Easyway to quit smoking Allen Carr

[TWalker]

I found Allen Carrs Easyway to quit smoking really made it easy/er. I am back on the nicotine now with vaping and a little smoking but...I had success for months at a time using this method.

It truly is a good tool for those intent on smoking.

500+ reviews at 5 stars .Amazon.com: The Easy Way to Stop Smoking: Join the Millions Who Have Become Non-Smokers Using Allen Carr's Easyway Method (0749725586160): Allen Carr: Books

It made it easy to quit but I just don't stay quit on nicotine. I have had 4+ years success with alcohol.

 

[martha1014]

Without buying the book can you explain exactly how this works.

 

[catlvr]

I bought Allen Carr's book at the end of January 08. Quit smoking for the first time in 30 years Feb 2nd 08 thanks to Mr. Carr's book. I couldn't believe it! It worked, was easy and I didn't have any cravings for over a year. Fast foward to end of March 09. All it took was a couple of back to back major stress situations and a couple of bummed cigarettes and I was back smoking. Thank goodness for e-cigs or I don't think I could have quit again. The book didn't work a second time for me. I would recommend this book to anyone that really wants to quit. martha1014 I think he uses reverse psychology. You smoke while you read it and by the time your done with the book your done with cigs. The problem is that if you start smoking again, and he warns about, it will be harder to quit the next time. RIP Mr. Carr.

 

[TWalker]

He uses a smokers psychology, not sure it is reverse psychology, but he simply discovered and explained why we smoke and that there are no true benefits.

Very brilliant book which made it easy for me to quit 3 times in years without too much trouble. Like I said I just had trouble staying quit not quitting with his method. I have an addictive type personality and therefore a short memory on what I had read I guess.

I introduced a 48 year smoker who couldn't quit to the book and he put em down and hasn't smoked in near 2 years.

Martha I have some audio and maybe a pdf of the book if you want it.

 

[inicapem]

Found it an interesting read, but didn't work for me.

 

[sbphotog]

I read it....didn't work for me either. Just not the cold turkey kind of person................

 

[geeker]

Martha I have some audio and maybe a pdf of the book if you want it.

How can I procure this pdf? Thanks

 

[HighHeeledGoddess]

I have a copy of this book in pdf. I tried attaching it to this message; we'll see if I did that correctly. It didn't make me quit, but it did help me stay off when I first started vaping. I need to read it again.

 

[dleerl]

Thanks for posting that link. I'm going to read it and see if it works for me. I've been trying vaping and I'm still smoking while vaping. I though I'd DIY because it would be cheaper that way. At the beginning I went out and bought a bunch of supplies and when I saw I was still smoking decided to put them up for sale. Then someone spoke to me and I decided to keep trying and kept them and used them. Then I went bought more supplies. Now I'm overloaded. Then started thinking about getting different equipment. This certainly isn't going to turn out to be a less expensive alternative and I'm still going to be addicted and who knows if I'm ever going to get off cigarettes. I just need to stop this whole nightmare. Will let you know if it works.

__________________________________________________________________________

Believe more deeply. Hold your face up to the light, even though for the moment you do not see.
--Bill Wilson

 

[Mordred]

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 fact is the cigarette gives nothing; it only takes away and then partially restores to create the illusion.

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:

In particular avoid any product that contains nicotine, whether it be gum, patch, nasal spray or the latest gimmick, the inhalator which is similar to a plastic cigarette. It is true that a small proportion of smokers who attempt to quit using nicotine substitutes do succeed and attribute their success to such use. However they quit in spite of their use and not because of it.

I believe a great number of people here know full well how wrong this is.

Finally:

Just think, how can you possibly cure an addict of addiction to a drug by recommending the same drug?

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.

 

[smellrose]

I read this book last year when I was planning on quitting. It didn't really do the trick for me, but it did take alot of the panic and fear out of it. Basically, it puts you in the right mind set. It has worked for countless others, which I think is great. It's worth a read!

 

[BubbleBobble]

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

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

BubbleBobble, I have to humbly disagree, at least in part, with you. I've also given much study to the subject of addiction over the last 25 years just trying to figure out what makes me tick. By and large I agree with your comments, but it's only part of the whole picture. Some are born with imbalances and others have been subject to trauma of the body's regulation due to drugs administered by doctors. Then there's also the folks who, through years of smoking, have permanently altered their body's ability to regulate normal dopamine production. Some people simply have no choice but to use the maoi effects of tobacco products or antidepressant drugs to live normal lives. I agree with Mordred that Allen Carr was wrong in his stance. As bad as a burning cigarette is, some may have to make a choice beween quantity and quality of life. That's what Mordred was pointing out and also that smokeless tobacco is a much healthier alternative. No matter what someones stance on smoking is, for depressive types, something absolutely has to make up the slack where the body can't.

 

[BubbleBobble]

Twisted Victor, you are absolutely correct. I really hope no one is using cigarettes to treat imbalances with which they were born. We have many drugs nowadays which can treat many disorders. I would hope most of them are a healthier choice than cigarettes.

If someone has created an imbalance through the prolonged use of cigarettes, well then that is the case in point. And I believe that is what Carr was referring to; fixing that imbalance with a cigarette. Instead of getting "high" (as we perceive it), it would be more appropriately labeled getting "normal".

I understand that certain people did such a disservice to their brains that they are unable to stop smoking cigarettes without very serious complications, but are there not drugs that could help that problem besides the harmful chemicals in cigarettes? I'm under the impression that there are MAOI inhibitors which could be used to treat those who react severely to the absence of cigarettes.

But all that seems out of context. I was not arguing any stance relating to MAOI's. Mordred specifically mentioned nicotine which was my topic of discussion. I agreed with everything else Mordred said. I agree that Carr's overall stance is incorrect and his attitude is "off" (in my opinion), but concerning the one sentence Mordred picked out (I haven't read the book), I disagree with his regarding comments.

I do see your point though and completely agree with what you have said.

But even if we were to bring the other elements into the discussion, does it not fall under this umbrella sentence:

"The fact is the cigarette gives nothing; it only takes away and then partially restores to create the illusion."

If you were not born with a disorder, but acquired it through years of smoking, then the cigarettes aren't necessarily "giving" you anything. The cigarettes took away something (your brains ability to produce/use certain chemicals) and is partially restoring it (by inhaling the chemicals, you brain is then induced to produce/use more specific chemicals).

You could say, after the damage has been done, the cigarettes are giving you something, because you are then lacking something vital. I agree. But, the cigarettes took away these vital chemicals *first*, and then they are "restoring" them.

Interesting discussion. I just recently learned how cigarettes relate to MAOI's. I am no expert in that regard. I did feel the effects first hand when switching to my Personal Vaporizer. I was deeply depressed for a week. Although I'm nowhere near "completely better" now, I am beginning to feel a "lift", which is good. Scary stuff!

I <3 Vapor

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

If you were not born with a disorder, but acquired it through years of smoking, then the cigarettes aren't necessarily "giving" you anything. The cigarettes took away something (your brains ability to produce/use certain chemicals) and is partially restoring it (by inhaling the chemicals, you brain is then induced to produce/use more specific chemicals).

You could say, after the damage has been done, the cigarettes are giving you something, because you are then lacking something vital. I agree. But, the cigarettes took away these vital chemicals *first*, and then they are "restoring" them.



I <3 Vapor

BubbleBobble, I agree. I think you and I are on the same page. My concern has been the blanket statement approach that ultimately gives the impression that those who can't successfully quit smoking just aren't getting with the program. It seems to come from everywhere, from the anti-smoking fanatics to PV fanatics on this forum. Mordred did refer to nicotine, but having read several other posts from him, I understood him as referring to the maoi's in tobacco......my bad for not clarifying on that, I should have. As to the reasons for the need for the maoi effects of tobacco, well, I guess the bottom line is it ultimately doesn't matter. Some who use PV's will have success as their bodies slowly restart their natural process of dopamine and serotonin release and uptake, but others won't be as fortunate and end up riddled with anxiety and depression. Those individuals don't need to return to smoking, but they do need to supplement what their bodies can't do alone. Antidepressant use has been on the rise as more folks give up smokes, some turn to smokeless tobacco use in the form of Swedish snus. Both are legitimate and choices are personal preference. My beef with Allen Carr's book is that he forgot about some of us as it takes a all-inclusive standpoint. I think you understand, but many don't and I felt it necessary to post comments for those who may eventually have the thought "I must be the only one not getting it" or "why am I different" and return to smoking with a sense of loss. As I said, we do seem to be on the same page .

 

[BubbleBobble]

Thanks for that post Victor, we are indeed on the exact same page. It's just a shame that there isn't more awareness on the long-term effects of cigarettes. Like I said earlier, I didn't know the relation between MAOI's & cigarettes, until I gave smoking up, and had some horrid side-effects.

I skipped around Carr's book and read some random pages. It does seem from his stance/tone, that ANYONE can give up cigarettes without a hitch, which just isn't so. I'm sure this book would be great for a lot of people. But it isn't going to help those that have server lasting depression after quitting.

You're right Victor, it's a scary thought. That some people might read material like Carrs, try and quit, get overly depressed, and then think they are the only ones. . .

I'm so happy for this forum. It has taught me so much. Why is it that I seem to find the most interesting, wise, intelligent, friendly people on good forums? I love the internet.

Happy vaping to you my friend.

 

[dleerl]

I didn't have much luck with vaping and I kept smoking so I sold off my equipment and supplies. I read the book almost all the way through and set this week for my quit date because I knew I would have Monday off and wouldn't work again until Fridya. I finished the book on Sunday night. I have been a nonsmoker for two days after having smoked for 50 years and trying to quit I don't know how many times. I used patches, gum, Zyban and Chantix and went through torture.

I believe what he says. I know a lot about addiction. The book has helped to clarify some things for me and I am glad I read it. I also believe in the power of God. I am not finding it difficult to not smoke. I'm tired and I didn't sleep that well, but I'm not craving cigarettes. I've only had a couple twinges in two days. Never before has it gone this way. I feel free already.

I said I would make a comment when I started this program, so I have. Maybe I wll in a few more weeks.

 

[Vocalek]

Twisted Victor, you are absolutely correct. I really hope no one is using cigarettes to treat imbalances with which they were born. We have many drugs nowadays which can treat many disorders. I would hope most of them are a healthier choice than cigarettes.

Two points:

1. I am among those who self-medicates with nicotine. The most common disorders for which nicotine is an effective treatment include depression, anxiety, and memory problems / attention deficits. Any of the prescription drugs used to treat these disorders has side-effect profiles that are much more serious than the side-effect profile of straight nicotine.

Look up the side effects of antidepressant medications. Then consider that 2 out of 3 people taking an antidepressant still experiences symptoms. The drug Effexor is advertised to take up this slack. Read its side effects. Look up the side effects of the prescriptions used to treat attention deficit disorder. The least dangerous of these is Straterra, but still it may cause sudden death, heart attacks, strokes, and such frightening effects as hallucinations.

Many of us are self-medicating a combination of these problems. Polypharmacy can exacerbate the very symptoms it was meant to treat.

To compare these drugs to nicotine, look up the side effects of the Nicotrol inhalor.

2. Alan Carr is wrong. Nicotine demonstrates beneficial effects on the performance of animals and on humans who are never-smokers. So much for the "nicotine only relieves withdrawal symptoms" theory.

Since I have an 88-year old mother diagnosed with Lewy Body Dementia, I was very interested to read that nicotine prevents the build-up of Lewy Bodies in the brain. I am watching her busily unlearning everything she ever knew and experiencing a corresponding reduction in her physical mobility due to the Parkinson's effects. The poor woman can't even put on her own shoes, needs to use a walker, and falls down a lot.

 

[BubbleBobble]

Very sorry to hear about your mother Vocalek. I had a grandfather who developed server parkinsons disease, and past away with the horrid effects.

The major problem with nicotine and most every other drug is Tolerance. After prolonged use, it won't have the same effects as it once did, unless the user continually increases the dosage.

 

[Vocalek]

I'll have to see if I can locate my copy of Smoking, The Artificial Passion. I recall reading that nicotine differs from other addictive drugs in that there seems to be a limit to tolerance. On average, smokers used to top out at about a pack a day -- that is until "light" cigarettes hit the scene. Just did a quick Google search and stumbled on this interesting article, which claims that nicotine is not very addictive. ARUreport09

Here is another, dealing with human subjects:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/296/3/849.full

Our main finding is that nicotine tolerance is not directly associated with tobacco dependence and, thus, processes responsible for each must involve differing actions of nicotine. The degree to which these results generalize to tolerance versus dependence on other drugs of abuse is unclear but warrants examination.