Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
Like Tree23Likes

Thread: Anti-smoking group files complaint against doctor who says nicotine isn't addictive

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064

    Anti-smoking group files complaint against doctor who says nicotine isn't addictive

    Is nicotine really that addictive?

    Link : http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...190/story.html

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

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

    Bourget characterized smoking as a “lifestyle choice,” stressing that not all smokers have difficulty quitting and that nicotine does not impair one’s capacity to decide whether or not to smoke. She testified that she could not agree with recognized addiction researchers who claim nicotine is an addictive substance with similar potency to alcohol, opiates amphetamines and cannabis, and would concede only that nicotine is addictive “in some people.”
    An interesting read. Hits on the philosophy over the separation of people's "wants" and "needs".

    Just for some reference, scientists are beginning to accept that nicotine is not the sole addiction causing agent in tobacco smoke.

    When an efficient throat-hit simulator is produced, we'll know for sure.
    Noe, GirlyPantz, spud and 3 others like this.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    victoria
    Posts
    5,975
    the word is not allowed in my house.. but Idiots! IMO if nicotine was the only element in smoking addiction there would be no duel use of ecigs and analogues and NRT would have worked better and the anti depressants and anti psychotics precribed to people trying to quit smoking just wouldnt happen
    GirlyPantz, tally-ho and spud like this.
    “But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
    "Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
    "How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
    "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”
    Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland






    Comic Database: Steve Hughes... Offended?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs











  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alice Springs, NT
    Posts
    547
    I guess I'm one of the people she's talking about. The main reason I vape nic is for the throat hit. According to research I read (a few years back now so don't ask me to produce it), although nicotine is addictive the withdrawals are quite mild (definitely compared to some other substances) and are pretty much done and dusted within a week. That has been my experience in my multitude attempts to quit. Combine that with the habit/hand to mouth things though and (for me at least) it's different beast altogether. If someone can come up with a "throat hit additive" other than nic (must be mostly harmless) I'd quit nic altogether. I've tried different PG/VG mixes but so far, without nic I can't get a satisfying TH. Then again after some years of "lab tests" I don't believe cannabis is addictive either.....habit forming yes, lifestyle destroying in some cases, but physically addictive....no.....in my humble opinion. I'm not saying nic is not addictive.....just the withdrawals are fairly mild. More like caffeine withdrawal than anything else.

    Having said all that, I don't support her stance one bit......she's paid BT mouthpiece.

    Let the whipping begin.....lol.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    740
    Having said all that, I don't support her stance one bit......she's paid BT mouthpiece.
    Can't see why you would say that Blaktop. What she is saying is either justified or isn't on the science and medical grounds. What does it matter who she being paid by?

    Nobody, absolutely nobody in this whole business comes to the debate without interest and biased in some form or another. Why buy into the public health story of big bad evil empire of Big Tobacco when you must know like everyone else how dishonest public health is?
    GirlyPantz, Old Dog and steve.c like this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    I need MAO inhibitors for my brain to function efficiently ......


    SNUS and MAOI

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alice Springs, NT
    Posts
    547
    The addictive thing is just plain wrong and she's up there saying because BT is paying her to say it which is why I don't support her stance. It is addictive, however her supposition that some people have little trouble kicking nicotine addiction is quite possible in my personal experience. As we all know there is a whole lot more to cigarette addiction than simple nicotine addiction.....if that's all there was we'd all strap a patch on and never think about a smoke again. What she is doing is muddying the waters. I once read a description of a lawyer's job as being to either clear or muddy the water, depending on the interests of the client......lawyers are not the only ones.

    Nobody, absolutely nobody in this whole business comes to the debate without interest and biased in some form or another. Why buy into the public health story of big bad evil empire of Big Tobacco when you must know like everyone else how dishonest public health is?
    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Not too many pure motives in the whole debate......if there was the debate would be all but over.
    spud likes this.

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    gympie queensland
    Posts
    2,348
    T.H.E. Throat Hit Enhancer 10ml | Ecig Life you could give this a try.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaktop View Post
    I guess I'm one of the people she's talking about. The main reason I vape nic is for the throat hit. According to research I read (a few years back now so don't ask me to produce it), although nicotine is addictive the withdrawals are quite mild (definitely compared to some other substances) and are pretty much done and dusted within a week. That has been my experience in my multitude attempts to quit. Combine that with the habit/hand to mouth things though and (for me at least) it's different beast altogether. If someone can come up with a "throat hit additive" other than nic (must be mostly harmless) I'd quit nic altogether. I've tried different PG/VG mixes but so far, without nic I can't get a satisfying TH. Then again after some years of "lab tests" I don't believe cannabis is addictive either.....habit forming yes, lifestyle destroying in some cases, but physically addictive....no.....in my humble opinion. I'm not saying nic is not addictive.....just the withdrawals are fairly mild. More like caffeine withdrawal than anything else.

    Having said all that, I don't support her stance one bit......she's paid BT mouthpiece.

    Let the whipping begin.....lol.
    RIP VP

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    740
    The addictive thing is just plain wrong and she's up there saying because BT is paying her to say it which is why I don't support her stance.
    She is saying it because BT is paying her to say it? Not because she believes it, but only because BT paid her to say it? So she would just as easily say the opposite if Big Pharma was paying her?

    I don't buy that reasoning Blaktop, not when comes to Big Pharma, not when comes to Big Health Industry and not when comes to Big Tobacco.

    And personally I don't find what she has said to be that "out there" not to a least be discussable as a rational proposition. We can disagree on this point, but I would not accuse people who disagree with me as being corrupted by money. That is the game of Big Health Industry - And I despair that it is a game that has been played so well and so successfully that even smokers believe it.

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alice Springs, NT
    Posts
    547
    I find this similar to big interests who fund research with the aim of getting a particular outcome. When the oil companies fund climate research they do so with the aim of disproving climate change so they fund scientists who will "muddy the waters" so to speak. I have no idea whether those scientists are tainted by the money or the parameters for the research/funding are limited so as to "ensure" a particular outcome. The same goes for many similar situations including tobacco research. Besides this woman is not doctor or a scientist, she's a psychiatrist which in itself is a bit of a "black art". She is muddying the waters by giving a psychiatric assessment of a physical condition. She would be better equipped to explain how we struggle with "hand to mouth" habit thing.....that is a condition of the mind. Nicotine addiction is a physical thing. Simply the view that although very addictive the withdrawal from nicotine is not extreme means she can demonstrate how some people find it easy to quit and some find it almost impossible which in turn muddies the waters over the actual degree of addictiveness of nicotine.

    Therefore I disagree with her stance on the grounds that she is using her expertise in psychiatry to qualify a physical condition. She may be an expert in psychological addiction (hand to mouth habit) but not physical addiction (nicotine).......BT is muddying the waters.

    You can agree or disagree, it's all the same to me, I'm not trying to prove either of us is right or wrong.....simply saying how I see it.
    tally-ho likes this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    740
    I find this similar to big interests who fund research with the aim of getting a particular outcome.
    Given the cost of funding, there is no funding that is not funded by “big interests”.

    Most medical research is funded by Big Pharma – which stands to reason, they have the money. Or maybe Big Government. It doesn’t matter who funds what. Whoever funds research has an “interest” – otherwise they would not bother to fund it.

    My point is look at the science, not the funding.

    When the oil companies fund climate research they do so with the aim of disproving climate change so they fund scientists who will "muddy the waters" so to speak.
    Again, look at the science. After all I could just as easily say oil companies fund research into climate change in order to find the truth and dispel the faulty science of climate extremists.

    If the science proves to be dodgy then you might point to the motivations and ask whether or not they have corrupted the science. But look at the science first.

    She is muddying the waters by giving a psychiatric assessment of a physical condition.
    The line between the psychological and physical is not at all cut and dried. There is no clear distinction between the two. (pls note, I am not saying that a distinction cannot be made, but rather the line between the two is not at all distinct and clear cut.

    Nicotine addiction is a physical thing. Simply the view that although very addictive the withdrawal from nicotine is not extreme
    But that would suggest that the physical dimension of nicotine addiction is not great and that it is mostly psychological. That would suggest that on a physical level nicotine is indeed not very addictive at all.

    Therefore I disagree with her stance on the grounds that she is using her expertise in psychiatry to qualify a physical condition. She may be an expert in psychological addiction (hand to mouth habit) but not physical addiction (nicotine).......BT is muddying the waters.
    Or I might say as I said above, BT is trying to find the truth in order to clear the mud in which Big Pharma and Big Health have put there in the first place. The idea of addiction is an idea that has enormous benefit and advantage to Big Pharma and Big Health.

    Of course the idea that Big Tobacco is funding research in order to discover the truth will appear beyond the pale to many people. But given this view is a view that is propogated by Big Pharma and Big Health, both of which are enormously benefitted by this view why should you believe one or the other? You shouldn’t – you should look at the science and forget about the “interest” behind it. Not because there isn’t interest behind it, but because there is always an interested party behind everything.

    You can agree or disagree, it's all the same to me, I'm not trying to prove either of us is right or wrong.....simply saying how I see it.
    I am not agreeing or disagreeing with yours views on addiction Blaktop. My disagreement lies with your dismissal of a particular view because of the interests behind it.

    I might add in conclusion on the subject of addiction that the view expressed by the psychiatrist above is not all that different from the views expressed by Carl V Phillips and quite a few other scientists.
    Old Dog likes this.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:05 AM.