Cigarette Seduction - The Smoke Whisperer

How to waste $115 million in Nicotine Research

2011-10-31T08:03:00.000-07:00

The NIH has received $115 to study smoke cessation, according to the NY Times, of which they spent $2.5 million on nicotine free cigarettes. It sounds like a good thing and I’m sure they mean well.

But aren’t they really just protecting the industry? And their agenda with it?

The key question is – is why are you covering this when the biggest issue is Electronic Cigarettes – or vaporized alternate nicotine delivery system. They are obviously the future – but not in this study.

Here’s a summary of why this study is about protecting the tobacco patch:

1. Nicotine free cigarettes like Quest have been around for years – and smokers don’t want them. Even weekend smokers.

2. Nicotine is not the problem. The problem is why people seek out an addictive property. Nicotine can help offset Alzheimer's and it works for many as a poor man’s anti-ADD product and general calmant.

3. Tars are the problem, since they cause the cancers – but that is not being researched here. The objective is to support the tobacco growing industry.

4. Alternate nicotine delivery systems a/k/a Electronic Cigarettes are not being discussed. It is the biggest issue in smoking – but not even mentioned.

Then there is the issue why do young people want to smoke anyway – because if you don’t answer that, they will just find something similar or probably more dangerous as a substitute.

Smoking is more than a medical or scientific proposition – it a psycho-spiritual calmant and empowerment substance that is perceived to have slightly magical powers and can be just as powerful as any religion.

If this is not part of the research then we are getting much new here.

At the end of the day, the superficiality of this study almost laughable - especially when we know that the market has overwhelming rejected nicotine-less cigarettes. Just as alcohol-free beer and wine don't exactly get people to stop drinking - this is a fairly good exercise in wasted tax dollars and diversion of the genuine conversation.

As for the beleaguered tax-payer - they are just kissing away $115 million and the tobacco industry is getting a backdoor support system.

Just Banging Your Head is Easier than Philip Morris' CEO Camilleri: "not that hard to quit."

2011-05-16T13:48:00.000-07:00

Philip Morris's CEO set off a firestorm by saying "it's not that hard to quit." It's a corporate position that attempts to paint them as the "OK guys." Maybe.....

In the meantime though, it's worth noting there really is a little-known and much easier way to quit.

You bang your head in just the right place. Seriously.

As the author of a book about why people smoke and how the tobacco companies researched this to develop the psychological power of their brands, I can say that in a ridiculous way, Philip Morris' CEO, Louis Camilleri is right!

Several years ago, researchers found that a disabled insula will cause any smoker to quit immediately.

This little known part of the brain serves a kind of spiritual integration center of thoughts and drives. So while we were being facetious about self-laceration, the bigger point is that smoking is a profound issue.

Yet both the tobacco companies and it's critics try to argue that it is a trivial issue except for this little problem of addiction. The pro-smokers say addiction is not that big of a deal, the anti-smokers say its a very big deal.

But it turns out that addiction in itself is not that big of a deal - it is thepsychological syndrome that is a big deal. The term I use for this ispsychic because it ties psychology and a kind of spirituality together. The addiction is there to serve the bigger need which typically occurs at the early teen, coming-of-age years. You'd have to read my book,Cigarette Seduction to understand the depth of this commitment to smoking once you start in those early years - and almost everyone does.

It also makes you realize that people have a need first and then they discover smoking - especially now when the psychological profile of smokers has changed quite dramatically over the past 25 years (much less about "everyone else" doing it and much more about personal issues). Therefore, if there were no smoking they would - and they do - seek out other things.

If we discussed the larger issue we could manage that process. If we continue the ridiculous for- and against-smoking fight - as if cigarettes created the need for "life-aids" and not the stress of living creating the need for solutions - we might actually reach a better outcome.

The bottom line of Cigarette Seduction is that when smokers understand what cigarettes mean for them they can overcome it by transferring the need to more productive outlets. Many smokers have found they can quit the addiction - people do it all the time - but it is much harder to fill the psychic void it leaves behind. That is why - despite all the drugs and aids - the majortiy of quitters tend to drift back to smoking.

While the Cigarette Seduction process is not simplistic the approach is simple: by offering the only known key to understanding a smoker's special relationship to cigarettes by revealing the meanings of the brands it helps them break the cycle through insight. Once this has been demystified, the addiction becomes a burden instead of a pleasurable break. It then becomes much easier to quit on a permanent basis because when smoking is meaningless there is no reason to remain addicted to it.

FULL TEXT OF THE CIGARETTE SEDUCTION PRESS RELEASE

According to a report by the Associated Press, Philip Morris International CEO Louis Camilleri yesterday stated at the company's annual shareholder meeting in New York that, while cigarettes are addictive, "it is not that hard to quit."

"The easiest way to quit," says Cigarette Seduction author (www.cigseduction.com), Alan Brody is to bang your head against the wall in just the right way!

Researchers know that smokers who damage a part of the brain called the "insula" quit immediately. So it really is all in the head.

However, smokers heads are not all alike. Quitting depends on their psychological commitment and "Cigarette Seduction" is an extraordinary key to this.

Brody's book explains the meaning of the brands based on the depth psychological research the leading tobacco companies used to develop, thanks to access he had to a number of their leading researchers. Brody notes that smoking is not only deep but the tobacco companies have mastered the art of exploiting it.

The moment of adoption is the critical issue.

"Your teenage starter years make the difference," says Brody, "if you began smoking on account a compelling emotional need – you will have a hard time quitting. If you were just following the herd then quitting is easy. "

"Philip Morris may deserve a knock or two for their 'Cigarette Seduction' but it not only about the seller - the smoker is there for a reason. People who need -1392350743 this emotional type of support will seek out a substitute. Now there are options like eCigarettes to choose from which may be less dangerous and even a good way to quit."

Cigarette Seduction is available on Amazon and can be viewed at www.cigseduction.com

Review copies available on request.

# # #

Cigarette Seduction is a book that tells smokers what the cigarette brands say about them and their deepest anxieties and how they can use the knowledge to quit - for good.

Banning Menthols is the Crack vs. Powder Argument Again......

2011-01-06T09:18:00.000-08:00

The FDA wants to ban menthols! Hooray - one more nail in the coffin of smoking.....or is it?

My guess is that the ban will turn out to be illegal since the FDA allows many other additives in cigarettes like glycerine and allegedly cocoa - so why go after menthols?

Then there is the racist angle - African-Americans and Latinos typically smoke menthols - especially in the teen years. That forces African-Americans into an awkward debate: smoking is bad but why is our bad somehow worse than yours? Oh right, you’re helping us.

The real issue here is – where do the do-gooders want us to go? Smokers aren't just suckers hooked by tobacco companies. They usually smoke for a reason. On a practical level this ban will force people to alternatives. Safer ones we think, like e-Cigarettes. Or off-prescription substances like Adderol and Valium. All illegal or frowned upon by the
FDA.

The point is that people aren't going to quit just because someone tells them to and when government officials dictate a solution without any thought to smokers motivation or alternatives, they generally create a situation worse than they started with.

This is a zero-sum game. Take away smoking and people will reach for something else. We need to talk long and hard about the something else……

Footnote:

Once upon a time menthols were the choice of white blue collar workers so things like who smokes menthols and why, could change, of course.

Wall Street Journal on the proposed Menthol ban.

Chicago Tribune on the Debate in the African American Community

Why the FDA and Smoking Establishment are Crucifying e-Cigarettes

2010-09-17T21:16:00.000-07:00

By Alan Brody

If you had a problem that killed 400,000 people a year and affected the health of 40 million you’d think that anything that improves the situation is worth supporting. When it comes to smoking however, you would be dead wrong.

In 2004 a Chinese company created what is now called the e-Cigarette, a device that emulates a cigarette by delivering a flavored vapor with – or without nicotine. The vapor uses propylene glycol, a liquid that is generally considered safe for consumption by the FDA and appears in many food products.

There are several million users worldwide and while there are no safety studies, there are not reports of any harm either.

The advantage to smokers is they no longer have cancer-causing tars invading their lungs, they stop coughing, no longer smell and since the vapor is harmless, they can stay indoors and vape because there is no second-hand smoke problem.

It also saves smokers in New York enough money to make the payments on a mid-size car.

Amazingly, however, the FDA is against it. They are trying to block the importers of these product and are in Federal Court fighting for their right to ban these products.

It may be easy enough to understand the FDA’s need for territorial protection and ultimately a way to extract tax and regulatory revenue.

But how do you explain Public Health’s near unified opposition to e-Cigarettes? American Lung, American Cancer as well as Tobacco-Free Kids are opposed to them.

Their arguments range from – “It’s not proven!” [Cigarettes are proven, of course, to kill] to it “attracts children.”

The best part is how small towns in New Jersey and Long Island have banned or limited the sale and use of these products. Suddenly, politicians who can’t fix their budgets have the time and energy to become expert enough on these products to prohibit them.

Is it possible that the anti-smoking establishment has obviously stopped working for the American people to become a symbiotic partner of the tobacco industry in sucking up the lavish tax handouts they generate.

Perversely, this opposition is only going help sell more e-Cigarettes in the long run. The reason is that most smokers hate e-Cigarettes because they leave out so much of what makes puffing pleasurable: the sensuous smoke, the softness of tobacco, the seduction of danger are all gone. Instead, you get this cool, clinical haze that studies have shown, may not even deliver much nicotine at all. Less than 1/40^th of smokers use these products. However, that will change because banning them will only make them more dangerous and by the perverse logic of smoking, more desirable.

Without getting too deep into the motivation for smoking let it be said that the industry discovered as early as 1922 that it had a lot more to do with the mind and spirit than the body. We start smoking in our adult initiation years when we have image and self-esteem issues. We also want to belong. So we do crazy things like get tattooed, body pierced, do extreme sport and party crazy, mange to get through school, get into trouble, fights, illegally drunk, vote, enroll in the military and so on. Smoking used to be our little helper. If you went asleep during the Mad Men years and awoke today like a 21st Century Rip van Winkle, you would find that all the Marlboro Country and Winston ads have gone – only to be replaced by prescription drug ads for exactly the things that bother us: sex, mental happiness, ADD and a few other things as well.

In other words – we need little helpers. It’s a guilty pleasure if you smoke it and a legitimate need if your doctor prescribes but the numbers tell us that millions are going to seek it out regardless. It exists somewhere between folk remedies and faith healing. So is it fair for a few bureaucrats and do-gooders to dictate human behavior – especially when they have their hands in the public purse?

Smoking is a deep and troubling issue. It is the first industry of this country - we probably wouldn’t be here without it since its very addiction probably made pioneers persevere in an unwelcoming colony. We are in denial of its actual role in our lives. The net result is that we have driven its evolution to China, have reinstituted creeping prohibition and are about to create a new black market and political corruption all over again.

It is tie for an honest and open discussion about smoking again - and now, e-Cigarettes.

Alan Brody is the author of Cigarette Seduction www.cigseduction.com and a former columnist with Advertising Age/Creativity and ADWEEK’s Marketing Computers.

Fireworks and Insight on the Dr. Stan Frager Show!

2010-09-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

If you weren't able to take your attention off the Emmy's to listen to this fascinating conversation about America's first industry and how it really influences our lives, here is a summary.
It is like nothing you have ever heard about the smoking issue. That's a promise!

Fireworks and Insight on the Dr. Stan Frager Show!

What does smoking have to do with President Obama, Britney Spears and the Emmy-Award-winning "Mad Men?" Has smoking been reduced only to be overtaken by prescription drugs like Ridalin and Prozac - in effect, recasting smoking as a little understood form of self-medication. These were some of the issues discussed by "Cigarette Seduction" author, Alan Brody on the Dr. Stan Frager show on WGTK on Sunday night in the heart of tobacco country, Louisville, Kentucky.

"Mad Men" may sparkle with retro sexism and non-PC joie de vivre but it is also about a group of execs who believed they knew something about Americans that few others did. Thanks to a new kind of "motivational research" chronicled in Vance Packard's "Hidden Persuaders" that revolutionized Madison Ave. in the 50's and 60's they understood the psychological reasons why people really bought products. To most of their clients, it was a revelation.

With cigarettes, marketers understood it to be something we do at the initiation period of our lives and it holds a powerful, if little understood force over the lives of smokers. Each brand has a specific meaning that was researched and developed by psychoanalytically trained market researchers beginning in 1922, when American Tobacco hired America's first Freudian, A.A. Brill to work on the Lucky Strike brand. As it happened, their PR man, Edward Bernays, was also Freud's American nephew.

The not-fully convinced Dr. Frager (himself a psychologist) bridled at Mr. Brody's comment that Camel smokers usually have "sexual issues." Dr. Frager even pointed out that "Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Brody replied: "Freud was a cigar smoker who died of throat cancer. He was in denial."

Brody described how Marlboro was developed from the ashes, as it were, of what was once an exclusive woman's brand. In its new form, when it was reintroduced in the early 50's, its package had been developed to look like a medal, replete with the legend: "Veni. Vidi. Vici." (I came. I saw. I conquered.)

This implies Marlboro smokers have a militaristic or command-and-control issue. In the case of President Obama, it probably serves as part of his military empowerment, making it unlikely that he quit as long as he in charge of a war and commands generals. Britney Spears, who's dancing is highly energetic and meticulously rehearsed was seen smoking this brand just before her famous breakdown, suggesting that it was a form of rebellion against the regimentation in her performance schedule. She has not been seen with a cigarette lately and her career appears back on track.

Most importantly, knowing their brand helps people unravel their true reasons for smoking and leads to the best way to quit for good. Using the book's "Inner Quitting" method Brody recommends starting with the "unsmoking" technique - rolling back the years to that time in life when they started. This enables smokers to tackle the real challenge of quitting, which is not the addiction (that can be overcome in 3 days and best done when you have flu or a bad cold), but the mental part. This is the true abyss that smokers fear.

By facing the issue that lead them to smoking (we may start smoking with our friends but we become addicted and bond for our own personal reasons) "Inner Quitting" shows how to use the newfound knowledge to overcome smoking for good. This is no patch - although that can help - but it is essentially borrowing the technique those fortunate people you probably know who claim they were able to spontaneously quit. While they were just lucky, everyone else has to work at it and "Cigarette Seduction" explains how.

In closing, Mr. Brody talked briefly about the new Electronic Cigarettes and how they are likely to comprise as much as 50% of the market within 5 years.

To learn more about "Cigarette Seduction," listen to Mr. Brody's interview or view his videos, visit www.cigseduciton.com

To request a review copy please contact Ellen Schaeffer at ViziPress (212) 624-9110 or ellens@vizipress.com

When Your President Can't Quit - What Chance Do You Have?

2010-03-07T08:57:00.000-08:00

According to this news report President Obama can't quit. He can only make sure the Press doesn't see him.....

So how does that help you, if you're a smoker? Just this:

1. Smoking is not trivial and it deserves some respect.....
2. e-Cigarettes are a fantastic solution.

What tobacco companies discovered in the 50's is that cigarettes are nature's miraculous pacifier for adults and it operates at a totally unconscious level.

If you are lucky enough to quit spontaneously - or near spontaneously - good luck to you! But most people struggle because this is so deep and so unconscious that they feel guilty or self-destructive enough not to care.

We can't solve this issue here. Nor can President Obama!

What we can tell you is to walk - no run - to your nearest e-Cigarette supplier, because that can change your life and set you on your way to quitting without actually quitting. At least not at first.....

If you buy a copy of Cigarette Seduction - even the eBook - you get a fully functioning 5 day-long eCigarette pack FREE. Or you can just buy it and forget the book.

What you can't forget is this habit that dogs you just like it dogs he Commander-in-Chief.

Big Win for e-Cigarette Importers

2010-01-16T09:50:00.000-08:00

News Flash - the Federal Court turned down the FDA's efforts to ban e-Cigarettes. (See the New York Times article.)

The bigger question is why would Government agencies and anti-tobacco groups be against a product that relieves some of the greatest harms of smoking (second hand smoke, the smell, the hacking cough) and works as an anecdotally acclaimed means of quitting?

3 reasons:

1. Money
2. Power
3. Self-righteousness

Their attitudes are so repugnant that I feel like smoking again. I won't, but I am willing to fume.

Here's why.

1. Money. The government has found a fantastic source of revenue built on the backs of tobacco addicts. Like any addict - in this case, revenue addicts - they are deeply reluctant to give it up. When the time is ripe - we'll discuss a 12 step method for the tobacco taxers.....

The same applies to the major anti-tobacco groups. There are a small handful that get the lion's share of the paltry few million the government doles out from its tobacco revenues. They are just as dependent on this tax income and so they too have every incentive to attack (Tobacco Free Kids being high on his list). The game has become fixed to the point where they actually function as a handmaiden to the tobacco industry - warding off newcomers (competition) and making it seem like the tobacco companies are staying away from kids. They also support big pharma and its plethora of patches, gums, pills and other cessation paraphernalia.

2. Power. Agencies like the FDA derive their power from what they control. First you ban, then you control. Overlaps with money. (Also reminds us of the record companies and downloading - is it any coincidence that Time Warner's Richard Parsons told Napster "first you stop, then we talk." Now he runs Citibank. Guess what - all are in ruins. Note to FDA: the internet has changed all that - dictatorships just don't work like they used to.)

3. Self Righteousness. Everybody loves to point out somebody else's weakness and health groups are notorious in this regard. The fact that people have reasons for smoking - however troubling - is of zero interest to them. Just stop. Have will power blah, blah, blah. Smokers are motivated by deep reasons that rarely disappear just because they quit - they are typically sublimated to other practices. Often medication - both good or bad (e.g. how many smokers were really using tobacco as a crude form of Ridalin, or Prozac, or an upper or a downer). The worst fears of these zealots emerge when smokers appear to be enjoying themselves. You can't really respond to them - unless there truly is a skeleton in their closets - except to let their own fanaticism do its own discrediting.

Guaranteed - all 3 of these types will have something to say about the children. This makes children smoke blah, blah. I say this makes children distrust politicians. As usual this is just a smokescreen, no one is promoting this for kids just for people who already smoke.....but the tactic always pulls at someone's heartstrings - including smokers'.

Bottom line - for better or worse there are approximately 40 million smokers in the U.S. as they get up from the back of the bus they will realize that fate has given them a reprieve in he form of e-Cigarettes. Once the word truly gets out and they learn to rust these products, and understand the actions of these high-placed malefactors - I predict there will be a huge backlash. Some heads will roll. The argument will change completely.

He fact that this innovation came to us from China will also deliver a lesson about what happens when Government gets too involved - its stifles ideas and protects the insiders who become effectively corrupt. Of course, they never see it that way - hence point 3. self-righteousness. But there it is - another little vignette about why we are on our way to becoming a lost force in the world.

Brand Profile of a Parliament Light Smoker

2010-01-05T23:31:00.000-08:00

Here is a recent brand profile of Parliament Light smoker. Anyone who buys a copy of Cigarette Seduction either in print or digital form, gets a Free e-Cigarette and a personalized Brand Profile. This Brand Profile is the secret to your smoking obsession.

Male
Age First Smoked : 16
Current Age : 37
Father's Brand : Parliament Lights
Brand/s First Tried : Marlboro Lights
First Committed Brand : Parliament Lights
Taboo Brands (Brands You Will NOT Smoke) : Newport Lights
Current Brand : Parliament Lights

Profile
Parliament is one of those brands that doesn’t have a clear-cut image just because we don’t have a Parliament in this country. But it does suggest a few things: people are less likely to connect it to Congress than they are to something European and kind of important but of their own imagining and so we try to find clues about which aspect they are plugging into. In general, however, it stands for someone who wants another, classier life but for one reason or another cannot really go there. But they think they are living a cut above the people surrounding them anyway – at least in their own minds. (The brand often reflects mild forms of depression and mood swings.)

If you are close to any kind of official building or headquarters it might suggest government work or some type of higher level status yearning.

In any case, this profile shows an interesting arc because you began life by smoking a brand that suggested you wanted to be tougher than your Dad (Marlboro Light vs. Parliament Light) but you quickly found that not to be the case and switched to his brand. 18 years later and you’re still in the same boat. In addition, you are averse to Newports - typically the brand of the upwardly mobile striver and often from the “other side of town.”

Quitting to you is probably tied up with your relationship to your father and your sense of not getting ahead of him. You don’t have to get ahead of him but in order to quit, but you do have to resolve these issues or at least find another way to deal with them.

We recommend you use e-Cigarettes, snus, pouch tobacco, the patch or other smoking alternatives that deliver the support you need while you deal with this process.

What's Selling e-Cigarettes? Are they being UNsold by supporters and SOLD by Opponents?

2009-10-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

Here’s a proposition for smokers – we’ll make cigarettes safe, we’ll take you out of the cold and we’ll save you 70% to boot.

You’d think Americans would drop their Marlboros and head for these products in a heartbeat!

But they're not – at least not anywhere in the volume you’d expect.

This is despite the fact that some e-Cig Co’s are practically giving away the devices so you only have to pay as you go - the nicotine version of giving away the razor to sell the blades.

If you’d done your homework on how the tobacco companies understood their customers’ motivation and then spoke to your average smoker, you’d quickly understand why.

Smokers don’t necessarily want a safer cigarette. They say they do but they are much more neurotic about their habit than that – and self-flagellation is part of the deal. Paying too much and being forced out into the cold to smoke has become a misery-loves-camaraderie ritual. Then there is the familiarity of the always-available soft little tube of reassurance – something that can’t be found with an electronic tube.

The amazing irony is that the people whom you might think would support eCigarettes, health groups and government officials are not. We get the revenue issues – both are dependent on the fabulous tax bounty of smoking. But this where it gets sticky – they also claim these products are not safe. Or at least, not proven safe – unlike cigarettes, which are proven deadly. In other words, once they’re proved deadly then they can take a position on eCigarettes.

That’s the irony – once they’re proven deadly, they become appealing to smokers again! So the eCigarette people (sometimes referred to as vapers) are effectively un-selling eCigarettes while the anti-eCigarette people, by claiming these are not safe are actually selling these products.

Welcome to the looking-glass world of marketing!

eCigarettes and Cigarette Seduction

2009-06-03T12:36:00.000-07:00

It is hard to read this New York Times article with a straight face because the line-up of interests are so nakedly obvious: the FDA watching its turf, the drug co.s, the state taxes, the health groups with their self-righteousness and mysterious funding.

Nevertheless, the promises and challenges of a reconstructed, artificial cigarette are immense.

The bottom line – at least from the perspective of quitting the Cigarette Seduction way - is that when you take away the brand magic, and smoking is reduced to a nicotine delivery system, people find it easy to quit. Or at least cut down significantly.

There is very little magic in nicotine addiction. As drugs go, this one doesn’t do much for you. If you’re addicted you need it, and that's about it. Without the magic of a real cigarette and its brand power – you'll find that you don’t need all that much nicotine. And it will be easier to control. For the rest on how to jump the last chasm, I’m afraid you’ll have to read the book.

But since there are other issues raised by eCigarettes, I’ll answer them.

Yes, of course it is silly to argue that a product which tells you on the pack that it is deadly – cannot be replaced by something that may only be merely dangerous. But its a turf war – the FDA is only acting the way a government agency typically does while the lobbyists obviously represent drug companies that not only want to stave off competition but also possibly own this idea. Health groups – which should want the ameliorative possibilities of these cigarettes explored - just want cigarettes to go away. There is no place for discussion.

Like so much of the old economy, we have become boxed in by our usual thinking. Some version of the eCigarette was developed here about 10 years ago - Philip Morris' Accord and R.J. Reynolds' Eclipse (both had the idea but not the LED technology) and were quickly dropped, thanks to all the forces above plus the fact that no one really liked these devices.

So the eCigarettes were developed in Asia and at the same time, society changed: smokers became segregated and th eprice of cigarettes rose dramatically.

From the perspective of society however, the bigger issue is: do we want to sell a drug delivery system?

There are 2 answers. Wake up, we already do in – in many different ways from Ritalin to kids to Viagra and estrogen to adults.

We may also have a way to ensure that dangerous people who must take meds – do so: you addict them to the delivery system. Think of the mass killers who somehow went off their anti-depression medications…..if they were addicted to their meds, we wouldn’t have that problem……

The bottom line is:

1. Thanks to the internet, the people who want this product will easily beat the bureaucrats who don’t.

2. A cigarette without marketing magic is a product you can easily quit.

eCigarettes - My Comments in the Wall Street Journal

2009-06-03T12:35:00.000-07:00

eCigarettes in the Wall Street Journal

It is laughable that a product that is labeled as deadly cannot be replaced by a product that may be merely dangerous. Especially when no one ever started smoking for their good health in the first place.

The truth is that smoking is really a form of psychological self-medication.

You could argue that’s true for the interested parties too: the FDA, the States, the drug and tobacco companies and even the Health Groups are far more interested in preserving their own point of view – and funding base - than actually helping smokers.

The really interesting thing is that when you deconstruct smoking – take out the branding and all the marketing hoopla – it comes down to an odd practice that people seem able to take or leave with ease.

It also brings us face to face with the idea that tobacco is explicitly a drug and yet we don’t seem to want to have that conversation.

Bottom line – when you understand why people smoke you’ll understand that they need more than a “just say no” approach.

The fact that we now have alternatives to the very old fashioned smelly cigarette is a plus. Back in 1907 public health groups actually praised cigarettes as a health benefit over spit tobacco! (But that was before cigarette taxes and TB was the big bugaboo.)

What we now know is that debranding practices always make it easier to quit or a least confront the psychic issues that underlie smoking - so people can much more easily move on with their lives.

Yet, as always, the so-called do-gooders don’t care much about whether you live or die, just that you do it their way.

How Come School Shooters Don’t Seem to Smoke?

2009-04-06T13:12:00.000-07:00

[Tragically we revisit this chillingly cogent argument - should cigarettes be considered a form of self-medication? Or, since cigarettes are addictive and consumed like clockwork whereas most shooters are set off because they quit their antidepressants - should not the two should be combined?]

by Alan Brody

After the horrific shootings, there is always a swarm of agents with alphabet soup windbreakers that rummage through the wreckage. Leading this group is the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is generally there to find casings and match them to the weapons.

It’s hard to imagine how much difference this information will make since we already know who the shooter was and just how legally they got their top of the line weapon technology.

So why aren’t they making good use of their time on the "A" and the "T" - looking for alcohol bottles and discarded cigarette butts? Granted, psychopaths seem to shun alcohol on their highly organized trails of retribution. But what about cigarettes?

Good and bad people - even sober judges - smoke. So how come there never seems to be a trail of smoldering butts? No unfinished Marlboros to mark their High Noon moment? Never a cruel cigarillo to show their contempt for society and its second-hand smoke regulations?

This is not just the Virginia Tech killer, the mad boys of Columbine seemed to be similarly abstemious. Then there is the shooting at Pearl, Miss., Jacksboro, Tenn. - and even the Amish country schoolhouse where I just can’t think of any one of them puffing on a stick, Bogey-like. John Hinckley shot Reagan with nary a puff, ditto for Chapman with John Lennon.

It seems like bad form to talk cigarettes at a time like this, although Virginia Tech’s shooter Cho, did mention Hitler, and Hitler as we know, was a non-smoker. (A vegetarian too, but that is another issue).

Is this to suggest that smoking a pack or two a day might have helped? Maybe - studies like the St. Louis survey and a recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper show that smoking and depression are profoundly linked.

The Secret Service psychologist, Dr. Robert Fein, in his study of stalkers and assassins, called the "Exceptional Case Study,” agrees. He adds there is another connected and recurring issue in the profiles of these diverse killers – with the possible exception of Hitler: that they were all at first suicidal. Once they had accepted their own demise, everything else in their terrible quests seemed to fit in rather nicely.

Now cigarettes, that much maligned flourish of youth, have the reputation, at least as far as former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is concerned, as being little more than a form of slow-motion suicide. Normally, you’d agree - who wants to be suicidal? But now we know what suicidal and depressed people can do once you free them of their bad habits, smoking may not be such a terrible thing after all.

Most reports, including those on the ASH.org website will tell you that 88% or so, of smokers have started by age 18. Except for these fellows, of course. (And it usually is fellows.) Obviously, smoking serves as a much needed form of initiation and these outcasts seem to have missed the boat.

Maybe we should invite them back. There’s something to be said for the idea of troubled people taking their suicide in slow, twenty minute increments rather than letting go in a hail of gunfire. Second-hand smoke may be a small price to pay. Besides, these shooters tend have been prescribed antidepressents but then stop taking their meds. That never happens with smokers – once they’re hooked they keep taking their smokes like clockwork.

So maybe we need to rethink the value of smoking. Of course, this would take some revisionist compromising. But dusting off the old “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Glock” campaign is worth another look. And Lucky Strikes could be a good thing in a world of calculating psychopaths. Kool could have done just that - cooled a killer down. Camel - that could have meant nothing more than a trip to the zoo.

Realistically though, our current cigarette brands aren’t quite suicidal enough. We may have to develop a more compelling, more clinically informed family of brands that communicate the idea: “Why shoot me when you could be smoking one of these bad boys?”

This is not necessarily a call for the resurrection of the tobacco companies. After all, Philip Morris recently left New York in a puff as mounting taxes and regulation seemed to pull the rug under their Park Ave. welcome. So they moved their headquarters back to Richmond, Virginia which didn’t help the situation anyway. Apparently, easy guns trump easy cigarettes.

What we really need are prescription-strength cigarettes that health professionals can custom-design for troubled souls. We could call them Cig-Rx. They could have clinical names like Pufficide DX, or 2 Paxil-a-Day. Or they could go to the heart of the problem with displacement fantasy brands like Death Rays, Anti-Harmony, Bad Deeds, My Punishment and the freshly mentholated, Unhappy Days. These solutions are cheap, generate taxes and nourish our farmlands.

All of this really happening anyway, we just don’t control it properly. Psychcentral.com reports that doctors Cheong, Herkov & Goodman found in the St. Louis study, that depressed smokers use their cigarettes quite successfully as a way to self-medicate. This approach appears to be growing. A September 2003 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (160:1663-1669), shows that smokers today are now more 3 times likely to be depressed than non-smokers. This is a relatively new phenomenon: back when smoking was widely accepted, there was no significant difference in depression rates between smokers and non-smokers.

Twenty five years ago that all began to change. Fewer people were smoking, but those who did were more like likely to be depressed. Note how that coincides with the beginning of this wave of suicidal, depressed, well-armed and non-smoking killers with Chapman in 1980 and Hinckley in 1981. Could it be that the health movement got to the wrong people? If so, could they call off the dogs and let them smoke again. Could the troubled people just blow off their steam again, please. It may not be good for their lungs but it could save my life. If that didn’t work at least their aura of smoke and puffing would serve as an early warning system. If you could at least smell them coming, the head start alone might be worth all the horses in Marlboro Country.

Alan Brody, a/k/a "The Smoke Whisperer" is the author of Cigarette Seduction, www.cigseduction.com

BANNING MENTHOLS – THE POWDER VS. THE CRACK DEBATE ENTERS THE CIGARETTE WORLD

2008-08-03T23:11:00.000-07:00

Is it fair to ban menthols? Of course not, at least not if you are a person of color. Or love the flavor of mint in the morning. Everyone else, mainly white smokers are left unscathed, or is that scathed?

But why go after menthols? The industry depends on flavorings – it is an essential part of turning cheap Bright leaf tobacco into the product we all love and use.

The fact that this process was invented by a slave by the name of Stephen in 1839 is all the more reason why we should tread lightly.

One group says this is this just another way of going after people of color. Another group says it’s a great way to get African Americans off smoking. They predominately smoke menthols and suffer disproportionately from tobacco-born illnesses.

So, to many this is just the powdered coke vs. crack debate – discriminate by way of cultural choices.

The real issue is what do we do instead?

Smoking is increasingly about self-medication and it is really only when people have chemical alternatives do they quit en masse.

Since American tobacco is so dependent on flavorings it’s pretty obvious this ban will be watered down or at least become somewhat discriminatory and absurdly shaped by lobbyists.
The truth is that light tobacco – the inhalable kind is the real problem. Not the specific flavorings.

Smoking wasn’t always about inhaling. Getting rid of fomaldehyde and glycerine may be fine but if congress really wants to help the world it should consider the lesson of President. Don’t let them inhale – just ban those kinds of tobacco and confine us to the coarse old stuff the real Indians smoked.

Case closed.

The Wizard World Interview

2008-06-30T08:41:00.000-07:00

Read the Wizard World Interview HERE

Obama Smokes Out Blue Collar Voters?

2008-06-18T18:46:00.000-07:00

Tony Horwitz is not entirely wrong about Barack Obama attracting blue collar supporters by dropping Nicorettes and taking a return trip to smoking. [New York Times “Leader of the Pack”]

He just doesn’t have the brands right. Nor does have the tobacco history quite right.

He suggests that Obama would identify with blue collar whites by smoking Winston, the long-time cigarette sponsor of NASCAR. It’s not a bad idea, except that Winston is generally perceived as a convivial brand based on its historical connection to another great talker, Winston Churchill. It is also rarely smoked by women.

Obama is already perceived as convivial, his problem is that blue collar whites are not sure that he strong enough on defending America. For that reason, he’d be better of with Marlboro, the traditional cigarette of the fighting man which is notable for having a subliminal medal on the pack. As a bonus, this brand is also widely smoked by women. He could attract the blue collar and the Hillary vote all in one.

On the other hand, he would alienate the elite who long ago exited smoking. But wait, there is a solution.

Historically, he is right that tobacco is the first great product of America since the establishment of Jamestown. But not cigarettes - they are a 19th century innovation that only took off during WWI. You could argue that cigarettes as an inhaled form of smoke is rather like the crack version of tobacco. Historically, Indians puffed on a rough product that could not be inhaled or even taken with the portable regularity of cigarettes. In other words, Obama could still form a relationship with tobacco that does not carry the dread of lung cancer. Yes, that would be smokeless tobacco – what was once known as chew. But today, they come in a convenient pouch, endless colors, flavors and working class subtexts.

Nevertheless, he would be the better candidate if he could account for his smoking habit and reach out to voters by talking about why he got into it and what it took to get on the road to quitting.

The greater part of smoking is what it means to the smoker and why. If he could address that – and all the pieces he needs to understand this are in Cigarette Seduction – then voters would get to know who he really is as a person.

What’s in a Cigarette Brand?

2008-06-18T18:33:00.000-07:00

David Sedaris in the New Yorker and Russ Smith in NY Press have begun a
conversation about the meaning of cigarette brands and the people who
smoke them.

Obviously, the brands say a lot about the smoker. Why wouldn’t they?
People are putting their lives on the line for them, so they ought to
stand for something important.

So how do you come up with an accurate meaning system other than
plucking stuff out of thin air? Can Sidaris really tell that Salems are
for alcoholics, is Smith right that you can trust a Marlboro smoker?

As the author of Cigarette Seduction, a book that delves into the
meaning of smoking as gleaned from the researchers who worked for the
tobacco companies, I can add some clarity.

The tobacco companies are not exactly oblivious to the deeper
significance of their brands. In fact, they began in 1922 by hiring
Freud’s first U.S. disciple, A.A. Brill to put Luckies on the couch to
figure out why women would smoke them. (“Torch of freedom,” he noted
plus it was important in an ad just who lit whose smoke.)

By the 50’s, Marloboro’s creators even published books about the
psychological testing behind the package. So most brands have a
carefully calculated meaning that is shaped by its marketing campaigns
and the user response – there is a kind of never-ending dialog going on
there.

The bottom line is that, if I didn’t know who Sidaris was but just
happened to see him smoke, I certainly would be forewarned by his
choice of Kool Milds that he was not your regular guy. Likewise, Russ
Smith, New York Press’ Mugger, is not entirely wrong in saying that he
would trust a Marlboro smoker.

Why?

Kool menthols are an odd choice for a sophisticated white male since
they are mostly popular with macho African Americans, some blue collar
whites and hip-hop wannabes. But since Sidaris chose milds, he was not
trying to keep up with the prevailing African-American machismo of the
brand. Instead, he was trying to set himself apart from standard white
male brands.

Since Kool was once the choice of blue collar white males who
considered menthols an amelioration of excessive smoking, the chances
are his family had blue collar roots. Today, menthols in general, are a
sign of pleasure-seeking or detachment. His choice of macho menthols
over say, the more feminine Salem (witchy force) or the more neutral
Newport (upward mobility) reflects his roots, his special creative
drive and sexual orientation. The brand also warns you about his
diabolic skewering of those close to him.

As for Marlboro, and Smith’s willingness to trust those smokers –
there’s an element of truth in that. Marlboro was designed to look like
a medal, so anyone who smokes it, tends to view it as some kind of
badge of honor. It is often ironic, but they do at least have a bit of
a command-and-serve instinct.

How do we know Marlboro was intended as a medal? That’s because, in the
50’s, researchers spent hundreds of thousands running tests with a
flashing projector at close to subliminal speeds to determine what
image, if any, should occupy the center of the pack. Hands down, he
crest won. If you take a closer look at the crest you’ll even see the
little inscription in Latin: Veni. Vidi. Vici. That was Julius Caesar’s
famous victory statement.

The best part is they were so proud of all this psychic probing that
researchers like Louis Cheskin even published books about this -
including pictures of him and George Weissman, the Philip Morris
executive in charge, on the back cover of “How To Predict What People
Will Buy” having a smoke while looking over color research.

Needless to say, very few Marlboro smokers are alike. But they share
some traits. You can narrow down the meaning of those traits once you
get to know their full smoking history. What, if anything did their
parents smoke? What brand did they kick of with (usually the parents’)
and what brand did they bond with? That differential alone tells you a
great deal about their entry into adult life.

Smith’s story is a good example. He copies his hip redheaded brother by
smoking Kools but begins a search for a more appropriate brand as he
cycles through other menthol choices (Newport, Alpine) until he finds
his center with non-menthol Merits. This is the brand of the
intellectual wannabe. An overachiever would love this brand, but so
would his opposite. Why? Because of the name and the strange upwardly
stepping chart-like graphic on the pack. If Sidaris sees this as the
brand of the sex addict, he has no basis except to say that if you
smoke this brand and like sex a lot, you could be an overachiever.

How Come School Shooters Don’t Seem to Smoke?

2008-02-18T06:01:00.000-08:00

How Come School Shooters Don’t Seem to Smoke?

[We revisit this chillingly cogent argument - should cigarettes be considered a form of self-medication? Or, since cigarettes are addictive and consumed like clockwork whereas most shooters are set off because they quit their antidepressants - should not the two should be combined?]

by Alan Brody

After the horrific shootings, there is always a swarm of agents with alphabet soup windbreakers that rummage through the wreckage. Leading this group is the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is generally there to find casings and match them to the weapons.

It’s hard to imagine how much difference this information will make since we already know who the shooter was and just how legally they got their top of the line weapon technology.

So why aren’t they making good use of their time on the "A" and the "T" - looking for alcohol bottles and discarded cigarette butts? Granted, psychopaths seem to shun alcohol on their highly organized trails of retribution. But what about cigarettes?

Good and bad people - even sober judges - smoke. So how come there never seems to be a trail of smoldering butts? No unfinished Marlboros to mark their High Noon moment? Never a cruel cigarillo to show their contempt for society and its second-hand smoke regulations?

This is not just the Virginia Tech killer, the mad boys of Columbine seemed to be similarly abstemious. Then there is the shooting at Pearl, Miss., Jacksboro, Tenn. - and even the Amish country schoolhouse where I just can’t think of any one of them puffing on a stick, Bogey-like. John Hinckley shot Reagan with nary a puff, ditto for Chapman with John Lennon.

It seems like bad form to talk cigarettes at a time like this, although Virginia Tech’s shooter Cho, did mention Hitler, and Hitler as we know, was a non-smoker. (A vegetarian too, but that is another issue).

Is this to suggest that smoking a pack or two a day might have helped? Maybe - studies like the St. Louis survey and a recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper show that smoking and depression are profoundly linked.

The Secret Service psychologist, Dr. Robert Fein, in his study of stalkers and assassins, called the "Exceptional Case Study,” agrees. He adds there is another connected and recurring issue in the profiles of these diverse killers – with the possible exception of Hitler: that they were all at first suicidal. Once they had accepted their own demise, everything else in their terrible quests seemed to fit in rather nicely.

Now cigarettes, that much maligned flourish of youth, have the reputation, at least as far as former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is concerned, as being little more than a form of slow-motion suicide. Normally, you’d agree - who wants to be suicidal? But now we know what suicidal and depressed people can do once you free them of their bad habits, smoking may not be such a terrible thing after all.

Most reports, including those on the ASH.org website will tell you that 88% or so, of smokers have started by age 18. Except for these fellows, of course. (And it usually is fellows.) Obviously, smoking serves as a much needed form of initiation and these outcasts seem to have missed the boat.

Maybe we should invite them back. There’s something to be said for the idea of troubled people taking their suicide in slow, twenty minute increments rather than letting go in a hail of gunfire. Second-hand smoke may be a small price to pay. Besides, these shooters tend have been prescribed antidepressents but then stop taking their meds. That never happens with smokers – once they’re hooked they keep taking their smokes like clockwork.

So maybe we need to rethink the value of smoking. Of course, this would take some revisionist compromising. But dusting off the old “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Glock” campaign is worth another look. And Lucky Strikes could be a good thing in a world of calculating psychopaths. Kool could have done just that - cooled a killer down. Camel - that could have meant nothing more than a trip to the zoo.

Realistically though, our current cigarette brands aren’t quite suicidal enough. We may have to develop a more compelling, more clinically informed family of brands that communicate the idea: “Why shoot me when you could be smoking one of these bad boys?”

This is not necessarily a call for the resurrection of the tobacco companies. After all, Philip Morris recently left New York in a puff as mounting taxes and regulation seemed to pull the rug under their Park Ave. welcome. So they moved their headquarters back to Richmond, Virginia which didn’t help the situation anyway. Apparently, easy guns trump easy cigarettes.

What we really need are prescription-strength cigarettes that health professionals can custom-design for troubled souls. We could call them Cig-Rx. They could have clinical names like Pufficide DX, or 2 Paxil-a-Day. Or they could go to the heart of the problem with displacement fantasy brands like Death Rays, Anti-Harmony, Bad Deeds, My Punishment and the freshly mentholated, Unhappy Days. These solutions are cheap, generate taxes and nourish our farmlands.

All of this really happening anyway, we just don’t control it properly. Psychcentral.com reports that doctors Cheong, Herkov & Goodman found in the St. Louis study, that depressed smokers use their cigarettes quite successfully as a way to self-medicate. This approach appears to be growing. A September 2003 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (160:1663-1669), shows that smokers today are now more 3 times likely to be depressed than non-smokers. This is a relatively new phenomenon: back when smoking was widely accepted, there was no significant difference in depression rates between smokers and non-smokers.

Twenty five years ago that all began to change. Fewer people were smoking, but those who did were more like likely to be depressed. Note how that coincides with the beginning of this wave of suicidal, depressed, well-armed and non-smoking killers with Chapman in 1980 and Hinckley in 1981. Could it be that the health movement got to the wrong people? If so, could they call off the dogs and let them smoke again. Could the troubled people just blow off their steam again, please. It may not be good for their lungs but it could save my life. If that didn’t work at least their aura of smoke and puffing would serve as an early warning system. If you could at least smell them coming, the head start alone might be worth all the horses in Marlboro Country.

Alan Brody is the author of Cigarette Seduction, www.cigseduction.com

What (and Why) Britney Spears Smokes

2007-12-14T07:38:00.000-08:00

I knew Britney Spears was in trouble when I saw her smoking a Marlboro and holding on to the full-blooded Marlboro red pack. Those aren’t the kind of cigarettes you’d expect to see in the hands of a professional singer-dancer. For one thing, it takes a lot of stamina to keep up with the demands of just one 3 ½ minute dance. Imagine a 90 minute performance – its close to an Olympic performance. So it’s a huge act of defiance on her part to be out there smoking.

The fact that she chose full-blooded Marlboro was a compelling statement that she was morbidly defiant of the regimentation of her life. This is the soldier’s brand and she was saying, I want to go AWOL. And in a lot of ways she did. She may be a kind of latter day Michael Jackson – someone whose childhood was taken from them while they performed, and now they are pining in a sadly dysfunctional way, for their loss.

How Come School Killers Don’t Seem to Smoke?

2007-04-24T10:48:00.000-07:00

by Alan Brody

After the horrific shootings, there is always a swarm of agents with alphabet soup windbreakers that rummage through the wreckage. Leading this group is the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is generally there to find casings and match them to the weapons.

It’s hard to imagine how much difference this information will make since we already know who the shooter was and just how legally they got their top of the line weapon technology.

So why aren’t they making good use of their time on the "A" and the "T" - looking for alcohol bottles and discarded cigarette butts? Granted, psychopaths seem to shun alcohol on their highly organized trails of retribution. But what about cigarettes?

Good and bad people - even sober judges - smoke. So how come there never seems to be a trail of smoldering butts? No unfinished Marlboros to mark their High Noon moment? Never a cruel cigarillo to show their contempt for society and its second-hand smoke regulations?

This is not just the Virginia Tech killer, the mad boys of Columbine seemed to be similarly abstemious. Then there is the shooting at Pearl, Miss., Jacksboro, Tenn. - and even the Amish country schoolhouse where I just can’t think of any one of them puffing on a stick, Bogey-like. John Hinckley shot Reagan with nary a puff, ditto for Chapman with John Lennon.

It seems like bad form to talk cigarettes at a time like this, although Virginia Tech’s shooter Cho, did mention Hitler, and Hitler as we know, was a non-smoker. (A vegetarian too, but that is another issue).

Is this to suggest that smoking a pack or two a day might have helped? Maybe - studies like the St. Louis survey and a recent American Journal of Psychiatry paper show that smoking and depression are profoundly linked.

The Secret Service psychologist, Dr. Robert Fein, in his study of stalkers and assassins, called the "Exceptional Case Study,” agrees. He adds there is another connected and recurring issue in the profiles of these diverse killers – with the possible exception of Hitler: that they were all at first suicidal. Once they had accepted their own demise, everything else in their terrible quests seemed to fit in rather nicely.

Now cigarettes, that much maligned flourish of youth, have the reputation, at least as far as former secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano, Jr. is concerned, as being little more than a form of slow-motion suicide. Normally, you’d agree - who wants to be suicidal? But now we know what suicidal and depressed people can do once you free them of their bad habits, smoking may not be such a terrible thing after all.

Most reports, including those on the ASH.org website will tell you that 88% or so, of smokers have started by age 18. Except for these fellows, of course. (And it usually is fellows.) Obviously, smoking serves as a much needed form of initiation and these outcasts seem to have missed the boat.

Maybe we should invite them back. There’s something to be said for the idea of troubled people taking their suicide in slow, twenty minute increments rather than letting go in a hail of gunfire. Second-hand smoke may be a small price to pay. Besides, these shooters tend have been prescribed antidepressents but then stop taking their meds. That never happens with smokers – once they’re hooked they keep taking their smokes like clockwork.

So maybe we need to rethink the value of smoking. Of course, this would take some revisionist compromising. But dusting off the old “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Glock” campaign is worth another look. And Lucky Strikes could be a good thing in a world of calculating psychopaths. Kool could have done just that - cooled a killer down. Camel - that could have meant nothing more than a trip to the zoo.

Realistically though, our current cigarette brands aren’t quite suicidal enough. We may have to develop a more compelling, more clinically informed family of brands that communicate the idea: “Why shoot me when you could be smoking one of these bad boys?”

This is not necessarily a call for the resurrection of the tobacco companies. After all, Philip Morris recently left New York in a puff as mounting taxes and regulation seemed to pull the rug under their Park Ave. welcome. So they moved their headquarters back to Richmond, Virginia which didn’t help the situation anyway. Apparently, easy guns trump easy cigarettes.

What we really need are prescription-strength cigarettes that health professionals can custom-design for troubled souls. We could call them Cig-Rx. They could have clinical names like Pufficide DX, or 2 Paxil-a-Day. Or they could go to the heart of the problem with displacement fantasy brands like Death Rays, Anti-Harmony, Bad Deeds, My Punishment and the freshly mentholated, Unhappy Days. These solutions are cheap, generate taxes and nourish our farmlands.

All of this really happening anyway, we just don’t control it properly. Psychcentral.com reports that doctors Cheong, Herkov & Goodman found in the St. Louis study, that depressed smokers use their cigarettes quite successfully as a way to self-medicate. This approach appears to be growing. A September 2003 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry (160:1663-1669), shows that smokers today are now more 3 times likely to be depressed than non-smokers. This is a relatively new phenomenon: back when smoking was widely accepted, there was no significant difference in depression rates between smokers and non-smokers.

Twenty five years ago that all began to change. Fewer people were smoking, but those who did were more like likely to be depressed. Note how that coincides with the beginning of this wave of suicidal, depressed, well-armed and non-smoking killers with Chapman in 1980 and Hinckley in 1981. Could it be that the health movement got to the wrong people? If so, could they call off the dogs and let them smoke again. Could the troubled people just blow off their steam again, please. It may not be good for their lungs but it could save my life. If that didn’t work at least their aura of smoke and puffing would serve as an early warning system. If you could at least smell them coming, the head start alone might be worth all the horses in Marlboro Country.

Alan Brody is the author of Cigarette Seduction, www.cigseduction.com

How the Brain, Not Addiction Controls Your Smoking

2007-03-11T23:49:00.000-07:00

The Mysterious Insula: The Tobacco Industry Always Knew There Was more to
Smoking

When I wrote my book, Cigarette Seduction, on how leading tobacco companies had developed their brands, most publishers and other assorted experts responded along the lines of: "Cigarettes aren't that meaningful" and
"tobacco guys aren't that smart.

But the recent news about the insula, a mysterious part of the brain that controls the smoking practice and other mind-body relationships should warrant a second look. When the insula is disabled, as in the case of a brain damaged smoker, people are reported to lose their desire for smoking as well as sex and some other drives.

Apparently, the tobacco guys knew more than we realized: that smoking runs deep and the brands have a kind of mythological value, something akin to the religious possession you find in trance practices common in ancient religions. In fact, the smart players in the tobacco industry have long been influenced by deeply psychological researchers. When A.A. Brill translated Freud¹s works into English and become his disciple in the 1910¹s, it didn't take long for Lucky Strike to hire him in the 1920's. (It took a little arm twisting from their PR guy, E.L. Bernays, coincidentally Freud¹s nephew, but when he analyzed cigarettes as being perceived by emancipated women as a torch of freedom, they paid attention. Still do.)

When Dr. Alton Ochsner first noted a correlation between smoking and cancer in the 1940's, another headshrinker, Ernest Dichter, a psychoanalytically-trained psychologist appeared. He told tobacco execs that smoking was a psychological and not a health product. So stop saying things like, "not a cough in a carload" or "more doctors smoke Camel" and soon went about doing depth research into their brands, largely focusing on the mindset of the teen starter.

When Malrboro was launched, the company boasted of spending $200,000 in psychological research. They used Louis Cheskin to run near-subliminal testing of the packaging concepts. Cheskin, whose shape and color consultancy survives him today, was so proud of the work he did, he wrote a book called "How to Predict What People Will Buy." The back cover features him and the later chairman of Philip Morris, George Weissman, smoking a couple of cigarettes.

The color of the filters, typically "cork"-colored for men and plain white for women, their length and even the firmness or softness of their packaging tells a story about the smoker. Some cultures favor a fighting archetype, so the in the US 70% of white males initiate with Marlboro and have been for around 40 years (Cheskin¹s research identified a medal-like image as being key to its success). Other cultures like Japan and China go with Peace and Prosperity brands often focusing on some type of implied Ch'i quotient. In the UK class and yearning for the lost empire are themes and so on.

Most important though, are two things: starting as teen is not just foolishness, it is actually a modern form of tribal initiation and has a profound effect on their adult lives. Sadly, there are few safe alternatives and quitting often requires an understanding of the process.

The other point, which has non-smokers endlessly clucking, is why do otherwise rational people, who know so much about the mortal dangers, keep on smoking. Especially when nicotine leaves the body in about 3 days and there is any number of pills, patches and support groups to help them along.

The answer, and the mysterious insula seems to support this, is that to them, the magic of smoking seems more powerful than its potential to do physical harm.

Smoking and the Da Vinci Code

2007-03-11T23:45:00.000-07:00

CIGARETTES AND RELIGION: Some Interesting Parallels Between Da Vinci Code, the Adoption of Christianity and Smoking

What does Inner Quitting/Cigarette Seduction have in common with the Religious blockbuster, the Da Vinci Code? At the coreŠŠa lot more than you'd think.

Both books are about decoding an old mystery. The Da Vinci Code¹s intention is to help understand the real story of Christianity so that you might think you are in control of your belief system. Ours is to help you understand the real story of smoking so that you can take control of your habit and hopefully quit.

At a deeper level it gets more interesting. While both books use an amalgam of fact and deduction to get to the mysteries of belief, the Da Vinci Code is mostly nonsense. Yet, over 17 million people have been willing to ignore historical scholarship because it reflects a message they WANT to believe.

Likewise, we will show there is a similarity to the adoption of religion and smoking with its selection of brands. When people want to believe something, because of personal benefit, the truth is usually ignored.

In Da Vinci Code, the claims made about Jesus¹ life that are simply not supported by any historical fact Š..scholars, like the eminent Professor Bart Ehrman will tell you there are only 4 actual references to Jesus Christ in his lifetime. All are matter-of-fact citations that a certain religious man existed who had some kind of following and absolutely none of them come close to supporting the key assertions of the Da Vinci Code.

The truth about tobacco is just as distorted. People have known about their addictiveness since they were discovered in the 16th Century. We have suspected they dangerous and known about cancer for over 50 years (we can even show cancer references that are 140 years old). But generations of smokers have ignored this for reasons they find more personally meaningful.

In some ways it relates to the adoption of religion and of early Christianity in particular, and its similarity to the adoption of cigarette brands in the way they fulfilled the latent and overt needs of their prospects.

With Da Vinci Code, the issue is simply that due to sexual and other scandals people have developed a mistrust of the Catholic Church. In a world where women have experienced more power and freedom it is inevitable they want to see not only reflected in religion, but that it is part of its origins. Da Vinci Code addresses this by arguing that Christianity was really a feminine religion which was suppressed by Nicean Conference in the 4th Century. But this just isn¹t true, just as his claims about Jesus not being a single rabbi (there is no evidence that he was consecrated while the Essenes were an example of a community of unmarried rabbis at the time). He
also ascribes to Gnosticism, and for that matter paganism, a feminine meaning which just wasn't there....However, most book buyers are women and so the story fills a need.

But what about cigarettes and Christianity?

Let's keep in mind that people smoke in full knowledge of their dangers. It happens to be part of the attraction. We have researcher's reports on this since the 1950s and there are plenty of anecdotal references to make this issue clear. Naturally, you don't hear of these when the issue shows up in courts but that is because neither side wants to dwell on the point not the tobacco companies for exploiting self-destruction nor smokers from seeking it out. It is the truth we conveniently overlook.

In Christianity, the truth we conveniently overlook is that the early Church was founded by Paul who never met Jesus and avoided meeting the surviving apostles. That means he never actually knew what Jesus had said since the gospels had not yet been written. Nevertheless, he is responsible for some of the first books of the New Testament, Act and Epistles which precede the gospels. This is an important point because the gospels define the teaching of Christianity and the most influential gospel, John's was written approximately 70's after Christ's demise and long after Paul had established the early religion.

So what was Paul conveying that was arguably more powerful than Christ's actual teachings since it preceded their adoptionŠ.and why would it relate to smoking?

It was the death and resurrection of Christ. Paul the zealot had a vision on the road to Damascus that told him that the world was coming to end and that salvation would come by the act of accepting the death and resurrection story of Christ and submitting to the power of God. Although he was well versed in the old Bible, he believed that knowledge and rules wouldn't help...only the submission to this greater being. In other words, the acceptance of sacrifice as a means to redemption is what started the religion of Christianity. The actual teaching came much later with the
writing down of the gospels and the other books of the New Testament canon. And by the way, the world hasn't come to an end yet...but you never know!

Cigarettes too, are an act of sacrifice and submission. If people have been smoking for all these years in full or even partial knowledge that they are damaging and addictive, what is the benefit? The answer, of course, is in the brands. Even the absence of brands or cheapie pseudo-brands can be understood as derivatives of the initiating brands (few people start with non-brands).

The key difference between religion and smoking is that, cigarettes submit you through addiction to a contemporary image drawn from the culture of the marketplace. In religion, you are submitting yourself to the ultimate force, God. But in many respects these are only differences in degree.

What Inner Quitting/Cigarette Seduction, Da Vinci Code and Religion itself have in common is that we accept the principle of sacrifice for gain. Da Vinci Code may ask us to suspend rational discourse in return for a more agreeable view of the Christianity. Cigarettes may represent easy sacrifice for easy gain and the gain may be far more ephemeral than eternal life, but the principle is the same. We don't mean to pick on Christianity, smokers belong to all religions and in all cases there is a parallel between their brands and their nation's blend of religion and culture. So if you are a smoker looking to quit, or just interested in the phenomenon, take the
journey with us as we peel back the story and introduce you to the inner
story and the way to quit...for good.

Firing Smokers

2007-03-11T23:18:00.000-07:00

Firing Smokers for Health is Just a Smokescreen The Real Issue is Productivity

By Alan Brody

Now that Scott's Miracle-Go Co. has become the second highly visible company
after Weyco. Inc. to terminate workers who smoke, it might be a good time to
tell the truth about smoking in the workplace.

It just isn't an issue of health; it is an issue of time and disruption.

Committed smokers need to refuel their nicotine receptors about every 20
minutes. That means 3 times an hour they have to leave their desks, hike
down to the back door have a smoke, wave off the odor and head back to the
office.

They could be losing as much as 15 minutes an hour!

Then, there is the whole cat and mouse, deception game. Smokers are fully
aware of their needs and while they know their bosses accept their
occasional smoke break, they don¹t want them to realize just how many they
need. So the game begins: every bathroom break is also a smoke break. No
matter how cold, men never put on coats for the smoke because that would be
a giveaway. Women have learned to love cardigans that can just about keep
them warm outside while staying on at the desk.

And all off them puff a little deeper to help warm their bodies.

So what does this have to do with healthŠŠat least from the company¹s point
of view?

Not that much.

After all, if smokers get sicker or take more sick days than non-smokers,
then any number of health planners can figure that out and charge smokers a
higher premium, or co-pay. If I remember correctly, insurance companies
figured that out a long time ago. I¹ll bet there are a few retired actuaries
kicking around who¹ll be glad to calculate those rates. (Don¹t forget to
give them a break on the pensions, though. They won¹t be around as long to
enjoy Œem!)

The point is that companies are tying to shore up productivity and close the
door on subtly disruptive behavior and they don¹t have the honesty to say
so. So they roll out the ³eat your peas² argument. ³We¹re only doing what¹s
good for you!² And who can argue with that?

Well, I can.

First off, do-gooders, especially in the form of authorities, are never to
be trusted.

Let¹s look at the mother of all feel good tobacco fights, the great
attorneys-general settlement of the 90¹s with the tobacco companies that
generates about $25 billion a year in state taxes. At best, 5% has gone
towards anything remotely concerned with cigarette health issues. The rest
has gone into notorious pork-barrel projects and balancing fiscally
imprudent State¹s budgets.

The smokers, mostly blue collar and young, have footed the bill, of course.
And very little of the smoking phenomenon has entered the realm of honest
conversation.

So let¹s take a moment to consider the reality.

Firstly, no company with an aggressive sales team would do what Scott¹s is
doing because they lose a good percentage of their best performers. But, if
they were honest about it they would understand what smoking is and how to
deal with it. For the most part it is a kind of psychic medication and when
you take it away you need to consider what will replace it. In some cases,
simply encouraging workers to use a nicotine substitute during work hours is
a reasonable choice.

In other cases, you will find that smoking is self medication for long term
depression (one of the reasons that anti-depressants are among the most
effective smoke cessation tools.)

There is a reason that some of the world¹s biggest bastards were non-smokers
(we¹ll take Hitler and Dylan Kleibold, the Columbine killer, as our examples
here, with Hitler¹s veganism being an added bonus). They just weren¹t
medicating themselves. Likewise, some of our most productive leaders were
chain-smokers: people like Roosevelt, Chairman Mao, Golda Meier and
Coca-Cola¹s Goizuetta. Even Humphrey Bogart and Edwin Murrow are famous
examples.

Smoking was always quasi-mystical practice and when the big tobacco
companies discovered that, beginning say, in 1922 when Freud¹s people were
first called in, they and big government spent about 75 years feeding and
supporting that habit. They have to do a lot more than sit by idly while a
couple of two-bit corporate do-gooders try to blow it away with a corporate
memo.

Besides, once the argument is understood it is only a matter of when the
next class of undesirables will be on their way out: how long before
overeaters, loud-talkers, bad body odors, nose pickers and other miscreants
will be off the pay-roll and looking at eBay as a way to make a living?

Companies have a right to expect full participation from their workers. But
workers have a right to be themselves and there ought to be a law that says,
as long as they perform at work like everyone else you can¹t ask about their
smoking, their drinking or their sex lives.

That means smokers have to figure out how to behave like everyone else for 8
hours a days and bosses can stop acting like the saints they are not.

Or as the sign should say: Thank you for not smoking...or preaching.