H/T Simon Clark, the European Commission has published its report on its public consultation on the possible revision of the EC’s Tobacco Products Directive. Amazingly, 96% of the respondents were EU citizens, and not (as is very often the case with such consultations) members of the tobacco control industry. Totally unsurprisingly, the vast majority of these citizens were opposed to further tobacco control measures. But the report goes on to say that
While it is encouraging to see a great number of responses, it should also be noted that this volume appears to be a result, to a large extent, of several citizen mobilisation campaigns that took place in some Member States …
Several different methods of mobilising and encouraging participation in the consultation process were utilized: from producing websites providing detailed information and guidance on how to participate … to producing and distributing videos via YouTube about the need to limit changes to tobacco product regulation and tobacco control policy.
The actions and efforts of these campaigns and their ability to mobilise citizens seem to have affected the overall results of the public consultation.
and that therefore,
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the outcome of the public consultation procedure.
So no doubt the consultation will be set aside on the grounds that smokers had been mobilised, and that therefore the result isn’t an accurate representation of the true feelings of the EU citizenry, and anyway the Tobacco Control industry knows far better than any smokers what’s good for them.
As I remarked in the comments, the results of elections or referendums could also be set aside on the same grounds – e.g. that political parties and newpapers had mobilised voters to vote in large numbers. And in fact this is exactly what happened with the Irish EU referendum: when they came up with the wrong answer the first time, they were made to vote again.
In the comments, Dave Atherton linked to an article by Tomáš Břicháček in Presseurop. Titled The counterproductive war on smokers, it ended by saying:
Experience has shown that social engineering projects that aim to curtail fundamental freedoms often have unexpected results and in most cases prove to be unqualified failures. This is the future that I foresee for the very strict repressive measures that the EU may be about to impose on smokers, who represent more than a third of the population of Europe’s member states. A few years from now, this kind of legislation could make smoking a symbol — and not just for smokers — of resistance to intrusive and paternalist public authorities and the relentless appetite for regulation in the EU, which is an increasing source of exasperation for a growing number of its citizens.
I think that “exasperation” may be a bit of an understatement. But since this article appears in the sort of publication that EU policymakers might actually read, no doubt any stronger language might make them spill their morning coffee over their croissants.
But when, as routinely happens, smokers fail to be properly consulted about measures which will actually affect them, policymakers are likely to have entirely imaginary ideas about how smokers actually feel. This will be all the more true when such policymakers are presented with ‘opinion polls’ by ASH or other Tobacco Control that show that 70% of smokers want to give up smoking, and 55% of them approve of complete smoking bans, etc, etc. In such circumstances, a dangerous chasm between reality and perception is likely to grow, with policymakers acting in the belief that they have the full support of smokers, when in fact they have no such thing.
There might have been a time, 5 or so years ago, when a smoker like me would have welcomed a genuine consultation of smokers. But I have learned over the past few years that Tobacco Control always acts to exclude smokers from such consultations, and to denigrate their opinions. And we can see in the response to the EC consultation this all-too-familiar process at work once again. In the past smokers were ignored because they hadn’t been mobilised: this time they will be ignored precisely because they have been. The result is that smokers like myself simply get angrier and angrier, not just about Tobacco Control measures but also about the undemocratic and unrepresentative operation of the EU as a whole.
And as Břicháček points out, smokers make up over a third of the EU population. That is an awful lot of people to exclude from consultation, and an awful lot of people (one third of 500 million = 167 million people) getting angrier and angrier as nobody pays any attention to them.
In the long run, it simply isn’t going to possible to silence that many people. They will make their voices heard one way or the other. But when they finally do get a hearing, EU policymakers will probably find that many of them are no longer interested in being ‘consulted’, but only want to see the whole mendacious, persecutory, state-funded Tobacco Control industry completely closed down.
That is to say that failure to consult (or even consider) smokers for so many years will have made so many of them sworn enemies of Tobacco Control and of its EU paymasters that it will no longer be possible for any sort of proper consultation to be belatedly introduced. There will instead just be a war of smokers against Tobacco Control.
In fact, there already is just such a war. Screw the consultations: Death to Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control is something that must be destroyed.
Frank Davis 
Tobacco just keeps on growing.(More CO2, the better)
When you think about it, Frank, there is a lot of hope in this scenario. Unbeknown to the zealots, a movement is beginning to arise which is asking why we have to pay tobacco duties. What is the reason? And why do we have to pay alcohol duties and fuel duties? What is the reason? Why should these commodities not be just like any other commodities – subject simply to VAT? You could even ask why food and children’s clothes should not be subject to VAT. Why not? Exemptions distort the market. If we did not have these silly duties and had vat on food etc, the situation would probably equalise out – fatties would stop eating so much. Mothers would stop buying their kids pointless, stupid clothes in order to keep up with the Joneses.
The result of the Smoking ban has been to originate a lot of awkward questions for the Powers-that-be. By powers-that-be, I mean the REAL Government of this Land – the Civil Servants (forget politicians – they are powerless and just passing through).
Perhaps we should start really pushing these questions -why do fuel duties exist? Apart from raising money for the Civil Servant Government (the REAL Government), why are fuel, tobacco and alcohol singled out for vicious treatment? Especially as regards fuel, why is our Civil Servant Government deliberately destroying out competitiveness in the world?
Lots of interesting stuff is beginning to emerge.
I agree with Junican. For all its squirming, this report is a departure from the norm in that it does at least recognise that a significant number of people are against further restrictions. And it’s a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel that they haven’t trotted out the usual old line normally used to sweep aside the concerns of anyone who disagrees with them by immediately stating categorically that they are in the pay of tobacco companies. It’s also significant, in my view, that when they talk of all these people having been “mobilised” they don’t refer just to “smokers,” which presumably means that there were a significant number of non-smokers who had, in their view, been “mobilised” as well – which may well have been the reason why they felt obliged to include them in this report. And I’ll bet that hurt. A lot. But what else could they do? Alienate all those very people whom they feel they are most likely to get on-side (and indeed many whom they thought already were)?
I think that within the Tobacco Control movement, alongside those who jolly well know that most of what they say has always involved a high number of fabricated lies and a large degree of exaggeration, there are a significant brainwashed number (probably the minions rather than the top-knobs) who genuinely believe that what the Movement has been saying all these years is the truth and, even if they don’t admit it publicly, there must surely be at least some of those people for whom these results must now make them realise that maybe, just maybe, they’ve been thoroughly duped by their leaders. That can only be a good thing. The more people who are currently actively involved in Tobacco Control who realise that all is not as their gurus say it is, the more of them will start to turn away from it.
I believe that this process has already started. I read in a recent report by ASH that one of their major concerns at the moment is that they are haemorrhaging staff like there’s no tomorrow. I know that you don’t share my view on this Frank, but I truly believe that the Tobacco Control movement is quietly imploding as its lies meet reality – as, eventually, they were always bound to do. I doubt that it’ll happen quickly enough for you and me and many of the readers of this blog, and I have no doubt that there’ll always be a few dedicated smoker-haters who’ll bat on and on and on about smoking until the cows come home, but I think that they’ll increasingly come to be seen as a tiny group of preoccupied hysterics (which, of course, is exactly what they are) rather than, as previously, a group of well-wishing individuals who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of others.
“I read in a recent report by ASH that one of their major concerns at the moment is that they are haemorrhaging staff like there’s no tomorrow”
I agree completely with you on the issue and I know that Angela Harbutt in her last thread mentioned receiving an e-mail from an employee of ASH roughly saying that their views were tripe. Any follow up to that should make interesting reading.
However, the problem is way past the level of TC and is now a political one. Parliament will feel that too many of their people people will look turds if they have to admit they were mislead or just plain wrong.
Sorry, done it again. Frank J not Frank D. Sheesh!
It doesn’t matter. It needs to have a bloke smoking a cigarette and a little green bird if it’s me.
What is this Frank J?
Angela Harbutt in her last thread mentioned receiving an e-mail from an employee of ASH roughly saying that their views were tripe
I vaguely remember reading that somewhere too. Has anyone seen this email? And ASH’s views on what precisely? How to make paper gliders? How to bake perfect jam doughnuts?
I read in a recent report by ASH that one of their major concerns at the moment is that they are haemorrhaging staff like there’s no tomorrow. I know that you don’t share my view on this Frank, but I truly believe that the Tobacco Control movement is quietly imploding
Where did you read that ASH are “haemorrhaging staff “? How many have they got to haemorrhage anyway? It makes it sound like they’re a large corporation with thousands of employees.
And is it necessarily good news? It could be that ASH staff are highly sought after, and are moving to even higher paid jobs in Booze Control and Fat Control. Or maybe even Climate Control, where veteran liars are in great demand.
It was in a recent report of a meeting between ASH grandees and their stakeholders. It was linked from one of the comments sections – possibly DP’s – from another commenter. The term haemorrhaging is mine – needless to say it wasn’t a word that ASH used – and of course it’s relative because as you say ASH aren’t a huge organisation, but the numbers leaving were sufficient for it to be one of ASH’s major concerns, and they seemed to be genuinely baffled by it.
Typically of them, they tried to “spin” the story in their favour and stated that their overall conclusion was that the loss of staff was “only to be expected” after such a successful period, which sounded like a cop-out to me. How many people rush to leave a company just after it’s secured a major contract or announced record profits? How many people throw in the towel working for a charity whose aims they believe in the moment it has achieved just one of its objectives, when to all intents and purposes it looks as if it might be set to achieve more? Few, if any. People rush to leave companies when there are rumours of bankruptcies and job losses on the way. They leave charities when they no longer believe, for whatever reason, in what the charity stands for. Rats leave sinking ships, not floating ones. As you say, Frank (you pessimist, you!), it is, of course, possible that the ASH staff have simply moved onto what looks like more profitable grazing ground in other Prohibitionist areas, but even if so, and a worrying sign though this might be for the drinkers and less-than-skinny amongst us, it’s still good news for smokers that ASH’s rank and file seem to be jumping ship in greater-than-usual numbers at this stage.
Also notable amongst the comments from the meeting was the feeling amongst many of the stakeholders that to try and push for any more legislation (such as a smoking ban in cars) might be counterproductive with the smoking ban still so fresh in everyone’s minds (the public’s perception of a “nanny state” was specifically mentioned in this respect as a good reason for holding fire), and also the fact that the DoH’s funding of ASH might well be interfering with the public’s perception of them as an independent body.
I got the impression from the notes that ASH were somewhat on the defensive at this meeting and that the stakeholders (whoever they were – it didn’t say) were considerably more in tune with the public’s perception of ASH and the whole anti-smoking movement than ASH themselves were (or would admit to being), and that there were some concerns on the part of the stakeholders that if ASH didn’t put a bit of a brake on their hitherto very vocal and loud demands for more and more legislation or extensions to the ban etc etc then they were running the risk of damaging the whole campaign. And although not stated in so many words, clearly if this is their feeling, then even ASH cannot fail to recognise that the implication must surely be that they could look elsewhere for another organisation/s to “front” their anti-smoking campaigns for them.
If I rediscover the link I’ll let you have it so that you can have a look for yourself.
“I vaguely remember reading that somewhere too. Has anyone seen this email? And ASH’s views on what precisely? How to make paper gliders? How to bake perfect jam doughnuts?”
That’s what Angela Harbutt wrote in her last thread on liberal Vision. No doubt, nobody working at ASH has the slightest idea how to make jam doughnuts (I purposely try to avoid ‘sexism’) so I imagine it’s about paper gliders.
I was over poking around at the Soundclick website today. Under the artist profiles were the usual mundane categories. Then under the heading of Social/lifestyle was marital status, sexual orientation, socially (shy, extrovert, etc.) and sure enough Smoker. No religion such as Jew, Islamic, annoying evangelical Christian for people to insta-reject. No skin color for people to pre-judge by. Nope, just smoker:non-smoker.
Anyone who knows anything about the relationship between smoking and musical talent would be wise not to take the hate-bait these folks are dangling in front of them.
This is the new world as shaped by Tobacco Control and by all means yes, death to them I say.
I’m too young to have witnessed the WW2 Third Reich nightmare. Didn’t witness first hand the bitter Jim Crow madness. Only this one. Tobacco hatred is insane.
Soundclick should consider adding Nasty Habits:_______ to the mix. (I take tea at three)
And maybe Food Preference:________
(and the meat I eat for dinner must be hung up for a week)
Frank Davis: Břicháček
I bet you didn’t type his name out each time with all the diacritics!
But yes, the politicians are living in a parallel universe. Somehow I think they know exactly what people think, but they don’t care. I think they believe that people will, eventually, just cow down and bow to their will, because they are in charge and they are the law. And this sense of entitlement will escalate and grow worse, all the while smokers, drinkers, fatties and anyone who feels persecuted (don’t worry, there’ll still be millions of people cheering the politicians and the fake charities on) get angrier and angrier at what’s being done to them. Eventually, something will have to give – only I suspect it won’t be pretty for anyone.
I read in a recent report by ASH that one of their major concerns at the moment is that they are haemorrhaging staff like there’s no tomorrow. I know that you don’t share my view on this Frank, but I truly believe that the Tobacco Control movement is quietly imploding
I am not entirely convinced ASH has the number of staff it makes us believe it has. It’s a bit like the number of anti-smokers “trolling” on the net: fake identities; repetitive statements; junk science. By now they have run out of arguments that we have not heard/read before.
As for Tobacco Control quietly imploding one can only wish for it!!!!
Perhaps there are one or two industries that could “help out” some Governments these days – after all, people might not be prepared to hit the shops but surely they would welcome a pint or two in a pub with a sign on the door stating “smoker/separate smoking lounge”…. And the pub landlords who CHOOSE to keep their pub smoke-free could put a sign on the door, stating “non-smoker”. I take it we all can read, can’t we?
For what it’s worth, American anti-tobacco seems to have been worried about the same thing in 2005.
You get the impression that they feel their volunteers are flighty pieces and having got a taste for causing mayhem will move on to other causes when things go a bit quiet.
Social movements and human rights rhetoric in tobacco control – 2005
THREATS
“Over the past 20 years, the tobacco control movement has achieved extraordinary successes, arguably far beyond what anyone anticipated. Aside from the enactment of once unthinkable restrictions on smoking in public places, including virtually no smoking in public places in California and New York City, the movement is responsible for changing the nation’s social norms regarding tobacco use.
Even in areas where strong anti-smoking laws have not been enacted, smokers are on the defensive and the cultural norm no longer favours public tobacco use.
The spread of voluntary restrictions on tobacco use suggests how much the social norms have changed. And the fact that juries now routinely award damages to individual smokers is a remarkable turnaround from the fact that the tobacco industry had never paid to resolve litigation until the mid to late 1990s.
Yet there are a number of reasons to be concerned that the tobacco control movement could share the fate of other social movements in being unable to build on its successes, even if the past victories are likely to be sustained far into the future. The threats are both internal and external to the movement.
First, there is an inevitable tendency to say “we’ve won”—there are other battles to confront. Volunteers are particularly susceptible to this reaction. One study found that tobacco control coalitions had difficulty sustaining members’ interest in the less exciting work of implementing and enforcing tobacco control laws.1 The study also found that politicians’ interest waned after enacting the law. Thus, the perception of success may well encourage tobacco coalition volunteers to join other social movements instead of continuing to pursue tobacco control objectives.
Second, the tobacco control movement has become highly professionalised and institutionalised. In many respects, this is a profoundly positive development. Without the funds and lobbying muscle from the voluntary associations, it is unlikely that state anti-smoking laws would either be as prevalent or as strong as they are now.
Equally important, groups that now comprise the tobacco control infrastructure, such as the American Legacy Foundation and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have kept tobacco control on the policy agenda and have contributed to steadily reducing tobacco consumption rates among both children and adults.
At the same time, the shift to a professional cadre may well “crowd out” the volunteers needed to sustain the movement. If volunteers think that capable professionals will sustain the movement or, worse still, that the professionals will not listen to the volunteers, it is likely that they will migrate to other social movements. The danger is that national, professional organisations will eclipse the grass roots efforts”
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_2/ii45.full
I read about ASH losing substantial numbers of staff. The major events in this respect occurred in 2009. I have thrutched about and found it! It is apparently a Scottish Gov publication concerning ASH Scotland. Unfortunately, I cannot attribute it because I cannot remember on what site I saw it. Anyway, here is the URL:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/29113558/0
CHAPTER SEVEN is what you want about staff turnover.
Thanks for that. 7:17:
ASH Scotland’s atypically high level of staff turnover in 2006-07 may be a cause for concern; on the other hand it may be a natural response following a sustained period of achievement culminating in the implementation of the SHSC Act (Scotland) 2005. It could also be said that a high turnover at this stage could assist ASH Scotland to reposition itself for the new challenges ahead. It is recommended that ASH Scotland continues to monitor turnover on a quarterly basis; and continues to offer exit interviews to staff who leave the organisation and to analyse the feedback from these reviews. It may also be prudent to review opportunities for career progression within the organisation; and to be alert to any issues regarding staff morale
Sorry – the serious staff turnover occured in 2007 when the turnover was over 20%.
Further, this report appears in the Scottish Gov ‘Publications’. The report dates from 2008. I do not know how it is that this matter has turned up at this time! Perhaps someone found it on the net without realising how old it was!
O/T, Frank. I have posted an article on Bolton Smokers Club site about my Freedom of Info request about who signed the UK up for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It is on:
http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/
For anyone interested – some interesting links, which I have not yet explored.
Thanks for this:
we are not in a position to advise the name of the person who signed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on behalf of the United Kingdom. From our files, we can tell that once agreement had been reached to become a Party to the FCTC, the relevant documents were signed on behalf of the United Kingdom by a duly authorised official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
Dammit! That’s another one of my “great theories” gone for a burton then! Sorry to get all your hopes up, folks!
Oh, well, they are currently advertising for at least three staff that I know of at the moment. Maybe the rot set in a few years ago and ….
Why sorry? 25.9% is the last year recorded above. That’s quarter of the staff, a high rate. Sure, we don’t know all the reasons and we can speculate but it’s still a fact.
Another point that irks me is the quoted ‘smoking rate’ at @ 21%. Eurostats put it at 28% and if we take account of the recent Sainsbury’s finance study for life insurance purposes (links on Dave Atherton’s site) there are a further 7.5% who smoke but say they don’t i.e. 35.5%, over a third of the population
Based on the number of people trying to cadge fags off me when I light up, I think it’s a lot more than 7.5%. As an example in my Wife’s last 2 jobs, the first, an NHS job, had a dept. of 14 people of whom 6 smoked. In the present job, a public company, a dept. of 21 people has 11 regular smokers and 4 ‘occasional’ smokers.
21% is bollocks and I even think 28% is, too.
Frank this should put a smiley face on ya guys!
Europe on Brink of ‘Major Financial Collapse’…
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43988195
If the EU is kaput so is tobacco control!
State’s top anti-tobacco official cut; activists decry move
IMPORTANT:
Miller-Meeks has told some members of the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Commission that she intends to seek legislation to disband the division entirely and that she has little interest in developing effective tobacco control policy, despite a statutory responsibility to do so,” he wrote.
Can we start to see the end of tobacco prohibition as the country goes bankrupt!
1:15 PM, Aug 1, 2011 | by Tony Leys | 58 Comments Categories: Iowa Politics Insider TwitterFacebookShare
Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Facebook Twitter Newsvine FarkIt AAAIowa’s top tobacco-control official has lost her job after her division’s budget was slashed by two-thirds.
Bonnie Mapes headed the Division of Tobacco Use Prevention and Control since 2004. She took early retirement after her boss, Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks, told her last month that her position was being terminated.
Mapes and Miller-Meeks said today that the move was due to the Legislature’s decision to cut the division’s budget from $7.8 million to $2.8 million, leaving an agency that was too small to require a full-time director.
Sen. Herman Quirmbach, an Ames Democrat and strident anti-smoking voice, complained about the development in a letter released today by the Senate Democrats’ staff.
Quirmbach referred to the move as a “firing,” and wrote that he was “dismayed.”
“Miller-Meeks has told some members of the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Commission that she intends to seek legislation to disband the division entirely and that she has little interest in developing effective tobacco control policy, despite a statutory responsibility to do so,” he wrote.
“Iowa’s Division of Tobacco Use Prevention and Control is a national model for cancer prevention,” Quirmbach wrote. “According to the American Cancer Society, Iowa’s anti-smoking efforts have resulted in a 24 percent drop in coronary heart disease, an 8 percent drop in heart attacks and a 5 percent drop in strokes. Iowa is now number two in the nation for the lowest adult smoking rate, and youth smoking rates dropped 13 percentage points from 2000-2008. Despite these remarkable successes, smoking remains the number one cause of death in our state, killing 4,400 Iowans each year.”
Mapes’ division is involved in such things as producing edgy anti-smoking ads and providing counseling and medications to Iowans who want to give up cigarettes. Some Republicans have complained about the ads, which are produced as part of the Just Eliminate Lies youth campaign, and Gov. Terry Branstad has said he does not believe they are effective.
Miller-Meeks said today that her decision to cut the division director’s position was no reflection of Mapes’ job performance. She said state leaders had been talking for several years about folding the division’s duties into other parts of the health department, and she might ask legislators next session for authority to do so.
Miller-Meeks said she needs to make anti-smoking efforts into a tight budget, and it made more sense to focus the limited dollars on such things as the Quitline Iowa counseling program and local anti-smoking organizations rather than a separate state division.
Threase Harms, a Des Moines lobbyist for the anti-smoking group Clean Air for Everyone, said Mapes’ dismissal raises questions about how serious Branstad is about his frequently stated opposition to smoking. “If they want Iowa to be the healthiest state in the nation, how are we going to do that without addressing the No. 1 cause of preventable deaths?” she said.
Tim Albrecht, a spokesman for Branstad, said the governor remains committed to combating smoking. He said the governor signed off on Miller-Meeks’ decision to terminate Mapes’ position, and he said the governor understood the need to cut programs, including the anti-smoking ads.
“Given Iowa’s severe budget constraints, most departments and agencies saw a decrease in funding,” Albrecht wrote. “Gov. Branstad believes tobacco cessation programs are important and necessary, and believes the money should be spent in a more effective manner. Blanket television advertisements, when 80 percent of the population does not smoke, is probably not the most efficient means of tobacco cessation. The governor continues to look for efficient, effective ways to educate the public on the harmful effects of smoking.”
Dr. Patricia Quinlisk, the health department’s medical director, has been named interim division director.
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/ … ecry-move/
AWARENESS TIPS TO QUIT SMOKING
Among the various bad habits, smoking is one among the worst habits which not only spoils the health of the smoker, it also spoils the health of the near and dear who reside or move around him. Smoking effects one’s all-round health, finance, personality, confidence, ability and performance. So, it is advisable to quit smoking as early as possible. Here are some tobacco related statistics and awareness tips to quit smoking, to enjoy sound wealthy health.
STATISTICS OF TOBACCO: Tobacco usage in India claims more than 800000 lives annually. Globally the number of smokers is expected to rise to 1.7 billion by 2020. Ninety percent of the smokers in the country start smoking before they are 24 years old. Half the male tuberculosis deaths in India are caused by smoking. If smoking is unchecked, by 2020, millions of people in India will become regular smokers. Most of them experience their first puff before attaining the age 18. What is most disturbing is the steady rise in the numbers of teenagers, some of them as young as 14 or 15 years. Out of the 1000 teenagers who smoke, at least 500 have been found to die of tobacco-related diseases. In USA, the drop in smoking has been attributed to a number of reasons – a growing awareness about the health-damaging effects of smoking, rising cigarette prices, rising cigarette taxes, aggressive anti-smoking campaigns and a decline in the social acceptability of smoking.
DISASTEROUS EFFECTS: Smoking predisposes to oral, lung, and other cancers. Smokers are more likely to suffer from high blood pressure and to experience a heart-attack or stroke. Smokers are also at increased risk of disturbances ranging from dental caries to osteoporosis. Women smokers are more likely to have abortions. Their children are more likely to have behavioral disorders. Non-smokers, who regularly inhale cigarette smoke also suffer higher medical risk. A study of half a million Americans who were followed-up for an average of nine years, showed that the risk of death was doubled in smokers. As many as 2200 Indians stop smoking every day – by dying. Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. Forty percent of the cancer detected in India, is because of tobacco use. with every cigarette, you ingest a staggering 4700 chemicals, 42 carcinogens or cancer-causing substance. One cigarette and one beedi reduce seven minutes of your life. Approximately Rs.27000 crores in terms of healthcare costs and lost productively. One packet of Pan Parrag or Hans reduces four minutes of your life. It causes sexual impotency in men, miscarriage and infertility in women, wrinkled skin, stained teeth, bad odour, mouth ulceration and difficulty in swallowing. Every organ in the body is affected from head to toe, especially the brain, lungs and heart attacks, chronic cough and lung disease, worsened condition of diabetes, blood pressure and lower stamina. Babies born to mothers who smoke can be sicker, die suddenly, or have more infections of the middle ear, coughing and wheezing. Tobacco-related causes lead, every year in India, to 20000 amputations besides frightening diseases like lung/oral cancer, stroke and heart problems and over eight lakh deaths compared to 60000 from road accidents. Cause problems to family, friends and co-workers from the smoke from the cigarette – exposing them to the same dangers. This is called ‘second hand smoking’.
ORGANISATION EFFORTS TO ERADICATE SMOKING: WHO has taken an initiative to set up Tobacco Cessation Centers (TCC). Tobacco Products Prohibition of advertisement and regulation of trade and commerce, (production and supply and distribution) act has four rules, which bans smoking in public places, sale of tobacco products to minor, tobacco advertisements with pictures of celebrities, and sales of tobacco products within a 100-yard radius of educational institutions. Counselors work in tandem to help the person seeking help for his problem, by telling them of specific ways to counter the craving, as well as of positive lifestyle-altering habits. NIMHANS has a free OPD at the TCC which functions thrice a week-Monday, Wednesday and Friday, between 2 pm and 4 pm. Tobacco Cessation Centre, Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS, Hosur Road, Bangalore. Tel: 26995311/12.
TREATMENT AWARENESS TIPS: Many medicines can help smokers drop their deadly habit. Smokers are addicted to the nicotine in cigarette, but the chemicals in tobacco tar are what especially harm health. Nicotine replacement can help smokers quit cigarette without suffering the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Nicotine replacement is available as a patch, gum, lozenge, inhaler and spray. Bupropion is another effective treatment. Patients take this drug for about three weeks before attempting a clean break with smoking. About half of treated patients successfully quit smoking within two months, but gradually relapse during the rest of the year. Varenicline is the latest drug. It received approval in USA in May 2006. Smokers also need counseling on how to stay tobacco-free. This guidance is provided through cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), a highly successful approach used to treat depression and other psychiatric disorders.
GOOD EFFECTS OF QUITTING SMOKING: By stopping, a person will no longer be a bad influence on younger children in his or her family and in the society. The self-confidence and self-image of the person improves, when he or she quits. No more looks of disapproval or feelings of guilt. Saving of money is another advantage, expenditure on buying cigarettes, lighters, ashtrays; matches and so on can be saved. Quitting smoking reduces bad breath, yellowing of teeth or fingers. Overall performance of the person in physical activities will be remarkably improved after quitting the habit of smoking.
AWARENESS TO QUIT SMOKING: Throw away all of your tobacco. Clean out your room if you have smoked there or left a tobacco packet lying around. Throw away your ashtrays, lighters, empty packets, anything that you connect with your tobacco habit. Pick a stop date. Choose a date one to two weeks away so you can get ready to quit. If possible, choose a time when things in your life will change. Or just pick a time when you don’t expect any extra stress at school, work or home. For example, quit after final exams or a project assignment not during them: Make a list of the reasons why you want to quit. Keep the list on hand so you can look at it when you have a nicotine carving. Keep track of where, when, why you smoke. Tell your friends that you are quitting smoking. Ask them not to pressure you. Find other things to do with them besides using tobacco. Stop on stipulated date and time. Plan little rewards for yourself for each tobacco-free day, week or month. For example, buy yourself a new shirt or ask a friend to see a movie with you. Instead of smoking or chewing tobacco, chew sugar less gum, cardamoms, a toffee etc. Call a friend,go to a place where you can’t smoke. Take a walk or workout. Remind yourself why you want to quit. Develop a healthy lifestyle.
LIFE AFTER QUITTING: After two weeks: Blood flow improves; nicotine has passed from the body. Two weeks to three months: Circulation will improve, making walking and running easier; lung functioning increases up to 30 percent. After Five years: Risk of stroke will be substantially reduced, within five to fifteen years after quitting, it becomes about as non-smokers. After 10 years: Risk of dying from lung cancer will be about half of what it would have been if smoking is continued. Risk of cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas will also decrease. After 15 years: Risk of dying from a heart attack is equal to a person who never smoked. NicVAX is a vaccine against smoking which is presently under development. It produces antibodies against nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco. If a vaccinated person smokes, the antibodies attach themselves to nicotine. The resultant nicotine-antibody complex is too large to cross the blood-brain complex. Consequently, the smoker does not experience the expected effect of smoking in his brain. Clinical trails on NicVAX have begun; the food and drug Administration in USA has put this research on fast track.
NicVAX could be useful for smokers who are trying to quit, and for abstinent. NicVAX may also prevent smoking; for example, parents may vaccinate their children against the development of addiction. This then might be the first vaccine to prevent a behavior rather than a disease.
CAUTION: CONSULT SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONALS/COUNSELLERS, BEFORE TAKING ANY TREATMENT TO QUIT SMOKING.
For further Art of Awareness living various activities; all-round, easy simple, single window awareness solutions visit website: http://www.srimission.org.
NicVAX could be useful for smokers who are trying to quit, and for abstinent. NicVAX may also prevent smoking; for example, parents may vaccinate their children against the development of addiction. This then might be the first vaccine to prevent a behavior rather than a disease.
CAUTION: CONSULT SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONALS/COUNSELLERS, BEFORE TAKING ANY TREATMENT TO QUIT SMOKING.
Isn’t this scarier than any of the lengthy list above?