All roads lead to Pharma
There are several ways of giving up smoking.
You can go “cold turkey”. You decide one morning that this is it – you are no longer a smoker and you just stop. You resist all temptations and that is that – you are no longer a smoker.
Another method that is becoming increasingly popular is to switch to the electronic equivalent – the e-cigarette, the e-pipe or the e-cigar. While these have been marketed as smoking alternatives, increasing numbers of ex-smokers are reporting that they very successfully used the e-route to quit altogether.
The method we hear most about is the so-called “nicotine replacement therapy” – the patch, the gum and the nicotine inhalers. Of the three methods these have been proved to be the least successful by far, over a long period. They tout themselves as being successful but that is only measuring cessation rates after a month or less. After a year, most smokers who have tried this route are back on the fags again.
The likes of ASH and the other Anti-smoker organisations would have you believe that the aim of their campaigns is to get people to stop smoking. You would imagine therefore that they would chose the most successful route and would advertise that. You would imagine that they would be delighted at the e-equivalent for a start. Here is a method that has a proven high success rate and achieves their aims. So why are they so desperate to have the e-cigarette banned or at the very least, subject to the same restrictions as cigarettes? Does that make sense?
If you check any of the government quit smoking campaigns or look at the ASH cessation methods, they all suggest that the best way to quit is to “contact your doctor or pharmacist”. Why would that be? A doctor or pharmacist doesn’t sell e-cigarettes? You don’t need a doctor or pharmacist to tell you to go “cold turkey”? But what have doctors and pharmacists have in common? Yup – the pharmaceutical trade. They are both going to suggest the least successful method – the pharmaceutically produced patch, gum or inhaler. They will even promote Champix, which has incredibly dangerous side effects.
Why is this? Why do ASH et al insist on promoting the least successful method while attacking the more successful?
Surely you can come to the obvious conclusion?
Would it help if I mentioned pharmaceutical sponsorship and grants?
Well, considering almost every choice made by the tobacco control movement leads to some kind of dismal failure, you still can’t rule out pure, innocent incompetence (but I think you’re probably on the money with your theory).
Dick – I think “money” is the operative word above? And thanks for that Twittery thing you did!
Fuck ’em all, keep on smokin’.
They can’t let everyone stop smoking! Where else are they going to raise all the taxes they lose?
Patrick – If ever I do decide to quit for some reason or other, it will NOT be as a result of any campaign by anyone!
Meltemian – That’s their problem. If everyone in the world quit tomight the world would go into an even bigger meltdown!
My previous wife smoked like crazy. So bad that even I, a smoker at the time, couldn’t take it. She tried to quit but couldn’t. Tried everything and I mean really tried but in the end smoking got the best of her.
So she asked me for help, maybe I could help her stop smoking. Being the compassionate guy that I am, plus the fact I had just found out that she bought a new car on, get this, my credit (forged my signature she did) I decided the pragmatic way was best.
So I shot her and found a new wife that didn’t smoke and didn’t mind my own smoking habit. She also had a fine credit rating so I took care of two problems in one blow…er…shot, as you might say.
Kirk M – most people spend their lives worrying over trifling problems. As you have demonstrated, no problem is insurmountable and quite often, the simplest solution is best. Nice thinking.
That solution is not available in the land of the firearms ban.
Unless your in the IRA or the other side.