Smokers Not Addicted

Study says smokers are not addicted to nicotine

Craving for cigarettes is more to do with the mind than the addictive influence of nicotine. In other words, it is the psychological element of smoking that makes one addicted to cigarettes, a new study conducted by Israeli scientists has revealed.

The psychological element of smoking is the key factor deciding the intensity of craving for cigarettes in a smoker compared to the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical, says Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Psychology.

“These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking,” says Dr. Dar, in his new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

Dr. Reuven Dar and his colleagues reached these conclusions after analyzing the data from two landmark studies.

The researchers monitored smoking behavior and craving levels of in-flight attendants, both women and men, who worked at the Israeli airline El Al. They were monitored during two flights — a long flight of between 10 to 13 hours like Tel Aviv to New York and a two-hop shorter trip from Israel to Europe and back, each leg lasting three to five hours.

The study team then analyzed the responses of the El Al staff to a questionnaire and found that the duration of the flight had no significant impact on craving levels. In fact it was similar for short and long flights. Moreover, craving levels at the end of each short flight were much higher than those at the end of the long flight. This showed that cravings increased in anticipation of the flight landing, whatever the flight’s total duration.

Therefore, the craving effect is produced by psychological reasons rather than by the physiological effects of nicotine deprivation.

A similar study conducted in 2005 amongst religious Jews, forbidden by their religion to smoke on the Sabbath, also found nicotine to be not addictive as physiological addictions are usually defined.

Similar findings elsewhere were indeed not popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory:

The Non-Smokers’ Rights Association has filed a complaint with the Collège des médecins du Québec against a psychiatrist who testified this week at the ongoing hearings of two class action suits brought by Quebec smokers against three tobacco companies.

The complaint accuses Dominique Bourget, a forensic psychiatrist at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, of breaching the College’s ethics code by “minimizing the gravity of, if not denying the existence of, tobacco dependence” in her testimony and in a report she prepared for the proceedings.

In his complaint to the Collège, Quebec Director of the NSRA François Damphousse accuses Bourget of offering “specious and misleading arguments” in her report to the court and expressing doubt that nicotine can legitimately be considered an addictive drug.

Entirely unrelated, Japanese space agency shows that most CO2 is coming from tropical forest regions, not industrial nations.




So, if CO2 is so darn dangerous, perhaps we should chop down tropical forests?

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Smokers Not Addicted

  1. Marie says:

    I remember a train journey from Aarhus (Denmark) to Hamburg in 2007 just after the smoking ban in trains. I was informed, that smoking was only banned in Danish trains, not in German. Instead of booking on a through train, I decided to change train at the border. That made the travel 1 hour longer, but at least I could smoke the last 2 1/2 hours. It turned out, that that wasn’t true, smoking was banned in the German train too. And that last part of the journey had no end. …

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    He isn’t the only one that a group of physicians have threatened in Canada for not carrying the lie to its final conclusion:

    John Atkinson

    Hello Michael, this piece has certainly generated much buzz which perhaps is what you were going for with your essay and note above regarding the essay. Looking at some of the threads of conversation, my biggest concern is that when you present ill-informed conclusions about something like the effects of second hand smoke, the result is further confusion and misinformation. This result could have grave consequences regarding people health – a very real impact of misinformation. I’m aware that the Council of Medical Officers of Health wrote you a letter regarding this piece, expressing their concern over the damage you may cause via your piece. I encourage you to review the sources and review of the evidence (massive body of evidence) and post another note that clarifies the issue in order to repair some of the damage.« less
    4 days ago

    John Davidson
    @John Atkinson; John since you now openly admit that Mr Enright has been officially threatened via a letter from the Council of Medical Officers of Health.

    Perhaps youd like to share the active members who provoked this letter against a citizen expressing his views about this Junk Science being used to justify criminal laws against normal law abiding citizens.

    Lung Cancer a Different Disease in Smokers and Nonsmokers

    PHILADELPHIA — Lung cancer that develops in smokers is not the … » more
    4 days ago
    1 Like
    John Davidson

    @John Atkinson I will ask you were Heather Crowes Tumors ever analyzed to determine their origin.

    Seeing as how you abused her to be the Poster child for SECOND HAND SMOKE to pass the unjustified Indoor smoking ban in Canada.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Now who are the Council of Medical Officers of Health is the sane question and are they the same ones as Quebec Director of the NSRA François Damphousse !

    I have no doubt we will find they are intimately connected and behind nearly all the Canadian anti-smoking legislation going on.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Contacted folks in the Canadian provinces in our group lets see if they know anything and dirt on it.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Ann Welch speaking of Michael Enright, it turns out that our old friend Gar Mahood is behind the complaints to the CBC under his new group “Campaign for Justice on Tobacco Fraud”. here is part of the letter sent to the CBC “And because we have been connected to Mr. Enright’s “anti-tobacco activist” organizations, the non-governmental organizations large and small that Mr. Enright sideswipes in his journalism, we would ask that we be consulted by the CBC with respect to what might be an appropriate remedy for what we believe to be wrongful, irresponsible behaviour.
        In the preparation of this complaint, we consulted with James Repace, a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 19 years. The EPA produced the landmark 1993 report that concluded that SHS “is causally associated with lung cancer in adults, and ETS [environmental tobacco smoke or SHS], by the total weight of evidence, belongs in the category of compounds classified by EPA as Group A (known human) carcinogens.” Other Group A carcinogens include benzene, arsenic, asbestos and radionuclides.
        We have appended Mr. Repace’s letter which calls the Enright essay “an appalling display of willful ignorance” and note that Repace is one of the world’s most published authorities on SHS. His curriculum vitae is enclosed.”

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          January 21, 2014 RUSH – BY COURIER
          Ms. Esther Enkin Ombudsman Canadian Broadcasting Corporation c/o Reception desk 250 Wellington Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3P6
          Dear Ms. Enkin: Re: Michael Enright’s essay, “Exploding the myth that second-hand smoke causes cancer”
          We, the undersigned, are writing in response to Michael Enright’s essay on the 50th anniversary of the United States Surgeon General’s report and the relationship between second-hand smoke (SHS) and lung cancer (“The Sunday Edition” January 19, 2014). We are filing this complaint with you directly rather than with “The Sunday Edition”. We do not believe that Michael Enright will voluntarily produce the appropriate response to the concerns outlined. We believe an unqualified retraction of the disinformation in his essay and an apology are warranted.
          His editorial, presented with the authority of a magisterial bull, is both ignorant and irresponsible. Mr. Enright unfairly attacked “anti-smoking activists”, those in the health community working to reduce the terrible toll caused by the tobacco industry and its apologists, accusing them of ignoring the science of SHS. But more damaging, he misinformed hundreds of thousands of CBC listeners on one of the key issues in tobacco control and, through that disinformation, caused harm to public health.
          First, he opened his essay by saying that the 1964 report of the U.S. Surgeon General “established for the first time the clear linkage between smoking and lung cancer.” Not correct on two points. It was not just a “linkage” with or association between smoking and lung cancer and it was not “the first time” a causal relationship was found. The report of the U.K. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons established the causal relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer in 1962.
          Second, Mr. Enright correctly gave weight to the authority of the 2014 USSG’s report but he ignored the same source when he concluded “passive smoking” or SHS “clearly doesn’t” cause lung cancer in non-smokers. His views on the tobacco issue somehow reduced his incentive to consider the conclusion on this matter in the same 2014 USSG’s report that prompted his polemic. In “Major Conclusions” the Surgeon General says”
          “4. Exposure to second-hand smoke has been causally linked to cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases….”

          Third, Mr. Enright, inexplicably uses as the basis for his rant, a news report of a study discussed at a conference, not an article in a peer-reviewed journal. There have been dozens of peer- reviewed articles on the subject in question published in the last two decades. Using a “weight of evidence” approach standard in epidemiology, the Surgeon General concluded in 1986 and reaffirmed in both 2006 and 2014 that SHS does cause cancer in non-smokers.
          Fourth, Mr. Enright demeaned “anti-smoking activists” for saying that “second-hand smoke kills”. To this he “pronounce[s]” “Well no, it doesn’t.” In fact, a warning on Canadian cigarette packages put into law in 2001 read: “Second-hand smoke can cause death from lung cancer and other diseases.” Clearly such a warning, in the face of a litigious tobacco industry, was carefully vetted by both Health Canada experts and by Justice Canada lawyers before it appeared in legislation. The tobacco industry, knowing full well that this particular warning was a major threat to sales, decided not to litigate as the warnings were clearly evidence-based and would stand up in court.
          Fifth, Mr. Enright attributes the finding that SHS can cause morbidity and mortality in non- smokers to these same “anti-smoking activists”. Overlook on this occasion that “anti-smoking” is tobacco industry language designed to associate tobacco control work with the “antis” of the alcohol prohibition movement. On its face, Mr. Enright’s accusation about who originated the finding is both ridiculous and mischievous. Tobacco control activists did not create the evidence that SHS kills. That conclusion is the finding of respected researchers, the Surgeon General and other prestigious authorities, and reflects the work of the field of epidemiology in several countries. The so-called “anti-smoking activists” have simply been acting in the public interest by educating the public about this significant risk. If not captured by substantial bias, why would Mr. Enright object to smokers being informed that their spouses, children, or co-workers are subject to a significant risk from SHS?
          Finally, Mr. Enright was quick to declare that he is an ex-smoker, to give his polemic a greater sense of neutrality. Curiously, in previous essays on the tobacco issue where he also undermined the work of the health community, we note that he failed to inform the audience that he was, at that time, addicted to tobacco.
          In fact, Mr. Enright has a well-established history of bias on the tobacco issue. Not long ago, he read an editorial attacking an award-winning Canadian health organization for its position in opposition to a repugnant tobacco industry sponsorship. Using misinformation once again and without apparent embarrassment, he defended St. Michael’s University of the University of Toronto for taking a $150,000 donation from Imperial Tobacco to fund a programme – we are not joking – in corporate social responsibility! This despite the fact that virtually every member of the programme’s ethics advisory board resigned over the sponsorship. Oblivious to what was going on around him, he read his editorial at a time when Canadian provinces were suing the tobacco industry for alleged conspiracy and fraud.

          Ms. Enkin, in cases involving libel where an individual or organization is harmed, one of the remedies usually demanded and ordered is a corrective statement. Libel laws are in place to correct misinformation and to repair damage. Libel laws are rooted in principles of fairness and justice. There is no libel suggested here. What we hold is that principles of justice and fairness in this case also demand that a very substantial corrective opinion be broadcast on the same programme, a response that exposes the misinformation and attempts to repair the damage to public health caused by Mr. Enright. After all, Canada’s public network must be committed to not broadcasting and promoting false statements about health risks.
          And because we have been connected to Mr. Enright’s “anti-tobacco activist” organizations, the non-governmental organizations large and small that Mr. Enright sideswipes in his journalism, we would ask that we be consulted by the CBC with respect to what might be an appropriate remedy for what we believe to be wrongful, irresponsible behaviour.
          In the preparation of this complaint, we consulted with James Repace, a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 19 years. The EPA produced the landmark 1993 report that concluded that SHS “is causally associated with lung cancer in adults, and ETS [environmental tobacco smoke or SHS], by the total weight of evidence, belongs in the category of compounds classified by EPA as Group A (known human) carcinogens.” Other Group A carcinogens include benzene, arsenic, asbestos and radionuclides.
          We have appended Mr. Repace’s letter which calls the Enright essay “an appalling display of willful ignorance” and note that Repace is one of the world’s most published authorities on SHS. His curriculum vitae is enclosed.
          In conclusion, we ask that you investigate this complaint and discuss any remedies with the undersigned. You may reach us through the CJTF letterhead.
          Yours sincerely,
          Mary Jane Ashley, MD, Professor Emeritus of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and Chair, Expert Panel on the Renewal of the Ontario Tobacco Strategy (1999)
          John Blatherwick, CM, OBC, CD, MD, FRCPC Chief Medical Health Officer (1984-2007) City of Vancouver and Vancouver Coastal Health
          Neil E. Collishaw Research Director Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada

          Garfield Mahood, OC President Campaign for Justice on Tobacco Fraud
          Donald Neal MD, CCFP Adjunct Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Western Ontario Ontario Coroner Goderich Ontario
          Richard Schabas, MD, MHSc, FRCPC Medical Officer of Health, Hastings and Prince Edward Counties Health Unit, and Chief Medical Officer of Health, Province of Ontario (1987-1997)
          Stan Shatenstein Editor and Publisher, STAN Bulletin Smoking & Tobacco Abstracts & News
          Richard S. Stanwick, MD, MSc, FRCPC, FAAP Chief Medical Health Officer Vancouver Island Health Authority
          Alix Stevenson, BA (HONS), LLB Goderich, Ontario
          Fernand Turcotte, MD, MPH, FRCPC Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University

  4. mikef317 says:

    More addictive then heroin or cocaine!

    Fast food! Soda! Sugar! Salt! Gambling! Tanning beds!

    Oh, wait, we’re talking about tobacco. No matter; somebody is always ranting about something, and the something is always more addictive than heroin or cocaine. (If you’re an “activist” saving the world, a bureaucrat looking for a bigger budget, or a “scientist” scrounging government grants to do “research,” you need a dire national problem, and anything more addictive than heroin or cocaine certainly fits the bill.) I might say that prohibitionists are addicted to prohibition.

    Good old addiction. The word conjures up a crime ridden slum. In a dilapidated, rat infested building, a small, filthy apartment, with roaches feeding on unwashed dishes in the sink, people sprawl listlessly in drug induced stupor. At least one is dead, needle dangling from an arm, the latest victim of overdose.

    The word “addiction” invokes so many negative connotations that doctors have coined terms like “substance abuse” or “drug dependence” to “humanize” people who have real serious problems. But always, the word “addiction” returns.

    For Tobacco Control and other screwballs, of course, negative connotations are the bread and butter (or non-saturated fat) of their existence. Addicted smokers! Their disease must be cured, for the good of humanity, and the children!

    For the U. S. Surgeon General, tobacco wasn’t always addictive. The 1964 report grudgingly concluded that smoking was a habit. It changed to an addiction in the 1988 report. (Just by coincidence, I’m sure, this was about the time that drug companies began marketing smoking cessation products to treat nicotine addiction.)

    The idea of addiction is several hundred years old, and you could probably find several hundred definitions. And that’s the problem. Tell people to stop doing something you don’t like, and if they don’t stop, proclaim them addicted.

    While the term addiction may have some legitimate use for serious psychological disorders, the word is much abused, and certainly does not apply to smoking. For a long and serious discussion of the issue, see:

    Click to access atrens.pdf

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Exactly. In 1969 after the libs basically took over the AMA they changed homosexuality from a psychological disease and wipe it from the DM book of illnesses and we all have seen what the DM 5 book is. Everything is now considered a mental disorder even feeling or emotions!

    • ladyraj says:

      “While the term addiction may have some legitimate use for serious psychological disorders, the word is much abused, and certainly does not apply to smoking.”

      Unfortunately, all smokers may meet the diagnostic criteria for “Tobacco Use Disorder” via this definition:

      “Tobacco use disorder occurs when the use of tobacco harms a person’s health or social functioning, or when a person becomes dependent on tobacco.”

      Since tobacco control advocacy proclaims “there is no safe level of risk in tobacco” the harm to health criterion is fulfilled upon usage. If smokers avoid previously enjoyable social gatherings (such as the pub) because of smoking the second criteria is fulfilled. The third criterion of dependence need not be present to receive the diagnosis because only 2 are needed for the diagnosis.

      Strange logic isn’t it? lol

  5. cherie79 says:

    If I am someplace I can’t smoke I don’t even think about it but when I get outside I really want one, I think it is definitely more enjoyable habit than addiction.

    • Some other Tom says:

      I agree with that. I’ve never felt that I’ve ‘had to smoke’ or particularly needed one. I flew in the fall of 2012 from Seattle, through Phoenix to Heathrow and eventually landed Paris. It was easily 21 hours of being in airports and on planes without any opportunity to smoke unless I wanted to leave security and wander off to some isolated ditch of unknown location and wait in a line again. Only when I arrived in Paris did it dawn on me that I could take a few moments and have a cigarette, which I eventually had after I raced from one end of CDG to the other to see if I could book a train to Amsterdam first… I don’t believe that nicotine is any where near the requirement for my well being that caffeine is. I recently went for about the same period of time without coffee and experienced the most crippling migraine behind my eyes I’ve ever had – it felt like the worst hangover imaginable, multiplied by 100… I’ve never felt that when I’ve gone without smoking, either by choice or by circumstance. I just feel dull, less creative, less ambitious or passionate about anything and everything, but even then, only if I am paying attention to it.

      I don’t even know if I’d say it’s a habit for me, as much as a ritual, something that touches the realm of something spiritual. I love to smoke. It’s a pleasure that has no real parallel to anything I’ve ever found or known.

      • Junican says:

        I can describe precisely the same thing. I enter the airport and stop smoking until I arrive at my destination. I have no cravings, but when I arrive, I just love a smoke! That is not addiction, it is enjoyment!
        Lies upon lies upon lies.

        • margo says:

          Me too, except that I’m so angry about not being allowed to leaven the boredom and frustration of travel by smoking that nowadays I choose not to travel.

      • Frank Davis says:

        It was easily 21 hours of being in airports and on planes without any opportunity to smoke

        I had a similar experience flying from Britain to Japan a few years ago. It was about 12 hours non-stop. I wasn’t bothered that I couldn’t smoke. Every few hours I’d vaguely feel like smoking a cigarette, and then it would drift out of mind. Most of the time I either slept or gazed down on the frozen Siberian rivers slipping past 10 km below.

        I just feel dull, less creative, less ambitious or passionate about anything and everything

        Exactly how I felt. It was almost suspended animation.

        It’s only when I’m thinking about anything that I need cigarettes to grease the wheels of thought. No thinking, no need. And it is my custom to think furiously from dawn to dusk.

  6. beobrigitte says:

    I am less than halfway through my little experiment in which I smoke in my friend’s house only e-cigarettes, thus putting various e-cigs (nicotine + non- nicotine liquid containing ones) to the test.
    My friend’s ashtrays are only used for e-cig storage (except for one evening when I had no charger for my e-cigs). I did bring an E-Lite e-cig, but no charger, so I perused the almost non-existent local e-cig market.
    Not all tobacco shops sell e-cigs; the ones they sell are nicotine free. I did get a wonderful one, cherry flavour cartridges, there. We were told that e-cigs with nicotine containing cartridges can only be bought in PHARMACIES here. HUH???????
    Off we went again. To a pharmacy. Sure enough, they do sell them there. And staff is being instructed to issue the warning that they MIGHT be “dangerous”.
    I was quite irritated by having to shop in a pharmacy for an e-cig and cut the staff short by stating that this is rubbish; it’s water vapour and flavour. The woman immediately got into lecturing mode and very suggestively mentioned that ‘the e-cig companies do not declare everything they put in them, y’know!!!’.
    “And the pharmaceutical companies, or food producers etc. do?” was my reply.
    That was the end of the conversation.
    We now have 4 different e-cigs here; the one I enjoy most is the cherry-tobacco flavour, non-nicotine containing one. It produces the most “smoke” (can even blow smoke rings!).

    Last year, on a long haul flight, I did question this “nicotine addiction” blabb. I did not experience “cold turkey”, I simply did miss my ciggie after the meals but that did not last.
    Right now I miss nothing. Least of all nicotine. But I will venture out to find a charger for the cherry flavour, non-nicotine containing one bought in a tobacco shop.
    Nicotine addict? Smoke(r)-haters’ bullsh*t!!!!!

  7. XX breaching the College’s ethics code by “minimizing the gravity of, if not denying the existence of, tobacco dependence” XX

    THAT is virtually word for word the law in Germany against “Holocaust deniers.”

    It is also, as far as I read, more or less the reasoning behind the whole Inquisition.

    Change “tobacco dependence” for “Holocaust”, or “The holy trinity (or whatever they call their sky pixie)” and you have it EXACTLY.

  8. nisakiman says:

    The ‘addiction’ myth is easily exposed, quite apart from the anecdotes above about long-haul flights. The average smoker is, I suppose, a ‘pack a day’ man, which works out I guess to approximately one ciggy every 45 – 50 minutes or thereabouts. So one could assume that a pack a day man, if deprived of a cigarette for two hours or more, being an ‘addict’, would start to experience withdrawal symptoms and seek to ‘top-up’ his nicotine levels.

    Now I don’t know about any of you guys out there, but I know of no smoker who wakes in the night to have a cigarette. Not only that, most smokers, like myself, don’t reach for the fags as soon as they wake up. My first cigarette of the day is the one I have with my morning coffee, and that tends to be at least half an hour after I rise.

    To my mind that is patently NOT addiction.

    On the subject of long-haul flights, many airports have ‘smoking booths’ airside which are disgusting, poorly ventilated boxes designed to denigrate. I refuse to use them, and prefer to wait until I have cleared customs and immigration and can go outside to relax and have a smoke.

    • prog says:

      There’s also the thorny problem of occasional smoking, including cigars of course. They rarely touch on that, let alone attempt to explain it away.

      Nicotine obviously delivers a buzz, and I believe passively as well. I think this partially explains why as many non smokers don’t frequent pubs and bars post ban – no ‘atmosphere’. Yet very few adult never-smokers seem to progress to getting nicotine first hand. It’d be interesting to know whether vaping induces the same effect.

      • nisakiman says:

        There’s also the thorny problem of occasional smoking…

        Indeed. My eldest daughter and her partner are prime examples. They are both definitely smokers, but neither of them can smoke at work, so they don’t. They don’t smoke inside their house either, because of having two boys of 9 and 7 (despite what I’ve told them, they have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the SHS garbage, and so despite their doubts, prefer to play it safe), which means that they don’t usually have time for a ciggy before they go to work, so don’t actually have their first one until they get home. And if they have to go a day or two without, they do so with no problem. But when they are on holiday with me, they go through the proverbial pack a day.

        • prog says:

          I think the thought of permanent cessation is probably one of the greatest fears for most smokers (though somewhat alleviated by the emergence of e-cigs). Most can ‘quit’ for relatively short periods, which is effectively what occasional smokers do. I believe Leg Iron once experimented by not smoking for a week and, by all accounts, managed quite easily. But, he knew it wasn’t permanent (not that he had any intention of making it so…).

          There are analogies, e.g. with tea, coffee, sex, soaps whatever. All have ‘addiction’ labels to a greater or lesser extent. But generally, it’s psychological rather than physical. I quit smoking for 3 years from 2006 (very easily – at that time I wanted to and was still almost totally under the TC spell) . But that didn’t make pub going any more attractive post ban. The total reverse – the thought of permanent non smoking pubs was far, far harder to take than quitting. They were dull, unfit for purpose. The implications were devastating for society, something that was driven home through the latter half of 2007.

  9. Stevel says:

    My wife who is 55 years young, only smokes when she is socializing with people who smoke.She will go months without having one. No cravings. Smoking is nothing more than a habit.
    But chocolate,that is another story!

  10. margo says:

    All you people (and the occasional smokers) are obviously less bothered than I am. I’d say I am addicted to smoking. Whether it’s physical or psychological is a bit beside the point (I estimate it’s about 70% psychological for me). It’s what makes life tolerable. As long as I’m allowed to smoke freely (and I need less than a pack a day) I can put up with – even enjoy – just about anything.

  11. Rose says:

    Here’s the standard of science you are up against, notice that nicotine being addictive is not the question but quite possibly why nicotine patches don’t work.

    Now I appreciate that humans aren’t rats and some tastes are acquired, but as a general rule nothing likes bitter which is why the tobacco plant uses a bitter alkaloid to stop things eating it.

    Imagine a poor rat confronted with the choice of drinking something containing a bitter alkaloid and something that didn’t, though I’m sure if it was really given a choice it would much prefer plain water rather than saline

    The interpretation of this phenomenon.

    Nicotine not alone in causing addiction

    “Researchers in New Zealand say that nicotine is not the only ingredient in tobacco products that makes quitting difficult, according to a story by Peter Sergo for the Medical Daily.

    At the Smokefree Oceania conference in Auckland, Penelope Truman, of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, presented a study that was said to show how rats exhibited a greater desire to obtain a dose of smoke from non-nicotinic hand-rolling tobacco than from either doses of nicotine or from smoke from factory-made cigarettes that contained nicotine.

    Truman, along with researchers from Victoria University, gauged how keen rats were to press a lever to obtain a dose of saline that was infused with either just nicotine or a type of tobacco smoke. “Because rats showed a significantly higher willingness to go the distance to get a taste of rolling tobacco smoke, the authors concluded that a substance other than nicotine must be getting them hooked,” Sergo wrote.

    The study authors concluded that non-nicotinic components had a role in tobacco dependence and that some tobacco products had higher abuse liability, irrespective of nicotine levels.

    “This extra chemical is an additional thing that makes smoking harder to give up,” Truman reportedly told The New Zealand Herald. “This is a formal proof that some tobacco substances are more addictive than nicotine is.”

    What the specific tobacco component is has yet to be identified.”

    • Frank Davis says:

      What the specific tobacco component is has yet to be identified.

      Why should there be a specific component? It seems to me to be like looking for the specific word in a book that made it into a great novel.

      • Rose says:

        You know, Frank, I’m getting tired of being reasonable and explaining the plant science, reading all the ignorant comments on articles like this –

        Banning smoking in cars is wrong: where would it end?

        Where will it end? I’ll tell you where it should start, they chose the battleground- nicotine.
        Never mind protecting children from tiny amounts of nicotine in cars and playgrounds, remove it entirely from their plates.

        Now we are down to “no safe level,” there must be no more tomato sauce , no pizza, no potato, mashed, chipped or anything else, no peppers, no cauliflower and no drinking tea.
        The non-smokers will be petulant for a while , but why should we accord them any right to consume nicotine without suffering denormalisation like everyone else?

        From Australia

        “Many commonly and widely consumed vegetables of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) such as potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants and capsicums naturally contain low levels of nicotine.
        Nicotine has also been detected in cauliflower and tea – two non-solanaceous plants.”

        “VicHealth proposed a modified Option 2 – Allow the use of Nicotiana species in all foods but restrict the level of nicotine to the level demonstrated to be safe and not to be therapeutic or psychoactive.” ?

        “The option was raised to prevent foods such as the nightshades, known to naturally contain low levels of nicotine, from being banned.

        Option 1 in this Proposal
        addresses the concerns of VicHealth by preventing the addition of nicotine to food, while permitting the sale of foods that naturally contain nicotine, such as the nightshades.

        Click to access P278_Nicotine_FAR_Final.pdf

        Don’t be so lily livered TC, ban the lot in the name of equality. It’s no longer a secret, try google, the knowledge about nicotine in common vegetables is all over the internet now, so stop dragging your feet.

        Put up or shut up.

        • nisakiman says:

          Comments are getting pretty lively on the Telegraph link, Rose. I posted a couple of ripostes, but the mindless antis are there pontificating their rubbish as usual, and when challenged, rapidly descending to the ‘ad hom’ defence, which is their usual tactic.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Ya and it appears everybody is saying the second hand smoke myth…………….its looking up

        • Jay says:

          May I have a little whinge on the subject of smoking in cars which is all over the news (again) today? Just heard Simon Clark on ITV make the statement that, having banned smoking in public places, pubs, they now want to ban it in private spaces – where will it end? Now, Simon does a thankless job but [sigh] pubs public places??? Perhaps he’s just being really, really clever in (now) describing pubs as public places…..

        • smokingscot says:

          Seems a little known “doctor” in Scotland let the cat out the bag.

          “Clearly banning smoking in cars will do little to protect the health of our children! So what’s the point? Don’t get me wrong, I am in favour of banning smoking in cars. However, for me the real benefit of the proposed legislation is about helping to change the social acceptability of smoking. Hopefully measures like this will help to discourage smoking in general and in particular discourage smoking at home. What we are really trying to do is change the attitudes of smokers and ideally give them another nudge towards giving up.”

          As the opportunities to nudge dwindle somewhat, it must get personal. The “we” he refers to is ASH and those commissioned to produce “supporting evidence”.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          We are unable to post your comment…” error

          This message indicates that you’ve been blacklisted from commenting on the site in question, you can contact the website for more information on why you were blocked.

        • XX pubs public places??? Perhaps he’s just being really, really clever in (now) describing pubs as public places…..XX

          And what do you think “pub” is short for?

          Yeeesss! Thats right PUBLIC house.

  12. Bill says:

    My late father stopped smoking an an instant three times during his 76 years.
    Firstly he lost a weeks wage on the short journey home from work. That loss took six months of cutting back, stopping buying and frugality to replace,
    Next during my mothers pregnancy with my brother he stopped again. Fag and petrol or baby stuff.
    Lastly he had a couple of spells in hospital (a few weeks and then a few days) and he stopped smoking then because he simply got out of the habit.
    And my mother smoked through both pregnancies without any ill effects to her, my brother or myself. We lived at home for 27 years each where there was a coal fire and two smoking parents and we are both still here living great lives. SHS is pure bullshit.
    We both tried smoking and decided it did nothing for us so much for the lurid branding drawing kids into evil meme pushed by the deluded fuckwits in TC.
    Finally at the end of their lives they both died of old age with hearts wearing out.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Im more like Mark Twain,I quit for 6-8 hours everynite and I do it everyday!

  14. calvin227 says:

    just because addiction is not a simple system does not mean it does not exist … heroin addicts experience greater addiction symptoms directly before shooting up … a spike in withdrawal symptoms associated with a looked forward to activity does not mean a substance is not addictive

    • Rose says:

      Addictive behaviours don’t have to have a chemical base, finger nail chewing for example, I have seen people who have bitten their nails to the quick, I really can’t understand it and it’s clearly doing them harm, but they just can’t seem to stop.
      Where would this fit into your theory?

    • nisakiman says:

      Sorry, you’re wrong. Heroin addiction is a completely different animal to any supposed ‘addiction’ to smoking. Withdrawal symptoms from heroin are physical and violent. the statement “heroin addicts experience greater addiction symptoms directly before shooting up ” is meaningless. There is no ‘spike’ in withdrawal symptoms.
      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      • prog says:

        I tend to agree N, though I have no experience of either using or trying to stop using heroin. I can only speak from experience re smoking (see above). Tobacco ‘withdrawal symptoms’ are relatively slight so long as one has enough will power to break what is really only a habit. Only the weak-willed and/or coerced wannabe quitters will try, and mostly fail, using patches. For me, the only physical consequence was weight increase during the first couple of years, though even that may have been a co-incidence because I became much less physically active at work (desk-bound rather than walking several miles/day when out in the field surveying).

        This is quite interesting.

    • legiron says:

      An alcoholic who is suddenly deprived of alcohol will go into whole body shock and, without treatment, will quite probably die of withdrawal. A smoker who is suddenly deprived of tobacco might get a little bit grumpy unless distracted by having something else to do. They certainly will not suffer physical effects, no more than the same moods anyone gets if their relaxation hobby is unavailable. Ban Granny from knitting for a week and you will get exactly the same effect – and she will refuse to make you a Christmas jumper, which is a bonus.

      Addiction is real, but nicotine addiction is not. Nicotine patches and gum cannot work because there is nothing for them to treat. They are placebos and actually show an effectiveness that is far below an expected placebo effect. They are not meant to work, they are meant to fail so smokers go back to smoking and then try to stop using patches and gum again. Electrofags work for many people because you can blow steam-rings and sit back and watch them float. They don’t even need to have nicotine in them. We don’t smoke tobacco for the nicotine. We smoke it for the flavour. Oak leaves just don’t taste the same. Nettles would be a waste, you can make beer out of them.

      Antismokers don’t want smokers to know there’s no addiction. Pharmers selling patches and gum don’t want smokers to know. And of course, tobacco companies don’t want to spoil the game either. Why would they? If they let the antis convince you you’re addicted, you keep buying their stuff. The fun of the paradox lies in this – if the antis told everyone it was not addictive at all, stopping would become as easy as not buying any more. The antis are the best marketing ploy the tobacco companies could have ever wished for. And they keep smoking in the news every day. Ban on advertising? Tobacco companies have no need to pay to advertise smoking when ASH are doing it for free.

      There is one post out of more than 3000 on my blog that is spammed daily. Just one. Every day, that one post gets hit with more spam. Other posts get one or two spam-hits now and then but that one post, it’s every single day.

      I have long been meaning to send that one out as a free Ebook. Won’t cost me a penny to do it, just need the time to edit and format. I bet it gets more complaints than the story that ruined Christmas.

      Frank – this post is on the same theme. Could we put together an ebook on the addiction-scam theme? Anyone else have something similar?

      It won’t make us any money because it’ll be free but it’s a nice shiny spanner to drop into the works..

      • Frank Davis says:

        Could we put together an ebook on the addiction-scam theme?

        Not sure I have much to say about it. And in my view it’s just one more lie in a whole mountain of lies about tobacco. And the post of mine that gets the most hits is my Black Lung Lie. Which is, of course, about Yet Another Lie.

      • From L.I; XX A smoker who is suddenly deprived of tobacco might get a little bit grumpy unless distracted by having something else to do. XX

        I have met some dangerous people who can be just as bad as a Heroin addict going cold turkey.

        Happens once a month, and they are called “Women.”

        Give me a whole boat load of given up smokers, than one of the other two.

  15. Rose says:

    Hurray! Praise where praise is due.

    Somerset river dredging will start as soon as floods subside, says PM

    “David Cameron has admitted that the ongoing flooding on the Somerset Levels is unacceptable, and has overruled the Environment Agency to order dredging of nearby rivers as soon as possible.”

    “It’s a disaster area down there and it could have been avoided if we had kept up with maintenance on the rivers,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday. “We have got a 20-year backlog of inactivity down there and it’s actually very, very urgent that those rivers are dredged.”

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking in cars carrying children could be banned after the House of Lords voted in favour of proposed new laws.

    Peers defeated the Government in the House of Lords by a vote of 222 to 197.

    Labour wants to see the creation of a specific offence for those caught smoking in cars carrying children, claiming the move will help to save lives.

    A ban is already in place in parts of the world including some states in America, Australia, Canada and a few countries in Europe.

    Speaking ahead of the House of Lords vote, Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham said it was time for Britain to follow suit.

    “When it comes to improving the health of children, we are duty bound to consider any measure that might make a difference,” he said.

    “Adults are free to make their own choices but that often does not apply to children and that’s why society has an obligation to protect them from preventable harm.

    “Evidence from other countries shows that stopping smoking in the confined space of a car carrying children can prevent damage to their health and has strong public support.”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Labour the new NAZIS……………….VOTE UKIP

    • Rose says:

      And then they won’t be able to tell if there are tiny babies in the car, so smoking will have to be banned in all cars at all times including e-cigarettes because no one can tell smoke from vapour etc etc.,

      Next up, exhaling warm air on a frosty morning because it looks like smoking.

      Oh, it all makes work for the working man to do ….

  17. Junican says:

    So the peers voted 222 – 197 in favour of banning smoking cars when children are present. Right – so we now have positive proof that over 50% of peers are hooked on the addictive ‘substance’ known as superstition. They are happy to risk real dangers of death and destruction NOW (as a result of accidents on motorways) for the miasma of ‘child protection’ some far distant time in the future.
    If Cameron, Milliband and Clegg STILL cannot see that they have to rid themselves of the Public Health Industry Zealots, then the UK is lost.

  18. Rose says:

    Wow! Now they are sending in the Army and about time too!

    Troops sent in to flood-hit Somerset amid fears of new storm

    It’s the deluded greens who’ve left my Somerset neighbours 10ft under water

    “But the agency’s argument was not simply that to carry on dredging was too expensive. After a Labour peer, Baroness (Barbara) Young of Old Scone was put in to run it in 2000, she and her officials decided on a new priority.
    Instead of managing the Levels as farmland, large parts of them should be allowed to return to being a swampy wilderness as nature reserves for birds and other wildlife.

    As Baroness Young famously once observed: ‘I’d like to see a limpet mine put on every pumping station.’

    What was astonishing about this was that such a fundamental change of policy, affecting the homes and livelihoods of tens of thousands of people, was never openly declared or consulted on.

    The ‘environmentalists’ of the agency and their ‘green’ allies, such as the quango Natural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, have tried to smuggle in this new strategy by the back door. But this winter, after the Levels have been disastrously inundated again, they have at last been horribly caught out.

    One huge irony, as those who know the Levels intimately observe, is that among the victims of all this abnormal flooding are not just the human population, but nature itself.

    It has inflicted immense damage on ground-nesting birds, wild flowers, badgers (many of which have drowned in recent days) and even fish, which can no longer survive in undredged rivers choked by millions of tons of sludge.”

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Dow jones down 190 points Russia and china may go to gold standard…………the apocalypse is here!

  20. Walt says:

    ¶ “…experiments demonstrate that smoking and nicotine have a significant positive effect on the ability to drive ( 8 ) and fly a flight simulator ( 9 ). Smokers score better in driving tests, both in summary, focus and steering maneuvers – and they respond quickly to brake, when required as opposed to non-nicotine users. (8=Sherwood, 1995) ” And either Hindmarch or Warburton, UK academic researchers, showed that smokers who’ve just smoked can stop a car 1.5 car lengths faster than nonsmokers. I believe they also showed that smokers deprived of smoke are slower at these tasks. So The Children in a car with a smoke-deprived smokers could be said to be less safe. But of course that isn’t the point.

    ¶ In the mid 90’s, a teenager in Texas who went out to the backyard on a very cold night to look for her missing cat, was busted for smoking by a passing off-duty cop who was walking by the house. Even though he found no cigarettes or lighter or matches on the girl or after thoroughly searching the lawn, the fact that he saw frosty exhalations on the air was considered enough cause. And even tho the girl and her parents both protested that the girl wasn’t a smoker, the charges actually stuck.

    ¶ Until I got to Margo’s post I began to think I was a total oddity. But, even though I only smoke half a pack a day, if I go too long w/o one (and “too long” may vary and is whenever it is) I get knots in my stomach ( a physical symptom) as well as getting testy. I can sit through a long movie or a 3-4 hour train ride so it may depend on the situation but I wouldn’t even think about flying to Japan. The one time I tried to (and actually did) quit (for perhaps 2 months) I was generally bad-tempered and couldn’t work well though I didn’t gain an ounce because food wasn’t what I craved. I once had a character in a book I wrote say that “sometimes he felt he couldn’t take a deep breath unless it had smoke in it.” And I really believe, under situations of tension, that smoking relaxes because it regulates and maybe deepens your (or at any rate, my) breathing. And it definitely aids thinking. Maybe I’m just “addicted” to thinking and breathing.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Maybe I’m just “addicted” to thinking and breathing.

      I always want to smoke when I’m thinking. And I think a lot, so I smoke a lot. It adds extra focus and concentration. On the 12 hour trip to Japan, I didn’t think about anything. And so I didn’t want to smoke. I wrote about the effect a while back in Stopping Thinking.

      Klaus K has lots of studies showing how smokers perform better at all sorts of tasks, and even gain 6 or 7 IQ points. And I can believe it.

  21. Tony says:

    Breaking News:
    Apparently we’re all the bastard offspring of diseased Neanderthals.

    Genes that cause disease in people today were picked up through interbreeding with Neanderthals, a major study in Nature journal suggests.
    They passed on genes involved in type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease and – curiously – smoking addiction.

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    What ASH and all the rest have done thru the government will be undone by whats coming.

    Whats the most solid revenue in history……………tobacco!

    End of the Financial World: 2014
    Pivotfarm on 01/29/2014 16:30 -0500

    Don’t you just hate the smuggish guys that sit behind desks and that say ‘I told you so’? There’s probably only one thing you hate more and that’s the racers that are running to predict the end of the world. Doom and gloom. The financial world that is! But, it’s going to happen sooner or later this year, probably towards the end of the year and the start of 2015. The Federal Reserve and other world central banks have seen to that. Isn’t it surprising how the financial markets got themselves into a mess, and then the stuff hit the fan when the loose monetary policies started being bandied about as if it were the next thing since sliced bread? Pump up the volume and spray the money all over the place and then wonder why things go wrong. They sit at the Federal Reserve and wonder WCPGW. Unbridled optimism when Murphy’s Law predominates as it all goes pear-shaped.

    Anything that can go wrong usually does. This is where it starts to go wrong today.

    The Federal Reserve tried to put the fire out by spraying the cinders that had just been kindled with more banknotes. That Quantitative Easing didn’t ease a lot else than taking the weight off the governments that thought it would be a good idea around the world, momentarily making their lives easier. But, the game of falling dominos was bound to have endless repercussions around the planet.

    The first in the long line to go were the commodities that erupted in a big bang in 2011, posting the biggest drops in gold and crude oil as the European leaders failed to stop the crisis when they should have done, with the ensuing erosion of energy, metal and crops. We all paid the price of that one. In December 2011 the Standard & Poor’s GSCI index (24 raw materials) fell by over 4% in one day and gold fell to its lowest price for 5 months. Oil also fell by 5%.
    The escalator went up and the lift just plummeted to the bottom of the shaft as investors wanted to get out of risk.

    Then emerging markets dropped into the abyss and we now have a situation where the currencies of those economies (Turkey, Argentina, India and South Africa, amongst others) are to be off-loaded as quick as look at them, because the Dollar is going home as tapering starts. The Argentinian Peso has plummeted 84% against the Dollar in just a year.

    Some are now predicting (just as they predicted the previous reactions) that it will be the housing bubble that blasts and goes pop (it will be a pop, because the rise was nothing like spectacular, but, it will blow all the same). The housing market has been propped up and credit has become easier to get even when there was no money in the pocket of the borrower. Dirty insolvency is still a problem. Bank on the increase of the economy and things will be ok was the order of the day and blindly turn your gaze away from the smacks of the housing crisis of the big financial crisis.

    After the housing bubble bursts this year yet again, the stock market will crumble. Remember the lift will fall faster than the escalator that tried painfully to get us back to the top but that must have conked out half way up.

  23. harleyrider1978 says:

    Eddie Douthwaite According to the BBC News the Government will allow a free vote on this in Parliament.

  24. Pingback: Smoke gets up their noses. | underdogs bite upwards

  25. Pingback: Καί ποῦ ὀφείλεται ἡ αὔξησις τοῦ διοξειδίου τοῦ ἄνθρακος; | Φιλονόη καὶ Φίλοι...

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.