I was kicked out of Tobacco Summit for mentioning Harm Reduction!

[Crumpet]

True story, and any support is appreciated.

I thought y'all might want to know that as part of my new job I had participated in a tobacco Cessation Summit which was supposed to be a three part series. After the first one we were asked to return to the second with 'ideas' on how we could decrease smoking rates in our state. That is when I enthusiastically began doing research and learned a lot about Harm Reduction as well as studies demonstrating the effectiveness of nicotine on improving memory for dementia patients and brain functioning for people w/Parkinson's and Schizophrenia. I made sure to only use info from reputable sources and universities. At the Summit I expressed concern about the demonization of nicotine in the absence of smoked tobacco since we are learning about many of its benefits to certain populations. I noted nicotine is not the cause of most smoking related illnesses and that it occurs naturally in many vegetables we consume regularly. The guest facilitator was interested in this information but I was quickly shut down by the main head of the summit, a woman who told everyone that they had 'concerns' about those HR theories. I had also mentioned to my group that a lot of folks are using e-cigs. At no time did I say we should encourage the use of them. A few people gave me their cards and asked me to forward them my information.

Fast forward to this past Friday: at the time of my review my boss told me that this woman had sent her a letter specifically requesting I not return. She stated that I had said "it's not the nicotine"(didn't finish my full statement) and that I promoted electronic cigarettes despite the group's efforts to change the subject. My boss said several others also took offense. I have posted on ECF previously about my experience and instinctively knew I had ruffled some feathers (not hard to do with these folks) even though I insist I was very diplomatic and did NOT ever say that HR was the stance we should take, only that I had read a lot about it and mentioned it since we had been asked to come back with new ideas. Political lesson: the Federal government does not permit the use of the term Harm Reduction in any of its 'programs'. Pfizer had a rep at the Summit and no doubt pharma companies are big supporters. My boss challenged my knowledge when compared to these 'experts' since I haven't been 'published' and implied I had just googled a bunch of stuff on the internet. Who am I to think I know anything, right? HR was referred to as a 'fringe' element. I told her that the sources I used were from professionals who certainly had been published and that they were from establiished medical schools and communities, Boston University's School of Public Health being one of them.

I hate that this has reflected poorly on me in the professional sense. However, I'm really starting to process how threatening what I said must have really been. When I think of it I feel proud and hope that at least one other person decided to look further into it on their own. I'd really like to hear what you all have to say. I had not mentioned that people should try an HR approach, only that I had learned about it.

A few ideas have come to mind:
We should consider letting other consumer advocates working with patients who have Alzheimers, Parkinson's, and other disorders know that the anti-smoking lobby is actively opposing the use of a substance that may be helpful to their constituents. I wonder if they have any idea. I want to see as many people as possible be helped by learning about new treatments.
I'm really tempted to start a move to try to make cigarettes illegal. I'm serious. If they and anything that is associated with them is as dangerous (OMG! You can have a heart attack from one whiff of second hand smoke and it will mutate your genes and give you three headed babies!) as they say they must remove them from public consumption even if it means giving up all the tax revenue they bring it. I mean, what is more important, money or the health of the public?

This whole thing is sad on so many levels. If an organization just wants to say that they have a narrow agenda and only wants to do certain things, fine. Just say that and don't say that you want people to get new ideas and present them. They are also all about third hand smoke now. I really had no idea that HR was so taboo and if I had I would not have chosen this venue to mention these ideas when I was going there in a professional capacity. Even sadder is that this group claims to be favoring public health but is unwilling to consider any new strategies even though the smoking rates have ceased to decline and in fact may actually be rising a little bit. Common sense tells me that if what you've been doing isn't working, look at the problem differently. What happened here just shows me firsthand what we have all been saying: health isn't even on the agenda anymore.

 

[BiffRocko]

My wife is studying to get her PhD in psychology and plans to specialize in addiction treatment. She is very big on harm reduction methods (eg. Practical Recovery) and gets a lot of flack from certain circles, usually 12 step advocates. Harm reduction is fringe as it's only recently made any sort of significant headway against the past century of 12 step domination in the addiction treatment field.

In my mind, it's obviously superior to an all or nothing approach. Addiction is rarely ever the actual problem a person is facing. It's most often a coping mechanism for underlying presenting issues. Reducing harm while working on the underlying issues often occurs slowly. Some individuals are far better off reducing harm during that time.

Hang in there. In my opinion, you're on the right track and time will prove harm reduction to be the norm for addiction treatment as opposed to its current fringe status.

I can't agree with making smoking illegal though. It's none of the government's or my business what a person chooses to put into their body.

 

[toriL]

No, sadly my health is not the concern of the ALA, AHA, FDA, or my government. It's about the money flow I think.

 

[RippleInStillWater]

Yeah, its about profit and/or scapegoatting!!!

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you for standing up for your beliefs in the face of unwarranted criticism.

 

[mwa102464]

Money is the deciding factor of all of this I truly believe and between the big deep pockets of Big tobacco & Big Pharma they are making a total killing on all of this so they do these studies to justify what they market and sell. I really feel the same needs to be done in the vaping community and to have group meets doing our own studies but backed by a university or big well known educational source of course so they have serious meaning and respect the findings. This is the only way I think we can lobby ecigs is to do on to them as they do on to us and show them our findings in these group studies and post them same as they do, one of the hardest parts will be finding universities or prime scientific companies to back and support the findings and join in together to help out.

Heck Big Pharma does all these studies and then uses them to get there drugs approved and then they find out after billions of dollars in sales are recorded there is other side effects then what they found in there studies, how hokey pokey is that, and it happens all the time yet the FDA believes there findings and approves there drugs. the ECIG community needs to fight fire with vapor and do the same thing, have these study groups about ecigs more and register the findings of the study and get it out there to the public what these finding are, studies of vapor vs real cigarettes as well as studies of vapor being used as a smoking cessation vs Big Pharma drugs for cessation, this would be great if these where to be done and published more. I also think it would be simple to get people who vape to participate in these group studies, finding the right universities and companies to back these studies is the hard part. These are just some of my thoughts on this topic !

 

[Crumpet]

My wife is studying to get her PhD in psychology and plans to specialize in addiction treatment. She is very big on harm reduction methods (eg. Practical Recovery) and gets a lot of flack from certain circles, usually 12 step advocates. Harm reduction is fringe as it's only recently made any sort of significant headway against the past century of 12 step domination in the addiction treatment field.

In my mind, it's obviously superior to an all or nothing approach. Addiction is rarely ever the actual problem a person is facing. It's most often a coping mechanism for underlying presenting issues. Reducing harm while working on the underlying issues often occurs slowly. Some individuals are far better off reducing harm during that time.

Hang in there. In my opinion, you're on the right track and time will prove harm reduction to be the norm for addiction treatment as opposed to its current fringe status.

I can't agree with making smoking illegal though. It's none of the government's or my business what a person chooses to put into their body.[/QUOTE]

That part was intended to call their bluff since we know that all of a sudden they'de be all about people having the 'right' to buy cigarettes. seriously, I don't want any cigs and don't like smoking them, but people should be able to do it despite the health problems if they are making an informed decision. I was just calling the government out as far as always saying how awful it is, upholding companies' rights not to hire smokers, etc. all while making a fortune off the sales.

 

[bassthumper]

My wife is studying to get her PhD in psychology and plans to specialize in addiction treatment. She is very big on harm reduction methods (eg. Practical Recovery) and gets a lot of flack from certain circles, usually 12 step advocates. Harm reduction is fringe as it's only recently made any sort of significant headway against the past century of 12 step domination in the addiction treatment field.

In my mind, it's obviously superior to an all or nothing approach. Addiction is rarely ever the actual problem a person is facing. It's most often a coping mechanism for underlying presenting issues. Reducing harm while working on the underlying issues often occurs slowly. Some individuals are far better off reducing harm during that time.

Hang in there. In my opinion, you're on the right track and time will prove harm reduction to be the norm for addiction treatment as opposed to its current fringe status.

I can't agree with making smoking illegal though. It's none of the government's or my business what a person chooses to put into their body.[/QUOTE]
That part was intended to call their bluff since we know that all of a sudden they'de be all about people having the 'right' to buy cigarettes. seriously, I don't want any cigs and don't like smoking them, but people should be able to do it despite the health problems if they are making an informed decision. I was just calling the government out as far as always saying how awful it is, upholding companies' rights not to hire smokers, etc. all while making a fortune off the sales.

LOL!
Did you say your wife is in addiction treatment? I'm familiar with the subject and I'm curious-- do you both share that opinion? heh heh

 

[ImJustAvg]

So far I have found some information on the benefits (harm reduction) of ecigarettes but I know there is a lot more information (from reputable sources) out there! With all the videos and statements from politicians that they don't know anything about ecigarettes, wouldn't it be a good idea to compile a report of all reputable sources and send that to every US and state representative so that they can at least have some knowledge for them to base their votes on? Or does everyone want the chemical companies to be able to say their products are the only safe alternative to smoking?

 

[AlbertaClipper]

I can imagine your shock and disappointment at how things developed. One would hope that such an educated crowd would mean open minds too!

I've only just begun vaping, and I see it as a fantastic alternative to smoking. When I see that it's threatened by the biggest bullies around (and for no good reason), it's enough to get me seeing red!!! I find it rather interesting that nicotine can actually improve some peoples' health, and believe that frank, open discussion is urgently needed. Agreement may not be reached, but discussion is a must. I thought that's what the Scientific Process was all about!

I've been spending more time than is healthy trying to learn what I can about how I can aid in fighting those forces (in Canada, primarily).

Anyway, all I wanted to say is that even though the conference didn't go as you hoped it would, I think you can bet that you've created some ripples that will no doubt become WAVES. All the best to you! (BTW do you have an organized compilation of the studies you referenced? Thx)

 

[rothenbj]

Crump, you have come face to face with the devil here, as sad as it is. We as former smokers and, for the most part, those continuing to smoke have ignored what was going on in the world. We just wanted to live our lives and be left alone. We basically didn't worry about the health risks, we left them build a mountain of questionable studies on the dangers of second hand smoke thus leading to escalating public bans and we stood by as they increased taxes continually thus feeding the monster.

Yet they continue to show only moderate success over nearly a half century, but success is in the battle. As long as the money keeps flowing in due to their effort. They have a long range plan, current end point somewhere around 3211 AD unless something seriously changes the momentum they've established.

The best exposure to the farce would be a referendum to remove cigarettes from the market, as you said, immediately, I wouldn't suggest you bring that subject up to these zealots after your initial effort. They might call for your resignation. Do you have any idea what catastrophe would be created if they ever got what they claim there goal was? At least if it happened overnight.

Let me give you a microcosm of such a scenario which I found and posted on here at some point in the past- Nouth Dakota, 2003, I think. Let me see if I can find the story.

Hopefully this will work at some point, but the link to the article says "temporarily off line". I wish I had copied the entire article because it is fascinating NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House

Since it isn't working right now, you can read this thread where I talked about it in post 2.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ks-valley-advocate-western-massachusetts.html

 

[Tiari]

If you want to see the BS laiden crap, just look what happens to people who advocate vitamin therapy for cancer. Yup, the dastardly vitamin C. Megadoses cause NO adverse effects in the body, and have been shown time and time again to actually CURE cancer.......... yet, is anyone using this? Bring up vitamin therapy to your doctor, watch the reaction.

The more I learn, the more I know the doctors and people in charge of our health are full of horse hockey

 

[alisab]

My wife is studying to get her PhD in psychology and plans to specialize in addiction treatment. She is very big on harm reduction methods (eg. Practical Recovery) and gets a lot of flack from certain circles, usually 12 step advocates. Harm reduction is fringe as it's only recently made any sort of significant headway against the past century of 12 step domination in the addiction treatment field.

In my mind, it's obviously superior to an all or nothing approach. Addiction is rarely ever the actual problem a person is facing. It's most often a coping mechanism for underlying presenting issues. Reducing harm while working on the underlying issues often occurs slowly. Some individuals are far better off reducing harm during that time.

Hang in there. In my opinion, you're on the right track and time will prove harm reduction to be the norm for addiction treatment as opposed to its current fringe status.

I can't agree with making smoking illegal though. It's none of the government's or my business what a person chooses to put into their body.

Your comment has been pulled out a number of times and not to belabor a point I still feel a need to reply. I guess I'd like to say - there is addiction and then there is addiction. You see, I got sober in the old school 12 step programs - this coming March I will have been clean for 35 year from drugs and alcohol. I have also smoked on and off - mostly on - for 41 years.

I think there are stages of chem dep addiction, some may profit from HR or in the chem dep parlance - responcible using. I am not smoking because of the great gift of e-cigs. I have no conflict with the use of vaping to stop smoking - I intend to make a career of it. Drug addiction and alcoholism is a more complex issue IMHO - there may well be pre-existing, underlying issues but, for most that have come to the end of the bell curves' spectrum - it is a problem that needs to be dealt with in it's own right and often before anything else can be addressed. I re-read your comments above and see that it is possible that you were refering to those that were perhaps in a very early stage of chemical addiction and I would have no trouble looking at HR solutions for that - it will work or it won't and I am sure it will work for some.

It may be that some people in the smoke cessation movement are narrow and fearful of using HR in the form of e-cigs. That is a shame and I hope we all do what we can to present our case against that, I know I will, and I do. But all old time 12 steppers aren't necessarily the same and some concerns they make present towards HR, if presented as an "alternative" for chem dep addiction - meaning, a blanket that covers all instances, would be concerns well worth considering.

I am tempted to just erase this whole responce because it seems so heavy and I am only responding to a piece of this thead but I guess I'll just post it and trust that it has some value.

 

[Storyspinr]

Crumpet, welcome to the real world of the tobacco control cartel. Some honest people who have attended their meetings report they were told to ignore the science - the goal was to "denormalize" smokers, regardless of the genuine science about secondhand smoke, smoking-related deaths, etc. Recently, a California researcher was given a half-million dollar grant to study thirdhand smoke; in the grant application itself, the researcher noted the results could be used to promote smoking bans in private homes - results and conclusions reached before the research had even begun.

Central Virginia is full of smoker haters. One works at our local newspaper. I made an attempt to correct information in an article about e cigs that appeared in the paper several months ago and her attitude from the git-go was downright hateful. She snidely asked if she was supposed to believe me over the FDA (no...she's supposed to be a journalist who shouldn't believe the government, either, without doing some research). When I told her the Virginia AG had said e cigs don't violate the smoking ban, her response was "So you say" (no, so the ruling I was holding in my hand said...but she didn't want to hear it).

The anti-smoker cartel long ago threw genuine science and honest debate out the window; they cannot tolerate any dissent within their ranks. As for harm reduction, the cartel relies upon both tobacco money (through the Master Settlement) and pharmaceutical money. Pfizer makes Chantix. The last thing they want is e cigs taking all that drug money away from them.

 

[wv2win]

Crumpet, GOOD FOR YOU! Sorry you have to work around some people who are so threatened by a different perspective that they go out of their way to silence you. Their ignorance and prejuidice is sickening. BTW, my personal physcian is a big supporter of vaping and harm reduction.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Even if just two smokers at that summit switched to e-cigs, then your attendance was a success. Small steps ...

 

[spirits3250]

Congratulations to you for standing up for the truth. Sorry, however, that it affected you in such a negative manner. I'm hoping that soon the truth will be widely acknowledged and your stance will be vindicated.

 

[BiffRocko]

Your comment has been pulled out a number of times and not to belabor a point I still feel a need to reply. I guess I'd like to say - there is addiction and then there is addiction. You see, I got sober in the old school 12 step programs - this coming March I will have been clean for 35 year from drugs and alcohol. I have also smoked on and off - mostly on - for 41 years.

I think there are stages of chem dep addiction, some may profit from HR or in the chem dep parlance - responcible using. I am not smoking because of the great gift of e-cigs. I have no conflict with the use of vaping to stop smoking - I intend to make a career of it. Drug addiction and alcoholism is a more complex issue IMHO - there may well be pre-existing, underlying issues but, for most that have come to the end of the bell curves' spectrum - it is a problem that needs to be dealt with in it's own right and often before anything else can be addressed. I re-read your comments above and see that it is possible that you were refering to those that were perhaps in a very early stage of chemical addiction and I would have no trouble looking at HR solutions for that - it will work or it won't and I am sure it will work for some.

It may be that some people in the smoke cessation movement are narrow and fearful of using HR in the form of e-cigs. That is a shame and I hope we all do what we can to present our case against that, I know I will, and I do. But all old time 12 steppers aren't necessarily the same and some concerns they make present towards HR, if presented as an "alternative" for chem dep addiction - meaning, a blanket that covers all instances, would be concerns well worth considering.

I am tempted to just erase this whole responce because it seems so heavy and I am only responding to a piece of this thead but I guess I'll just post it and trust that it has some value.

Congratulations on your success with sobriety.

I'm not necessarily talking about only people in an early stage of addiction. In fact, I'm more referring to people with full blown addiction. HR programs are especially effective with people in the contemplation stage of the stages of change model. A significant difference between HR and full abstinence from day 1 programs is that the HR programs help to put power back into the hands of the addicted, whereas the first step in 12 step programs is to declare yourself powerless. I'm a firm believer in the concept that empowering people to believe in their ability to change achieves greater results than asking them to declare themselves powerless.

I do think that, after a period of adjustment and empowerment, addicts should go fully clean and sober for a significant period of time before anything like responsible usage is even considered. HR is a stepping stone towards abstinence. For someone past the contemplation stage, something like Smart Recovery, which does preach full abstinence but not in the 12 step fashion is more appropriate in my opinion.

The last thing I think programs that use HR have in favor of their 12 step brethren is that there isn't constant negative reinforcement. Repeating over and over for years "I am an addict/alcoholic" only serves to implant that message deep within the subconscious. I've known plenty of 12 steppers with decades of sobriety that still feel like they're only a hair's breadth away from full blown relapse because they've constantly reinforced this concept that they are and always will be addicts. From what I know of the programs using HR and other alternative treatment modalities, this isn't done.

Much has been learned about the brain and psychology since the days those 12 steps and traditions where first written. In my opinion, 12 step programs haven't adapted to new understanding about they way we humans work.

 

[mauzey]

That is crazy stuff crumpet, I appreciate the work you do and the letters you wrote during our fight in King County,Wa back in December. I vape only because I loved smoking and would have never really quit smoking if weren't for e-Cigs and the lower harm. the Government will never ban cigarettes due to the loss of revenue, but that would be quite a day when all these anti-smokers come to rescue of Big Tobacco due to the loss of funding for there programs. I personally was addicted to Nicotine Gum and Cigarettes at the same time, so I was a double dipper. They will never convince me that I was better off before e-Cigs.

Thanks again,
Jeff~

 

[Vocalek]

Crumpet: You are in good company. The proponents of Tobacco Harm Reduction who have MD, DDS, and PhD degrees have also been vilified by the antis. They are even having problems getting their research published. Dr. Siegel's article on the safety of e-cigarettes should rightfully have been published in the Tobacco Control journal, but that Journal is now controlled by antis. Instead, Dr. Mike's article was published in the Journal of Public Health Policy. Still a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. You can only get to the abstract on the JPHP site, but Harvard has posted a full copy of the article: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

In our discussions with legislators, media, etc. we should be sending them this link. The more widely this is read, the better. As for Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) in general (not necessarily e-cig), I recommend these sites:

CASAA: CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
Tobacco Harm Reduction Organization: Tobaccoharmreduction.org

Brad Rodu's blog: Tobacco Truth
Mike Siegel's blog: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
Tobacco Harm Reduction Org's Blog: Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

 

[Vocalek]

Crumpet: Did you get my PM about the Tobacco Harm Reduction Org Blog? It's the last link in the response above. The email address was in the PM I sent you. Paul would like to hear from you.