1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings
 

http://cellar.org/2002/canuckcigs3.jpg
http://cellar.org/2002/canuckcigs4.jpg
http://cellar.org/2002/canuckcigs5.jpg

These are Canadian cigarette warning messages, which I had not seen until this week. These and about 12 other message rotate on cigarette packages; the message takes up roughly half the package. The messages have been in place for a year now, and this week the Canuck Cancer Assn. announced that they had studied the results of the campaign, and I quote:

"Half the smokers contacted said that the warning had increased their motivation to quit, while more than a third of smokers who tried to quit in 2001 said the labels had been a factor. About a fifth of smokers said the pictures had at least once curbed their urge to light up."

In other words: they didn't work. The twisting and spinning of the study here is remarkable, but the bottom line is that the people who were smokers - or non-smokers - at the beginning of 2001, are still smokers in the beginning of 2002.

There is a Bill Hicks bit about this, but I don't have time to find it...

Re: 1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings
 

When a friend of mine went to Europe in 1995, she brought back a pack of Marlboro Lights from the UK. I liked their warnings at the bottom of the pack:

"Smoking causes cancer."

"Smoking can kill you."

I have the warning about pregnancy issues on my current pack.

What about these pictures makes you so upset?

Are you a smoker?

Recent studies also showed that smokers often failed to seek medical attention for symptoms, because they thought they would be told to quit smoking. As a result many smokers are dying from treatable illnesses.

Many smokers wouldn't quit if they coughed up a lung. Graphic labels won't convince these people to quit. It just pisses them off.

But, if these pictures aren't enough to convince the addicted to quit, perhaps they might discourage non-smokers from lighting up. How stupid would you have to be to take a first puff of something in a package like that?

See CNN for the full details of the study.

I'm not a smoker. But if the labels don't work, it indicates that perhaps the issue is more complicated than the labelites believe. And if the labels don't work and they continue to be lauded and used, then DEFINITELY the issue is more complicated than anyone believes.

The anti-smoking campaign has gone beyond simple public service and is a decade into bizarre punishment rituals. It is an odd way to treat addiction: punish the addict. Make them stand outside in the freezing cold. Make them go a little longer than they want for a fix. Make them carry around and occasionally look at gruesome photos and warnings about all sorts of bizarre health problems from which they will die.

If all this doesn't work, it is no longer about making them stop. It's no longer about public service messages. It's about making them feel bad - and us, the non-smokers, feel superior. It's about paying for the sins of the past. But it's not help, nor is it a reasonable substitute for help. How can it be help if it doesn't work?

These warnings may work to dissuade non-smokers from starting, even if nothing works, as you say, to get the addicted to quit.

Unfortunately, the study does not appear to measure the effect of these images on young non-smokers. This approach may well be worth the effort.

Anyway, contrary to your analysis that the campaign isn't working, the CNN report and coverage by the BBC indicates otherwise. By your logic, any survey of smokers will show that nothing works. All those studied are still smoking. Perhaps the study should have included the impact of these images on people who actually quit, and there may be many. And the impact of these pictures on those who haven't started smoking.

And why should non-smokers care? A recent study in the U.K. found that fewer than 10% of NON-SMOKERS studied were free of the effects of second hand smoke. The people most affected by smokers were their non-smoking loved ones. Don't expect that to change smokers' behavior.

What harm do these warnings cause, in any event?

Don't smoke Canadian cigarettes. Not to worry. :)

Hm
 

That last image is something I hadn't seen before on an anti-smoking ad, and I think it's pretty well done =]

Although from what you mentioned from the survey; although yes it can mean that people who were smoking in 2001 are still smoking in 2002, and thus it didn't work... I'd disagree. Maybe it didn't cause a radical reduction of smokers, but it seems to have had at least SOME impact, and probably more than many of the anti-smoking posters that I have seen.

I also like how the images are placed on the cigarette package. Anybody who has such a package gets a reason not to smoke just about every time that they decide to.

If they don't want people to smoke, then they should just make the damned things illegal. Heroin is illegal. Do you think if heroin were legal that these types of tactics would work to get people to quit? I seriously doubt it.
<br>
Hehe... BTW -- Denis Leary has a good bit about this too. Check it out (I know, I know, i'm stealing his intellectual property. Sorry Denis!):

<i>Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called "Warnings." You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a crossbone on the front, called "Tumors" . . . and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fucking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm . . ." Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fucking cigarettes, okay? They're a drug, we're addicted, okay? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm (Wheezes) I'm a little hyped up tonight. Little hyped up. Smoked a nice big fat bag of crack right before the show. (Screaming)ARRGGGHHH!</i>

Slow death ...
 

In an interview this week, Bennett LeBow, Vector's chief executive, gave an interesting appraisal of Omni's advantages for smokers. It "will not kill them as quick or as much" as other brands, he said.

Now that's a catchy slogan.

As far as making them stand outside goes -- I have heard that there are (recent) studies that show that secondhand smoke is just as likely to cause cancer as smoking a cigarette through the filter. So, if you're going to poison your own body, that's fine. But don't pollute mine if you don't have to.

As far as the excessive taxing goes, and the states suing them -- like I said in the last post, if they're that worried then they should just make the damned things illegal. If they don't want to make them illegal, then stop bugging the smokers, because it's legal.

I believe one of the main reasons why smoking is not illigal is the matter of Tax.

Whilst I don't want to sound like a political pessimist, the government (certainly in this country) have a population that is addicted to various things, cigarettes being one of them.

The easiest solution? Tax the bejesus out of them, that way the sufferers cough (bad pun) up the money, without much choice.

The government gets rich because they have you over a barrel, and what is more they can hike the price to the skyline and claim that it is in the public interest. There are few opportunites to screw the voters and tell them that its for their own good and I expect the current government (like all others before it) is simply going to milk the situation for what it is worth.

Now before anyone complains at me, I don't actually smoke, in fact I detest the things, they smell and affect my health. What I am trying to say, is that, like others have pointed out there are innumerable simple steps that anyone could take to overt the problem. Yet smoking in public places, resturants, food courts, shopping centers, taxi's, busses and everywhere else is restricted not by government decree, but by the owners of said public areas, where it is not enforced save a few "no smoking" stickers.

Makes you wonder whether they are trying to help after all doesn't it? Especially since, as pointed out a *lot* of smokers are afraid of seeking medical care for minor problems believing them to be smoking related thus not tying up the resources of a cash-starved over managed beurocraitc mess that is the NHS.

Datalas

--

Ps, I think I took my cynical pills this morning, sorry.

Its not tax, its crime. If you outlawed smoking you'd create a huge demand for an illgeal product, fantastic oppotunity for any organised crime syndicate. And i don't think MP's (congressmen, whatever) are going to make what they do illegal, its too common.

True enough I suppose, although I do sometimes wonder about the rather lack-lustre attempts to stop people from smoking.

The already addicted are told "ooooh, its bad for you", but are neither given particular motivation or assistance to stop (without it costing them)

The *are soon going to be addicted* are disuaded by reaaly effective adverts on TV, which currently have some strange alien figure telling kids that smoking makes you less attractive (which would, from my experience of school seem to be wrong) and very little real encouragement to break the peer pressure motivation.

As for the *not going to be addicted* set, we aren't exactly catered for in any public place....

I suspect the reason it is not illigal is for the reasons you suggested, but the reason it is not seemingly frowned upon (like being drunk in public) is for reasons of economy.

Still, i might be wrong. It has happened on several other occsaions ;)

Datalas

--

Oi, what happened to my .sig? (or should that be .cig ;) )

As a smoker, I can say that ads such as the ones shown have no effect on me. Unfortunately, scare tactics do not work for a lot of smokers. Nor do lectures, public disdain, etc.

I certainly have the reasons for quitting smoking, primarily my lung capacity. Also, the money issue. A pack of cigarettes in Pennsylvania is $2.75-$3.50 a pack. When I started smoking in 1995, they were $1.25 in SE Missouri. Unfortunately, nicotine is one hell of a drug. It is horrendously addictive...and I have tried to stop on many, many occasions--cold turkey, patch, cutting back, etc. When Jim Brady's wife came out about her smoking a month or so ago, I could empathize.

UT, mad props for your second post. :) We were talking about the non-smoking ads in another thread. Some believe banning smoking damn near everywhere will help. Friendship Heights, MD is trying to ban all smoking in public. Then there's California and its smoking ban. But what about TREATMENT? Only recently have some insurance companies included Zyban under co-pays. And Nicoderm is still almost double the cost of a carton of cigarettes per week. Yet, alcohol and drug treatment are covered under many insurance plans.

I don't think a lot of people view smoking in the same light as drinking in terms of addiction. But smoking CAN become an addiction. I AM an addict of cigarettes. But I am going to keep trying to quit b/c I want to better myself and my health.

What's covered and not covered by medical insurance is pretty capricious. My $13,000 surgery was completely paid for by me out-of-pocket...so I'm quite willing to see smokers buy their own Zyban and Nicoderm, especially considering what I'm paying every month to COBRA my health insurance.

Quitting is possible, even without drugs. I did it. More than once, before it stuck.

And that's great that you did it that way. But that's YOU. It doesn't necessarily work like that for everyone else.

Sorry to break the news to you, but this logic doesn't work in Canada. Remember, in Canada, we all share the same gouvernmental medical insurance. So for every smoker that quits, and every tennager that doesn't start, hundred of thousands dollard are saved by the gouvernment in future medical services.

This justifies alot of the babysitting our gouvernement does on us. For instance : Some of us would like to motorbike without a helmet, but the rest would rather not pay the millions for all the resulting head trauma treatments. Thus helmets are mendatory in Canada.


I would like to point out the effect of those ads are greter than can be mesured in a pool. Remember, when pooled, practicaly nobody ever admit advertisement as an effect on their shoping decisions, but advertisers know better.

The fact is, those ads brought the issue out on the street. For every five discussion about who in the office got the latest ad first, there is one that turns about who will quit next, or about who really hate second hand smoke but is too shy to say so. It got people talking. It got the idea into people's head that there is a social issue at play, and that we should talk about it.

1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings
 

Would you permit someone to urinate in the same room that people are eating? And yet we permit cigarette addicts to do the same thing in restaurants. Do you agree or disagree with the first sentence? Why? In most cases the response will be based on emotion - not facts.

Emotion is why people start smoking. We have all known since the 60s that smoking destroys lungs. Smoking ages people quickly. Smokers have body odor - so why also waste money on deodorant. Smokers make non-smokers smell dirty. Smokers have lower intelligence levels because of the chemical addiction process. Smokers are addicts similar to crack addicts.

So why then does he smoke? Why did he start in the first place? Emotion.

We know that when smokers look cool, then others take up the addiction. It is why the industry so actively encouraged actors to smoke in movies. Emotion is a primary reason for smoking. Emotion must also be used to discourage the addiction.

That is not to say that 100% would be disuaded from smoking. It does not matter that those pictures don't affect you. But it does matter that those pictures cause more people to avoid the addiction. You cannot judge those pictures personally. They must be judged statistically.

Why were Joe Camel and the Marlboro man so effective at their trade? Because kids today are so emotional - so less logical - than they would claim. Under 21s can be manipulated like lemmings. It is why they make such good soldiers and terrorists.

Examples are everywhere. Shelves in a grocery store. If Scope and Listerene do nothing productive, then why is so much sold on store shelves? If the solution to good health is proper ratios of nutrition, then why are vitamin and supplement tablets solds in doses far in excess of daily requirements? In the case of Vitamin C, why is it sold in doses known to create genetic damage? Why all the hype and sales of St John's Wort - which does not live up to its wild claims.

Emotion sells.

If you have 90+% of a toothpaste market, then how do you increase market share? Show the toothpaste on TV fully spread fully across the toothbrush. Sales then sharply increase because too many people 'feel' rather than 'think'. Then how do you increase toothpaste sales? Sell toothbrushes that have longer bristle area - more area to cover with toothpaste. Sales again increase sharply. Then how do you increase sales? Enlarge the hole on toothpaste tubes. These are not speculations. These are the actual stories I grew up with. The toothpaste was Colgate. And toothpaste back then did nothing significant.

Want to see how emotional we are? Is that computer plugged into a $20 or $70 surge protector? The surge protector only works in the realm of emotion. Adjacent to your computer, it does nothing productive. But it can contribute to surge damage of a powered off computer. Why is it there? Emotion. You believe it must work because of the words - "surge" and "protector". It is located where it cannot be effective.

They cannot provide reality pictures of smokers that are ugly enough. Emotional, ugly pictures are necessary to force people, especially such emotional teenagers, into taking a look at the facts. Without those emotional pictures, the facts will be ignored by those who mostly think mostly using emotion.

Why do we not want others to urinate in the same room we are eating? Facts have little to do with our response. Our response is an emotional "diiissgggusssttttinggg". And yet we have not yet associated smokers with the same emotional response even though facts say otherwise.

> it does nothing productive. But it can contribute to surge
> damage of a powered off computer. Why is it there? Emotion.
> You believe it must work because of the words - "surge"
> and "protector". It is located where it cannot be effective.

On the contrary, we use a surge protector at work, where the power supply has detroyed five seperate power supplies in as many months. When we had the posher one (with a little light on it) you could almost party to its flashing....

although, on the whole if your power supply should be that poor in terms of quality (i.e. you live next to several HUGE kilns, ooh look capacative load ) then you should have words with your local supplier....

Although, I agree with the majority of the smoking by emotion thing :) Never could see a point to it, someone at school tried to get me to smoke and I was left thinking "Lets see I'm unpopular as it is, will smelling horrible, having no money and a shortened life span help?"

The conclusion was pretty easy to come to ;)

Datalas

--

The only way you'll get me to smoke is by setting fire to my trousers.

As long as smoking is a matter of free choice, more government initiatives should be directed to prevent non smokers, particularly children, from making this distructive life decision.

I think these graphic Canadian cigarette package warnings are aimed at the non-smoking public, and they are a good strategy, even if smokers deride them as having no effect on their informed choice to continue smoking.

These warnings are necessary to combat the Tobacco industry's next generation of deceit focused on new "safer" brands. These advertised "safer" brands will have the same graphic warnings.

But, unless they are grossly graphic, Surgeon General's Warnings have little impact on young people, who feel immortal. We have to speak to them in terms they understand. They hate being ripped by government. They abhor being conned by big business. They want to consider themselves smarter than older generations.

Sycamore brings up a very good point. MONEY. The cost of a pack is, of course, largely tax, which ties our governments to the tobacco industry, as well. Government is addicted to tobacco taxes. Politicians are addicted to tobacco industry campaign donations. Smoking is a hidden tax, mostly levied on the poorest of our economy. But it is a voluntary tax, it is argued. So, we have to make our children aware of this hidden tax. Like us, they don't like getting ripped by the government, conned by big business, and duped by politicians supporting big tobacco.

Big money motivates my kids. They were stunned when I walked them through a financial analysis of the monetary cost of smoking a pack a day. It's staggering! I ran the numbers through a tax deferred retirement savings plan and showed the difference at age 65 between one person who smoked a pack a day from age 20, and another who saved the cost of a pack a day and contributed the savings annually into the retirement plan. The latter lives a healthier lifestyle and retires a millionaire at age 65; the other lives a life of poor health and may not be around to retire at 65, but he was short all that cash. I said to my kids, "If Bill Gates would make you a bet, that your couldn't stay off cigarettes 'til age 65, but if you did he'd give you a million dollars then, could you avoid the temptation to smoke?" "Definately!' they said. My parents never taught me about this. I learned from my mistakes.

P.S. That's a millionaire in Canadian Dollars, for those that want to argue my math. :)

Re: 1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings
 

tw, would you mind presenting some information on this point? I'd be curious to see it.

They may help dissuade people from STARTING to smoke, but what about those that are already addicted?

It's up to those that are already addicted to quit. Maybe one of those pictures will light a fire under someone's ass. We don't know. There's a chance of it happening, and that's what's important - one person saved is worth it.

As far as dissuading people - that's worth it too. They really don't need to be smoking - there isn't any <b>good</b> reason to start, but there are a lot of bad things that can (and probably will) happen to you if you smoke your entire life. If it can keep one person from starting... then it's worth it.

My opinion, of course...

Another point is, the cost to the cigarette companies of printing those huge colorful photos on every pack of cigarettes is most likely huge. So, that's yet another penalty they have to suck up.

I disagree. It's really in everybody's best interests to find a way to help people beat their addictions. I'm not going on statistics here, but here's how I see it:

--Lower health care costs for everyone...b/c those insurance companies are saving money that would be used to treat smokers ailments. Not to mention...

--Better health for others: Less people smoking means less secondhand smoke out there. A benefit for nonsmokers.

--Lower crime: People on drugs or alcohol commit crimes...crimes they may not commit if under the influence. Tobacco is a stretch here, sure, but people have killed or robbed others over cigarettes.

To me, it's more than saving those from starting...why give up on those that already started?

Big tobacco companies agreed to the cost of such messages and advertising in their various settlements of government litigation.

From an Internet appreciation point of view, for those that want to see the slickest public relations effort by an indefensible industry, just take a look at the website of Brown & Williamson, the company at the center of the movie, The Insider.

Actually, big tobacco favours these warnings because they argue that informed free choice of the risks of smoking is a legal defense and limitation of their liability for the damages they cause to the health of their customers. And the damages have run into the hundreds of billions, as you know.

As part of the settlement B&W agreed to make details of the litigation and settlement public on their website.

What a public minded corporate citizen! They'd have you believe.

Obviously not--there are all kinds of outcomes from an effort to quit smoking, and they're not all successful.

I'm skeptical of approaches that don't involve stopping cold turkey, or that attempt to substitute one drug for another. Some people do end up quitting while using patches or other drugs. I don't think there's any way to know if that really made it easier for them. That's probably one reson insurance companies don't want to pay for that kind of therapy. If there was a drug for nicotine like Antabuse for alcohol, you might see more willingness to cover that. Maybe. If they were convinced it would save them money.

A while after you stop dosing yourself the cravings do lessen, but there's a boatload of detoxfication to work your way though before you get there, and the longer you've been dosing yourself, the longer that's going to take. Cold turkey has to be the shortest path to reducing physiological dependancy...as long as you actually do *stop*, and *stay* stopped long enough that the idea of not falling back into the addiction has a higher value for you than the nicotine buzz does.

Beyond that, there are the behavioral issues: habituation rather than addiction. They can be a lot harder to tackle. Believing that your addiction is somehow different and less tractable than other people's can't be helpful on that score. "Ads don't work on me." strikes me as a curious thing to say. An ad isn't going to make you stop smoking...at best, all an ad can do is try to keep the ideas and issues in front of your concious mind, and work towards tipping the balance.

Reducing the spaces where smoking is permitted isn't to discourage smokers, it's for the benefit of the people who don't want to breathe your sidestream. There are no "no nicotine patches" zones.

You misinterpreted what I said, I think.

The fact of the matter is, unless you want to quit, you won't. That's what I'm trying to say. It's up to you to quit smoking. Whatever I can do to help, sure. But unless you want to, you won't.

As far as us trying to help them quit - I happen to agree with you that it's in the public's best interest for people to not be smoking. However, I can also see how some people might think "Well, why should I be responsible for other peoples' fuckups?" Example: my friend Andrea started smoking some 3 years ago. I told her "look, that shit is bad for you, and if you get cancer, don't come crying to me." She went into it knowing full-well that it's bad for her. Most smokers do. So why should there be an extra cost to those who don't smoke to help rehabilitate them? I happen to think that we should help smokers quit, but I also happen to think that they should bear the responsibility and financial burden of doing so. I'm not going to throw away my paychecks because someone else thought it would be cool to start smoking. No offense, of course - I'll still be your friend if you're a smoker. And if I can help you in some way (like kicking you in the shins when you light up, or gathering information for you to help you stop, or whatever), I will. But the whole "Well, the public should help us 'cause it's in their best interest" is kinda a shit argument. It's like me saying "Well, it's in the public's best interest to give me everything I want, because if they don't, I'll go kill people." BS logic.

As for the whole "better health for others" - yeah, or we can just stick your ass out in the cold :) Seriously though, when we were chilling on Friday, I didn't say anything about you smoking, although the smell makes me feel ill (funny thing - used to smoke, loved the smell, then quit and it became just about the grossest thing to me). Your [rental] car, your smoke. You're doing me a favor by driving. But if I were driving (heh, when I get a license and car), I would have politely asked that you not smoke in the car. Just like how you excused yourself to go outside and smoke. No offense, but the smoker is the one that should be wary of these things - they're the one that's putting out the second hand smoke that can cause cancer in others. It's something that comes with smoking - you excuse yourself from others and go smoke. Just like I excuse myself when I need to defecate, instead of making a nice pile on the floor in front of you. You're the one that's doing it, so you need to bear responsibility for it - and that might mean standing out in the cold while you smoke. I actually generally go outside with the person and stand and talk to them, but Friday night just seemed damn fuckin' cold. :)

Anyway. I'm all about being friends with smokers, and I'm all about helping them quit - but there is a point where it becomes their responsibility. That's one of the things I learned early on - every one of your actions has consequences. You need to ask yourself "what is it that I really want?" and then go from there. If you want cancer or yellow teeth or whatever, then smoke. If you want to live a healthy life free of physical addictions, then don't. I can't make that choice for you.

It might be possible if a carefully controlled study were performed. I am not sure if there are any physiological measures (e.g. changes in brain activity) that could determine the severity of a craving.

I believe that addictions can be unique. What works for me may not work for Joe Blow. Based on personal experience, I know what has been helpful for me and what has not.

To me, it's like a desensitizing. You see it enough, you get used to it.

I don't believe that is necessarily true. While I don't argue the health of others aspect, I suspect a psychological element to it as well--"If we make it harder for people to smoke, they will find that it is not worth it to smoke anymore." They have the right to reduce smoking areas...smokers will still find a place to light up.

Damn dude. You edited the shit outta that post.

And then you just deleted it. :)

Yeah...I didn't like my presentation...I'll rewrite it.

That level of interpretation of brain activity is *way* in the future. You can implement "careful controls", but what will you measure? That's a rhetorical question....I'm sure there's a psych major someplace that will claim they could design a questionarie that will reveal the truth. But I just think of the term "physics envy". :-)
Nobody who's ever been a smoker would subscribe to that strategy--you're right: it simply being inconveniant never stopped anybody from smoking. Employers who maintain a smoke-free workplace (most of them, these days) may be trying to discourage smoking breaks. I've never seen anybody cut down on lunch or coffee breaks to compensate for time they spent puffing *j-u-s-t* outside the entrance--a habit which is annoying in itself.

As a constantly smaller segnment of the population wants to smoke, and an increasing segment doesn't want to have to breathe the sidestream, there's simply less and less reason to go to any lengths to accomodate the smokers. I doubt anybody thinks it will get anyone to quit, but there's simply less willingness to go to any trouble to make it easier.
Um...what's the longest time you've been smoke-free since starting? Because if you've never sucessfully quit, how can you know what works for you?
Originally there was only one warning text in the US, then they realized they needed to keep rotating them or they''d become effectively invisible over time. Still, a smoker who has some desire to quit, or concern about the effects of his smoking, will sweep that kind of input under a mental carpet as quickly as possible, to resolve the cognitive dissonance. So you have to change the text (and now the gross pictures) to at least freshen the stimulus.

Sure, a person has to WANT to quit. However, there are people who want to quit, try to quit, and cannot quit, for whatever reason.

You're already paying for smokers...whether you want to or not. If you have insurance, you (or your company) are paying premiums that help cover the treatment of smokers ailments. You can't deny the people treatment if they have insurance and get sick, as legal issues could come into play. As previously mentioned, many insurance companies cover drug and alcohol treatments. Why treat smokers differently than drug or alcohol abusers? Because they're "out in the open?" What does drug and alcohol rehab do? Hopefully, it makes people better and prevents dangerous ailments down the line, like cirrhosis. Same thing with smoking. If Zyban or Nicoderm or hypnosis or whatever makes people better, and prevents ailments like lung cancer for both smokers AND nonsmokers, everybody wins.

I had a feeling this might come up...

I wouldn't smoke in your car, or Jenni's car...because I know that neither of you smoke...nor would I smoke in your home. That's your environment.

By the same token, had I been asked not to smoke in my car, even though that was MY environment, I would have complied. I have no problem extending that courtesy.

I do want to live a better life...and I'm not asking you or anyone else to make that choice for me.

So what would discourage you. How about if over the next 5 years or so government regulation forced tobacco companies to make cigarettes taste *really really* bad, gradually introduced over the period, while at the same time reducing gradually the addictive substances in the cigarettes. So by about the 3rd year the bad taste should out weigh the addictiveness, and people won't WANT to smoke any more.!

There are people who want to quit, try to quit, and *do* not quit. That they *cannot* quit is unproven and probably unprovable.

Maggie, ever had smoking addiction?
I don't think its so much a case of can't as veryveryvetry fucking difficult need-to-be-chained-to-a-chair-for-3-weeks difficult, even if people do want to give up. If they don't, they won't, thats no brainer logic.

Again, I am not completely familiar with the research, but I wonder if there is some sort of chemical imbalance created when a craving occurs, like a dopamine or serotonin surge.

Having a degree in psychology, I would say you measure the intensity of a craving based on a scale of, say 1 to 5. Sure, there is the obvious possibility of flawed information. But if the study is controlled properly, and the results are determined to be statistically significant (through the use of an ANOVA), it may shed some light as to what options may be more helpful.

I am a smoker...and I suspect that the strategy is employed. Of course, I have a psychology degree and have worked in marketing, so maybe I think about it more than others.

*thinks*

You know, I believe it is maybe a month...spring of 1997. I used Nicoderm for about 2 weeks. And it really helped take the edge off my cravings. For whatever reason, I felt I was strong enough and quit using it. 2 weeks later, I was smoking again. I used smoking as my outlet for whatever was bothering me at that point. Had I used the program properly, I believe I would be smoke-free now. Because it would have given me more time on the patch (10 weeks instead of 2), and I believe it would have given me more time to build up my willpower. At the same time, perhaps I was just not ready to quit at that point.

Cold turkey has never worked...the longest I've gone without a cigarette in that manner is 5 days...last January. The cravings became too much to ignore. I've done cold turkey too many times to count. Some times I've been more determined than others...but in most cases, there has been a strong genuine desire on my part to quit.

I'll also employ an example here:

When I was in the hospital in September, the way the nurse spoke to me: "Hey, I'm not going to give you a lecture, but you should quit b/c of your reduced lung capacity." (Or something like that...see the Cheesesteak thread for a better version.) I honestly took that to heart. He didn't belittle me, he didn't take a condescending approach, he was just straight out with me. And that's stayed with me since...and that DOES make me want to quit. And I AM trying. :)

But those texts are getting old now. I haven't seen any new ones since they changed them...when? 10 years or so ago? And I'm not so sure that changing the pictures or texts would truly help b/c you're still using similar stimuli.

Hmmm...good possibility. I like the taste of a cigarette...that's just me though.

Unfortunately, I probably won't know what would discourage me until I see it...the whole lung capacity issue has made it more in-my-face for me though.

I ran into such study before. The methodology is quite simple : ask your pool if they are trying to stop any drug. Then, rig them up every month and ask them if it worked. The results were eye openner.

Drugs, from most addictive to less :

• Nocotine
• Heroine
• Alchool
• Crack
• ...
• Cafeine
• Marijuana
• Chocolate

They also included medical studies on the side effect of trying to quit : from worse to mild :

• Alchool (it can kill you)
• Heroine
• Nicotine
• Crack
• ...
• Cafeine, Merijuana
• Chocolate

Now I wish I had kept the link

By the same token, we don't know yet if there is something internally that prevents people from stopping an addiction, be it sex, smoking, alcohol, etc.

Hence why I said *really really* bad, I'm talking rotten flesh kinda taste here, taste to remind you of maggots squirming through a carass or something, something that if it's too strong is just gonna make you chunder.

Oh dear, now I have a picture in my head of a guy walking down the footpath taking a drag of his ciggy and instantly chundering - then taking another drag... ewwwww. Kinda like those guys who smoke through a trachiotemy (however you spell the word that means "him gotta hole in`is throat") hole.

I think this is a very worthwhile IotD, Undertoad.

If even one of our community helps themselves to change for the better, encouraged by this thread, it's worth the discussion.

For those who may be looking for more information, and are ready to choose to kick the habit and beat the addiction, this website looks helpful.

Nic, thanks for the link! :) It's a good informative site...and I like the way the information is presented.

sycamore, I know. I didn't mean for it to sound, at all, like I was coming down on <b>you</b>. "You" was used to refer to the public at large. Or rather, the smoking public at large. I know that I'm not making any decisions for you, and you're not asking me. Just stating that I don't buy into the whole "You should help me stop 'cause it's good for you" thing. My point is, if I don't want you smoking around me, I'll make it not happen - either by asking you to leave, or getting up and leaving. Again, not *you* - anyone. Yah, you were considerate. Which is why I don't think you're a dick. :)

I figured as much...just making my point. :)

*bows* You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Speaking of dicks ...

Although fear of respiratory and cardial health problems are distant concerns to most young people, sexual capability is an immediate concern ... and that is the point of the drooping cigarette warning above.

For years, the tobacco industry has attempted to portray smoking as "sexy" (the proverbial do you smoke after sex joke) even though most non-smokers think it's a major turn off. It's interesting to see the "public responsibility" ads of the tobacco industry reinforcing this myth, by saying things like ... don't smoke just because the cool kids do, or, we know it's hard to quit because you feel more confident when smoking in social situations. Psych-ops.

No teenager wants to be a limp dick. And older folks associate their continuing sexual functionality with youthfulness! You can cut out a lung if you have to, but don't tell me my dick won't work.

You know what NIC, i think you just hit on the one thing that WOULD stop most U-18s as much as anyone else - stop smoking.

Yes indeed.
Started once, smoked for for three or four years, managed to quit (had godawful bronchitis, which helped)...and then after six months was dumb enough to go back and get hooked again.
Then I quit again, that time for good.

taxation just creates a grey/black market
 

When the State of Florida hiked tobacco taxes through the stratosphere, it had the effect of increasing the size of the black market for cigarettes. See http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/.../pdf/0129.pdf, and http://www.floridataxwatch.org/cigs.htm. I wish I could find one of the original reports, but this is pretty good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/199...1/us/us.4.html

what a big can of worms

as the resident canadian i feel like i should say something but ahh... i don't really know that many smokers! so, wheeee!

First of all: I am a smoker. (So take it all with a grain or three of salt...)

That said, DEAR GOD PEOPLE!! Give me a break!

I've done the research. I know the risks. I choose to smoke. Now leave me alone.

Ok, that rant out of the way, I have a couple of actual points:

1. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol. It certainly hasn't worked on marijuana. It won't work on cigarettes (which it has been pointed out, are FAR more addictive than either of the others).

2. The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker. I am a peaceful human being, but I swear, the next stranger that walks up and starts preaching at me gets it. Why must people always push their beliefs onto others? This isn't just a smoking thing. It goes for pretty much any way that someone might choose to spend their time.

3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars. Bar owners don't mind if people smoke in their place of business. If want to go to a smokeless bar, open your own. See how many people show up. There comes a point where marginalization (for public safety purposes) turns into outright persecution of a minority.

Every day the government noses a little further into our lives...
Every day I become a little more Libertarian...
Coincidence? I think not.

mh

AMEN! PREACH ON! :)

I have no problem not smoking at a restaurant. I can go an hour or so without smoking a cigarette...I'm not THAT addicted. :) I agree on the bar thing though...I wonder how much of a hit bars in California are taking b/c of the law out there.

I would venture a guess that it's probably pretty low (the hit that bars are taking). Think that people will probably just smoke outside or whatever, and if not, it's not like they had much else to do before going to a bar. Now, maybe people are going to bars because they appreciate the fact that they don't have to put up with cigarette smoke there. I dunno. I'm guessing it's not so bad.

That having been said, it <b>is</b> a pretty stupid law...

Look Hamlet. Fact is, nobody gives a damn if you choose to smoke. Enjoy.

Fact is, many people assert their right to smoke in their households with children.

Now, that's not a bar. It's your home. It's your right. Or is it?

Does government have a right to speak for the children?

And don't give anyone that self-righteous put down.

You're just blowin' smoke!

One thing that occurred to me is, what if all people were forced to carry around a gruesome image of how they'd look when they were about to die? What if all people were forced to carry around an image of the worst possible result of their choices?

Smoking is dangerous, but there are other dangerous activities. Take ice climbing for example. Want to force ice climbers to carry around pictures of cold, dead, mangled, frozen bodies at the bottom of tall cliffs of ice? Gee, why not?

Most forms of death are kinda-sorta optional. Heart disease is aggravated by diet and stress and inactivity. Cancer is too. Most accidents are preventable (through training and good infrastructure and systems). Almost all of us make choices that will kill us, they're just not as visible and obvious and not as legislatable. They're just not at the forefront of public opinion, not so subject to the public whim and political fantasy.

In the end, it's all really a weird form of politics, you know. When everyone's doing it, oh, well you can't change it if *everyone's* doing it. If 20% are doing it? Well they're a very visible minority, so we can make ourselves feel better and have more confidence in our OWN choices, by publically putting THEIR choices down.

Now an attempt to really fan the flames. I can think of one activity that is seriously dangerous to the public at large, seriously dangerous to the people who do it, and banning it would have almost no impact on the economy. I'm talking about general aviation.

As we have just seen, general aviation can be easily abused for terroristic purposes. Not a week goes by where you don't hear of some all-too-young person offing themselves by crashing in a forest. It can wreak havoc at any airport, just as much or MORE than a guy running the wrong way down an elevator does. The system appears to be fraught with problems and causing a ton of expenses in homeland security.

We can't ban general aviation without appearing to be too draconian. But we can force pilots to carry with them images of crash scenes. It's just common and fiscal sense to deter these people from making a choice that's inappropriate for society.

We may not be able to force these pilots not to fly, but if we just make them THINK about not flying, I'd consider such a program a success.

Tony -

I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are <b>addictive</b>, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives. :) I think they're there to make sure a person take a little think session before lighting up from that next pack of cigarettes and strengthening their addiction.

From what I understand though, there has been some research as to whether people are addicted to "dangerous" activities (rock climbing, skydiving, etc.).

Yeah. It's more about whether or not they're addicted to the adrenaline from such activities. But from what I've read (admittedly, not a whole lot, but not just a little either), it's not at all the same as an addiction to, say, alcohol, nicotine or even caffeine - in that you can give it up and not suffer withdrawal-type symptoms.

What about people who like to have lots of sex with lots of different people? Do we make them carry around pictures of people with advanced cases of AIDS? Or pictures of genital herpes? (Ewww! :) )

People used to smoke in restaurants and movie theaters , too.

Nah - sooner or later, they'll have to look at their shriveling penis or warty-vagina anyway, and no one will have anything to do with them after that. 'Sides, sex isn't addictive either (well, for most people, anyway). It's just <b>highly desireable</b>.