Attack - it's your only hope here
I quoted plenty on #3 & 4 before you came around
I recalled you doing that immediately after I posted what I said. But was stating that in your discourse with me, you weren't quoting to back up your position. Plus, I went back and read what you quoted, and it supported my take on things and didn't feel like showing you up more than I already have.
I could cherry pick cessation passages - there's quite a few - practically the whole paper - just not that interested in doing so.
I too could cherry pick cessation passages. But would be hard pressed to show that this is what the paper is getting at. Like in the Abstract and Introduction, it is clearly stating that literature / research about people who want to quit smoking is almost always interpreted in naive ways. With a concluding statement that reads, "The careful wording of their conclusion, those who use e- cigarettes appear more likely to be able to remain abstinent, is accurate. But it lends itself to the over-interpretation that e-cigarettes are the better option for smoking cessation, and exactly that misinterpretation has been widely touted." So, while this is clearly mentioning cessation, the assertions are not really about cessation, but about misinterpretation of what is really being said. Hence the paper's intention to create a taxonomy (categorization) of smoking behavior, so that the claims of "I want to quit" can be put in (proper) perspective, with clear indication that "I want to quit" is actually a second order preference for many, but not all, current smokers.
Then analysis, or meat of the paper, is all about smoking behavior and how the medical model has skewed that behavior to funnel everything toward continuing smoking is a disease at work and that cessation is what everyone, that smokes, really wants, as anti-smoking surveys (clearly) indicate. Whereas authors of the piece aren't caught up in that paradigm (where cessation is all that matters, because smoking is inherently bad), but instead recognize smoking is a choice, as cessation is a preference, rather than correction to the inherently bad problem. And further recognize that first order preference is to continue smoking, even while second order preference, often naively interpreted as first-order, is that the majority of smokers wish to quit.
The smoking cessation orthodoxy misinterprets the second-order preference as first-order and convinces people to embrace this misconception. They interpret survey responses or personal communications of I want to quit as first-order, even though the lack of corresponding action means this is almost certainly not accurate, and take this as an invitation to use any means at their disposal to force smokers into abstinence.
The whole categorization section is establishing (further) that first order of preference for 4 out of 5 categories is not cessation, even while second order preferences may indicate that, and are naively interpreted as predominant desire, or inclination, of the current smoker.
This suggests that the best option for many in Category 3 is to migrate into Category 4. Once they understand that their desire to quit is second-order, and that they are really looking for a way to prefer not smoking to smoking, finding ways to quit without the reduced net benefits from abstinence is the obvious strategy. Anti-
tobacco extremists try to discourage
THR by misleading people into believing that the alternative products are not substantially less harmful than smoking and other falsehoods (23-26). But a second and perhaps equally important anti-
THR tactic has been largely overlooked: By successfully convincing the bulk of smokers who are in Category 3 that they are really in Category 2, and thus just need a bit of help from approved cessation methods, these activists discourage them from attempting the one method switching to an alternative product that might work for them. For most of the history of THR promotion efforts, a common response of smokers to a recommendation of switching to a low-risk alternative was I dont need that because I am just going to quit soon, which was unfortunately recited mostly by smokers who did not actually quit soon. Part of the success of e- cigarettes is probably that the celebratory culture that surrounds them has broken many Category 3 smokers out of this socially-constructed dead end.
And jumping to the concluding paragraph of the paper:
Unbiased and thoughtful interpretation of smoking cessation study results could provide much useful information about how to advise smokers who want to quit. But very little of that seems to be occurring. If helping people who want to quit, or want to want to quit rather than just generating revenue or rhetoric is the goal of the research, then some more serious attention to the nature of the phenomena being studied is in order, with smokers seen as consumers with first- and second-order preferences that drive their behavior, rather than as patients with an illness for whom assigning a cure would be appropriate.
This paragraph mentions quitting (smoking, aka cessation) at least 4 times and from what I get from this paragraph like the others ones I've quoted or much of the paper is that it is not really about cessation, but about understanding smokers as consumers with first- and second-order preferences which drive their behavior. The first order preference, in several instances is I actually wish to continue smoking, but think I want to quit because I think I'd prefer to not prefer to be a smoker, cause ANTZ have managed to influence everyone around me, including me, to think that such a preference really ought to be my highest choice, ya know, given that smoking is an inherent problem with who I am.
