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?