March 19th, 2010 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
The tobacco industry and its products (primarily cigarettes) has caused the premature deaths of over 13 million people in the United States since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report which concluded that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Those health professionals, who are familiar with these statistics, and with the great lengths the industry has gone to to try to cover them up, have little sympathy for the industry’s current decline in the U.S. Many want nothing more than the annihilation of the tobacco industry. This is all the more understandable for those people who have seen patients and loved ones suffer and die from a smoking-caused illness. Some may feel that the tobacco industry and those in it do not deserve to continue to make money from such a deadly business. Read more »
This post, How To Get The Tobacco Industry To Stop Selling Cigarettes, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
November 24th, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips, Research
No Comments »
Nicotine withdrawal symptoms typically peak in the first week of abstinence and return to normal at around 3-4 weeks. It has long been known that certain nicotinic receptors (particularly the beta-2 subtype) are closely involved in nicotine addiction, and that smokers have a larger number of nicotine receptors in their brains than non-smokers. When the smoker quits, this large number of vacant, unstimulated receptors is believed to be involved in the resulting craving and distressing withdrawal (irritability, restlessness, depression, anxiety, poor concentration etc).
Earlier this year, a study published by Drs Kelly Cosgrove, Julie Staley and colleagues at Yale University, provided evidence on the time course of normalization of these receptors after quitting smoking. Read more »
This post, Quitting Smoking? Your Nicotine receptors Take Over A Month To Normalize, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
October 28th, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News
No Comments »
I’m writing from the second conference on menthol and cigarettes, in Washington DC. This conference was organized to review the evidence on the effects of menthol in cigarettes and to discuss what further research is necessary and what actions should be taken.
To me, the presentations appeared to suggest that right now the evidence that menthol cigarettes are more harmful to health is weak. However, the evidence that menthol cigarettes are a starter product for youth and that menthol cigarettes can (under certain circumstances) be more addictive and harder to quit, is quite strong and getting stronger all the time. Read more »
This post, Menthol: Mounting Evidence That It Makes Smoking Cessation More Difficult, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
October 23rd, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Better Health Network, News
No Comments »
Now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the power to regulate tobacco products we will see more meaningful moves to reduce the harmfulness and addictiveness of tobacco, as well as to reduce its addictiveness to young people. However, we should also expect the tobacco industry to respond by trying to find loopholes that help it get around these regulatory moves.
The first example is the ban on added flavors to cigarettes (which currently excludes menthol flavor, i.e. it is not banned automatically). Recently I’ve noticed an increased promotion of flavored cigars, often being sold as singles, in bright colorful packaging. The current FDA flavor regulation doesn’t ban fruit, candy and other flavors in cigars or smokeless tobacco, just cigarettes. Read more »
This post, Big Tobacco Now Marketing Fruit Flavored Cigars To Youth, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
July 10th, 2009 by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D. in Uncategorized
1 Comment »
As many of you may know, the famous tobacco control scientist and advocate, Professor Stan Glantz, has over the past few years been focusing on the issue of depictions of smoking in movies. Part of the concern stems from good evidence that young people are highly influenced by movies due to their cultural value and glamorous nature.
The other part stems from a history of use of “product placement” in movies. This refers to the movie producers agreeing to include a specific product in their movie in return for some incentive (typically money). A famous example of this is a letter from Sylvester Stallone agreeing to smoke particular brands of cigarettes in his movies for $500,000. So when one combines the financial power of the tobacco industry with product placement we end up with a hell of a lot more gratuitous smoking in movies than is necessary.
Of course the movie companies and many movie enthusiasts argue about the need for art to imitate life etc., etc. However numerous examples demonstrate that to be a lot of nonsense. Professor Glantz points to depictions of Marlboro cigarettes being dragged around or used by aliens in movies like Men In Black. Is it really true that those aliens prefer Marlboros and so showing the brand was necessary for the movie to be accurate? Mmm….I doubt it.
My favorite example comes from the film “A Beautiful Mind”. The movie stars Russell Crowe in the lead role portraying the (still living and working) Princeton University professor, John Nash. In real life, John Nash suffered from schizophrenia but did not smoke. In the movie he suffered from schizophrenia, but smoked. I’m not sure why the producers changed this aspect of reality or what it added to the movie.
But these are details. Professor Glantz’ main point is that movies made to be viewed by kids do not need to include smoking, and therefore should be given an R rating if they do, just as they are if they depict illicit drug use. Note that an R doesn’t stop people under 17 from seeing the movie in a movie theater. It just means they need to be accompanied by an adult. It also doesn’t ban smoking from movies, it just means that movies with smoking in them will receive an R rating, just as sex, drugs, cursing and certain types of violence will get a movie an R rating. Of course the movie industry is very clear that a large part of its audience is kids and particularly teens. The net effect of the rating changes professor Glantz is recommending would be that gratuitous smoking will be taken out of many movies and particularly those aimed at kids.
I must admit that I didn’t initially pay much attention to this proposal, and my natural inclination was to doubt whether it really was worth the effort. But while I was at the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference in London last week I heard Professor Glantz talk about this idea and I came around to thinking its maybe not as extreme as I first thought. In fact he convinced me that it’s a reasonably sensible idea that would likely result in thousands fewer teens taking up smoking. Sometime soon the full audio recording of Professor Glantz’ presentation will be posted on the conference website along with his slides. I’ll post the link when its available, but for now those interested in this subject may want to check out the following website:
http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/
This post, Should Movies With Smoking In Them Receive An R-Rating?, was originally published on
Healthine.com by Jonathan Foulds, Ph.D..
