All posts by Pepe Lepew

Study: Going cold turkey most effective way to quit cigarettes

March 18, 2016 Pepe Lepew

An article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers say that data shows that quitting cigarettes — and nicotine — cold turkey is basically the most effective way to get off cigarettes.

The article doesn’t specifically talk about e-cigarettes, patches or nicotine gum, but says that trying to slowly wean oneself off nicotine, rather than just committing fully to a quit date and going through with it is not as effective.

From the article:

An article published March 14 in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests going “cold turkey” is linked to the highest level of long-term smoking cessation success—smokers in the study who quit abruptly were 25 percent more likely to stop smoking completely over the long term.

The study involved 697 adult smokers whose primary end goal was to become a nonsmoker; some would try to quit abruptly and the other half would try to stop smoking gradually. (Study participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.) After receiving counseling from a nurse, study participants in the abrupt cessation group selected a quit date. Participants in the gradual smoking cessation group arranged to reduce their smoking by 75 percent over the course of two weeks prior to the quit date they selected, also after counseling with a nurse. All study participants in both groups received nicotine therapies such as patches, lozenges and other products to help curb cigarette cravings.

The researchers found that by the fourth week, 39.2 percent of gradual cessation group abstained from cigarettes versus 49 percent of those who went cold turkey. At six months, 15.5 percent of the participants in the gradual cessation group had completely stopped smoking compared with 22 percent of those who quit right away.

Previous research published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology suggests gradual cessation isn’t very effective because people who choose to slowly wean themselves off nicotine may be tempted to prolong smoking a little longer and drag out the process of quitting. Another study in Addiction finds that in order for gradual cessation programs to work, the motivation to quit actually really needs to exist; smokers who select this type of plan may not be completely committed to giving up cigarettes.

Twenty-two percent after six months sounds pretty grim, but having known so many people who have tried to quit smoking, I’m not surprised at that figure. It usually takes two, three, four or more attempts to quit to finally succeed. I think my brother made at least half a dozen attempts and failed repeatedly until he finally managed to quit (smokefree for about 18 months now).

Again, this study doesn’t talk about the effectiveness of gum, patches and e-cigs (smokers can ratchet down the nicotine intake with e-cigs), but I don’t doubt the results one bit. Ultimately, to quit, you simply have to get off the nicotine and stay off it, for weeks or months, before the cravings go away. This is one reason, despite the reams and reams of anecdotal evidence I’ve read online about e-cigs, (which I actually respect), that I remain skeptical of e-cigs’ effectiveness in getting people off cigarettes. Because e-cigs are not getting people off the nicotine.

Again, I believe there is no one right way to quit cigarettes — what works for one person won’t necessarily work for another person. Whatever it takes. But, it appears simply setting a date and going “cold turkey” is the most effective way, at least according to this study.

Cigarette taxes, e-cigarettes, e-cigs

Legislative round-up — e-cig bans in Wales, Vermont, cigarette taxes in Louisiana

March 17, 2016 Pepe Lepew

From purely an SEO standpoint, I know I’m supposed to break out these stories into separate posts, but that’s too much of a pain in the ass, so I’m compiling some legislative updates into one post because I’m feeling lazy.

First off, a major cigarettes tax increase in Louisiana.

Louisiana raises cigarette taxes

Bobby_Jindal_2 — Bobby Jindal … douchebag

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards just signed a bill raising Louisiana’s cigarette tax a tiny bit from 88 cents a pack to $1.08 a pack. That still leaves Louisiana with one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the U.S. This was done partly out of pure, sheer, unadultered desperation after 8 years of Republican Bobby Jindal’s fiscal mismanagement left the state of Louisiana utterly broke. I hate to bring politics onto the lounge, but Jesus, between Schwarzenegger, Brownbeck, Scott Walker and Jindal, have voters not figured out that Republicans simply cannot govern responsibly? Poor Louisiana, which has never gotten over the fiscal impact of Hurricane Katrina, is painfully broke and looking at all kinds of tax increases just to keep basic state services running.

I don’t get it, why do people keep voting for Republicans when they’ve shown time and again they simply … cannot … govern … or manage a budget responsibly, particularly at the state level. Again, I try to keep partisan politics out of the Lounge, but I honestly don’t get this.

This tax is expected to add $230 million to state coffers over the next five years, which will help a little.

The average cigarette tax in the U.S. is about $1.60 a pack, so Louisiana is still well below the national average.

Wales to ban e-cig use indoors

More and more places are banning e-cigarette use indoors, including Wales, which is set to pass a law banning them inside.

I didn’t mind e-cigs indoors for a long time. Their vapour doesn’t smell nor until I started reading all the stories about the @#$%ing formaldehyde and diactyl in e-cigarette vapour and now I don’t care if it isn’t annoying or irritating, I don’t want to ingest it in any way, shape or form. Not until MORE IS KNOWN about just how dangerous that vapour might be. Now, whenever I’m near someone using an e-cig indoors, I find myself holding my breath or leaning away from them. What it comes down to is … I … simply … do … not … trust … that … vapour. No offence.

From Wales Online:

(Welsh Health Minister Mark Drakeford) has not dismissed claims that e-cigarettes may help people quit smoking.

He added: “The Bill does not prevent the use of e-cigarettes to help people stop smoking if they believe they will help them. Wherever you can smoke a cigarette you will be able to use an e-cigarette.”

Vermont to ban e-cig use indoors

Vermont is set to pass a bill that would ban e-cig use indoors and would put restrictions on the sales of e-cig products to keep them out of the hands of minors … ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION, FDA?

E-cigs would have to be kept out of sight in stores or kept in a locked container. They would also be banned in bars and restaurants. I haven’t kept track of how many states are banning them indoors, but this is a growing tide.

Deadpool, smoking in movies

Deadpool — lots of cussing, sex, violence … but not one, single cigarette

March 16, 2016 Pepe Lepew

This is kind of a follow-up to my earlier posts about “Bridge of Spies.” and “The Man from U.N.C.L.E. ” I finally broke down and went to see “Deadpool” and it was A) ridiculously funny, B) the first movie I’ve ever liked Ryan Reynolds in and C) incredibly violent and incredibly crude — it had about the harshest language this side of “The Big Lebowski.” It even had some good sex scenes.

Which means, this is what they call a “hard R” movie. And it was frankly an extremely hard “R” rating. This was a movie that was determined from the get-go to be R-rated, they didn’t try to play coy at all with trying to get a PG-13 rating. And it didn’t have a single, solitary smoking scene in it. Not one cigarette. Not even a cigar or a pipe. Wow, that’s just amazing. All kinds of bad, rough guys with bad, rough language, hanging out in bars and other sordid environs and not a single cigarette or cigar was to be found.

What’s interesting about this is Disney issued an edict about a year ago that there would be no more smoking scenes in any of its films, and that includes Marvel films, which Disney owns, and this even includes Wolverine, Nick Fury or Thaddeus Ross, all of whom are cigar-chompers (Love to see if Disney actually follows through with this in the next Wolverine film.) Now, this was a Marvel film, but it was also a 20th Century Fox-produced film. Not sure how this works, honestly. Marvel is still a Disney-owned subsidiary, but it was produced by Fox. Maybe the Disney edict still stands for its Marvel properties no matter what studio actually makes the film.

Anyway, through all the F-bombs and jokes about genitalia and decapitations and brain splatter, not a single cigarette or cigar. I might be the only person in America who even noticed this. So help me, I thought that was amazing. And tells me we are slowly, slowly, slowly winning the fight to rid Hollywood of its addiction to smoking. Seriously, I half-expected Deadpool to make a joke at some point about the lack of cigarettes in the movie.

Chew in baseball, Chewing tobacco, Chicago, Uncategorized

Chicago next city to ban chew at big league ballparks; California ban to take effect in 2017

March 13, 2016 Pepe Lepew

Chicago is the latest city to consider a ban on chewing tobacco at all sports facilities, and that includes Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park (I suppose Soldier Field, too). That also includes players, managers and coaches.

Chicago will be joining Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and the entire state of California (more on that below) in banning chew at ballparks. New York and Toronto are also considering bans on chew at big league parks and both the Mets and Yankees support the ban, so I don’t expect any roadbumps.

A Chicago City Council committee approved the ban last week, which will be voted on by the full Council sometime this week, possibly Wednesday. The ban would take effect immediately. That would bring the total of Major League ballparks with chewing tobacco bans to nine by 2017.

Cities are pushing forward with these bans in large part because Major League Baseball is seriously dragging its feet in banning chew on the field and in the dugouts. Actually, to be fair, the league itself actually does want to impose a ban, but the Players’ Association are actually holding it up. It will likely require the association’s approval through the collective bargaining process.

The push for bans began after MLB Hall of Famer Tony Gwynn, a longtime chewer, died of pituitary gland cancer. Longtime chewer Curt Schilling also had a recent public battle with oral cancer.

From a Chicago Tribune story:

“Smokeless tobacco destroys the mouth, and the younger you start, the more destruction that’s there and the longer you put cancer-causing chemicals in your mouth, the greater the risk,” Dr. Larry Williams of the Midwestern University College of Dental Medicine told aldermen. “Our young people are going to emulate what they see and what they watch. I commend you for this wonderful opportunity to get it off the TV screen.”

For some mystifying reason, chewing tobacco is deeply entrenched in the culture of baseball. No one knows why. It just is. Like a damned tick. About 7 percent of adult males chew tobacco, but according to several surveys, about 30 percent of baseball players chew.

Chew is already banned at the high school, Minor League and NCAA levels.

There’s a pretty good question about how it will be enforced. Are cops really going to be on the field, handing out tickets to multi-millionaire ballplayers who are pretty used to doing whatever they want. The hope is that through peer pressure, players will do the right thing and put that crap away without resorting to that.

From the Tribune:

“It’s a good question as to how it will be enforced,” (U.S. Senator) Dick Durbin responded. “But I think when the word is out and about and the media can follow what players are doing, that there will be some attention paid to it, and I think that the fact that it is the law, and the fact that there will be peer pressure and observation of what is done, will finally lead us to change.”

Durbin acknowledged “there may be some rough patches at the startup, but ultimately I believe it’s going to be a success, and it’s going to be for the benefit of the ballplayers too.”

Durbin has been lobbying Chicago to impose a ban. His father died of lung cancer when he was a college sophomore.

California ban on chew at ballparks goes in effect in 2017

I can’t believe I totally missed this story. I am not omnipotent, I guess. This is from October of last year. I’m six months late on this story.

I was aware there was a bill in the works in the California State Legislature to ban chewing tobacco at all ballparks in the state, including Major League parks in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Anaheim and San Diego. (San Francisco and L.A. have already done it, of course).

Well, the bill was actually signed into law in October 2015. However, it doesn’t take effect until 2017 and apparently doesn’t actually have an enforcement mechanism. Teams will be expected to police their players themselves.

From a Christian Science Monitor story:

Christian Zwicky, a former Southern California Babe Ruth League most valuable player who grew up watching the Los Angeles Dodgers play and says he never cared for seeing all that tobacco chewing and the spitting of tobacco juice that follows.

It didn’t influence him to take up the practice, the 22-year-old college student says, but he can see how it might have affected others.

“I understand the sentiment there,” said Zwicky who adds he’s not a big fan of government regulation but supports this law. “You don’t want these people that kids look up to using these products that could influence children in a negative way.”

Madison Bumgarner, a San Francisco Giants pitcher (and damned good one) and Giants manager Bruce Bochy, have both come out in support of the ban in San Francisco. And they’re both chewers. From the CSM:

Last year’s World Series MVP, San Francisco Giant’s pitching ace Madison Bumgarner, also chews tobacco but told The Associated Press earlier this year he planned to quit after San Francisco became the first city in the nation to adopt a ban. That one, like the statewide provision, also takes effect next year.

“I’ll be all right. I can quit,” Bumgarner said in August. “I quit every once in a while for a little while to make sure I can do it.”

“It’s a tough deal for some of these players who have grown up playing with it and there are so many triggers in the game,” San Francisco Giants manager Bruce Bochy told the AP earlier this year.

“I certainly don’t endorse it,” said Bochy, an on-and-off-again user for decades. “With my two sons, the one thing I asked them is don’t ever start dipping.”

e-cigarettes, e-cigs

L.A. Times rips into FDA, White House over the delay in e-cigarette regulations

March 9, 2016 Pepe Lepew

Hah, I actually found a story in my archives from nearly a year ago saying that the Food and Drug Administration was expected to issue e-cigarette regulations the following week. That was 10 months ago.

The Los Angeles Times published an absolutely scathing editorial ripping on the FDA and the White House for delaying implementing final regulations on e-cigarettes. The FDA supposedly finalized its regulations in October after receiving 135,000 comments and sent them to the White House Office of Budget and Management in October, where they have been sitting for five months.

In the L.A. Times’ words: “And there the proposal sits while the fast-growing e-cigarette industry operates virtually unchecked.”

The Times wrote the editorial in response to the apparently growing problem of e-cigarettes catching on fire or exploding. You can find a new story on some e-cig fire or explosion on virtually a weekly basis. However, that’s not really the biggest issue with them. That’s still pretty rare.

To quote from the editorial:

At the moment, federal regulators can do little more than shake their fists impotently at faulty electronic cigarettes manufacturers, most of whom are in China. That’s because e-cigarettes are considered tobacco products, and thus fall under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has yet to start cracking down despite the meteoric growth of “vaping,” as the process of using an e-cigarette to inhale nicotine is known.

While researchers haven’t yet settled the question of whether vaping is as harmful as smoking, we do know e-cigarette users don’t breathe in the same kind of carcinogenic smoke and tar that conventional cigarette smokers do. That’s good, but it doesn’t make vaping a benign pastime. No matter how you package it, nicotine is an addictive chemical linked to cardiovascular disease.

The vaping liquids have also been found to contain other chemicals such as Diacetyl, a flavoring associated with a terrifying illness called “Popcorn lung.” But until the new regulations kick in and require the disclosure of all chemicals in those liquids, there’s no way for consumers to know what other substances they may be inhaling.

The L.A. Times is right. It has been FOUR years since the FDA starting working on e-cigarette regulations. Four years during which the use of e-cigs has exploded (no pun intended) among teenagers. This has taken far too long. And I fear the regulations that are finalized are going to be really weak and won’t address e-cig marketing or online sales to teenagers.

e-cigarettes, e-cigs

A spirited defence of e-cigarettes

March 9, 2016 Pepe Lepew

Lately, I’ve been posting a lot of negative stories about e-cigarettes and recent studies showing the vapour in e-cigs may not be as benign as c-cig companies would have you believe.

Here’s a column defending e-cigarettes from Helen Redmond, who’s written for Al Jazeera and AlterNet, defending e-cigs as a tool to help smokers quit. I thought it was pretty interesting, and to be fair, I thought it was worth writing about to get the other side of the e-cigarette argument.

In her column, Redmond writes:

Public health organizations and federal drug agencies including the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) argue—despite no adequate evidence—that vaping is a “gateway” to tobacco for youth and that “e-cigarettes are no better than smoking regular cigarettes.” Numerous articles and well-respected, anti-smoking groups refer to e-cigarettes as “tobacco products,” which they clearly are not. The American Lung Association’s website contains a statement that declares: “Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are a popular new tobacco product that have still largely unknown public and individual health effects.” The word “scourge” is usually reserved for heroin panics, but it’s being used to describe electronic cigarettes. Michael Seilback, a vice president of the American Lung Association, said in a press release: “The scourge of e-cigarettes in New York has warranted action and Governor Cuomo’s proposal comprehensively tackles the proliferation of e-cigarettes in New York.”

But you know what the real scourge is?

The real scourge is that 480,000 people die in the United States from smoking-related illnesses every year. And electronic cigarettes—which are the best hope for hundreds of thousands of inveterate smokers to quit and stay alive, and which cause a tiny fraction of the harms of real cigarettes—are subject to a vicious and unrelenting campaign of lies and deception to convince smokers not to use them.

Are the enemies of vaping so implacably and irrationally opposed to it that they prefer smokers die rather than switch to e-cigarettes?

Redmond cites a study done last year in the UK that states e-cigs are about 95 percent safer than tobacco cigarettes and she also cites some statistics about e-cigarettes helping smokers quit.

She writes:

Electronic cigarettes help smokers quit. That’s why millions of people are using them. The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) conducted a survey in 2015 of 19,823 its members; 87% reported they quit smoking entirely after starting to vape. In response to an article in Consumer Reports that rejected recommending the use of ECs, more than 1,300 readers responded saying that electronic cigarettes helped them kick the habit. And according to a new study published in the journal Addiction, using ECs led to an estimated 22,000 more people quitting tobacco every year. The researchers found: “E-cigarettes appear to be helping a significant number of smokers to stop who would not have done otherwise—not as many as some e-cigarette enthusiasts claim, but a substantial number nonetheless.”

Redmond also points out that nicotine by itself is not the chief toxin in cigarettes (many people don’t realize that nicotine is not the cause of lung cancer or COPD caused by cigarettes). But, she does concede that nicotine is physically addictive, but she argues that it can be used as a maintenance medication much like methadone.

Redmond’s column got a lot of positive feedback from e-cig users thanking her. I’ve learned not to waste a lot of energy fighting with e-cig supporters; their support gets a little too fanatical for me to deal with, and if e-cigs have genuinely gotten you off cigarettes, then I don’t blame you for loving them.

However, I would take two issues with Redmond’s column. First of all, I think it completely glossed over the growing problem of teens using e-cigs and the oftentime pretty blatant marketing of e-cigarettes to kids, using images of race car drivers and women’s panties to make e-cigs appear sophisticated and sexy. The use of e-cigarettes by teens has tripled over the past three years. This IS a serious issue and to me the biggest problem with e-cigs.

These are not 20- or 30-year smokers desperate to get off of cigarettes. These are 15- and 16-year-olds who have found a new, cheap and easy to purchase online delivery system to get physically addicted to nicotine to begin with. While nicotine is not the most dangerous component of cigarettes, it is incredibly addictive and I would just as soon kids not get addicted to it in any form. Nicotine addiction by its basic definition is a bad thing. There is nothing good that will come out of nicotine addiction, no matter the delivery system. And studies have shown that kids who start off using e-cigs do move on to cigarettes more than kids who never use them.

Secondly, I also think Redmond seriously overstates the effectiveness of e-cigs in getting people off cigarettes. Despite the anecdotal evidence you will read all over the Internet, they are not some kind of miracle cure. Simply put, they don’t work for everyone. I have also talked to a number of people who have told me they didn’t do anything for them. She cites statistics about people quitting smoking thanks to e-cigs, and I don’t question the numbers she quotes, but I can also cite studies stating they are not especially effective in helping people quit cigarettes. Here is another study on that same point. What data that is out there is mixed at best.

E-cigs definitely work for some people. For people who have tried cold turkey or patches and failed to quit, go ahead and try e-cigs, you have nothing to lose. But, please don’t sell them as some of miracle cure for cigarettes. They don’t even come close to being that. They are just another nicotine replacement system that people can try when all else has failed.

In all seriousness, for every person who at times with a certain level of fanaticism tells me that e-cigs have been a lifesaver, I would love to go back to those same people in a year or two and ask them if they are still off cigarettes. I think it’d be interesting to see.

So, e-cigs are going to continue to be controversial. I’ve made my position clear that if adults want to use them to quit smoking, they should be available and they apparently really do help some people; I don’t care if they’re not 100 percent successful, if they help some people, that’s great. But, the feds absolutely must crack down on the marketing to kids and sales of e-cig products to kid, including online sales.

Lung cancer, Uncategorized

Going beyond cigarettes — starchy, sugary diet may raise risk of lung cancer

March 9, 2016 Pepe Lepew 1 Comment

A very interesting story that really surprises me.

According to a study from the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, researchers interviewed 1,900 people who had just been diagnosed with lung cancer and compared that with 2,400 other people without cancer who were interviewed. They asked questions about lifestyle choices, including smoking, and diet.

What they found is that people with “high glycemic index ” diets (lots of sugar and starch) were more likely to be in the lung cancer group than people with low glycemic diets. The link was stronger among people who didn’t smoke, they found.

From an NBC News article:

How can this happen? Doctors aren’t sure, but there’s a theory that high-glycemic foods stimulate the body to make insulin, which in turn affects the growth of cells via compounds called insulin-like growth factors or IGF. Cancer is the uncontrolled proliferation of cells, so it might be that the high-glycemic foods are fueling the growth of tiny tumors.

“IGFs have been shown to play a critical role in regulating cell proliferation and differentiation in cancer and there is evidence to suggest that IGFs are elevated in lung cancer patients,” Wu’s team wrote.

It’s a suspect in several types of cancer.

“Previous studies have investigated the association between glycemic index, and the related measure glycemic load, and a variety of cancers including colorectal, stomach, pancreas, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, and thyroid but these studies are limited and results have been largely inconclusive,” the researchers wrote.

This study is not conclusive, either. For one thing, the researchers asked their volunteers to remember what they ate. For another, it’s an association. People who eat high-glycemic foods may also do something else that also raises their risk of cancer. And this particular study focused only on non-Hispanic white people.

It’s important to keep in mind that about 15 percent of the people who get lung cancer are people who never smoked, and about 20 percent of women who get lung cancer never smoked. Secondhand smoke might be a factor, but so is genetics likely and possibly diet, according to this survey.

I don’t really know what low glycemic versus high glycemic entails, so here is a list included in the article:

According to the American Diabetes Association, low-glycemic foods include:

100 percent stone-ground whole wheat or pumpernickel bread

Oatmeal (rolled or steel-cut), oat bran, muesli

Pasta, converted rice, barley, bulgar

Sweet potato, corn, yam, lima/butter beans, peas, legumes and lentils

Most fruits, non-starchy vegetables and carrots

Medium glycemic index foods include:

Whole wheat, rye and pita bread

Quick oats

Brown, wild or basmati rice, couscous

High glycemic index foods include:

White bread, including bagels
Corn flakes, puffed rice, bran flakes, instant oatmeal
Shortgrain white rice, rice pasta, macaroni and cheese from mix
Russet potato, pumpkin
Pretzels, rice cakes, popcorn, saltine crackers
melons and pineapple

Oh, good, I do like baked potatoes, so that’s the only high glycemic food I each much of on this list.

Catmageddon, Truth.org, Uncategorized

“Catmageddon” — The Truth Campaign’s latest cute campaign

March 9, 2016 Pepe Lepew

You’ve probably no doubt by now seen the Truth Campaign’s newest Catmageddon commercial.

Basically, the point is — something that doesn’t get talked a lot, not even by me — that secondhand smoke is not only bad for smokers’ kids, it’s bad for their pets. No cats, no more cute cat videos on YouTube.

Several studies have shown that secondhand smoke can cause lung and other cancers in dogs, cats and other pets. According to the Truth Campaign ads, cats and dogs are twice as likely to develop cancer if their owners are smokers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJ8PSB_g5o

The Truth Campaign followed up the Catmageddon commercial with a commercial about secondhand smoke and dogs. The funniest commercial of them is all is about a bunch of cats that hold a wild party when their owner is away. That one is just on YouTube, I think. It’s too long of a commercial for TV. I just had to post something just to get this longer commercial out there.

Just part of the Truth Campaign’s continuing creative take on trying to get the message across to young people about the dangers of smoking. It’s working; in fact it’s successful beyond everyone’s wildest dreams. Teen smoking has plummeted from 30 percent in the 1990s to less than 10 percent today (the rise of e-cigarettes have a lot to do with that, too.)

Bridge of Spies, MPAA, smoking in movies

Period smoking in “Bridge of Spies”

March 9, 2016 Pepe Lepew

bridge of spies smoking 2 — Mark Ryland in “Bridge of Spies,” playing Soviet agent Rudolf Abel. Abel died of lung cancer in his 60s.

I wrote a few weeks ago how there was virtually no smoking whatsoever in “The Man from U.N.C.L.E,” which is set in 1963, an era in which the majority of males smoked.

“Bridge of Spies,” also a period piece taking place from 1957 to 1961, is a PG-13 rated film. In watching it this week, I noticed it did have smoking in it, though it wasn’t what I would call “pervasive” smoking. Was it more than necessary? Yeah, maybe.

Soviet spy Rudolf Abel and head of the CIA Allen Dulles are both depicted in the movie smoking. Abel, while he is in prison, asks for and receives a pack of cigarettes from his attorney, played by Tom Hanks. What is interesting about one scene between Hanks and Ryland, Ryland holds a cigarette the whole time, but never actually takes a smoke. He holds a burning cigarette and flicks ashes, but doesn’t actually smoke it.

Meanwhile Dulles spends a short scene smoking a pipe. (I think some KGB guy might have smoked in the movie, too. I can’t remember.)

bridge of spies smoking with inset — Mark Ryland, left, the real Rudolf Abel (inset).

The thing is, historically, both Abel and Dulles were smokers. In fact, the actor playing Abel (Mark Rylance, he won the award for Best Supporting Actor) actually did a remarkable job of mimicking exactly how Abel held his cigarette. Check out the photo I posted from the film, with the inset of the real Rudolph Abel. Dulles was also well-known for always smoking a pipe.

allen dulles — Allen Dulles in “Bridge of Spies,” at left, and in real life, at right.

Did seeing smoking in a PG-13 film bother me? A bit, I guess, but I have to concede that the movie was trying to be historically accurate, and in order to be historically accurate, it would be a bit awkward to have no smoking in the early 1960s. I give Steven Spielberg credit for not going overboard with the depictions of smoking. The truth of it is, in 1960, the majority of males did smoke. That’s a fact, and it’s certainly historically accurate to show people in that era smoking. I certainly didn’t think the smoking in the movie was what I would call “pervasive.” And the MPAA has loopholes for the R rating if smoking is shown in a historically accurate way and if it is not, in the MPAA’s words, “pervasive.” There’s also two “fucks” in “Bridge of Spies.” Like smoking, the F-bomb, as long as you’re not describing the sex act (A really silly rule, I know), will not trigger an R rating if it not “pervasive.”

Do I think it would have lessened the film if Spielberg had eliminated the smoking? Not really. People might have pointed out the inaccuracy of showing Dulles without a pipe. But, to be fair, despite, the PG-13 rating, it was a very adult film, slow, talky, no explosions or CGI and was definitely not marketed to teens.

Anyway, I was really struck how this movie differed from “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” in how it treated smoking in the early 1960s.

As an aside, Rudolf Abel died of lung cancer in 1971 at the age of 68. Allen Dulles died of pneumonia at the age of 75.

nicotine, Uncategorized

Nicotine listed by experts as among the most addictive substances

March 6, 2016 Pepe Lepew 1 Comment

… but not as one of the most damaging drugs on Earth, a big oversight on their part.

This is a story from the Conversation, based on a survey done with substance abuse experts about the most addictive substances on Earth … and nicotine makes the cut.

It’s important to always keep this in mind about while tobacco is so evil … the sheer physical addictiveness of nicotine. I’ve often said that it’s arguably as addictive as heroin … I can’t imagine there’s really a way to measure such a thing. I just base this on anecdotal information I gather from smokers about how incredibly grueling and physically difficult it is to quit smoking. People tell me it just wracks their bodies trying to quit.

I also believe, and some studies support this, that there is a genetic component to nicotine addiction, which could explain why some people are able to quit smoking while others simply … cannot … do … it. So, it’s not about willpower or that somehow some people are just stranger than others.

Anyway, the five most addictive substances mentioned int his article are:

Heroin
Alcohol
Cocaine
Barbiturates
Nicotine

Now this story doesn’t talk about meth, which is another incredibly addictive drug, but it does mention that meth is closely related to cocaine, so I suppose the author is bundling them together.

One thing I don’t agree with this story: It states that heroin is the second-most damaging drug in the world in terms of damage to users and society. Alcohol is listed as the most damaging with an estimated 3 million deaths caused worldwide in 2012. Cocaine is listed as the third-most damaging drug..

These experts claim that nicotine is the 12th most addictive drug on Earth — again, how that is measured, I don’t know. And I don’t have a clue what the other 11 substances would be; only four are mentioned in this story.

And they don’t even list it as the most damaging drugs, this is where I disagree … even though the current death toll from tobacco is 6 million people a year worldwide, double the death toll from the so-called No. 1 most damaging drug, alcohol. By 2030, an estimated 8 million people will die every year from tobacco-related diseases.

I won’t dismiss the staggering damage done by alcoholism, not only from alcohol-related diseases, but domestic violence, murders and DUI wrecks caused by drinking. But, I would argue that nicotine does more damage to society than cocaine, heroin and barbiturates combined. Here’s where I don’t agree with this story’s logic. In the U.S. at least, tobacco kills more people than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and other illegal drugs combined … like by a pretty sizable margin. Tobacco kills 440,000 people a year in the U.S., while alcohol kills about 110,000 people a year (and this includes DUIs) and Illegal drugs only kill about 20,000 people a year. So, we’re talking three times as many die as a result of tobacco than from alcohol and illegal drugs combined. I’m glad this article talked about nicotine, but I just can’t see how you can dismiss the damage done by nicotine and tobacco and this article did that a bit, in my opinion.

This doesn’t take into account other kinds of damage done to society, such as legal costs, incarceration, drug cartel violence, people losing their jobs and families, etc., from drug use and drinking. But, in terms of death and sheer health costs … nicotine and tobacco are No. 1, in my opinion.

Anyway, it was an interesting article even if i didn’t totally agree with it. Nicotine needs to be very much spoken in the same context as alcohol and illegal drugs as far as the damage done by it.