1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

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.

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". :-)

Originally posted by sycamore

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.

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.

Originally posted by sycamore

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.

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 posted by sycamore

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

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you want to live a healthy life free of physical addictions, then don't. I can't make that choice for you.

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

[sleemanj]

Originally posted by sycamore
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.

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.!

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

However, there are people who want to quit, try to quit, and cannot quit, for whatever reason.

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

[jaguar]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
That level of interpretation of brain activity is *way* in the future.

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.

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". :-)

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.

Nobody who's ever been a smoker would subscribe to that strategy

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.

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?

*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.

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.

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by sleemanj


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.!

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.

[gmarceau]

Originally posted by sycamore

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 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

[elSicomoro]

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

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.

[sleemanj]

Originally posted by sycamore


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

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.

[Nic Name]

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
sycamore, I know. I didn't mean for it to sound, at all, like I was coming down on you

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

Yah, you were considerate. Which is why I don't think you're a dick.

*bows* You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Nic Name]

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.