November 2004
We have ways of making you stop smoking
The parallels - and differences - between Nazi Germany's 'war on cancer'and New Labour's crusade against the evil weed.
by Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick
[Tobacco is] 'one of the most deadly poisons'.
Adolf Hitler, 1941
There are striking parallels between the Nazi 'war on cancer' and the New Labour crusade against smoking (1).
In Nazi Germany, every individual had 'a duty to be healthy'; furthermore, to ensure that individuals fulfilled this duty, the government insisted on 'the primacy of the public good over individual liberties' (2).
Tony Blair acknowledges that smokers - and non-smokers - have rights. More importantly, however, 'both have responsibilities - to themselves, to each other, to their families, and to the wider community' (3).
To ensure that smokers meet these responsibilities, the government is planning further bans and proscriptions on their activities. In Germany in the 1930s, the medical profession played a leading role in the state campaign to restrict smoking. In Britain today, doctors again provide medical legitimacy and moral authority for state regulation of individual behaviour. There are of course also striking differences between the Nazi and NewLabour anti-smoking campaigns. The anti-Semitic and eugenic themes of the 1930s are absent today; many of Germany's leading anti-tobaccoactivists were also war criminals (4).
Another difference is in the consequences of an authoritarian public health policy for science.
Whereas in Nazi Germany pioneering scientific research took place into the health effects of tobacco, we find today in Britain that epidemiology has been degraded in the service of political expediency.
There has been a marked reluctance among British medical authorities to acknowledge German achievements in research into the health effects of smoking. Yet according to Robert Proctor's authoritative account, TheNazi War on Cancer, up to the Second World War, 'German tobacco epidemiology was the most advanced in the world'. In 1929 Franz Lickint, a physician from Chemnitz, published the first statistical evidence - a'case series' study - suggesting a link between cigarettes and lung cancer (5).
He went on to become a leading campaigner against smoking in the Nazi era.
In 1939 Franz Muller at the University of Cologne published the first controlled epidemiological study - according to Proctor, 'an exquisite piece of scholarship' - establishing a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer (6).
As late as 1943, Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger, working at the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Researchat Jena, produced a 'very subtle study', providing 'the most conclusive epidemiological evidence up to that time, anywhere in the world, that smoking posed a major lung cancer hazard' (7).
It was more than a decade later that researchers in Britain and the USA confirmed the findings of the German scientists, claiming these discoveries as their own.
Sir Richard Doll is the leading figure in smoking epidemiology in Britain. He was a co-author of the 1954 study, which showed the link between smoking and lung cancer among British doctors, and also of the 50-year follow-up study of the same population, published earlier this year (8).
The headline conclusion from these researches was that smoking leads, on average, to a 10-year reduction in life expectancy. In recent years, however, the focus of the anti-smoking campaign has shifted from the (firmly established) dangers of smoking to the smoker to emphasising the (more contentious) dangers of smoking to others, particularly to non-smokers. In the process, the science of epidemiology appears to have surrendered to the demands of public health propaganda.
In 1988, the Froggat Committee, an independent scientific committee on smoking and health, estimated that passive smoking caused an increased risk of lung cancer of between 10 and 30 per cent and recommended restrictions on smoking in workplaces and in public (9).
The case against passive smoking gathered momentum through the 1990s. In 1997 meta-analyses confirmed increased risks of lung cancer (24 per cent) and coronary heart disease (23 per cent) (10, 11).
A re-analysis of the same studies three years later acknowledged a 'modest degree of publication bias' (a result of the fact that studies which reveal no increased risk are less likely to be published) and adjusted the excess risk of lung cancer down from 24 per cent to 15 per cent (12).
Despite the growing medical (and political) consensus about the dangers of passive smoking, the issue has remained controversial. The Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson, while accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance (13).
He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke(ETS) (2). By contrast, in a population which consumes Japanese seafood(which contains Arsenic) this will cause 12 cases of cancer, where there are traces of natural Arsenic in drinking water, this will cause five cases; eating mushrooms will cause three cases. In other words, the risk of ETS is comparable with that of environmental agents that are generally regarded as an insignificant threat to health.
Perhaps the most fundamental defect of the presentation of the risk of passive smoking is the failure to distinguish between relative and absolute risk. In a critical commentary, the Australian medical research scientist Raymond Johnstone noted that the annual death rate from lung cancer among the non-smoking wives of non-smoking men is around six per100,000, whereas among the non-smoking wives of smoking men the corresponding figure is eight per 100,000. Now this may be reported as an increased (relative) risk of 33 per cent. Yet in absolute terms it amounts to an absolute (or exposure) risk of one in 50,000, which is, for practical purposes, negligible.
Johnstone's conclusion was that 'the most that one can say about the alleged link between passive smoking and lung cancer is that if there is one, then it is so small that it is difficult to measure it accurately and the risk, if any, is well below the level of those to which we normally pay attention' (14).
The alarming estimates of deaths attributable to passive smoking result from multiplying miniscule risks of dubious validity by vast population numbers - an effective propaganda device but statistical sharp practice.
The intense moral fervour and political commitment now driving the campaign against passive smoking has created a climate inimical to serious scientific inquiry. In 2003 the British Medical Journal published a study of 120,000 adults in California over a 40-year period, which concluded that 'the results do not support a causal association between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, though they do not rule out a small effect' (15).
The authors, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, were subjected to a barrage of personal attacks and unfounded insinuations of dishonesty. In response, they pointed out the selective reporting of the anti-smoking campaigners and their attempts to suppress divergent data (16).
They noted that 'what is most dangerous is the willingness to distort the truth to defend one's position, claiming all along that science and righteousness are on one's side'. In an editorial published alongside the original paper, George Davey Smith, one of Britain's leading epidemiologists, tried to bring some reason into the debate, pointing out that 'the considerable problems with measurement imprecision, confounding, and the small predicted excess risks limit the degree to which conventional observational epidemiology can address the effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke' (17).
The fact that Davey Smith is well known for his hostility to the tobacco industry, and for his earlier writings exposing its apologetic use of science, did not save him, the authors or the BMJ from the wrath of the anti-smoking campaigners (18).
The drive to impose restrictions on smoking in workplaces and in public has not been in the least inhibited by expert doubts about the validity of the evidence on which it is based. Indeed, as medical historian Virginia Berridge has observed, 'the coalition advocating those restrictions pre-dated the evidence' (19).
Yet, as she acknowledged, 'bythe mid-1990s, there was widespread agreement that the epidemiological evidence on passive smoking was at least debatable'.
When Sir Richard Doll was asked in 1998 to compare the epidemiological evidence on passive smoking with his work in the 1950s, his response was 'it's utterly different' (20).
Recalling that his study had shown a fifty-fold increase in risk for heavy smokers, he commented that 'for passive smoking the evidence is qualitatively different'. While indicating that he did believe that passive smoking was harmful, he conceded that 'the quantitative relationship is very weak', suggesting that his belief was more grounded in loyalty to the anti-smoking cause than his confidence in the figures. When he appeared on Desert Island Discs in February 2001, Doll told Sue Lawley that 'the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn't worry me'.
Recent headlines quoting British chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson's statement that 'we are in the grip of a smoking epidemic' mark a new low point in the abuse of science in the anti-smoking cause(21).
Reports quoted Professor Donaldson's statement that 106,000 people were 'dying needlessly' in the UK every year. Some newspapers provided the further breakdown detailed in the Health Development Agency press release: 1,600 deaths a week, 230 a day, 10 every hour. This alarmist rhetoric disguises the fact that mortality from lung cancer has been declining in Britain since the 1960s; over the past decade it has fallen by more than 25 per cent among men (who account for 60 per cent of deaths).
Closer scrutiny of the report on which these accounts are based reveals that the figures presented are not of recorded deaths but 'are estimates and should be treated as such'. They are derived from a novel technique known as 'synthetical statistical estimation': they 'reflect expected values for the topics under investigation…and should not be regarded as absolute or exact'. The authors warn that their results 'must be used with caution' - a caveat that does not appear in any of the newspaper reports, or indeed in the HDA press release. Though such estimates maybe of value for research or policy purposes, using them to scare the public cannot be considered legitimate.
If anti-smoking campaigners have been slow to recognise the German contribution to tobacco epidemiology, they have been even more reluctant to acknowledge the parallels between their public health policies and those pursued by the Nazis. Yet the similarities are remarkable.
According to Proctor, the government in Germany in the 1930s 'launched an ambitious anti-smoking campaign, involving extensive public health education, bans on certain forms of advertising, and restrictions on smoking in many public spaces' (22).
Women and youth were a particular focus of anti-smoking propaganda and restrictions on sales. Furthermore, 'activists called for bans on smoking while driving, for an end to smoking in the workplace, and for the establishment of tobacco counselling centres' (23).
Enterprising firms marketed a range of anti-smoking preparations, from mouthwashes to intravenous infusions. Therapists offered hypnotism and a range of counselling techniques to encourage people to quit smoking.
A number of themes recur in the anti-smoking campaigns. In Germany, campaigners asserted that smoking caused infertility among women and impotence among men, dubious claims echoed in the recent British Medical Association report on 'the impact of smoking on sexual, reproductive and child health' (24).
Anti-tobacco activists have consistently emphasisedthe particular vulnerability of women, both to the physical effects of smoking and to the seductive power of cigarette advertising. National socialist propagandists railed against 'tobacco capitalism' and stigmatised tobacco as an 'enemy of the people'; they condemned 'smoking slavery' and even 'tobacco terror' - slogans with an alarmingly contemporary ring.
Scaremongering about smoking as an 'epidemic', even a 'plague', was as familiar in Germany in the 1930s as it is in Britain today. At the founding conference of the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research in1941, Professor Otto Graf warned of the dangers of 'passive smoking' and called for a workplace ban.
There are also differences in the anti-smoking campaigns. The Nazi emphasis on smoking as a threat to racial purity and national efficiency is absent in modern Britain. Similar themes today assume a more individualistic form: smoking is depicted a threat to the body, now replacing the nation as a 'fortress of purity, cleanliness and muscular macho health fanaticism' (25).
However, the recent advertising campaign featuring cigarettes oozing a viscous paste over a convivial group of young smokers identifies smoking as a source of social, as well as individual, pollution and contamination. The Nazis were more concerned about the economic burden of smoking-related ill-health and the resulting loss of skilled and professional manpower. In Britain, the anti-smoking campaign has recently focused particularly on the differential impact of smoking on poorer communities, a particular theme of the 'smoking epidemic' report,which implies that cigarettes are the main cause of class differentials in health in Britain. Whereas the Nazis associated cigarettes with communism, for New Labour it seems that the prohibition of smoking now points the way forward on the British road to socialism (though this goal is not apparent in other areas of government policy).
In this era of evidence-based policy, we can look back on the German public health experiment in relation to smoking and ask - did it work?
Needless to say, this is not an easy question to answer. According to Proctor, the Nazi campaign did not succeed in reducing overall tobacco consumption until the later stages of the war (when production and supply were disrupted). After the war, poverty and rationing may have curtailed smoking. He believes that whereas Nazi militarism led to an increase in smoking among men in the armed forces, Nazi paternalism was effective in discouraging women from smoking. Whatever the reason, women in Germany took up smoking at a much slower pace than women in the USA. Proctor calculates that this delay may have contributed to a reduced rate of lung cancer among women, possibly preventing 20,000 deaths over the postwar decades.
The experience of anti-smoking measures in Britain over recent decades is also inconclusive. Contrary to the impression created by the doom-mongers, there has been a dramatic decline in smoking since the dangers first became widely publicised in the 1960s. Interestingly, the sharpest fall took place in the 1970s and 80s, before the current wave of anti-smoking measures. The intensive anti-smoking policies introduced in the 1990s, with further restrictions on advertising, workplace bans and the promotion of a panoply of 'smoking cessation' therapies, appear to have had relatively little effect.
There is some evidence that among young people, these measures may have been counterproductive - a danger recognised by the Nazi public health authorities who recognised that 'forbidden fruit is tempting'. However, the ineffectiveness of more coercive measures in Britain has not led to any questioning of the policy, but simply to calls for more of the same.
For the anti-smoking zealots, the loss of civil liberties resulting from their widening range of bans and proscriptions is justified by the anticipated health gain. Yet, as the great microbiologist Rene Dubos observed, health should not be considered an end in itself, but as 'the condition best suited to reach goals that each individual formulates for himself' (26).
By curtailing the autonomy of the self-determining individual, authoritarian public health policies infantilise society, weaken democracy and diminish humanity.
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is the author of MMR and Autism: What ParentsNeed to Know, Routledge, 2004 (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon(USA)); and The Tyranny of Health: Doctors and the Regulation ofLifestyle, Routledge, 2000 (buy this book from Amazon UK or Amazon USA).
Read on spiked-issue http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm:
No smoking:
(1) The Nazi War on Cancer, by Robert N Proctor, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999
(2) Proctor, p176.
(3) Tony Blair, Preface to Smoking Kills: a White Paper on Tobacco, London: Stationery Office, 1998: p1
(4) Proctor, p241.
(5) Proctor, p183-4.
(6) Proctor, p194-196.
(7) Proctor, p213-216.
(8) Richard Doll and others, 'Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors', BMJ 2004; 328: 1519-33. This report finally acknowledges the German contribution to this field.
(9) see The Tyranny of Health, by Michael Fitzpatrick, London: Routledge, 2001: p38.
(10) Hackshaw, AK and others, 'The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke', British Medical Journal, 1997; 315: 980-8.
(11) Law, MR and others, 'Environmental tobacco smoke and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence', BMJ 1997; 315: 973-80.
(12) Copas, JB, Shi JQ, 'Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking', BMJ 2000; 320: 417-18.
(13) 'Is environmental tobacco smoke a risk factor for carcinoma of the lung?', by Robert Nilsson in R Bate (ed), What risk?, London:Butterworth/Heinemann, 1997
(14) 'Scientific fact or scientific delusion?', by JR Johnstone inHealth, lifestyle and the environment, London: Social AffairsUnit/Manhattan Institute, 1991, p81.
(15) 'Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-1999', Enstrom, J., Kabat, G.,British Medical Journal, 2003; 326: 1057
(16) Enstrom, J., Kabat, G. 'Authors' reply', British Medical Journal 2003; 327:504-5
(17) 'Effect of passive smoking on health', Davey Smith, G., British Medical Journal 2003; 326:1048-49
(18) 'Passive smoking and health: should we believe Philip Morris' experts?' Davey Smith, G., Phillips, AN., British Medical Journal, 1996;313: 929-933
(19) Berridge, V. 'Science and policy: the case of post-war British smoking policy' in S.Lock and others (eds), Ashes to Ashes, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi
(20) Doll, R. 'The first reports of smoking and lung cancer' in S.Lockand others (eds), Ashes to Ashes, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi
(21) Twigg, L., Moon, G., Walker, S., The smoking epidemic in England, London: Health Development Agency, November 2004
(22) Proctor, p175
(23) Proctor, p201(24) British Medical Association, Smoking and reproductive life, Board of Science and Education and Tobacco Control Resource Centre, London: BMA, February 2004
(25) Proctor, p219
(26) Dubos, R. The mirage of health. London: Allen and Unwin, 1960, p 219. Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm
Date: Sat Nov 13, 2004
States Urged to Spend More to Cut Smoking Rate
Danger that 'lifestyle politics' will force out economic issues
Antidepressant help people stop smoking...
Anti-drug vaccination plan.....
Hi,
I've combined four new articles on the latest tactics by our government and health experts to de-normalize smoking. These stories sound more and more like the frightening predictions of the future in "1984" and "Brave New World".
The first article is from the CDC and addresses how our individual states are being urged by our federal government to become more active in anti-tobacco programs, using taxpayer dollars (for our own good).
The second is an editorial from "The Scotsman", questioning government motivation to control our individual life styles rather than addressing their real, and more difficult, responsibilities.
The third is from medicalnewstoday.com, suggesting smokers combine anti-depressants with the patch for smoking cessation.....I have attached (beneath the article) a medical description of the potential side effect of this recommended drug.
The fourth, and last, is a commentary on the a Anti Drug Vaccination plan being considered in the form of an inoculation for children to chemically alter their brains, thereby rendering them unable to experience natural human responses.
To me, these articles are all related. They are a very frightening prediction of one potential future for our populations......the scientific engineering of humans through "new and improved" discoveries by science. Whether we want them or not seem to be irrelevant!
For those interested or curious, I would like to supply a link to read a rather "unusual" letter from The Screwtape Letters, written by C. S. Lewis, projecting Adolf Hitler's probable reactions to our present day issues at http://www.towardtradition.org/article_First_Shocking_Attack_2004.htm.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. -
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
Hi,
I've combined four new articles on the latest tactics by our government and health experts to de-normalize smoking. These stories sound more and more like the frightening predictions of the future in "1984" and "Brave New World".
The first article is from the CDC and addresses how our individual states are being urged by our federal government to become more active in anti-tobacco programs, using taxpayer dollars (for our own good).
The second is an editorial from "The Scotsman", questioning government motivation to control our individual life styles rather than addressing their real, and more difficult, responsibilities.
The third is from medicalnewstoday.com, suggesting smokers combine anti-depressants with the patch for smoking cessation.....I have attached (beneath the article) a medical description of the potential side effect of this recommended drug.
The fourth, and last, is a commentary on the a Anti Drug Vaccination plan being considered in the form of an inoculation for children to chemically alter their brains, thereby rendering them unable to experience natural human responses.
To me, these articles are all related. They are a very frightening prediction of one potential future for our populations......the scientific engineering of humans through "new and improved" discoveries by science. Whether we want them or not seem to be irrelevant!
For those interested or curious, I would like to supply a link to read a rather "unusual" letter from The Screwtape Letters, written by C. S. Lewis, projecting Adolf Hitler's probable reactions to our present day issues at http://www.towardtradition.org/article_First_Shocking_Attack_2004.htm.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. -
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3EBFLRWSPIPGECRBAELCFEY?type=healthNews&storyID=6777395
States Urged to Spend More to Cut Smoking Rate
Wed Nov 10, 2004
By Paul Simao
ATLANTA (Reuters) - The U.S. government's effort to cut the adult smoking rate to 12 percent or less by 2010 will fail unless most states increase funding for anti-tobacco programs, federal health officials said on Wednesday.
The warning by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accompanied a study showing the vast majority of states in 2003 were nowhere near the nation's ambitious smoking target.
The smoking rate among states last year ranged from a high of 30.8 percent in Kentucky to a low of 12 percent in Utah, the only one to reach the federal target. Utah has a heavy proportion of Mormons, who are religiously opposed to smoking.
States Urged to Spend More to Cut Smoking Rate
Wed Nov 10, 2004
By Paul Simao
ATLANTA (Reuters) - The U.S. government's effort to cut the adult smoking rate to 12 percent or less by 2010 will fail unless most states increase funding for anti-tobacco programs, federal health officials said on Wednesday.
The warning by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention accompanied a study showing the vast majority of states in 2003 were nowhere near the nation's ambitious smoking target.
The smoking rate among states last year ranged from a high of 30.8 percent in Kentucky to a low of 12 percent in Utah, the only one to reach the federal target. Utah has a heavy proportion of Mormons, who are religiously opposed to smoking.
About 440,000 Americans die each year from lung cancer and other diseases related to tobacco use, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, according to the federal government.
"It's not a matter of not knowing what to do, it's a matter of not doing what we know works," said Terry Pechacek, associate director for science in the CDC's office of smoking and health.
"Unfortunately, a very small number of our states are investing in the types of programs that we know can reduce the level of smoking," Pechacek added.
"It's not a matter of not knowing what to do, it's a matter of not doing what we know works," said Terry Pechacek, associate director for science in the CDC's office of smoking and health.
"Unfortunately, a very small number of our states are investing in the types of programs that we know can reduce the level of smoking," Pechacek added.
States spent $541.1 million on anti-tobacco programs in 2003, a 28 percent reduction from 2001 and less than 3 percent of the estimated $19 billion they expected to receive from tobacco excise taxes and tobacco settlement money. The CDC did not say how much the states spent in 2002.
Tobacco companies agreed in 1997 and 1998 to pay $206 billion as part of a landmark legal settlement with a number of states that had sued the industry to recoup the health-care costs of treating sick smokers.
For the 2004 fiscal year, only Arkansas, Delaware, Maine and Mississippi were investing the minimum per capita amount recommended by the CDC for tobacco-control.
Tobacco companies agreed in 1997 and 1998 to pay $206 billion as part of a landmark legal settlement with a number of states that had sued the industry to recoup the health-care costs of treating sick smokers.
For the 2004 fiscal year, only Arkansas, Delaware, Maine and Mississippi were investing the minimum per capita amount recommended by the CDC for tobacco-control.
A related study published by the CDC on Wednesday found air contaminants linked to second-hand smoke fell 84 percent in 20 bars, restaurants and other venues in western New York shortly after a state indoor smoking ban went into effect in 2003.
The dramatic drop in levels of respirable suspended particles, an accepted marker for second-hand smoke, should encourage other states and the District of Columbia to pass similar indoor smoking bans, researchers said.
An estimated 35,000 non-smokers in the United States die every year from heart disease caused by second-hand smoke. Three thousand die from lung cancer caused by such exposure.
An estimated 35,000 non-smokers in the United States die every year from heart disease caused by second-hand smoke. Three thousand die from lung cancer caused by such exposure.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1309212004
Sat 13 Nov 2004
Danger that 'lifestyle politics' will force out economic issues
WHAT are, or should be, the big issues in government and political life? Whatever one’s views on the Scottish Executive’s proposals this week to ban smoking in public places, the fact that such legislation is now in prospect marks a step change in our perceptions of the business of politics. The proposed ban has springboarded Scotland to international attention, with articles and commentary across the world’s press. It is the boldness of the proposal - unthinkable ten or even five years ago - that has caught public attention. Moreover, the ban will not only be far reaching in Scottish life and behaviour. It will also be keenly studied by the Westminster parliament which may follow suit.
The drive to legislate in Scotland is itself inspired by the introduction of similar smoking bans in New York and more recently Ireland. Indeed, far from politicians being dragged reluctantly down the path of health intervention, legislatures round the world now appear to be in a race to see who can effect the earliest and most effective law. On public health grounds, this is a race to the good. Scotland is one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe - and smoking is a major contributor. Lung cancer rates are 49 per cent higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom; and some 31 per cent of Scots smoke, compared with 26 per cent in England. But, ironically, far from this making the Executive more circumspect in its approach on the grounds of voter acceptability, it is cited as an argument to be all the more radical and to go for an immediate and sweeping smoking ban.
"Lifestyle politics" is now taking all before it. Whether it is drug-taking, obesity and eating choices, alcohol consumption or smoking - the cascade of interventions through government education, task forces, health warnings, admonitory advertising and partial or total bans is now a common phenomenon in politics. The right of legislators to intervene has become accepted by voters to a degree that would have astonished our parents’ generation. Half a century ago, foreign affairs dominated the political agenda. The former prime minister, Sir Anthony Eden, represented a generation that could never understand why politicians should concern themselves with health and hospitals; but today there seems room for little else.
Many see in this a wholly welcome and desirable shift in political attention and emphasis: evidence of an extension of the power and influence of legislatures in important fields. But it is not without its dangers. One of these is the rise of, for want of a better phrase, "displacement politics": the elevation of the politics of personal lifestyle change over traditional "big issue" matters such as the economy, or international relations. Legislatures risk being reduced to "cigarette politics" because of an impotence over the bigger macro concerns. Thus we may be seeing less an extension or enhancement of the modern legislature than a massive demotion in which traditional "big issue" matters are increasingly closed to discussion, let alone intervention.
Scotland this week may have presented a perfect example of this displacement effect at work. It was the proposed smoking ban that the First Minister, Jack McConnell, was anxious to see given top press attention. Media interest in his phone calls with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, over the fate of the Black Watch regiment was not something he wished to encourage. Similarly, the announcement this week of the "refreshing" of Smart, Successful Scotland - the central plank of Executive policy on the economy - was a markedly downbeat affair. This was particularly striking given Mr McConnell’s previous earnest assurances that "the economy is our number one priority". But it clearly was not the number one priority this week - or in many other weeks, for that matter. The Executive should be careful in its zeal for lifestyle politics ranging over smoking bans and hunting bans to child-smacking bans that it does not lose sight of the issues that really shape our lives in Scotland: jobs, growth, investment and prosperity.
THE second danger arises directly from the nature of the new "lifestyle politics": who sets the agenda, and who determines its limits? One of the charges laid against interventions such as smoking legislation is that it is less a reflection of popular preference than the agenda of a politically correct elite that feels its lifestyle choices to be superior and that it has a right to force others to adopt them. Lifestyle politics has, of necessity, to address the objection that parliaments are supposed to represent the choices and preferences of all the voters, not just a certain section, no matter how righteous they may feel themselves to be. This, in turn, has a direct bearing on the public acceptability of legislation and critically on the question of compliance and enforcement. Proscription does not avoid the need for persuasion.
And this is critical, because the rise of lifestyle politics is unlikely to stop here. Already the drinks industry is preparing to fend off legislation by putting health warnings on beer bottles. Whether this will have any more effect in deterring legislation than warnings on cigarette packs had in pre-empting smoking bans is moot. But few of the doctors who put their names to letters this week calling for a smoking ban would challenge the enormous damage that alcohol abuse inflicts on individuals, families and society as a whole. The health - and wider social damage - is colossal, and it would not be at all surprising if alcohol regulation is the next big step. But in the new Prohibition, how exactly will the law be enforced?
And did we really bring universal suffrage parliaments and legislatures into being to pass laws on the minutiae of human behaviour? What of the broader society and economy? What of those things that are not in our personal gift to control, but which a democratic society recognises our right to influence? We should be careful that, in setting out to correct small personal behaviours, we let great social misbehaviours pass unattended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16082&nfid=rssfeeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.psyweb.com/Drughtm/nortri.html
Nortriptyline ( Aventil, Pamelor )
Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressants used to treat endogenous depression, chronic skin disorders, depression, migraine headaches, panic disorder, severe arthritis, bedwetting, AIDS, PMS, ADHD, ringing ears, and with other drugs to manage chronic / severe pain.
CLASS: Secondary Tricyclic.
Generic name: Nortriptyline Hydrochloride.
Type: Antidepressant.
Strengths:
Oral Solutions:10mg / 5 ml. ( 4% Alcohol )
Tables:
10mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg.
Dosages: Actual dosage must be determined by a physician.
Normal dosage:
If under 18 years of age, Only under the care of a child psychiatrist!
18 to 60 years of age, 25mg to 50mg daily.
Over 60 years of age, Lower dosage increased cautiously.
Problems with:
Liver Function: Lower dosage, as needed.
Kidney Function: Lower dosage, as needed.
Test:
Before taking: Electrocardiogram.
Common: Blurred vision, constipation, cramps, disorientation, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache, low blood pressure, or sensitivity to bright lights.
Rare: Anxiety, black tongue, confusion, convulsions, hair loss, increased appetite, insomnia, intestinal blockage, racing heartbeat / palpitations, males developing breast, nightmares, odd taste, ringing in ears, seizures, sexual problems, swelling testicles, skin rashes / allergies, tingling, weight gain / loss, or yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
See physician always: Low blood pressure, confusion, swelling testicles, seizures, males developing breast, sexual problems, skin rashes / allergies, or yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
See physician if severe: Anxiety, blurred vision, constipation, cramps, headache, disorientation, drowsiness, dry mouth, intestinal blockage, racing heartbeat / palpitations, insomnia, increased appetite, nightmares, odd taste, ringing in ears, tingling, sensitivity to bright lights, or weight gain / loss.
See physician NOW: Confusion or skin rashes / allergies.
Stop taking and see physician NOW: Seizures, yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
http://www.publichealthnews.org/001513.html
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 commentary:
Anti-drug vaccination plan could immunize people from effects of cocaine, heroin and nicotine
How would you like your children to be immune to the pharmacological effects of hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and even nicotine? Using new medical vaccination technologies, children can now be immunized against the effects of these drugs so that they don't feel the high, or the brain chemistry alterations, from such drugs if they were to consume them. Doing this, of course, would make it extremely unlikely that these children would later grow up and become addicted to those drugs. Because without the brain chemistry alterations, consuming such drugs is basically pointless.
It's an exciting new medical technology that has been tested in terms of immunizing people against the effects of nicotine, but now discussions are underway that would expand the program to other drugs such as cocaine and heroin and roll out national immunization programs for all children. This is being discussed in the UK right now, but chances are that it will soon merit discussion in the United States as well.
For my own comments on this technology, it's helpful to look at both the outrageous cost to society for drug addiction and drug use, and the potential dangers of national vaccination programs. In general, I'm against vaccination when it's required or forced upon the general public, because I believe that many vaccines are tainted with mercury and other toxins and that they can cause lifelong problems in many children. It is well known that vaccinations against polio and others diseases actually kill some children, and the public health benefit of forced vaccinations among U.S. schoolchildren is highly debatable.
But when it comes to hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, vaccinations start to look a lot more beneficial to society as a whole. For starters, if we could practically eliminate smoking in the United States within one generation, the nation would save countless dollars in terms of health care costs and improve productivity and quality of life of its citizens. This vaccination program has the potential to eradicate smoking altogether -- a move that would no doubt diminish the incidence of chronic diseases such as heart disease, lung cancer, nervous system disorders, and breast cancer. If we could immunize people against cocaine and heroin before they're at an age where they might start experimenting with such hard drugs, we could do tremendous good for the country as a whole by preventing drug addiction and all the lifelong problems associated with such addictions, including financial poverty, family hardships, and devastating health consequences.
In theory, then, I'm strongly in favor of exploring a vaccination technology that can immunize children against the effects of these hard drugs and nicotine, because I think it would save untold numbers of lives and an extraordinary amount of money in health care costs alone. But to firmly stand behind such technology, I would need to be convinced that it is inherently safe and has no other negative side effects, and when it comes to vaccinations, that's a pretty tall order. Because many vaccinations do indeed have rather alarming side effects, and we should not force a population to undergo a medical technology unless it has been proven safe and effective -- and even then, I much prefer it being a choice of the parents, rather than being mandated by the federal government.
Ideally, such a vaccination program, if proven completely safe, would be offered free of charge, paid for by taxpayer dollars, and publicized through public schools. Of course, I wouldn't want my own children to be the first batch of experimental human guinea pigs to receive such a vaccination, and I firmly believe that the best way to avoid hard drug addictions with our children is to give them a better education and strong family environments, where they don't need to turn to hard drugs in order to feel fulfilled in the first place.
Now, as long as we're talking about vaccinations, there's an interesting idea of a far more useful vaccination that could aid in weight-loss efforts by the American public. What if we could be vaccinated against the sweet taste of sugar? If so, we could end our addictions to high-carbohydrate foods, and more easily choose healthful foods that don't contain so many refined carbohydrates. If human beings were born without the taste sensation for sweetness, and without the associated brain chemistry effects that automatically follow the consumption of carbohydrates, we wouldn't be so addicted to carbohydrates as a nation. Soft drink sales would be virtually non-existent. The grocery store shelves wouldn't be lined with candy masquerading as food -- like you'll find in granola bars or pizza sauce, both of which are made with refined sugar.
The idea that we could all be vaccinated against the taste and brain chemistry effects of sugar consumption is, of course, pure fantasy at the moment, but it is not fantasy to suppose that with advanced genetic engineering technology we could someday produce offspring who are not so closely wired to the consumption of sugar. In fact, there's something you can do about that right now: research shows that when expectant mothers avoid eating refined sugars, their babies are born with less of a craving for sugars. And that, in my book, is one of the greatest gifts a mother can give her unborn child: a foundation for living a healthy life, free of refined sugars, soft drinks, cake, cookies, and other foods and beverages that promote obesity and chronic disease.
Mon Nov 8, 2004
From UK - Humphrys pulls out of debate on passive smoking
Hi,
From the UK, scientists and Ash won't discuss their findings on second hand smoke........
'As far as we're concerned the science on the risks associated with passive smoking is proven. By attending the conference we would be acknowledging there was some doubt on it,' said Deborah Arnott, director of Ash.
Speakers at the conference suggested there was insufficient evidence to back up claims that passive smoking - or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as it is dubbed by the industry - causes serious diseases among non-smokers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1345445,00.html
"Humphrys pulls out of debate on passive smoking Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday November 7, 2004
The Observer
Broadcaster John Humphrys spoke of his disappointment last night after he had to pull out of a controversial seminar on the risks of passive smoking because it 'lacked balance'.
The Today programme anchorman was due to chair a debate organised by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA) at the Royal Institution in London on Friday but cancelled at the eleventh hour.
Humphrys said the organisers had failed to meet a key condition. 'I said that in no sense would I be a spokesman or an apologist for them. I wanted the panel to be balanced. They contacted an awful lot of people, including Ash, but when they told me who they had on the panel it was not sufficient.'
The TMA said it had approached 25 'eminent' scientists opposed to the tobacco lobby to contribute to the seminar but they had all declined. Appeals were also made to the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Association.
'As far as we're concerned the science on the risks associated with passive smoking is proven. By attending the conference we would be acknowledging there was some doubt on it,' said Deborah Arnott, director of Ash.
Speakers at the conference suggested there was insufficient evidence to back up claims that passive smoking - or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as it is dubbed by the industry - causes serious diseases among non-smokers.
Peter Lee, described as an independent expert in epidemiology, discussed his review of some 60 studies that had looked at the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers exposed to smokers either at home, at work or in social situations.
'The evidence taken as a whole does not actually demonstrate any true lung cancer risk from exposure to ETS at all,' Lee said.
Campaigners pointed to Lee's close links with the tobacco industry as evidence of a conflict of interest. However, his claims were backed up by Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, who has no links to the tobacco lobby. Denson said the medical evidence surrounding passive smoking would not be seriously considered, 'let alone published, in any other medical discipline'."
Fri Nov 5, 2004
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Hi,
Article of interest. Wouldn't it be nice to prove that the term "addiction", in relation to tobacco use, was created by government scientists for the 1988 the Surgeon General's report?
"Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers."
Garnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LG3I5M2A00XDWCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6693323
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Tue 2 November, 2004
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Tobacco industry lawyers disputed the government's use of the word "addiction" to describe cigarette-smoking during testimony on Tuesday in the $280 billion racketeering case against the industry.
Questioning a drug expert testifying for the government, lawyers for cigarette makers argued that use of "addiction", beginning with a 1988 Surgeon General's report, was vague and politically motivated.
"Whether you call it an addiction, a habit, a dependency or something else, it does not mean people cannot quit, does it?" Philip Morris lawyer Ted Wells asked Neal Benowitz, one of the scientists who oversaw the Surgeon General's report.
Benowitz told U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that people who try to quit smoking are almost as likely to fail as those trying to give up hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
All the major cigarette makers denied that cigarette smoking was addictive until the mid- to late-1990s.
Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers.
But Benowitz denied that scientists who oversaw the 1988 report were improperly biased against the industry. "How can you be a physician or public health official and be impartial about tobacco?" Benowitz said.
The government suit, launched in 1999, targets Altria Group Inc. MO.N and its Philip Morris USA unit; Loews Corp.'s LTR.N Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina Group CG.N ; Vector Group Ltd.'s VGR.N Liggett Group; Reynolds American Inc.'s RAI.N R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British American Tobacco Plc BATS.L unit British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.
The government charges cigarette makers lied about the dangers of smoking as part of a 50-year industry conspiracy.
The tobacco companies deny they conspired to promote smoking and say they drastically changed marketing practices as part of a 1998 settlement with state attorneys general.
In another development in the trial, a federal appeals court on Tuesday reversed an earlier ruling by Kessler that would have immediately required a subsidiary of British American Tobacco to turn over a potentially incriminating document sought by the U.S. Justice Department.
An appeals court panel ruled that the company had not automatically waived attorney-client privilege over the "Foyle memorandum," a 1990 document long sought by the Justice Department as part of the racketeering case.
The document contains advice from a lawyer about BAT's document retention policy, but government lawyers have said it may actually be evidence of systematic document destruction by the company.
The appeals court sent the issue back to Kessler to decide on the government's claim the company's actions had triggered a "crime-fraud" provision that would nullify attorney-client privilege.
Fri Nov 5, 2004
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Hi,
Article of interest. Wouldn't it be nice to prove that the term "addiction", in relation to tobacco use, was created by government scientists for the 1988 the Surgeon General's report?
"Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu Nov 4, 2004
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Hi Matt,
I don't know if this helps, but the link I have given below gives a brief philosophy of general political attitudes. Using the chart, and assuming Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, the generic answer would be that Republicans are likely to be more concerned with smoking issues. The only real way to know how our elected representatives stand on smoking issues is to view their voting records or write to them directly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Political Philosophies
Libertarian
Libertarians support a great deal of liberty and freedom of choice in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and they tolerate economic and social diversity.
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."
Centrist
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize what they commonly describe as "practical solutions" to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on political issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
Conservative
Right-conservatives favor freedom of choice on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They tend to support the free market, but frequently want the government to defend the community from what they see as threats to morality or to the traditional family structure.
Statist
Statists want government to have a great deal of control over individuals and society. They support centralized planning, and often doubt whether liberty and freedom of choice are practical options. At the very bottom of the chart, left-authoritarians are usually called socialists, while right-authoritarians are generally called fascists.
Thu, Nov 4, 2004
Smoking ban failure means fight will move to other communities, stricter enforcement
Hi,
In Duluth, Minnesota voters have spoken. No new smoking bans. This is good news! The Mayor calls the election results a "bellwether" across the region for voters' attitudes toward smoking bans.
Of course, clean-air advocates have no intention of letting up on the pressures to initiate smoking bans. What difference do voters' opinions make to the Antis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/10096335.htm
Posted on Thu, Nov. 04, 2004
Smoking ban failure means fight will move to other communities, stricter enforcement
BY CHAD THOMASNEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Duluth voters have spoken, and all sides on the city's controversial smoking ban seem to have listened.
On Wednesday, ban supporters, opponents and Duluth city councilors said they have no intention of pushing for changes to the ordinance.
"I do not see us initiating changes," said Pat McKone, with the American Lung Association of Minnesota's Duluth office.
While the nearly five-year battle over the ordinance may have come to an end, smoking-ban advocates are planning to take their fight to new fronts.
They will focus, they said, on strict enforcement of Duluth's ban and pushing elsewhere for smoke-free environments.
That strategic decision comes a day after 54 percent of Duluth voters defeated a referendum to expand the city's smoking ban.
Had the measure passed, it would have snuffed out cigarettes in all of the city's bars, restaurants with bars, and private clubs, such as American Legion and VFW halls.
The referendum's defeat means the ban stays as it is. The city's 60 restaurants with liquor licenses can serve food and allow smoking in the bar area, provided the restaurant section is smoke-free. Each area also must have a ventilation system.
Restaurants without a liquor license must remain nonsmoking establishments.
"We have the existing smoking ban. We have accepted it. We're dealing with it. We're not trying to weaken it," said Vickie Haugland, a leader of the organization that opposed the referendum.
The stricter ban's failure also means the Duluth City Council has the authority to change the current ordinance as it sees fit. But eight of the nine councilors said Wednesday that they wouldn't support changing the ban.
"As far as I am concerned, it is over with, and I think the majority of the people want it to be over with," Councilor Tim Little said, echoing what the others had to say.
Greg Gilbert was the only councilor not to offer an opinion on the matter.
"I don't know," he said. "I just haven't had a chance to think about it."
Clean-air advocates are holding true on their promise to put violators of the ban on notice.
Gary Eckenberg, a Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco-Free Coalition member, contacted the Duluth Police Department on Wednesday asking for an investigation into three businesses.
Eckenberg wrote in an e-mail to the city's licensing officer, Steve LaTour, that the three locations were violating the ordinance.
"We didn't get into compliance this whole year. We see that as our role now," said Eckenberg, who wrote the city's original ordinance when he was a councilor.
LaTour told the News Tribune that he would be looking into the matter today.
Beyond Duluth, the lung association is taking a three-pronged approach toward pushing for bans elsewhere.
At the state level, McKone and others said they plan to lobby at the Minnesota Legislature in the coming session for a statewide ban.
In St. Louis County, clean-air advocates plan to step up efforts to get the County Board to snuff out smoking. Advocates have a new ally in that fight with the addition to the board of Steve O'Neil, who used to work for the lung association.
"I am going to explore this with the other commissioners, some kind of countywide ordinance," O'Neil said. "While this is a setback in Duluth, the momentum around the state is rolling."
McKone also wants to continue her discussions with Superior Mayor Dave Ross about a smoking ban there, but she's unlikely at this point to get far.
On Wednesday, Ross called the Duluth vote a "bellwether" across the region for voters' attitudes toward smoking bans.
"I think politically speaking, we would be no more successful here in Superior than they were in Duluth," Ross said, "so I don't favor a smoking ban initiated by the city of Superior."
Ross added that he thinks the Duluth experience shows smoking bans at the city level "really pit one community against another."
Therefore, he said, any antismoking ordinances should be enacted at the state level.
Mon Nov 1, 2004
Teamsters Union and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Team Up to Stem Smoking Among Truck Drivers
Hi,
Below is an article of interest. Now the CDC Antis are targeting truck drivers in the US and Canada for smoking cessation. It's nice to know that the CDC can decide to spend $3mm this way. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded researchers at DFCI two grants totaling $3 million to develop workplace-based health promotion and prevention programs."
We can even anticipate yet another new study called "Health Promotion for Mobile Workers: Addressing Smoking Cessation and Obesity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release
Source: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Teamsters Union and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Team Up to Stem Smoking Among Truck Drivers
Friday October 29, 2004
Program to Promote Health Among Mobile Workers
WASHINGTON/PRNewswire/ -- The Teamsters Union announced today that it has teamed up with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), an affiliate of the Harvard Medical School for a program addressing smoking cessation and obesity.
"The health of our members is of the utmost importance," said Tyson Johnson, Teamsters Freight Division Director. "Smoking has ingrained itself into the truck driving culture but there is no reason why this can't be reversed. This program fits into the daily lives of truck drivers so it will be much easier for them to stay involved in the program. Anything the Teamsters Union can do to improve the lives of our members, we will do."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded researchers at DFCI two grants totaling $3 million to develop workplace-based health promotion and prevention programs. DFCI will be working with the Teamsters Union on a study called "Health Promotion for Mobile Workers: Addressing Smoking Cessation and Obesity." The DFCI is among the leading cancer research and care centers in the United States.
The study will assess the effectiveness of a tailored telephone delivery program on tobacco use and weight management for motor freight workers, and will provide one of the first evidence-based health-promotion programs for mobile workers.
"Because of the mobile nature of this work, worksite health programs are generally inaccessible for these workers; in addition transportation workers have among the highest smokes rates of any workers," said Glorian Sorensen, Director of Dana-Farber's Center for Community Based Research, and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the study's principal investigator. "Workers may use smoking to alleviate boredom, cope with stress and fatigue, and to connect with fellow workers; being overweight may be strongly tied to drivers' lack of physical activity and unhealthful food options available on the road. We will develop a program that responds to these concerns."
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents more than 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States and Canada.
Antidepressant help people stop smoking when used with nicotine patch
09 Nov 2004
09 Nov 2004
When used with a transdermal nicotine patch, nortriptyline--an antidepressant medication--may aid in smoking cessation, according to an article in the November 8 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
According to background information in the article, smoking is an important preventable cause of death. However, current cessation methods are only partially successful. Several different types of antidepressant medications have been effective in helping people quit smoking.
Allan V. Prochazka, M.D., M.Sc., from the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, and colleagues tested the efficacy of nortriptyline in helping people quit smoking cigarettes. Study participants, aged 18 to 65 years, were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group received nortriptyline (n = 79) and one group received placebo (n = 79). Researchers started both groups with 25 milligrams per day of either nortriptyline or placebo 14 days before the set quit date, and then increased dosage to 75 milligrams per day, as tolerated. A transdermal nicotine patch was administered to all study participants on the determined quit day and was worn for eight weeks.
The researchers found that at six months, cessation rates were 23 percent for those taking nortriptyline and 10 percent for those taking placebo. Neither group experienced a reduction in withdrawal symptoms. However, the nortriptyline group had a significantly higher rate of adverse effects than the placebo group, with 38 percent of participants experiencing dry mouth and 20 percent experiencing drowsiness. Nortriptyline was discontinued in 13 percent of participants due to adverse effects.
The authors write, "…there are several possible mechanisms of action for nortriptyline's effect in enhancing smoking cessation. Nortriptyline may reduce depressive symptoms and the need for 'negative affect reduction smoking.' Other antidepressant agents are also effective in smoking cessation, suggesting that the antidepressant effect may be the common mechanism."
The researchers conclude: "It is also clear from our data that subjects treated with nortriptyline require close monitoring for adverse events…However nortriptyline combined with transdermal nicotine may prove to be a useful alternative for smokers in whom first-line smoking cessation therapies have failed."
(Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:2229-2233. Available post-embargo at archinternmed.com.)
Editor's note: This study was supported by a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
For more information, contact JAMA/Archives Media Relations at 312/464-JAMA (5262) or e-mail mediarelations@jama-archives.org.
To contact Allan V. Prochazka, M.D., M.Sc., call Dana Berry at 303-315-5571.
Contact: Dana Berry
303-315-5571
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.psyweb.com/Drughtm/nortri.html
Nortriptyline ( Aventil, Pamelor )
Nortriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressants used to treat endogenous depression, chronic skin disorders, depression, migraine headaches, panic disorder, severe arthritis, bedwetting, AIDS, PMS, ADHD, ringing ears, and with other drugs to manage chronic / severe pain.
CLASS: Secondary Tricyclic.
Generic name: Nortriptyline Hydrochloride.
Type: Antidepressant.
Strengths:
Oral Solutions:10mg / 5 ml. ( 4% Alcohol )
Tables:
10mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg.
Dosages: Actual dosage must be determined by a physician.
Normal dosage:
If under 18 years of age, Only under the care of a child psychiatrist!
18 to 60 years of age, 25mg to 50mg daily.
Over 60 years of age, Lower dosage increased cautiously.
Problems with:
Liver Function: Lower dosage, as needed.
Kidney Function: Lower dosage, as needed.
Test:
Before taking: Electrocardiogram.
While taking: Blood test to check drug level.
Dosages:
Dosages:
Oral:
Start: 25 mg 3 to 4 times daily.
Increases: 10 to 25 mg daily in 1 week intervals.
Maintenance: 50 to 100 mg in 24 hours.
Maximum: 150 mg in 24 hours.
Take With: Empty stomach and a full glass of water.
Full Benefits In: In a few days to a few weeks. If any unpleasant side effects, they should appear right away.
Missed Dose(s): If you take this drug at bedtime and miss it do not take in morning. If within one hour take, if over an hour skip and then continue on your normal schedule.
Never Take a Double Dose!
If Stop Taking: Do not stop without consulting your physician and never abruptly, reduce gradually.
Overdose symptoms include: Confusion, convulsions, hallucinations, heart failure, loss of consciousness, lowered body temperature, sleepiness / deep sleep, or tremors.
Warnings
The habit-forming potential is none. This drug if beneficial should be taken about six months, in a few up to a year.
This drug may worsen the symptoms of a paranoid or schizophrenic person and a person with bipolar disorder may switch phase.
Do not use this drug along with ECT. ( Electroconvulsive therapy. )
Do not take this drug if you are pregnant try some non-drug alternatives.
Do not take this drug if planning to become pregnant. Do not take if you are breast-feeding.
Do not give this drug to anyone under the age of twelve. If over sixty only use drug in small doses and with close monitoring of it's side effects ( e.g. Blood pressure lowering, confusion.
Do not use if: You had negative reactions to this drug or any drug of this type in the past. If you have taken any monoamine oxidase ( MAO ) in the past two weeks.
Inform your Doctor if: You had negative reactions to any drug or any drug of this type in the past. If you have epilepsy. If you are taking any other prescription or nonprescription drug. If you plan to be under anesthesia or having any surgery in the next few months, also if you will be undergoing any medical tests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases: 10 to 25 mg daily in 1 week intervals.
Maintenance: 50 to 100 mg in 24 hours.
Maximum: 150 mg in 24 hours.
Take With: Empty stomach and a full glass of water.
Full Benefits In: In a few days to a few weeks. If any unpleasant side effects, they should appear right away.
Missed Dose(s): If you take this drug at bedtime and miss it do not take in morning. If within one hour take, if over an hour skip and then continue on your normal schedule.
Never Take a Double Dose!
If Stop Taking: Do not stop without consulting your physician and never abruptly, reduce gradually.
Overdose symptoms include: Confusion, convulsions, hallucinations, heart failure, loss of consciousness, lowered body temperature, sleepiness / deep sleep, or tremors.
Warnings
The habit-forming potential is none. This drug if beneficial should be taken about six months, in a few up to a year.
This drug may worsen the symptoms of a paranoid or schizophrenic person and a person with bipolar disorder may switch phase.
Do not use this drug along with ECT. ( Electroconvulsive therapy. )
Do not take this drug if you are pregnant try some non-drug alternatives.
Do not take this drug if planning to become pregnant. Do not take if you are breast-feeding.
Do not give this drug to anyone under the age of twelve. If over sixty only use drug in small doses and with close monitoring of it's side effects ( e.g. Blood pressure lowering, confusion.
Do not use if: You had negative reactions to this drug or any drug of this type in the past. If you have taken any monoamine oxidase ( MAO ) in the past two weeks.
Inform your Doctor if: You had negative reactions to any drug or any drug of this type in the past. If you have epilepsy. If you are taking any other prescription or nonprescription drug. If you plan to be under anesthesia or having any surgery in the next few months, also if you will be undergoing any medical tests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nortriptyline ( Symptoms or Effects )
Common: Blurred vision, constipation, cramps, disorientation, drowsiness, dry mouth, headache, low blood pressure, or sensitivity to bright lights.
Rare: Anxiety, black tongue, confusion, convulsions, hair loss, increased appetite, insomnia, intestinal blockage, racing heartbeat / palpitations, males developing breast, nightmares, odd taste, ringing in ears, seizures, sexual problems, swelling testicles, skin rashes / allergies, tingling, weight gain / loss, or yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
See physician always: Low blood pressure, confusion, swelling testicles, seizures, males developing breast, sexual problems, skin rashes / allergies, or yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
See physician if severe: Anxiety, blurred vision, constipation, cramps, headache, disorientation, drowsiness, dry mouth, intestinal blockage, racing heartbeat / palpitations, insomnia, increased appetite, nightmares, odd taste, ringing in ears, tingling, sensitivity to bright lights, or weight gain / loss.
See physician NOW: Confusion or skin rashes / allergies.
Stop taking and see physician NOW: Seizures, yellowing skin / whites of eyes.
http://www.publichealthnews.org/001513.html
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 commentary:
Anti-drug vaccination plan could immunize people from effects of cocaine, heroin and nicotine
How would you like your children to be immune to the pharmacological effects of hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and even nicotine? Using new medical vaccination technologies, children can now be immunized against the effects of these drugs so that they don't feel the high, or the brain chemistry alterations, from such drugs if they were to consume them. Doing this, of course, would make it extremely unlikely that these children would later grow up and become addicted to those drugs. Because without the brain chemistry alterations, consuming such drugs is basically pointless.
It's an exciting new medical technology that has been tested in terms of immunizing people against the effects of nicotine, but now discussions are underway that would expand the program to other drugs such as cocaine and heroin and roll out national immunization programs for all children. This is being discussed in the UK right now, but chances are that it will soon merit discussion in the United States as well.
For my own comments on this technology, it's helpful to look at both the outrageous cost to society for drug addiction and drug use, and the potential dangers of national vaccination programs. In general, I'm against vaccination when it's required or forced upon the general public, because I believe that many vaccines are tainted with mercury and other toxins and that they can cause lifelong problems in many children. It is well known that vaccinations against polio and others diseases actually kill some children, and the public health benefit of forced vaccinations among U.S. schoolchildren is highly debatable.
But when it comes to hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, vaccinations start to look a lot more beneficial to society as a whole. For starters, if we could practically eliminate smoking in the United States within one generation, the nation would save countless dollars in terms of health care costs and improve productivity and quality of life of its citizens. This vaccination program has the potential to eradicate smoking altogether -- a move that would no doubt diminish the incidence of chronic diseases such as heart disease, lung cancer, nervous system disorders, and breast cancer. If we could immunize people against cocaine and heroin before they're at an age where they might start experimenting with such hard drugs, we could do tremendous good for the country as a whole by preventing drug addiction and all the lifelong problems associated with such addictions, including financial poverty, family hardships, and devastating health consequences.
In theory, then, I'm strongly in favor of exploring a vaccination technology that can immunize children against the effects of these hard drugs and nicotine, because I think it would save untold numbers of lives and an extraordinary amount of money in health care costs alone. But to firmly stand behind such technology, I would need to be convinced that it is inherently safe and has no other negative side effects, and when it comes to vaccinations, that's a pretty tall order. Because many vaccinations do indeed have rather alarming side effects, and we should not force a population to undergo a medical technology unless it has been proven safe and effective -- and even then, I much prefer it being a choice of the parents, rather than being mandated by the federal government.
Ideally, such a vaccination program, if proven completely safe, would be offered free of charge, paid for by taxpayer dollars, and publicized through public schools. Of course, I wouldn't want my own children to be the first batch of experimental human guinea pigs to receive such a vaccination, and I firmly believe that the best way to avoid hard drug addictions with our children is to give them a better education and strong family environments, where they don't need to turn to hard drugs in order to feel fulfilled in the first place.
Now, as long as we're talking about vaccinations, there's an interesting idea of a far more useful vaccination that could aid in weight-loss efforts by the American public. What if we could be vaccinated against the sweet taste of sugar? If so, we could end our addictions to high-carbohydrate foods, and more easily choose healthful foods that don't contain so many refined carbohydrates. If human beings were born without the taste sensation for sweetness, and without the associated brain chemistry effects that automatically follow the consumption of carbohydrates, we wouldn't be so addicted to carbohydrates as a nation. Soft drink sales would be virtually non-existent. The grocery store shelves wouldn't be lined with candy masquerading as food -- like you'll find in granola bars or pizza sauce, both of which are made with refined sugar.
The idea that we could all be vaccinated against the taste and brain chemistry effects of sugar consumption is, of course, pure fantasy at the moment, but it is not fantasy to suppose that with advanced genetic engineering technology we could someday produce offspring who are not so closely wired to the consumption of sugar. In fact, there's something you can do about that right now: research shows that when expectant mothers avoid eating refined sugars, their babies are born with less of a craving for sugars. And that, in my book, is one of the greatest gifts a mother can give her unborn child: a foundation for living a healthy life, free of refined sugars, soft drinks, cake, cookies, and other foods and beverages that promote obesity and chronic disease.
Mon Nov 8, 2004
From UK - Humphrys pulls out of debate on passive smoking
Hi,
From the UK, scientists and Ash won't discuss their findings on second hand smoke........
'As far as we're concerned the science on the risks associated with passive smoking is proven. By attending the conference we would be acknowledging there was some doubt on it,' said Deborah Arnott, director of Ash.
Speakers at the conference suggested there was insufficient evidence to back up claims that passive smoking - or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as it is dubbed by the industry - causes serious diseases among non-smokers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1345445,00.html
"Humphrys pulls out of debate on passive smoking Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday November 7, 2004
The Observer
Broadcaster John Humphrys spoke of his disappointment last night after he had to pull out of a controversial seminar on the risks of passive smoking because it 'lacked balance'.
The Today programme anchorman was due to chair a debate organised by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA) at the Royal Institution in London on Friday but cancelled at the eleventh hour.
Humphrys said the organisers had failed to meet a key condition. 'I said that in no sense would I be a spokesman or an apologist for them. I wanted the panel to be balanced. They contacted an awful lot of people, including Ash, but when they told me who they had on the panel it was not sufficient.'
The TMA said it had approached 25 'eminent' scientists opposed to the tobacco lobby to contribute to the seminar but they had all declined. Appeals were also made to the British Medical Journal and the British Medical Association.
'As far as we're concerned the science on the risks associated with passive smoking is proven. By attending the conference we would be acknowledging there was some doubt on it,' said Deborah Arnott, director of Ash.
Speakers at the conference suggested there was insufficient evidence to back up claims that passive smoking - or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as it is dubbed by the industry - causes serious diseases among non-smokers.
Peter Lee, described as an independent expert in epidemiology, discussed his review of some 60 studies that had looked at the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers exposed to smokers either at home, at work or in social situations.
'The evidence taken as a whole does not actually demonstrate any true lung cancer risk from exposure to ETS at all,' Lee said.
Campaigners pointed to Lee's close links with the tobacco industry as evidence of a conflict of interest. However, his claims were backed up by Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, who has no links to the tobacco lobby. Denson said the medical evidence surrounding passive smoking would not be seriously considered, 'let alone published, in any other medical discipline'."
Fri Nov 5, 2004
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Hi,
Article of interest. Wouldn't it be nice to prove that the term "addiction", in relation to tobacco use, was created by government scientists for the 1988 the Surgeon General's report?
"Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers."
Garnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=LG3I5M2A00XDWCRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=6693323
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Tue 2 November, 2004
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Tobacco industry lawyers disputed the government's use of the word "addiction" to describe cigarette-smoking during testimony on Tuesday in the $280 billion racketeering case against the industry.
Questioning a drug expert testifying for the government, lawyers for cigarette makers argued that use of "addiction", beginning with a 1988 Surgeon General's report, was vague and politically motivated.
"Whether you call it an addiction, a habit, a dependency or something else, it does not mean people cannot quit, does it?" Philip Morris lawyer Ted Wells asked Neal Benowitz, one of the scientists who oversaw the Surgeon General's report.
Benowitz told U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler that people who try to quit smoking are almost as likely to fail as those trying to give up hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
All the major cigarette makers denied that cigarette smoking was addictive until the mid- to late-1990s.
Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers.
But Benowitz denied that scientists who oversaw the 1988 report were improperly biased against the industry. "How can you be a physician or public health official and be impartial about tobacco?" Benowitz said.
The government suit, launched in 1999, targets Altria Group Inc. MO.N and its Philip Morris USA unit; Loews Corp.'s LTR.N Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina Group CG.N ; Vector Group Ltd.'s VGR.N Liggett Group; Reynolds American Inc.'s RAI.N R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British American Tobacco Plc BATS.L unit British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.
The government charges cigarette makers lied about the dangers of smoking as part of a 50-year industry conspiracy.
The tobacco companies deny they conspired to promote smoking and say they drastically changed marketing practices as part of a 1998 settlement with state attorneys general.
In another development in the trial, a federal appeals court on Tuesday reversed an earlier ruling by Kessler that would have immediately required a subsidiary of British American Tobacco to turn over a potentially incriminating document sought by the U.S. Justice Department.
An appeals court panel ruled that the company had not automatically waived attorney-client privilege over the "Foyle memorandum," a 1990 document long sought by the Justice Department as part of the racketeering case.
The document contains advice from a lawyer about BAT's document retention policy, but government lawyers have said it may actually be evidence of systematic document destruction by the company.
The appeals court sent the issue back to Kessler to decide on the government's claim the company's actions had triggered a "crime-fraud" provision that would nullify attorney-client privilege.
Fri Nov 5, 2004
Tobacco's "addiction" disputed in U.S. lawsuit
Hi,
Article of interest. Wouldn't it be nice to prove that the term "addiction", in relation to tobacco use, was created by government scientists for the 1988 the Surgeon General's report?
"Wells showed the judge internal government memos and news articles in which Benowitz and other scientists discussed how describing smoking as an "addiction" could make it easier for the government to impose regulations on tobacco and aid plaintiffs in their lawsuits against cigarette makers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McFadden wrote in response:
Garnet,
This is a very important point in general and goes beyond the Benowitz thing. Use of the word "addiction" is what allowed the gvt to move so strongly against tobacco companies and focus on the "addiction of children." Before the public accepted Koop's use of the word, 90% of the population accepted the idea that high schoolers often smoked as being normal and inevitable even if undesirable: the age laws had very little support in terms of their enforcement.
Once it became accepted that our children were being tricked into a lifetime servitude to drug addiction by "tobacco pushers" the whole game changed.
Anyone here who hasn't got a copy but would like to see the section from Antibrains on addiction please send me an email. I'm not sending it to the general list because it's about 10 pages long.
:)
Michael
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://www.antibrains.com/
Garnet,
This is a very important point in general and goes beyond the Benowitz thing. Use of the word "addiction" is what allowed the gvt to move so strongly against tobacco companies and focus on the "addiction of children." Before the public accepted Koop's use of the word, 90% of the population accepted the idea that high schoolers often smoked as being normal and inevitable even if undesirable: the age laws had very little support in terms of their enforcement.
Once it became accepted that our children were being tricked into a lifetime servitude to drug addiction by "tobacco pushers" the whole game changed.
Anyone here who hasn't got a copy but would like to see the section from Antibrains on addiction please send me an email. I'm not sending it to the general list because it's about 10 pages long.
:)
Michael
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://www.antibrains.com/
Thu Nov 4, 2004
World's Smallest Political Quiz
Hi Matt,
I don't know if this helps, but the link I have given below gives a brief philosophy of general political attitudes. Using the chart, and assuming Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, the generic answer would be that Republicans are likely to be more concerned with smoking issues. The only real way to know how our elected representatives stand on smoking issues is to view their voting records or write to them directly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Political Philosophies
Libertarian
Libertarians support a great deal of liberty and freedom of choice in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and they tolerate economic and social diversity.
Left-Liberal
Left-Liberals generally embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but support central decision-making in economics. They want the government to help the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Liberals tend to tolerate social diversity, but work for what they might describe as "economic equality."
Centrist
Centrists favor selective government intervention and emphasize what they commonly describe as "practical solutions" to current problems. They tend to keep an open mind on political issues. Many centrists feel that government serves as a check on excessive liberty.
Conservative
Right-conservatives favor freedom of choice on economic issues, but want official standards in personal matters. They tend to support the free market, but frequently want the government to defend the community from what they see as threats to morality or to the traditional family structure.
Statist
Statists want government to have a great deal of control over individuals and society. They support centralized planning, and often doubt whether liberty and freedom of choice are practical options. At the very bottom of the chart, left-authoritarians are usually called socialists, while right-authoritarians are generally called fascists.
Thu, Nov 4, 2004
Smoking ban failure means fight will move to other communities, stricter enforcement
Hi,
In Duluth, Minnesota voters have spoken. No new smoking bans. This is good news! The Mayor calls the election results a "bellwether" across the region for voters' attitudes toward smoking bans.
Of course, clean-air advocates have no intention of letting up on the pressures to initiate smoking bans. What difference do voters' opinions make to the Antis?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/10096335.htm
Posted on Thu, Nov. 04, 2004
Smoking ban failure means fight will move to other communities, stricter enforcement
BY CHAD THOMASNEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Duluth voters have spoken, and all sides on the city's controversial smoking ban seem to have listened.
On Wednesday, ban supporters, opponents and Duluth city councilors said they have no intention of pushing for changes to the ordinance.
"I do not see us initiating changes," said Pat McKone, with the American Lung Association of Minnesota's Duluth office.
While the nearly five-year battle over the ordinance may have come to an end, smoking-ban advocates are planning to take their fight to new fronts.
They will focus, they said, on strict enforcement of Duluth's ban and pushing elsewhere for smoke-free environments.
That strategic decision comes a day after 54 percent of Duluth voters defeated a referendum to expand the city's smoking ban.
Had the measure passed, it would have snuffed out cigarettes in all of the city's bars, restaurants with bars, and private clubs, such as American Legion and VFW halls.
The referendum's defeat means the ban stays as it is. The city's 60 restaurants with liquor licenses can serve food and allow smoking in the bar area, provided the restaurant section is smoke-free. Each area also must have a ventilation system.
Restaurants without a liquor license must remain nonsmoking establishments.
"We have the existing smoking ban. We have accepted it. We're dealing with it. We're not trying to weaken it," said Vickie Haugland, a leader of the organization that opposed the referendum.
The stricter ban's failure also means the Duluth City Council has the authority to change the current ordinance as it sees fit. But eight of the nine councilors said Wednesday that they wouldn't support changing the ban.
"As far as I am concerned, it is over with, and I think the majority of the people want it to be over with," Councilor Tim Little said, echoing what the others had to say.
Greg Gilbert was the only councilor not to offer an opinion on the matter.
"I don't know," he said. "I just haven't had a chance to think about it."
Clean-air advocates are holding true on their promise to put violators of the ban on notice.
Gary Eckenberg, a Twin Ports Youth and Tobacco-Free Coalition member, contacted the Duluth Police Department on Wednesday asking for an investigation into three businesses.
Eckenberg wrote in an e-mail to the city's licensing officer, Steve LaTour, that the three locations were violating the ordinance.
"We didn't get into compliance this whole year. We see that as our role now," said Eckenberg, who wrote the city's original ordinance when he was a councilor.
LaTour told the News Tribune that he would be looking into the matter today.
Beyond Duluth, the lung association is taking a three-pronged approach toward pushing for bans elsewhere.
At the state level, McKone and others said they plan to lobby at the Minnesota Legislature in the coming session for a statewide ban.
In St. Louis County, clean-air advocates plan to step up efforts to get the County Board to snuff out smoking. Advocates have a new ally in that fight with the addition to the board of Steve O'Neil, who used to work for the lung association.
"I am going to explore this with the other commissioners, some kind of countywide ordinance," O'Neil said. "While this is a setback in Duluth, the momentum around the state is rolling."
McKone also wants to continue her discussions with Superior Mayor Dave Ross about a smoking ban there, but she's unlikely at this point to get far.
On Wednesday, Ross called the Duluth vote a "bellwether" across the region for voters' attitudes toward smoking bans.
"I think politically speaking, we would be no more successful here in Superior than they were in Duluth," Ross said, "so I don't favor a smoking ban initiated by the city of Superior."
Ross added that he thinks the Duluth experience shows smoking bans at the city level "really pit one community against another."
Therefore, he said, any antismoking ordinances should be enacted at the state level.
Mon Nov 1, 2004
Teamsters Union and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Team Up to Stem Smoking Among Truck Drivers
Hi,
Below is an article of interest. Now the CDC Antis are targeting truck drivers in the US and Canada for smoking cessation. It's nice to know that the CDC can decide to spend $3mm this way. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded researchers at DFCI two grants totaling $3 million to develop workplace-based health promotion and prevention programs."
We can even anticipate yet another new study called "Health Promotion for Mobile Workers: Addressing Smoking Cessation and Obesity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release
Source: International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Teamsters Union and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Team Up to Stem Smoking Among Truck Drivers
Friday October 29, 2004
Program to Promote Health Among Mobile Workers
WASHINGTON/PRNewswire/ -- The Teamsters Union announced today that it has teamed up with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), an affiliate of the Harvard Medical School for a program addressing smoking cessation and obesity.
"The health of our members is of the utmost importance," said Tyson Johnson, Teamsters Freight Division Director. "Smoking has ingrained itself into the truck driving culture but there is no reason why this can't be reversed. This program fits into the daily lives of truck drivers so it will be much easier for them to stay involved in the program. Anything the Teamsters Union can do to improve the lives of our members, we will do."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded researchers at DFCI two grants totaling $3 million to develop workplace-based health promotion and prevention programs. DFCI will be working with the Teamsters Union on a study called "Health Promotion for Mobile Workers: Addressing Smoking Cessation and Obesity." The DFCI is among the leading cancer research and care centers in the United States.
The study will assess the effectiveness of a tailored telephone delivery program on tobacco use and weight management for motor freight workers, and will provide one of the first evidence-based health-promotion programs for mobile workers.
"Because of the mobile nature of this work, worksite health programs are generally inaccessible for these workers; in addition transportation workers have among the highest smokes rates of any workers," said Glorian Sorensen, Director of Dana-Farber's Center for Community Based Research, and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and the study's principal investigator. "Workers may use smoking to alleviate boredom, cope with stress and fatigue, and to connect with fellow workers; being overweight may be strongly tied to drivers' lack of physical activity and unhealthful food options available on the road. We will develop a program that responds to these concerns."
Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents more than 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States and Canada.
