Big Tobacco Easily Evades “Light” Cigarette Ban

Color coding allows smokers to easily identify their former brands.

The tobacco industry has once again made a mockery of the Food and Drug Administration’s attempts to ban ‘light” cigarettes from the marketplace, by simply eliminated the objectionable wording and substituting an easily-decoded color scheme. In a brochure prepared for cigarette retailers marked “For trade use only: not to be shown or distributed to customers,” tobacco giant Philip Morris wrote that “some cigarettes and smokeless packaging is changing, but the product remains the same.”

Research done at Harvard demonstrates "the continued attempts of the industry to avoid reasonable regulation of tobacco products,” said Hillel Alpert, co-author of a new study on light cigarettes, in a prepared statement. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) of 2009 highlights the banning of light cigarettes as a critical mission, since cigarettes marketed in this way are in fact no safer than regular cigarettes. What makes a cigarette Light or Ultra-light is a series of tiny holes drilled through the filter (See earlier post). This “filter ventilation” was calibrated to the descriptors: Ultra-lights had more holes drilled in the filter than Lights. Studies have demonstrated conclusively that such filter schemes do not make smoking safer or cut down on related diseases. A 2001 report from the National Cancer Institute documented how smokers were compensating for the ventilation holes by smoking more cigarettes, smoking them more intensely, or by blocking the filter holes with fingers or lips.

In a study for Tobacco Control, Gregory Connolly and Hillel Alpert of the Harvard School of Public Health documented the process. In 2010, Philip Morris sent manuals to retailers detailing how they were to deal with the new sales situation. Philip Morris made clear that “current pack descriptors such as light, ultra-light and mild will be removed from all packages.” All well and good. However, the Philip Morris material also specified how a series of new package names were to be doled out. Marlboro Light became Marlboro Gold. Marlboro Mild morphed into Marlboro Blue. And Marlboro Ultra-light reemerged as Marlboro Silver.

When the researchers commissioned a large public survey to document the state of affairs one year after the official “light” ban, they found that “88%-91% of smokers found it either ‘somewhat easy’ or ‘very easy’ to identify their usual brand of cigarettes by the banned descriptor names, Lights, Mediums or Ultra-Lights.” Sales figures for these brands in the first two quarters of 2010 were essentially unchanged, the authors report. They conclude that “the majority of smokers of brands in all categories correctly identified their brands’ pack color.”

The lesson here may well be that countries like Australia and the UK are on the right track: Plain packaging may be best. If lawmakers allow “misleading numbers, the use of colors, imagery, brand extensions, and other devices that contribute to deception” in place of words, nothing has really changed. “The findings of the present research strongly suggest that tobacco manufacturers have evaded one of the most important provisions of the FSPTCA for protecting the public health from the leading cause of preventable death and disease,” the authors conclude.

In a press release, co-author Gregory Connolly, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control at Harvard, explained that the industry “was found guilty by a federal court in 2006 for deceptively promoting ‘light’ cigarettes as safer after countless smokers who switched to lights died prematurely, thinking they had reduced their health risks.”

Connolly G.N. & Alpert H.R. (2013). Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on 'Light' cigarette descriptors?, Tobacco Control, PMID: 23485704

Photo Credit:http://www.mydiscountcigarette.net

Novartis Gives Up On Nicotine Vaccine

Another one bites the dust.

Novartis, a leading health care products company, called it quits on its NIC002 nicotine vaccine project, which failed badly three years ago in Phase II studies undertaken with an eye toward government approval. Novartis said it would terminate the license it has for the NIC002 vaccine with Cytos Biotechnology, for which it paid $38 million in 2007. The Phase II study “showed formation of nicotine-specific antibodies in patients but did not meet its primary endpoint of increased smoking cessation,” according to Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News

Much the same arc was followed by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals, which announced in 2011 that its vaccine, NicVax, had failed to outdo placebos in Phase III clinical trials—the only addiction vaccine to advance that far in the approval process. The company’s own studies had shown happier results in 2007. In regulatory filings, the company claimed that the NicVax vaccine triggered a reliable antibody response, thus preventing nicotine molecules from reaching the brain. The antibodies bind with the nicotine molecules, making nicotine too large to cross the exceedingly fine blood-brain barrier of the brain. Roughly 15 per cent of smokers who received injections of NicVax were nicotine-free after one year in company-funded studies. For comparison, early studies of Chantix as an anti-smoking medication show a quit response rate in the range of 20 per cent for heavy smokers.

As I have previously written, the idea of vaccinating for addictions is not new. If you want the body to recognize a nicotine molecule as a foe rather than a friend, one strategy is to attach nicotine molecules to a foreign body--commonly a protein that the body ordinarily rejects--in order to switch on the body’s immune responses against the invader. A strong advantage to this approach, say researchers, is that the vaccinated compound does not enter the brain and therefore is free of neurological side effects.

There remain a wealth of questions related to the effects of long-lasting antibodies. And it is sometimes possible to “swamp” the vaccine by ingesting four or five times as much cocaine or nicotine as usual.

Drugs that substantially reduce a smoker’s craving for nicotine, like Chantix, may yet prove to be a more fruitful avenue of investigation. While several anti-craving medications have been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), no vaccines have made it onto the approved list. However, as the Genetic Engineering article reminds us, “all is not lost for the vaccine yet: in November of 2010, Duke University, in collaboration with Wake Forest University, commenced a Phase II clinical study with NIC002 performed with 65 smokers that aims to assess how nicotine antibodies, induced by vaccination, affect the pharmacokinetics of nicotine during cigarette smoking. The study is being conducted in the United States with funding from the NIH.”

Photo: Creative Commons / juliealicea1947

Big Tobacco Makes a Move Into E-Cigarettes

“A battery-operated, addiction-based market.”

While the FDA dithered, and health advocates argued, Big Tobacco began placing its bets on the e-cigarette market last year. Tobacco firm Lorillard Inc., the third largest tobacco company in America, bought privately held Blue Ecigs of Charlotte, N.C., for $135 million, driven by what the company says is a market that’s been doubling ever year since e-cigs first arrived from China in 2008.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Blue Ecigs had $30 million in revenues last year, selling through retail outlets like Walgreens, where it competes with e-brands such as NJOY and 21s Century. The FDA has announced vague plans to regulate, and state lawmakers have threatened to ban them outright, or at least place them under the same public smoking bans as cigarettes—bans that some e-smokers love to flout. (E-cigarette manufacturers, based primarily in Asia, quickly changed the electric orange glow at the end of the e-cigarette to a cool shade of blue, to help make clear to bartenders and bouncers that the thing wasn’t a lit cigarette.)

Meanwhile, Reynolds, an industry leader in smokeless products, is developing its own line of e-cigs, and is test-marketing its Vuse and Zonnic brands. “We will be in this category in 2013,” an RJ Reynolds representative said in a CNBC article by Jane Wells. “We have very big plans.”

Altria, the industry giant, is now generating $1.6 billion from smokeless tobacco products, and is expected to make a move into what is viewed as a billion-dollar industry with unlimited growth potential. Last year, the company began testing a new “nicotine-extract product” called Verve, a lozenge that can be sucked or chewed and contains about 1.5 milligrams of nicotine. Late last year, the company reportedly engaged in acquisition talks with e-cig maker Eonsmoke.

Meanwhile, the company that invented the electronic cigarette, Dragonite/Ruyan, is suing practically everybody. And the Argentinean and Venezuelan governments have attempted to ban the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes altogether.

In December, astute American TV viewers may have noticed what looked for all the world like a television commercial for cigarettes—the first since 1971, when Congress banned cigarette ads on TV. It was a commercial for NJOY Kings electronic cigarettes, a brand that currently owns about one-third of the U.S. e-cig market. Patent lawyer Mark Weiss, who founded NJOY, told Time that the company was only competing for the 45 million Americans who are current smokers, not attempting to make new recruits. In the article, Weiss noted three advantages for e-cigarettes: They’re odor free, they don’t burn tobacco, and, at about $8 per e-cigarette, Weiss claims, they’ll last you as long as two regular packs of cigarettes.

When major tobacco companies make moves like this, people notice. “I think they see this as an opportunity to get a seat at the table with opportunities to talk to the FDA about regulation over this growing category,” according to Bonnie Herzog, senior analyst and managing director of tobacco, beverage and consumer research for Wells Fargo Securities. “Lorillard wants to help steer that conversation in the right direction.”

While still a relatively modest market—no more than $500 million, compared to the $100 billion tobacco market in the U.S.—electronic cigarettes have the potential of becoming the most contentious entry in the market for nicotine delivery systems since the advent of the machine-rolled cigarette. “We think e-cigs are to tobacco what energy drinks are to beverages,” Herzog told the media.

Lorillard chairman and CEO Murray Kessler said in an earnings conference call late last year that with e-cigarettes, “you get all of the benefits of not having combustion, but on the other hand you are maintaining the behavior that cigarette smokers enjoyed.” That’s one way of putting it. And according to critics, that’s part of the problem. Anti-smoking activists often view e-cigarettes as gateway products for young adults.

They are cheaper, primarily because of heavy taxes on traditional cigarettes, and produce no second-hand smoke, only steam-like vapor that quickly dissipates. But they have had a rocky start in the U.S. An article in the Winston-Salem Journal in prime tobacco country stated that consumers have “shied away out of safety concerns since most e-cigs are made in China.” Even North Carolina health officials have expressed concerns about “limited regulatory oversight of their contents.” But according to Wells Fargo’s Herzog, Lorillard’s purchase of Blu Ecigs had the effect of “lending credibility and legitimacy to the entire category.”

Brad Rodu, professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, insisted that “tobacco manufacturers have an obligation to smokers to develop, manufacture and sell these vastly safer cigarette substitutes.” In this view, smokers smoke for the nicotine, but it’s the tar that kills them. 

In the same Winston-Salem Journal article, a professor of family and community medicine at Wake Forest School of Medicine said that “many of the carcinogens in tobacco are volatile and would vaporize, and thus be inhaled when heated. I would not recommend that product.”

It seems safe to predict that this “battery-operated, addiction-based market,” as Forbes dubbed it, will be one to watch.

Have We Killed Half of our Soldiers with Cigarettes?

Two long-term studies yield grim stats, and women are no exception.

We know that smoking kills. But until the results of 50 years’ worth of observations on British male smokers was published by Richard Doll and coworkers in the British Journal of Medicine in 2004, we didn’t know how many.  Cigarettes will kill at least half of those who smoke them past the age of 30—possibly more. In older, specific populations, possibly as many as 2/3.

It took a prospective study of more than 34,000 British doctors, starting in 1951 and ending in 2001, to establish the grim parameters with some degree of precision. As the study authors of the 2004 summary paper put it: “A substantial progressive decrease in the mortality rates among non-smokers over the past half century… has been wholly outweighed, among cigarette smokers, by a progressive increase in the smoker v non-smoker death rate ratio due to earlier and more intensive use of cigarettes.” In other words, the great reduction in disease mortality rates achieved in the 20th Century, courtesy of better prevention and treatment, effectively never happened for long-term male smokers. Smoking in Britain and America took off in a major way between the two world wars, and sufficient time has now passed to conclude that “men born in 1900-1930 who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers.”

As for women, it took a few decades longer to nail down the truth, because women did not begin smoking in peak numbers until the 1960s. While men born between 1900 and 1930 took to cigarettes in a big way, women born around 1940 were the first cohort of female smokers to consume a substantial number of cigarettes throughout their adult lives. This 20-year lag is crucial, because it means that solid numbers for female mortality rates require solid figures on mortality rates in the 21st Century. And now we have them, courtesy of the Million Women Study in the UK. The results were recently published in The Lancet by Kirstin Pirie and others. They are just as bad as you might have guessed, putting women on a firm equal footing with their male counterparts when it comes to smoking deaths.

The Million Women Study, a database originally used for the UK’s National Health Service Breast Screening Program, recruited female volunteers between the ages of 50 and 69. The figures were eerily similar to those from the earlier study of male British doctors: “If combined with 2010 UK national death rates, tripled mortality rates among [female] smokers indicate 53% of smokers and 22% of never-smokers dying before age 80 years, and an 11-year lifespan difference…. Although the hazards of smoking until age 40 years and then stopping are substantial, the hazards of continuing are ten times greater.” In this study, the researchers found little difference between female smokers and nonsmokers when it came to confounding variables like weight, blood pressure, or lipid profile. A four-year head start—beginning to smoke at the age of 15 rather than 19, say—can put women at a measurably greater risk for lung cancer deaths.  And a little goes a long way: “Even those smoking fewer than ten cigarettes per day at baseline had double the overall mortality rate of never-smokers.” Low-tar won’t save them, either. “Low-tar cigarettes are not low-risk cigarettes,” the investigators write, “and the Million Women Study shows that more than half of those who smoke them will eventually be killed by them, unless they stop smoking in time to avoid this.”

There it is again: Half of all smokers are going to die from smoking.  As the authors of the Lancet study wrote: “If women smoke like men, they die like men.”

In summary, those who stop smoking at age 50 gain about six years of life expectancy. Quit at 40, and you get an extra nine years. A non-smoker’s chances of living from 70 to 90 are three times higher than a smoker’s. The researchers found that the doctors who stopped smoking by age 30 managed to avoid almost all of the lifespan penalties associated with smoking—primarily lung cancer, COPD, and heart disease. (Only about 3% of smoking deaths are due to fires, accidents, poisonings, etc.). And even lifelong smokers who do not quit until the age of 60 are still rewarded with an extra three years of life span, on average.

Perhaps the saddest thing about the findings is the ways in which they suggest that British and American military commanders may have been sentencing countless numbers of soldiers to death for decades, through the simple act of giving away cigarettes in K-rations, and selling them cheaply in other circumstances. As the report in the British Medical Journal states, “widespread military conscription of 18 year old men, which began again in 1939 and continued for decades, routinely involved provision of low cost cigarettes to the conscripts. This established in many 18 year olds a persistent habit of smoking substantial numbers of manufactured cigarettes, which could well cause the death of more than half of those who continued.” In a perverse reminder of the Agent Orange scandal in Vietnam, American and British military command may have exposed their soldiers to a much greater threat, for a much longer period, with worse odds for survival.

One obvious confounding variable in such studies is alcohol. It requires a sensitive statistical analysis to work through correlations between drinking, smoking, and, say, liver disease.  But “the large majority of the excess overall mortality among smokers is actually caused by smoking,” the Lancet researchers maintain with confidence.  The overall point seems clear: These long-term results show that the risks from continual cigarette smoking are even greater than we thought.

The dismal bottom line of the two smoking studies is that we appear to be right on schedule for meeting the UN’s prediction of one billion tobacco deaths in this brave new century.

Pirie, K., Peto, R., Reeves, G., Green, J., & Beral, V. (2012). The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK The Lancet DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61720-6

Photo Credit: Ianier67 via Creative Commons.

States Quietly Defunding Anti-Smoking Programs For Kids

Only 2 cents of each tobacco settlement dollar goes to smoking prevention plans.

If there’s one thing we know about smoking, it’s that for every smoker who quits, we gain a net financial benefit. These health cost savings can be huge for states, which is why all of them have put in place smoking cessation plans and programs for their citizens. And they are able to run this programs because of the monies that come to them under the 1998 master tobacco settlement.

Perhaps it doesn’t come as a huge surprise, but it’s depressing, all the same: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that states will spend less than 2 per cent of these court-mandated funds on actual programs to prevent kids from smoking. The report accuses the states of failing to reverse budget cuts to “programs that have set back the nation’s efforts to reduce tobacco use.”

The report was undertaken to access whether states have been using the estimated $246 billion over 25 years—plus cigarette taxes—to reduce tobacco use. What they found was that “states have failed to reverse deep budget cuts that reduced funding for tobacco prevention by 36 percent” from 2008 to 2012. Only North Dakota and Alaska are currently funding smoking cessation programs at the level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Four states—New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Ohio—have allocated ZERO funds for tobacco prevention programs in FY 2013.

“Given such a strong return on investment,” the report concludes, “states are truly penny-wise and pound-foolish in shortchanging tobacco prevention and cessation programs.” The report declined to speculate on where the money actually goes, but noted that this was the “second lowest amount states have spent on tobacco prevention programs since 1999, when they first received tobacco settlement funds.”

The cries of outrage came thick and fast:

“The states have an obligation to use more of their billions in tobacco revenues to fight the tobacco problem. Their failure to do so makes no sense given the evidence that tobacco prevention programs save lives and save money by helping reduce health care costs."—Matthew L. Myers, President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

"States with comprehensive tobacco control programs experience faster declines in cigarette sales, smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence and mortality than states that do not invest in these programs."—John R. Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

"The paltry amount of money that states spend on tobacco prevention and cessation programs is extremely disappointing…. These programs work and it’s time for states to put more skin in the game."—Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association

"Too many states are failing their citizens by abandoning their responsibility to invest in proven programs that prevent people from smoking and help smokers quit…. Supporting these programs at recommended levels is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do — quitting smoking or never starting saves lives and saves money."—Paul G. Billings, senior vice president of Advocacy & Education at the American Lung Association

In 2007, the CDC concluded: “We know how to end the epidemic. Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking.”

Two cents on every dollar. About 20 percent of Americans smoke. “Tobacco companies spend more than $18 to market tobacco products for every one dollar the states spend to reduce tobacco use.” What’s wrong with this picture?

Photo Credit: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org

Cigarettes: Should the FDA Mandate a National Taper?

Addiction expert calls for reduced-nicotine tobacco.

For years now, nicotine researcher Neal Benowitz has been a man on a mission. Dr. Benowitz, a professor of medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, has been pushing a Big Idea about how to eliminate cigarette smoking in America: Reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

In essence, Benowitz is calling for a national nicotine taper. Whether the FDA is interested remains an open question. But the result, several years down the road, would be a nation of teenagers confronted with only weakly addictive tobacco products.

It is an old idea, often viewed with great suspicion because of the failure of “light” and “low-tar” cigarettes to reduce nicotine intake, and in fact causing smokers to smoke harder. But Benowitz, one of the nation’s premier tobacco scientists, believes that when it comes to the roughly one out of five Americans who still smoke, a new generation of so-called “low-nicotine delivery” cigarettes is the answer. 

In a controlled study of 135 smokers of various ages, participants smoked cigarettes with progressively lower nicotine over a two-year period, and did so “without evidence of compensation”—meaning that they did not smoke more cigarettes or smoke differently when using the low-nicotine offerings. This varies dramatically from the behavior associated with light cigarettes and special filters—innovations that were marketed as “safer” cigarettes—that simply increase ventilation. The light cigarettes themselves contain the same amount of nicotine as a “regular” cigarette. And smokers quickly learn to puff harder, or cover small holes in the filter paper with their fingers, in order to extract more nicotine from each cigarette.

But with low-nicotine delivery cigarettes, you can’t get more nicotine, no matter what kind of smoker’s gyrations you perform. And the result, according to a paper by Benowitz and coworkers in Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, is that “when the nicotine content of cigarettes is progressively decreased at monthly intervals over 6 months there is a progressive decline in nicotine intake by smokers, with only a small degree of compensation at the lowest nicotine content levels.”

The two-year study was randomized but unblinded, in order to simulate situations in which smokers are fully aware of using cigarettes with progressively less nicotine. A control group smoked their usual brands of cigarettes throughout the study. Benowitz, who led the studied, said in prepared remarks that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the authority to regulate the nicotine content of cigarettes sold in the U.S. (Benowitz is a member of the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.) “The idea is to reduce people’s nicotine intake, so that they get used to the lower levels, and eventually get to the point where smoking is no longer satisfying.”

The study was small, and there were dropouts. As always, further long-term study will be needed to track smokers during this kind of long-term nicotine taper. Traditionally, tapering has not been an effective method of breaking a nicotine addiction. But the reason for that may have to do with the easy availability of full-strength cigarettes in every store and gas station. The obvious goal for Benowitz is the reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to the point where they are no longer addictive. But would a robust black market in strong cigarettes leap up if nicotine reduction were a federally mandated program?

“Progressive reduction of the nicotine content of cigarettes as a national regulatory policy might have important potential benefits for the population,” the authors write, adding that “some people who had no intention of quitting upon entry into the study had… either quit spontaneously or were thinking about quitting in the near future after smoking reduced-nicotine content cigarettes.” Low-nicotine cigarettes could be produced by extracting nicotine from existing tobacco, or by genetically engineering tobacco with a lower nicotine content.

“Adolescents initiate smoking for social reasons, with friends, and later begin to smoke for pharmacologic reasons related to dependence,” the authors conclude. “Presumably a cigarette with very low nicotine content would be less likely to support the transition from social to dependent smoking, although the threshold level of nicotine to prevent this transition is not yet known.”

Benowitz NL, Dains KM, Hall SM, Stewart S, Wilson M, Dempsey D, & Jacob P 3rd (2012). Smoking behavior and exposure to tobacco toxicants during 6 months of smoking progressively reduced nicotine content cigarettes. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 21 (5), 761-9 PMID: 22354905

Photo Credit: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu

The Hidden Story of How Big Tobacco Invented Freebasing

Review of The Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.

Part I

It’s easy to think of cigarettes, and the machinations of the tobacco industry, as “old news.” But in his revealing 737-page book, The Golden Holocaust, based on 70 million pages of documents from the tobacco industry, Stanford professor Robert N. Proctor demonstrates otherwise. He demonstrates how Big Tobacco invented freebasing. He shows how they colluded in misleading the public about “safe” alternatives like filters, “low-tar,” and “ultra-lights.” We discover in Lorillard’s archives an explanation of menthol’s appeal to African Americans: It is all part of a desire by “negroes” to mask a “genetic body odor.” Radioactive isotopes were isolated in cigarette smoke, and evidence of the find was published, as early as 1953. He reveals that the secret ingredient in Kent’s “micronite filter” was asbestos. And he charges that the “corruption of science” lies behind the industry’s drive to continue its deadly trade. “Collaboration with the tobacco industry,” writes Proctor, “is one of the most deadly abuses of scholarly integrity in modern history.”

Half of all cigarette smokers will die from smoking—about a billion people this century, if present trends continue. In the U.S., this translates into roughly two jumbo jets crashing, killing everyone onboard, once daily. Cigarettes kill more people than bullets. The world smokes 6 trillion of them each year. (The Chinese alone account for about 2 trillion). Some people believe that tobacco represents a problem (more or less) solved, at least in the developed West.

All of this represents a continuing triumph for the tobacco industry. The aiders and abettors of tobacco love to portray the tobacco story as “old news.” But as Stanford Professor Robert M. Proctor writes in The Golden Holocaust, his exhaustive history of tobacco science and industry: “Global warming denialists cut their teeth on tobacco tactics, fighting science with science, creating doubt, fostering ignorance.”

Checking in at 737 pages, The Golden Holocaust is nobody’s idea of a light read, and at times its organization seems clear only to the author. But what a treasure trove of buried facts and misleading science Proctor has uncovered, thanks to more than 70 million pages of industry documents now online (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu) as part of the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998. Once the material was finally digitized and available online, scholars like Proctor could employ full-text optical character recognition for detailed searchability. Ironically, this surreal blizzard of documentation was meant to obscure meaningful facts, not make them readily available, but tobacco executives seem not to have factored in digital technology when they turned over the material.

The single most important technological breakthrough in the history of the modern cigarette was flue-curing, which lowers the pH of tobacco smoke enough to make it inhalable. The reason few people inhale cigars, and very few used to inhale cigarettes, is that without some help, burning tobacco has a pH too high for comfortable inhalation. It makes you cough. But flue-curing lowered pH levels, allowing for a “milder,” less alkaline smoke that even women and children could tolerate.

World War I legitimized cigarettes in a major way. Per capita consumption in the U.S. almost tripled from 1914 to 1919, which Proctor considers “one of the most rapid increases in smoking ever recorded.” After World War II, the Marshall Plan shipped a staggering $1 billion worth of tobacco and other “food-related items.” (The U.S. Senator who blustered the loudest for big postwar tobacco shipments to Europe was A. Willis Robertson of Virginia, the father of televangelist Pat Robertson.)

The military, as we know, has historically been gung-ho on cigarettes. And Proctor claims that “the front shirt pocket that now adorns the dress of virtually every American male, for example, was born from an effort to make a place to park your cigarette pack.” In addition, cigarette makers spent a great deal of time and effort convincing automakers and airline manufacturers to put ashtrays into the cars and planes they sold. Ashtrays were built into seats in movie theaters, barbershops, and lecture halls. There was even an ashtray built into the U.S. military’s anti-Soviet SAGE computer in the 50s.

In the early 50s, research by Ernest Wynder in the U.S. and Angel Roffo in Argentina produced the first strong evidence that tobacco tars caused cancer in mice. Roffo in particular seemed convinced that tobacco caused lung cancer, that it was the tar rather than the nicotine, and that the main culprits were the aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzpyrene. Curiously enough, it was influential members of Germany’s Third Reich in the 40s who first took the possibility of a link seriously. Hans Reiter, a powerful figure in public health in Germany, said in a 1941 speech that smoking had been linked to human lung cancers through “painstaking observations of individual cases.”

In the December 1953 issue of Cancer Research, Wynder, et al. published a paper demonstrating that “tars extracted from tobacco smoke could induce cancers when painted on the skins of mice.” As it turns out, the tobacco industry already knew it. Executives had funded their own research, while keeping a close eye on outside academic studies, and had been doing so since at least the 30s. In fact, French doctors had been referring to cancers des fumeurs, or smokers’ cancers, since the mid-1800s. All of which knocks the first leg out from under the tobacco industry’s classic position: We didn’t know any stuff about cancer hazards until well into the 1950s.

Only weeks after the Wynder paper was published, tobacco execs went into full conspiracy mode during a series of meetings at the Plaza Hotel in New York, “where the denialist campaign was set in motion.” American Tobacco Company President Paul Hahn issued a press release that came to be known as the “Frank Statement” of 1954. Proctor calls it the “magna carta of the American’s industry’s conspiracy to deny any evidence of tobacco harms.” How, Proctor asks, did science get shackled to the odious enterprise of exonerating cigarettes? The secret was not so much in outright suppression of science, though there was plenty of that: In one memorable action known as the “Mouse House Massacre,” R.J. Reynolds abruptly shut down their internal animal research lab and laid off 26 scientists overnight, after the researchers began obtaining unwelcome results about tobacco smoke. But the true genius of the industry “was rather in using even ‘good’ science, narrowly defined, as a distraction, something to hold up to say, in effect: See how responsible we are?”

Entities like the Council for Tobacco Research engaged in decoy research of this kind. As one tobacco company admitted, “Research must go on and on.”

A good deal of the industry’s research in the 50s and 60s was in fact geared toward reverse engineering competitors’ successes. Consider Marlboro. Every cigarette manufacturer want to know: How did they do it? What was the secret to Marlboro’s success?

As it turns out, they did it by increasing nicotine’s kick. And they accomplished that, in essence, by means of freebasing, a process invented by the cigarette industry. Adding ammonia or some other alkaline compound transforms a molecule of nicotine from its bound salt version to its “free” base, which volatilizes much more easily, providing low-pH smoke easily absorbed by body tissue. And there you have the secret: “The freebasing of cocaine hydrochloride into ‘crack’ is based on a similar chemistry: the cocaine alkaloid is far more potent in its free base form than as a salt, so bicarbonate is used to transform cocaine hydrochloride into chemically pure crack cocaine.” Once other cigarette makers figured out the formula, they too began experimenting with the advantages of an “enhanced alkaline environment.”
  
(End of Part I)

Photo Credit: http://theloungeisback.wordpress.com/

End of the Line for Joe Camel?

The tobacco industry’s war against plain packaging.

After years of tightening regulation and dramatic declines in the number of adult smokers, Big Tobacco is targeting teenagers like never before. The fact that they intend to do it with aggressive package advertising has run up against plans in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia to force cigarette manufacturers to use plain packages in a neutral color, with no brand logos, more graphic warnings, and the brand name in simple typeface.

In an orchestrated attack on cigarette regulation in the UK, tobacco giant Philip Morris, the world’s largest tobacco company, filed a flurry of Freedom of Information Act requests in September designed to give them access to proprietary academic research on teenage smoking habits….

For more, read my entire article at THE FIX....

Judge Rules Against Graphic Cigarette Packs

District Court says FDA mandate would violate First Amendment.

Consumers may yet be spared graphic images of diseased lungs and smokers with holes in their throats, after R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, and other tobacco companies prevailed over the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today. Judge Richard Leon ruled that forcing cigarette manufacturers to offer their products only in gruesome packages was a violation of free speech, and therefore unconstitutional. The companies were granted a preliminary injunction, while the FDA regroups and lawyers rehuddle.

The judge wrote that “plaintiffs raise for the first time in our Circuit the question of whether the FDA's new and mandatory graphic images, when combined with certain textual warnings on cigarette packaging, are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Upon review of the pleadings, the parties' supplemental pleadings, oral argument, the entire record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their position that these mandatory graphic images unconstitutionally compel speech, and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief pending a judicial review of the constitutionality of the FDA's Rule.” (Complete ruling available here).

As Josh Gerstein reported at POLITICO, Leon “found that the new warnings, which occupy 50% of the front and back of cigarette packs, convert them into "mini-billboards...for [the FDA's] obvious anti-smoking agenda." Both Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg were also named in the lawsuit.

Judge Leon foresees a slippery constitutional slope if such mandates are allowed to bloom:

When one considers the logical extension of the Government's defense of its compelled graphic images to possible graphic labels that the Congress and the FDA might wish to someday impose on various food packages (i.e., fast food and snack food items) and alcoholic beverage containers (from beer cans to champagne bottles), it becomes clearer still that the public's interest in preserving its constitutional protections - and, indeed, the Government's concomitant interest in not violating the constitutional rights of its citizens - are best served by granting injunctive relief at this preliminary stage.

Graphics Credit: http://pubcit.typepad.com

Cigarette Sadness

The chemistry of sorrow during nicotine withdrawal.

When you smoke a cigarette, nicotine pops into acetylcholine receptors in the brain, the adrenal glands, and the skeletal muscles, and you get a nicotine rush. Just like alcohol, a cigarette alters the transmission of several important chemical messengers in the brain. “These are not trivial responses,” said Professor Ovide Pomerleau of the University of Michigan Medical School. “It’s like lighting a match in a gasoline factory.”

Experiments at NIDA’s Addiction Research Center in Baltimore have confirmed that nicotine withdrawal not only makes people irritable, but also impairs intellectual performance. Logical reasoning and rapid decision-making both suffer during nicotine withdrawal. Acetylcholine appears to enhance memory, which may help explain a common lament voiced by many smokers during early withdrawal. As summarized by one ex-smoker, “I cannot think, cannot remember, cannot concentrate.”

But there is another, less widely discussed aspect of nicotine withdrawal: profound sadness. Profound enough, in many cases, to be diagnosed as clinical unipolar depression.

 Of course, people detoxing from addictive drugs like nicotine are rarely known to be happy campers. But quitting smoking, for all its other withdrawal effects, reliably evokes a sense of acute nostalgia, like saying goodbye to a lifelong friend. The very act of abstinence produces sadness, joylessness, dysphoria, melancholia—all emotional states associated with unipolar depression.

Work undertaken by Dr. Alexander Glassman and his associates at the New York State Psychiatric Institute has nailed down an unexpectedly strong relationship between prior depression and cigarette smoking, and the findings have been confirmed in other work. This sheds important light on the question of why some smokers repeatedly fail to stop smoking, regardless of the method or the motivation.  The problem, as Glassman sees it, is “an associated vulnerability between affective [mood] disorders and nicotine.”

Now a group of Canadian researchers, working out of the Centre of Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, believe they have isolated the specific neuronal mechanisms responsible for the profound sadness of the abstinent smoker.

Writing in the Archives of General Psychiatry, the investigators, who had access to what the CAMH proudly calls the only PET scanner in the world dedicated to mental health and addiction research, gave PET scans to 24 healthy smokers and 24 healthy non-smokers. Non-smokers were scanned once, while heavy and moderate cigarette smokers were scanned after smoking a cigarette, and also after a period of acute withdrawal. Earlier research of this kind had focused on nicotine’s effect on dopamine release. But Ingrid Bacher and her coworkers in Toronto were measuring MAO-A levels in the prefrontal and anterior cingulate regions, two areas known to be involved in “affect,” or emotional responses. When patients suffering from major depressive disorders get scanned, they tend to show elevated levels of MAO-A. The so-called MAO-A inhibitors Marplan, Nardil, Emsam, and Parnate are still in use as antidepressant medications. In general, the higher the levels of MAO-A, the lower the levels of various neurotransmitters crucial to pleasure and reward. A high level of MAO-A would suggest that the enzyme was significantly altering the activity of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine in brain regions involved in mood.

The researchers found that smokers in withdrawal had 25-35% more MAO-A binding activity than non-smoking controls. “This finding may explain why heavy smokers are at high risk for clinical depression," says Dr. Anthony Phillips, Scientific Director of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's (CIHR's) Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, which funded this study.

Although researchers involved in these kinds of drug studies almost always claim that the work is likely to lead to new pharmacological therapies, the plain truth is that such immediate spinouts are rare. But in this case, it does seem like the study provides a clear incentive to investigate the clinical standing of MAO-A inhibitors as an adjunct therapy in stop-smoking programs. “Understanding sadness during cigarette withdrawal is important because this sad mood makes it hard for people to quit, especially in the first few days,” said Dr. Jeffrey Meyer, one of the study authors.

As one addiction researcher noted, an associated vulnerability to depression “isn’t going to cover everybody’s problem, and it doesn’t mean that if you give up smoking, you’re automatically going to plunge into a suicidal depression. However, for people who have some problems along those lines, giving up smoking definitely complicates their lives.”


Bacher, I., Houle, S., Xu, X., Zawertailo, L., Soliman, A., Wilson, A., Selby, P., George, T., Sacher, J., Miler, L., Kish, S., Rusjan, P., & Meyer, J. (2011). Monoamine Oxidase A Binding in the Prefrontal and Anterior Cingulate Cortices During Acute Withdrawal From Heavy Cigarette Smoking Archives of General Psychiatry, 68 (8), 817-826 DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.82

Photo Credit:http://jenniferonmars.wordpress.com

The Day After

How’s that no-smoking pledge going?

This post is not meant for most of you. Those of you who never smoked, or smoked and quit successfully—move along, maybe check out my earlier posts about smoking this month.

But for those of you who have decided to take the 35th annual Great American Smokeout seriously—for those of you who decided today, or yesterday, or recently, to quit smoking—I have a few remarks, if you have a moment. I’m fairly trustworthy on this subject. I’m a science writer, I follow the field of addiction science, and I smoked a pack of Camel filters a day for about 25 years. In addition, I quit smoking using the most recently available smoking cessation aids—nicotine patches and anti-craving medication, in this case Zyban, a.k.a. Wellbutrin.

I had decided, after the usual smoker’s run of unsuccessful independent quitting attempts, that the only real hope I had for success was to throw myself into the hands of my primary care physician. Happily, Dr. Joe is a young example of the last of the breed, a lingering remnant of a tribe that used to be known as family doctors. When I told Dr. Joe of my plans to quit smoking, he was overjoyed. Too overjoyed, it seemed to me. As it turned out, there were grounds for my suspicion. Dr. Joe had recently returned from a smoking cessation seminar at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, with a grab bag of refinements and alternative approaches for setting up a no-smoking regimen. Furthermore, he made it clear that, if necessary—if I forced him to it through relentless noncompliance—he was fully prepared to order regular blood workups to detect and quantify my nicotine levels.

Of course, I instantly regretted setting a foot into this ring, but once Dr. Joe started flinging prescriptions for patches and pills my way, I realized I was in it up to my wallet (Insurance companies weren’t paying for nicotine cessation products, ever, at that time).

Most smokers know the current drill. A few weeks with nicotine patches or gum or nasal spray, combined with a short course of Zyban or Chantix to further reduce cravings, and then you are expected to fly out of the nest and spread the good news.  Most smokers know that even this controversial armamentarium is not going to completely spare them from a rare and special kind of suffering: addictive craving for nicotine.  It’s a mean, rough ride, as everyone knows.

But if you take a few of the major potholes out of the road, smooth over the really big bumps just a little, fill in the low spots a bit as well, you have a fighting chance—especially if you have tried and failed before (almost nobody pulls it off on the first attempt).

Here are the key features of the program, as my doctor worked it up for me:

--Stronger patches. Mayo Clinic and other institutions had made an important discovery, my doctor said. People weren’t wearing strong enough patches. There was a system of matching up patch strength to amount and duration of smoking, and then a step-down procedure, to less and less powerful patches, and it was all listed on the packages, but because of great nervousness over medical complications by a very few individuals who overdid the patch and then chain-smoked on top of that, the result was that the patches as marketed weren’t strong enough, many doctors felt. The advice was to start strong, with the strongest patch available (and perhaps there was even a patient or two who doubled up, ahem). 

--Longer patches. Start strong—and go long. The whole nicotine replacement plan is supposed to last a month or two. Phooey, said Dr. Joe. No telling in advance how long the process will take. There is no set timetable. How long would I be wearing patches and tapering the dose? As long as it took, Dr. Joe inferred, for me not to need them anymore. He seemed prepared to keep me on patches the rest of my life, if it kept me from picking up a cigarette. In the end, when I took off my final, tiny patch, I had been using them for a little less than six months. The recommended five-star treatment plan in the literature and on the packages calls for only 10 weeks, tops.

--Pharmaceuticals. It is admittedly hard to separate out placebo effects from drug effects, in the case of something as elusive as cigarette urges. But I do believe that Zyban took the edge off the worst of my cigarette cravings. It did not eliminate them, anymore than the patches eliminated them. But the medication effectively dissipated the grip of that moment of panic, when you have risen from your chair and set about finding your coat and car keys for a run to the gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes. Or at least that’s the way it felt to me.

--Exercise. Trite? You bet, and you can be sure that I winced and offered a tired smile when I heard my doctor bore in on the subject. Since I knew him to be a crazed bicyclist, I was prepared to disregard most of what he had to say. But his insistence sent me back to the research literature on exercise and its effect on dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, and endorphin levels. So I took him up on that firm suggestion as well, and found that, at the least, it helped with a period of rocky sleep in the beginning.

--Diet. No huge changes, just watching the sweets in an effort to avoid surging blood sugar levels. Fruit helps, since constipation is a common side effect of nicotine cessation—just the opposite of how it works with heroin. I continued to drink coffee, but for a while it didn’t taste as good.

--Relaxation. Quitting smoking makes you tense. You think I’m being funny? Quitting smoking makes you tense all over, mentally and physically. During the first few days you’ll notice that your body is clenched, held rigidly. Your posture is likely to be anything but relaxed; your physical movements can be jerky and awkward. A few minutes a day spent sitting with eyes closed, in a relaxed upright posture, thinking of nothing or concentrating on your breathing or meditating either formally or casually, can bring partial relief from all that tension. And on some days, that can be crucial.

--Determination. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until everyone around me—my wife, children, parents, close friends, work associates—had all, I sensed, basically given up on me, silently condemning me to the category of Lifetime Smoker, that I finally managed to make a successful run at a major life problem. There are better ways to work up your determination. Find and employ them.

With time, an involved partner, nicotine replacement, and the right medication, the deal can be done. There has never been a better time in history to be a smoker who has decided to quit.

Graphics Credit: http://adoholik.com/

Vitamin B6 May Lower Risk of Lung Cancer

Large European study confirms earlier findings.

It doesn’t mean you should start popping handfuls of B vitamins if you are a smoker or a former smoker (those who never smoked rarely get the disease). What it appears to mean is that people with the highest levels of vitamin B6 in their bodies may have as little as half the risk of developing lung cancer as people with very low levels of B6--also known as pyridoxine.

In a June 16 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , dozens of researchers from around the world deconstructed a European medical database from the 1990s, containing medical data and blood test results for more than 380,000 people. They were looking for meaningful statistical correlations having to do with the 899 people in the study who eventually developed lung cancer.

According to Nathan Seppa in Science News, the international research team found that “people with vitamin B6 levels ranking in the top one-fourth of all the samples taken had less than half the risk of lung cancer as those with the lowest vitamin B6. A similar comparison found that people with high levels of [the amino acid] methionine seemed to have almost half the cancer risk of people with low levels. High folate levels seemed to give less protection.” The researchers calculated that having high levels of all three compounds could reduce lung cancer risk by as much as two-thirds.

Much remains unknown. Can smokers use B6 vitamin supplements to protect against lung cancer, or are the protective effects, if verified, due to a B6 level that reflects diet and other metabolic factors at work over decades? And, as always, there is the question of B6 from vitamin supplements vs. B6 from B6-rich foods like fish, beans, and grains.

A smaller prospective study undertaken in 2001 came up with similar results. Published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the study involved 300 lung cancer patients in Finland between 1985 and 1993. The researchers looked at B6, B12, and folate, and found “significantly lower risk of lung cancer among men who had higher serum vitamin B6 levels. Compared with men with the lowest vitamin B6 concentration, men in the fifth quintile had about one half of the risk of lung cancer.” The researchers speculate that one of the mechanisms by which B6 could influence carcinogenesis is the role the vitamin plays in homocysteine metabolism. B6 is involved in the complex process of metabolizing homocysteine, another amino acid. Absent sufficient B6, homocysteine levels can build up in the body, causing heart disease and other ailments.

Mattias Johansson, et. al. (2010). Serum B Vitamin Levels and Risk of Lung Cancer Journal of the American Medical Association, 303 (23), 2377-2385

Graphics Credit: http://helios.hampshire.edu/

Life After Cigarettes: Book Review

Why Women Smoke.

Women are different from men. Well, maybe you already knew that.  But did you know that women smoke differently than men, and quit smoking differently than men?

Dr. Joseph Califano, the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Jimmy Carter, once said that even though he gained thirty pounds when he quit cigarettes, he did not then appreciate the importance to women of the link between smoking cessation and weight gain. As Dr. Cynthia Pomerleau, formerly the director of the Nicotine Research Laboratory at the University of Michigan and now Research Professor Emerita in the Department of Psychiatry, remarks in her new book, Life After Cigarettes: “If we’d had a woman HEW Secretary at that time, and she had stopped smoking, I’m sure a thirty-pound weight gain would have grabbed her attention!”

In her book, Dr. Pomerleau makes clear that the challenges of quitting smoking are even greater for women than they are for men. She is refreshingly frank: “Face it; There are definitely some plusses to smoking. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t have done it, and neither would anyone else.”

For women, one of the primary pluses is, and has always been, weight control.  Pomerleau offers up the image of smoking ballerinas, women performing in a business where gaining two pounds can mean the loss of a job. Models, gymnasts, and ice skaters have also looked to cigarettes for help with weight control.

When women quit smoking, here are the facts of the matter: They will begin gaining weight almost the minute they quit—as much as three pounds in the first week—and will stabilize within three to six months. The average weight gain for women, writes Pomerleau, is ten pounds, with a quarter of female quitters gaining five pounds or less, and about a quarter gaining more than 15 pounds.  And the longer women smoke, the harder it is to battle the weight gain when they eventually quit.

The problem, Pomerleau discovered when screening patients for her Nicotine Research Lab, was that 75 per cent of the women who wanted to quit smoking said that they were unwilling to gain more than five pounds while doing so. 40 per cent of the women responded that they were unwilling to gain ANY pounds in pursuit of tobacco abstinence.

In an email exchange with Addiction Inbox, Professor Pomerleau was kind enough to expand on her message.  

When I asked her about reports that the dopamine D2 receptor gene has been implicated in both weight gain and smoking, she responded:

“In a laboratory study of food reward in smokers attempting to quit, Caryn Lerman and colleagues found that carriers of the DRD2 A1 minor allele exhibited significant increases in the rewarding value of food following abstinence from smoking, and that higher levels of food reward after quitting predicted a significant increase in weight by 6-month follow-up in participants receiving placebo.  Both effects were attenuated in participants receiving bupropion, leading them to conclude that bupropion’s efficacy in attenuating abstinence-induced weight gain may be attributable, in part, to decreasing food reward.  How well these findings will hold up to further scrutiny in larger samples remains to be seen.”

On smoking and bulimia: “As I’m sure you’re aware, the question of ‘self-medication’ is a complicated one, but it seems likely that some women ‘use’ nicotine to hold the symptoms of bulimia in check; when they quit, the underlying predisposition reemerges – which helps to explain why these women may be more prone to larger weight gain than other quitting smokers.” 

On smoking as a weight management tool: “Using a variety of different measures, it’s probably safe to say that around 40% of women qualify as serious weight-control smokers.  (The proportion is much lower in men.)  By the way, though findings are mixed, these women don’t necessarily fare worse than other women when they quit, even if they do gain weight; the real challenge is bringing them to the point of even considering quitting.”

And finally, when I asked Professor Pomerleau about the role of primary care physicians in promoting smoking cessation, she noted that she was “concerned about possible attempts to downplay the amount of weight quitters can expect to gain or to overstate the ease with which it can be avoided – which can backfire and lead to relapse when the needle on the scale begins to creep up.  I personally think it’s better to be realistic about the likelihood of weight gain after quitting and to concentrate on keeping it in the 5-10 pound range (approximately one unit of BMI and less than a dress size) – something that is in fact an achievable goal for most women.”

Photo Credit: http://www.mapleplaceventures.com/

Obama’s Addiction

President-elect should come clean about cigarettes.

For a candidacy built on transparency and straightforward messaging, the Obama juggernaut is missing a wonderful opportunity to send direct aid and comfort to struggling addicts everywhere. All the president-elect has to do is admit that he is still struggling to quit smoking cigarettes.

It doesn’t take a campaign genius to understand the reasoning during the primaries: Smoking, something now done behind closed doors, or while leaning against a dark wall out back, was not something Obama’s handlers were eager to have taken up as a topic of discussion with respect to their candidate. The U.K. Guardian maintains that certain opinion polls found Obama’s smoking to be a greater hindrance to his election than the color of his skin.

The recent release of candid black and white photos from Obama’s college years, showing him casually smoking, has brought the issue back to the forefront. “It is a sign of our anxious, needy condition,” opined the Guardian, “that Americans are willing to overlook the president-elect's filthy habit.”

While Nancy Reagan banned smoking in the White House years ago, the cigar-smoking Clinton seems to have gotten a pass, cigars in the popular culture being to cigarettes as the occasional brandy is to a six-pack. While the New York Times debates whether graphic warning labels only increase people’s desire to smoke, nobody seems to be asking whether a president who sneaks out to the Rose Garden to field-strip a Marlboro will serve as a role model or an enabler for fellow smokers.

In a separate article in the Guardian, Alexander Chancellor writes that “Obama appears to have tried really hard to stop, and says he had cut his smoking down to the occasional fag bummed from a member of his staff; but he still hasn’t give up completely, despite being a fitness fanatic who spends more than an hour a day in the gym.” As every addicted smoker who ever tried to quit has discovered, nobody ever sneaks by for long on two or three bummed cigarettes a day. “You either smoke none or you smoke 20,” writes Queenan. “There is no middle ground.”

More to the point, President-Elect Obama is missing out on an opportunity to speak out on a major public health issue. By coming clean about his struggle to overcome his nicotine addiction, Obama would give renewed hope and courage to struggling smokers and ex-smokers everywhere. If Obama, the icon of cool, the Unruffled One, cannot make good on a promise to his wife to quit smoking, then quitting smoking must be one hell of an undertaking.

As Chancellor writes: “The most striking thing about it all is that a man as calm, controlled and disciplined as the next president should have so far failed in his efforts to set himself free. At least I can take comfort from the fact that I am in the most distinguished company. But I also intend to join him in his New Year resolution to stop smoking, mainly in my case because it’s just too expensive.”


Photograph: Lisa Jack/Bloomberg News/Time

addiction smoking nicotine

Quitting When You're High

Active smokers underestimate rigors of withdrawal.

An alcoholic wraps his car around a tree in a drunken haze. He has "hit bottom" and vows never to drink again.

A meth tweaker gets so high he becomes unruly and disoriented and is arrested. In jail, cranked to the gills on speed, she pledges to go sober, starting right now.

A cigarette smoker stumbles to bed after a typical two-pack day, coughing, throat burning, reeking of tobacco, and swears that upon waking, his remaining cigarettes will go out with the trash and his life as a human ashtray is over.

Each of these addicts has started off on exactly the wrong foot, and will very likely fail quickly in their quitting attempts, according to recent research on smoking cessation from the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. It is easy to say you're going to quit while you're high, sailing along on a comfortable level of nicotine in the bloodstream. Once that available nicotine is flushed out, you are going to have some serious second thoughts about the whole enterprise of abstinence. The smoker is likely to wake up the next morning, fumbling for a smokeable butt, muttering to himself: "What in the world was I thinking of last night? No way am I quitting today."

In a study to be published in the September issue of Psychological Science, researchers showed that cigarettes smokers who are not actively craving a cigarette when they vow to quit will likely not succeed, because they inevitably underestimate the rigors of the upcoming withdrawal, and the fierce intensity of their future desire to smoke.

According to lead investigator and professor of psychology Michael Sayette, "this lack of insight while not craving may lead them to make decisions--such as choosing to attend a party where there will be lots of smoking--that they may come to regret."

In the study, titled "Exploring the Cold-to-Hot Empathy Gap in Smokers," the researchers write: "In contrast to smokers in a hot (craving) state, those in a cold (noncraving) state underpredicted the value of smoking during a future session when they would be craving.... Failing to anticipate the motivational strength of cigarette craving, nonsmokers may not appreciate how easy it is to become addicted and how difficult it is to quit once addicted."

George Loewenstein, professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon and a co-author of the study, said that the research implications for non-smokers were crucial: "If smokers can't appreciate the intensity of their need to smoke when they aren't currently craving, what's the likelihood that people who have never smoked can do so?"

As further evidence of this psychological mismatch, the researchers cite earlier work performed by the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future longitudinal study of 1993, "which found that although only 15% of respondents who were occasional smokers (less than one cigarette per day) predicted that they might be smoking in 5 years, 43% of them were, in fact, smoking 5 years later."

All things considered, it's better to make the quitting decision when you're hurting, not when you're high.

Graphic Credit: Florida State University

Smoking Rates Fall 18% in Indiana

What's their secret?

Addiction is a tough disease, and smoking grabs hold of the addiction-prone with a speed and ferocity that remains impressive even in a world of crack cocaine and ice amphetamine. Zyban may help, and there is the ever-controversial Chantix, as well as a plethora of nicotine replacement products. They are valuable and frequently effective additions to the arsenal of medical approaches to nicotine addiction.

Yet there remains one universally effective--if equally controversial--method of lowering smoking rates in a given population. You can increase the price.

Last year, Indiana boosted state taxes on cigarettes by a whopping 44 cents per pack. The result? Cigarette sales fell in Indiana by almost 18 per cent in the nine months since the new tax was put into effect, according to a June 3 Associated Press report. That percentage represents a decrease in sales of roughly 80 million packs of cigarettes, according to state health experts.

"This is exactly what we predicted, " Dr. Judith Monroe, the state health commissioner, told AP. "We've got to remember that smoking is an addiction... not just a bad habit."

In an editorial, the Indianapolis Star put the matter straightforwardly: "In Indiana and nationally, the research in unequivocal: Taxes reduce smoking, especially among the young. So does serious spending on smoking prevention and cessation. The state used to do the latter, and has paid the price for slacking off."

Indiana currently ranks 6th highest in the nation for smoking prevalence. In 1999, under terms of the state-by-state settlement with the tobacco industry, Indiana used its money entirely for smoking reduction programs. After seeing significant declines in smoking, the state legislature nonetheless diverted the remaining settlement money to other programs in 2003. At which point, according to the Indianapolis Star, "smoking rose again, up to second-highest in the nation," making Indiana "one of the unhealthiest states."

"More than one million Hoosiers use tobacco," Karla Sneegas of Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation told the Associated Press. "But we know from our data that approximately 90 percent of those people want to quit and 30 percent are ready to quit right now."


Photo Credit: SavingAdvice.Com