Nicotine addiction: A women's health crisis

Once again, please do NOT post Off-Topic items on this thread.

As one who has been working very hard to ensure that e-cigarettes and their usage remains legal throughout the US (as well as other countries), and as one who has been working to generate positive news stories on e-cigarettes, its very frustrating when those important topic threads are moved off the front page of E-cigarette News because others have posted threads that have nothing to do with e-cigarettes.

Those who want to discuss tobacco or smoking policies can do so at the many different tobacco websites and blogs.

 

Looks like a link to Pfizer, basically another ad, this time for bit Pharma. Says toward the bottom "this information courtesy of Pfizer Inc."

 

Bill perhaps you could enlighten us as to how, considering the current anti-smoking/nicotine/tobacco environment continues to escalate their abstinence movement, you can differentiate topics that deal with e-cigarettes or other harm reduction products from what you consider non-relevant news?

I personally can't see it and I'm sure that sentiment is shared by many on this forum. If we could keep their aim at the original issue, smoking, I could totally agree with your stance, we should take focus on how these products can keep people from smoking. However that horse has left the barn long before any of us had an opportunity to try to lasso it.

They are turning nicotine into a disease and the primary disease that inflicts us to the point that we can't quit smoking. However, when you look at the reality, nicotine is only a fraction of the issue with smoking. You haven't been able to slow this stance down, others who have tried can't do it and unless we understand where they are headed, we have no knowledge of what we are up against.

Yes this "advertisement" for Pharma delivered nicotine starts out on the topic of smoking, but quickly moves to that deadly disease of nicotine that they'll cure with their abysmally unsuccessful array of NRT products. For myself personally, I would have had a pretty good chance of quitting smoking a quarter century ago had I had the opportunity of finding Swedish snus. It would have been more difficult without the habit tool of the e-cig, but certainly more successful than all my other attempts using their offerings.

I'm not trying to be obstinate, I'm just trying to understand. Plus, as my experience has shown and reading the comments on the other stop smoking advocates blogs, the cigarette forums don't want anything to do with what we're talking about. We are just another enemy in their mind, trying to somehow profit from their habit. We don't seem to have many friends or places we can vent and keep track of news.

Perhaps the answer is another category for news not directly related to E-cigs/Other harm reduction products. One final note, I'm not sure I even know what your stance is on some of these other products other than E-cigs.

 

Not on my behalf. I've posted ads as news myself before I realized or was told what I'd done.

Personally I find BP adverts, in Canada at least, infuriating. They are not about "health", they are about profit through social engineering.

rothenbj raises good points

 

Just another member of the neo-temperance movement shaking their tambourine. Some good comments though.

 

With hope that Bill will help us understand his point of view, I'd like to offer a view of a zealot blog in the "war" they have continued to "frame" in people's minds. When reading, examine the number of times expressions are used that we've all encountered in verbal conflicts with the antis. Remember how insignificant our numbers are in comparison.

BMJ Group blogs: Tobacco Control Blog Blog Archive Word wars and tobacco control

To bring this on center, although the initial point is smoking, the context works its way through all aspects of nicotine that is not delivered via BP-

"I think that the MBJ should describe precisely how nicotine can be medicinal and at the same time point out that the SUBSTANCE, nicotine, is, ethically, a good thing. But that does not mean that burning tobacco plant leaves and inhaling the smoke is a good thing! After all, the substance ‘chlorine’ is a good thing for killing bugs, but that does not mean that ‘mustard gas’ (mostly chlorine) is a good thing, does it? This would be a good reason for banning ecigs – the only good use for nicotine is ‘medicinal’, therefore only people with the knowledge of the chemistry should allowed to ‘use’ nicotine, just as chemists are the only people who are allowed to ‘use’ ...... to produce effective pain killers. "

 

Indeed rothenbj, the very first comment is interesting

So people 'love' the use of disgust-invoking potentialy misleading terms? They may believe they are fighting BigT, but the effects are on People.

Perhaps it is worth remembering that the reblame (er reframe) can also be reframed. Powereful, emotion inducing words are double edged swords.

We are significant however our words are not spoken from powerful positions. This is slowly changing.

 

My comment is awaiting moderation:

Jim Bogden's suggestion brings to mind the concept of "Newspeak". We must come up with more and better ways to hide the truth from the public. We must not, under any circumstances, allow the public to learn that some smokeless products are actually up to 99% less harmful than inhaling smoke. Perhaps we could get the Lancet to purge all copies of the article that reported "There was little difference in health-adjusted life expectancy between smokers who quit all tobacco and smokers who switch to snus." Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduct... [Lancet. 2007] - PubMed result

There are many more articles that report on the reduction in a variety of smoking-related diseases. All these would need to be purged. A regular Fahrenheit 451 party! Furthermore, the medical journals will have to ensure that all future published research compares the health of smokeless tobacco users to never-users of tobacco, not to the health of continuing smokers or former smokers. That way, the lie can be kept alive.

Perhaps the slogan, "Smokeless is smoking"? Or if using more disgusting language is preferable, we could start referring to "snus" as "snot." Would that work?

It is better for those who cannot give up nicotine to continue inhaling smoke than to switch to a product that provides measurable health improvements. If their wheezing and coughing disappears once they switch to something like snus or an electronic cigarette, those former smokers might get the wrong idea and continue using the product—especially if they are using nicotine as self-medication.

We know that a sizable percentage of nicotine users who cannot quit are self-medicating problems of depression, anxiety, attention deficit disorder, and memory impairments. We need some strong ad campaigns to reach these folks before they learn that their dysfunctions can be effectively controlled by switching to snus or nicotine vapor. How about, "Feeling depressed? Pop a Prozac instead of lighting up." Or, "Feeling confused and fuzzy-headed? Light up with Ritalin instead of a cigarette."

Since nicotine is the only known substance that can prevent the build-up of alpha-synuclein protein deposits in the brain, we will need to convince the older population that is beginning to feel the effects of early dementia that memory lapses can be fun and entertaining. Why fight it?

Yes, folks, all of the above observations and suggestions are made with tongue firmly in cheek. But this is no laughing matter. The Tobacco Control Community needs to wake up to the fact that the dream of being able to wipe out all nicotine use is just that—a dream. The Tobacco Control Community needs to take a step back and ask why they began this war against smokers in the first place. Wasn’t the goal to improve health? If this war is successful, forcing those who are medically dependent on nicotine to live with cognitive dysfunctions, mood impairment, or mounting dementia is not in keeping with preserving public health. If, as I suspect, the war fails, how many lives can be made healthier and longer by offering acceptable options to smokers that preserve their ability to remain functional members of society?

 

Elaine, you're the best. I didn't think you had a prayer of getting your well written and cogent comment published, but it went through. Whether it "gets through" is another matter. For that we'll have to wait.

OT, did you catch the latest Siegel blog? I would have linked to it, but waiting on Bill to explain his point of view, I've waited. It points out what has become of research in this country, catch it.

Also OT, I just saw another PV initial failure with a 20 something. All fired up originally, it took about a half month to revert back. When these people talk about kids using them, it drives me nuts, I don't even think they work well for most that haven't smoked for decades and felt some health risk. Yes, some will get it, but for most they're too much trouble, not close enough to the real thing and/or not ready to really get off smokes. If this isn't a mature adult product, I don't know what is.