It is obviously I didn't start out smoking a pack a day. If I had, I would've most like been puking my guts up and turning yellow. This is because my body had no tolerance to nicotine (or any of the other addictive drugs in tobacco). The longer I smoked the more my tolerance went up. I required more nicotine for the (*same) desired effects. After finding my 'limit' of a pack a day, my body began to "stabilize". The neurotransmitters effected by nicotine began to change. More specifically the receptor sites located on the neurons changed. They became "less sensitive" to nicotine. Meaning, even though I was administering the same amount of nicotine in a day, my brain wasn't reacting the same way it had in the beginning. The problem with this is, not only did the receptor sites become less sensitive to nicotine, they also became less sensitive to the natural endorphins produced by my own body (which normally would attach to these receptor sites causing the release of chemicals in the synapse). Once I accumulated a high tolerance and not administering nicotine, my body was actually "deprived" of natural chemicals (this is actually not entirely true. The chemicals were/are readily available and still being produced, but they were not able to "trigger" the receptor sites in the same fashion they once could)
In fact, after an extended period (years) of continued smoking, the only effects I felt was the "lack of nicotine". This is because once a drug is administered long enough, the human brain will continue to adjust (build tolerance) until the taking the drug only causes normal (or near normal) neural activity. So, in essence, smoking a cigarette and getting nicotine (after several years of doing so) is only producing effects which were once naturally obtainable.
This is the reason we find cigarettes so enjoyable. They are, in fact filling the depreciated receptor sites. So when we smoke, or administer nicotine, we are having a relief from withdrawal. I think that is the most enjoyable aspect of the cigarette. In this sense, it is an "illusion" as Carr stated.
I should mention, though. Nicotine has a half life somewhere in the range of 60-120min. It's short acting compared to many other addictive substances. This is why we are smoking so many cigarettes in a day. But with a short acting drug like this, we most likely don't often have a steady concentration of nicotine in our systems (I am guessing this, I don't know). Because of this, when we smoke, we get a larger dose than what was needed to fill the "depravation", and that initial dose dose give us that "high". Of course it's not what it used to be. We would have to sniff some snuff, suck some snus, and smoke a cig all at once to achieve those effects. But still, the nicotine is having an effect, the effect just isn't lasting as long, and isn't nearly as drastic or noticeable as it once was. I believe it is safe to say, the thing we are noticing most, and getting the most pleasure out of is the temporary relief from withdrawal.
He also states:
I believe a great number of people here know full well how wrong this is.
Finally:
I don't care about the addiction, I care about the health problems it creates. And so should everybody else. If one can take a drug all their life and suffer little or no ill effects from it, why shouldn't they?
To be brutally honest, I think that Mr Carr would, overall, have contributed far more to the health of his readers if he'd recommended smokeless tobacco or, more recently, electronic cigarettes. Sure, his overblown motivational speech probably did help quite a few people, but the success of snus in Sweden and of e-cigs as evidenced on this forum seems to me to exceed the one his book has generated.
Peace.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I find the author's tone to be VERY condescending.
I agree with you there.
note: of course, I am not a doctor. i have read many books on neuroscience, and studied addiction intensively for years now. i have *not* studied the specific effects of nicotine (except for internet research); i am applying the concepts of other drugs to nicotine, as i believe they all create and sustain tolerance in the same manner.
PS happy vaping