Junk Science And The Addiction Myth — It’s All About Control
Are flying saucers and extraterrestrials real? Do they really exist, and are they visiting this planet? I’m not going to argue that point but just point out that even if they are real, even if there really are visitors from another planet, do you really think the government is going to let anyone in on the secret? Of course not. Because then they would no longer be the highest voice of authority; people might start second guessing them: people might start questioning things and getting ideas on their own, and that could lead to the re-awakening of critical thinking, something they’ve worked very hard at to repress.
When the planes hit the twin towers on 9-11, a voice came over the PA system telling people to go back to their desks and wait for help to arrive; those who did so didn’t make it. When word of this got out, did they express concern over the number of people their instructions may have killed? No. What they were concerned about was that no one might follow their instructions in the future, that no one would believe the voice of authority, the word coming down from on high: they had been proven fallible — in spades. That was their concern: they (the unholy alliance of Big Government and Big Business, i.e., the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Big Agra, et al: the Corporatocracy) are all about control.
In 1964 the Surgeon General’s Report listed smoking as a habit. The Surgeon General’s Report of 1988 listed nicotine as addictive as heroin and cocaine although cocaine had always historically been considered a habit, not an addiction because there are no physical withdrawal symptoms as there are with heroin, that is, a cocaine user can just stop, and many have done just that.
By reclassifying tobacco as an addictive substance we had entered a new age where habits or compulsive behavior; anything someone liked to do and did repeatedly and often was now an addiction. If alcohol is an addictive substance, then why is it that everyone who drinks, even on a regular basis, doesn’t become an alcoholic? If gambling, which isn’t even a substance but an activity, is addictive, then why is it that everyone who goes to a casino doesn’t become an addict. Could it be that these are not real addictions but just habits, compulsions, and obsessions; and that the word addiction is nothing more than Orwell’s Newspeak for what used to be called habits. While these and certain other strong habits, or compulsions, such as being “addicted” to watching football, may cause a person to behave like and addict, it would be better to call such behaviors addictive behaviors, i.e., habits because they are certainly not addictions in the classic sense. So why the shift, the shift from habit to addiction and, in some cases, even a disease? The better to control public opinion? The better to shape consensus? The better to create political correctness? The better to dictate what is moral and impose control? The better to sell you a pharmaceutical solution? It seems that even healthful eating is now a disease.
Back when smoking was just a habit, millions of people did quit. Was it easy? No, breaking the smoking habit was never easy when you just quit cold turkey without understanding how your habit works, what it’s doing for you, and how it can be replaced with other habits that are as simple as structured breathing combined with certain physical movements or physically making a connection with yourself. But now that smoking is considered an addiction, many smokers won’t even bother trying to quit: just too hard, and besides they like to smoke. Thanks, Mr. Surgeon General because while you may have talked some people into not taking up the habit, you’ve talked even more into totally giving up on the idea that they can ever quit.
The Report From Iron Mountain — The Environmental Movement Towards Central Control
How did smoking go from being a habit to being an addiction? It changed in much the same way that America’s War Department became the Department of Defense, and now makes unprovoked attacks on nations all around the world. Now that the War Department is called the Department of Defense, the country is currently engaged in more wars than ever — 74−134 wars, depending on the source and the criteria for defining what military actions and incursions qualify as war. See here and here. Such is the business of defense. And who’s running those wars by executive orders and in some cases just executive memos? None other than our Nobel Peace Prize winning president.
But the Corporatocray needed more than wars to control the populace. After all, people resist war — how many of those 74−134 wars are you aware of? The problem was how do you get people to make the sacrifices that they would and support the government the way that they would during a time of war but without going to war. The 1966, think-tank produced Report from Iron Mountain provided the solution: environmental protection, i.e., get people to believe that pollution is destroying the world and will end life as we know it on this planet — the end of the world; and what was to become the new hypothesis, dubbed theory, now religion of Gaia. And while Gaia may be a new religion, it’s just the old earth goddess paganism dressed in new clothes.
What started out as a war against pollution, best symbolized by The Crying Indian, Keep America Beautiful commercial that first aired on Earth Day, 1971, has moved forward as an attempt to create a New World Order. The commercial begins with an Indian paddling his canoe through trash infested waters and ends with him standing on a roadside where passers-by throw a pile of trash at his feet — he sheds a tear for what once was as he turns his face towards the camera. As with most things Madison Avenue, appearances trump reality. It must have been an inside joke that that actor who played the Indian was a second-generation Italian-American, Espera DeCorti, and that the tear that was shed was glycerin, applied in a magic of cinema, cut-to shot — all fake. So began the march towards One World Government with environmentalism as the main weapon. It began as a war against air and water pollution because who can be opposed to that, who wouldn’t want to drink clean water and breathe fresh air. Then it quickly escalated to a war on smokers under the guise of the dangers of second hand smoke, and has now advanced to a state where carbon dioxide, the gas that plants breathe and we exhale in a symbiotic relationship, a gas so essential to life that without it all life would end, has come to be called a pollutant and is now referred to as carbon, a black, sooty, filthy substance — think charcoal. So began political correctness. So began the war on smoking with cigarette ads removed from television in 1970. And so began the bogus science of second hand smoke.
Blinded by Science and the Faux reality it has created
The 1982 song She Blinded Me With Science by Thomas Dolby might make the perfect anthem for the world we find ourselves living in today. Today, more than ever, science is junk science, whipped up for whomever is willing to pay for it; it is a tool for obfuscation and social control.
• The Faux Science of Keynesian Economics
Perhaps one of the best examples of this is Keynesian economics, something made intentionally obtuse and loved by academics for that very fact — because you can’t understand it, you’ll just have to take their word for it. But Henry Hazlitt does understand it and thoroughly debunks it in his book The Failure of the New Economics,* which is also available as a free pdf or epub download at mises.org.
Keynesian economics was created for governments to rob by stealth the life savings of its citizens. Keynes is most famous for his quote: “By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”
Let’s take a quick look at some brief excerpts from pdf pages 60−64, book pages 44−48, of Chapter IV of Hazlitt’s Failure Of The “New Economics” as a small example of how Keynes has blinded the entire world with science to the detriment of everyone but the government, the banking cartels, and the elite:*
“The whole of the General Theory might be described as an exercise in obfuscation, and the obfuscation begins at an early point. L. Albert Hahn has compared the reading of Keynes to watching “a sort of trick film. Everything happens in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what [the non-Keynesian] is used to.” The comparison is apt. Keynes is constantly reversing cause and effect, putting the cart before the horse.
* * *
His mathematical equations implicitly take for granted that entrepreneurs think in this way and decide the amount of employment they will provide. His equations also often seem to imply that all entrepreneurs are organized as a monopoly. This way of thinking and of stating the case, in fact, seems to be essential to his theory. And Keynes launches early upon a great deal of quite unnecessary and merely confusing algebra, which he makes still more confusing by the use of symbols which have no simple and natural connection with the thing they symbolize. In fact, it may be doubted whether this algebra is either appropriate or valid as applied to the loose abstractions with which Keynes deals.
* * *
And that is what the economic systems of the world are based on today, money as debt created out of thin air. If the debt disappears, then the money disappears. But it doesn’t have to be that way: there’s no reason that the US dollar has to be issued as an IOU to the Banking Cartel. Don’t believe it? Then you should read G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
• Fabrications Of The EPA
But the EPA goes beyond junk science: they don’t even bother faking it, they just make stuff up, i.e., create make-believe data out of thin air as shown in this excerpt from the following article from Mises Daily. And why shouldn’t they: after all, they’re the EPA:
“… The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments instructed the EPA to study whether mercury exposure posed a health hazard that would make restricting it “appropriate and necessary.” Justification therefore first required demonstrating harm from mercury.
That proved impossible to do honestly. CDC surveys showed blood mercury levels for American women and children falling and already below the levels found safe by the EPA, FDA, and WHO. The EPA even rejected a high mercury exposure study simply because it found “no observable health effects.” So they cheated.
The EPA instead constructed a model of hypothetical women that “consume extreme quantities (99th percentile) of the most contaminated fish from the most contaminated bodies of water,” according to one amicus brief. It then added on a 50 percent “cooking adjustment factor.” It then estimated “the potential effect of this exposure on their hypothetical children’s neurological development in utero.” …”
And that’s just one of many examples of the EPA at work.
• Global Warming — Trojan Horse Of The New World Order
Then there’s global warming — oh, excuse me, climate change because everyone has noticed it’s been getting colder, not warmer — the junk science scam designed to bring about One World Government and create a new derivatives market and create subsidies for businesses (green energy, electric cars) that couldn’t make it on their own. This money comes out of your pocket either through direct taxation, the hidden taxation of inflation as manufactured by the Fed, costs added to products and services by means of carbon credits, replacement of efficient energy production with costly inefficient technologies, and restrictions on economic growth.
The following excerpt from The Telegraph is a particularly egregious example of faking data:
“… [D]ata has then been subjected to continual “adjustments”, invariably in only one direction. Earlier temperatures are adjusted downwards, more recent temperatures upwards, thus giving the impression that they have risen much more sharply than was shown by the original data.
An early glaring instance of this was spotted by Steve McIntyre, the statistician who exposed the computer trickery behind that famous “hockey stick” graph, beloved by the IPCC, which purported to show that, contrary to previous evidence, 1998 had been the hottest year for 1,000 years. It was McIntyre who, in 2007, uncovered the wholesale retrospective adjustments made to US surface records between 1920 and 1999 compiled by Giss (then run by the outspoken climate activist James Hansen). These reversed an overall cooling trend into an 80-year upward trend. Even Hansen had previously accepted that the “dust bowl” 1930s was the hottest US decade of the entire 20th century.
Assiduous researchers have since unearthed countless similar examples across the world, from the US and Russia to Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, an 80-year cooling of 1 degree per century was turned into a warming trend of 2.3 degrees. In New Zealand, there was a major academic row when “unadjusted” data showing no trend between 1850 and 1998 was shown to have been “adjusted” to give a warming trend of 0.9 degrees per century. This falsified new version was naturally cited in an IPCC report. …”
And let’s not forget the beloved polar bear, the faux victim of global warming. Coca-Cola, who boasts on its own website of having raised over $2 million to save the beleaguered bear, also includes the bears in its TV commercials. Ironic, isn’t it that every time you open a can or bottle of Coke all of those little fizzing bubbles rising to the top are nothing other than the “evil” carbon dioxide. But why let facts get in the way of that feel good feeling. Especially when you’re on a roll. But do the polar bears even need to be saved? Watts Up With That? provides us with the answer.
“Polar bear populations may in fact be larger than they were decades ago.
“Even if the data from the 50’s is a “guess” it doesn’t take much brainpower to realize that if they are now protected, and hunted less, the population will increase. There’s precedence stories like this for many rebounding animal populations that are now protected.”
In fact, there appears to be “no impact” on polar bears at all, according to this testimony before congress …”
So, how is it that the warmer the planet gets, the colder the weather gets? Who could solve such a conundrum? What do the scientists say? Well, Rutgers University’s Jennifer Francis and University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Stephen Vavrus claim that global warming is causing loops in the jet stream, bringing down polar air. It’s important to keep in mind, however, that it wasn’t until the 1930s that the jet stream was first theorized, and not until the mid 1940s that its effects began to become apparent when the differences in flight times and fuel consumption of high altitude bombers became a concern of the US Air Force.
Some say that the jet stream started looping 4000 years ago according to rainfall measurements — I guess from measuring tree rings — but how do you the know jet stream was the cause of the measured prehistoric rainfall. And, really? It never looped before that?
So there you have it. The reason it’s getting colder is because it’s getting warmer. On the other hand, as the Cato Institute points out:
“No mention will be made to the fact that other research, which is many cases is more robust and detailed, has concluded nearly the opposite. As with most issues related to climate science, the truth is significantly more complex than what is in the media.”
Perhaps one of the best examples of junk science insanity, though, is that global warming — excuse me, climate change — causes volcanoes, or so asserts Time Magazine’s Jeffrey Kluger in referring to melting glaciers in Iceland being the cause of recently active volcanoes in the following from Lew Rockwell:
“As the glaciers melt, the pressure on the underlying rocks decreases,” Compton said in an e-mail to TIME. “Rocks at very high temperatures may stay in their solid phase if the pressure is high enough. As you reduce the pressure, you effectively lower the melting temperature.” The result is a softer, more molten subsurface, which increases the amount of eruptive material lying around and makes it easier for more deeply buried magma chambers to escape their confinement and blow the whole mess through the surface. …”
What Kluger fails to mention is that Iceland sits atop the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, a vast volcanic crack in the earth where the North American plate and Eurasian plate emerge out of the depths of the planet and push away from each other at a rate of about 2 cm, or a little less than an inch, per year. In addition, Iceland sits atop a hot spot, much like that of the Hawaiian Islands and the Yellowstone super volcano. So, the island that is Iceland is essentially one big volcano and almost all of its glaciers sit atop volcanic peaks — volcanoes that have recently increased in activity. To say that Kluger is putting the cart before the horse is putting it mildly.
One of the largest lava flows in recorded history occurred in Iceland in 1783: long before there was such a thing as what is known as anthropomorphic global warming.
• Science As Religion
Disagreeing with those who believe in global warming, or the now preferred climate change, because, hey, the weather is always changing, is the new heresy, the new blasphemy with believers even wanting deniers to be arrested and thrown in jail. See here and here. What’s next? Cut out their tongues? But what do you expect from a new pagan religion. Will the gods be demanding human sacrifice? Yes they will in the form of carbon taxes and a whole new derivatives market backed against loss by you the taxpayer. But whatever the weather, you can be sure that climate change is to blame. So shut up and pay up.
The Junk Science of Second Hand Smoke
People’s strong distaste for the smell of cigarette smoke is learned behavior that didn’t exist before the 1970s, and then slowly crept up on us. Everyone used to smoke at work and no one thought anything of it: it was all quite normal. The antismoking movement was the first exercise in political correctness and group-think, and bringing about policy through mass brainwashing, through planting thoughts in the public’s mind. And it was the beginning of the shift to the country we now find ourselves living in where busy bodies call the police on their neighbors who are consequently arrested for allowing their children to play without adult supervision in their own front yards or other such “crimes.”
Now we have people that find all sorts of slight odors offensive — people that flip out because someone used an aerosol deodorant instead of a roll-on. Then there are people who love Ivory soap because it’s unscented even though you can smell it (the odor of unscented soap) a mile away, yet they hate mildly scented Irish Spring because it’s scented, even though the scent is not noticeable. People have been programmed as to what’s good and what’s bad and accept group-think without further consideration, as if they were part of some huge collective or of one mind. We live in an age of the easily offended; some have even made a profession of it. So, get ready: the war on barbeques has just begun.
Mises Daily offers us the following example of an EPA that is very clearly out of control:
“One of the important arguments for restricting smoking is that it can endanger innocent nonsmokers who inhale environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Indeed, many states (led by California and Florida) have decided over the last few years to severely restrict smoking in commercial establishments on the basis of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that classified ETS as a “Group A Carcinogen,” that is, as a significant risk to health.
It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion.
Are those the views of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly. They are the sober conclusions of a gutsy federal district court judge in North Carolina named William Osteen, whose recent ruling invalidated the very foundation of the EPA report. …”
But wait, there’s more. From NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying against Smoker Harassment):
“The EPA’s 1993 report has not only been the basis for most of the contentions about secondhand smoke, but also the basis for most of the legislation that’s crept across the land.
Virtually all subsequent “studies” have been based on, or incorporated, the findings, the premises and the statistics from that report.
The “body-count” (3000 a year from lung cancer) is a computer-generated estimate (there are no bodies) based on the statistical conclusions of that report. The computer was fed with controversial (see Whelan “QUICK AND DIRTY”) stats and had to work with what it was given. This is elsewhere known as GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). …”
Antismoking laws have nothing to do with anything other than getting the public to submit to arbitrary, makes-no-sense legislation as Forbes points out in the following:
“A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.
* * *
“The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm,” said Dr. Jyoti Patel of Northwestern University School of Medicine. …”
And from the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society, again from the NYC C.L.A.S.H. site:
“The Wall Street Journal covered the release of the WHO report thus: (3/19/98)
“For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that secondhand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking.
But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don’t bet that will change the crusaders’ minds. The antismoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.
It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke.”
* * *
A new (2003) study with an impeccable provenance — the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1) — shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.
Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only — and absolutely — showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population. …”
So, there you have it: laws based on a science of lies. Of course, just about everyone who DOESN’T smoke drives a car, and auto exhaust is much deadlier than cigarette smoke. Spend a night in a smoke filled bar — oh, wait, those don’t exist anymore; and when they did they had smoke eaters mounted on the ceiling anyway —and you’ll walk out smelling like cigarettes, at least for a while, but spend five to fifteen minutes in a sealed garage with a running car, and you’re not coming out alive. Do you think these antismokers will give up driving to save your health? What are you, out of your mind?
Of course, they would suggest electric cars, something that wouldn’t even exist without taxpayer subsidies — that’s right, you’re paying for some rich guys Tesla. And how many antismokers are driving one? I’ll bet not many because, guess what, nobody wants them: they are impractical. And chances are that those planet-saving electric cars are leaving a larger carbon footprint than the conventional gas powered car that you are driving, according to this from the Wall Street Journal:
“If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven — three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.”
Of course, electric cars could be charged by solar panels unless it’s cloudy for weeks at a time. Germany tried a massive solar program and it has failed by every measure. Taxpayer giveaways do, however, make nice gifts to political friends — think Solyndra.
And what about saving the planet with non-polluting, carbon-neutral nuclear power? We’ve all heard about what happened when the nuclear reactor exploded at Fukushima, hurling nuclear fuel as far as 130 km from the power plant, an ongoing and as of yet unresolved, out of sight, out of mind disaster. But Chernobyl is a good example of the results of a resolved nuclear accident. It will be uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years. Compare that to the plant-growth promoting CO2 — something that actually increases the greening of the planet —produced by coal fired plants.
The Junk Science of Nicotine Addiction
Let’s take a look at what the Surgeon General’s Report has to say on the subject of nicotine addiction:
Near the top of the page under the heading Definition of Nicotine Addiction we find that:
“The crux of understanding the pathophysiology of tobacco addiction and its measurement relies on the identification of critical characteristics and the definition of addiction. … There is no established consensus on criteria for diagnosing nicotine addiction. However, researchers have identified several symptoms as indicators of addiction. … These criteria are consistent with those for a diagnosis of dependence provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV)”
Meaning that addiction is whatever you define it as, and that there is no way to determine it. As for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-IV is from the same people that have labeled healthy eating a mental disorder. What sane person would question the safety and healthfulness of processed foods and GMOs? But they’ve gone way beyond that in labeling just about everything and anything a medical condition or disease as pointed out in the following from Natural News:
“The so-called “condition” for why a person might choose to resist conformity has been labeled by the psychiatric profession as “oppositional defiant disorder,” or ODD. The new DSM defines this made-up disease as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” and also lumps it in alongside attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, another made-up condition whose creator, Dr. Leon Eisenberg, admitted it to be phony on his death bed[emphasis, mine].”
And from Infowars we find that:
“New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases. And there are treatments available.”
And from another Infowars article:
“Allen Frances chaired the DSM-IV that was released in 1994. He now admits it was a huge mistake that has resulted in the mass over diagnosis of people who are actually quite normal. The DSM-IV “… inadvertently contributed to three false epidemics — attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder,” writes Allen in an LA Times opinion piece.
But that’s the whole point of psychiatry: To prescribe drugs to people who don’t need them. This is accomplished almost entirely by diagnosing people with disorders that don’t exist[emphasis, mine].”
Further down the page on The Surgeon General’s Report under the heading of Pharmacokinetics (how a drug is absorbed and moves within the body), which is the second subheading under Tobacco Constituents and Pharmacokinetics, we find that:
“Nicotine addiction depends on the amount of nicotine delivered and the way in which it is delivered, which can either enhance or reduce its potential for abuse: the faster the delivery, rate of absorption, and attainment of high concentrations of nicotine, the greater is the potential for addiction.
* * *
The mean peak concentrations of nicotine are higher with use of tobacco products than with use of nicotine replacement products, and cigarette smoking produced both the highest peak concentration and most rapid rate of nicotine absorption.
* * *
The greater reinforcing efficacy of rapid delivery of nicotine was therefore thought to be due to both direct effects on the CNS [central nervous system] and to stimulation of nicotinic receptors[emphasis, mine] in the lungs.
[A]lthough the pharmacokinetics of some smokeless tobacco products may overlap with those of medicinal nicotine products, medicinal products tend to have a slower rate and a lower amount of nicotine absorption than do the most popular brands of conventional smokeless tobacco products. Among the medicinal nicotine products, nicotine nasal spray has the fastest rate of nicotine absorption, followed by nicotine gum, the nicotine lozenge, and the nicotine patch.
Together, these results demonstrate that the nicotine pharmacokinetics associated with cigarette smoking is likely to lead to high potential for addiction, whereas medicinal nicotine products have relatively minimal potential for addiction [emphasis, mine. Because if you believe that, you’ll believe anything: it’s the ritual, or the physical act of smoking, i.e., the way that you smoke, that makes it habit forming; nicotine has nothing to do with it].
* * *
This profile enables the smoker to finely control the nicotine dose to obtain the desired effect and enables frequent doses [Is that what you do when you smoke?]. These characteristics facilitate the addiction potential of cigarettes. In contrast, oral nicotine products such as smokeless tobacco result in a more gradual rate of nicotine absorption and the nicotine levels are more sustained, resulting in a reduced ability of the smoker to manipulate the nicotine dose and less frequent dosing. The nicotine patch is the extreme example of slow absorption and once-a-day dosing, which results in a minimal potential for addiction.”
But the so-called science begins to fall apart the minute we begin to examine a real addictive drug such as heroin or opium. First, let’s look at the idea that there are special nicotine receptors in the lungs as shown (emphasized) in paragraph three of the above excerpts from the Surgeon General’s report: the very idea is absurd. There are no more nicotine receptors than there are opium receptors, marijuana receptors, or poison gas receptors: the lungs will absorb and put into the blood stream whatever gasses and chemicals are in the air that you inhale and breathe.
An addict needs to get his fix; anything else will leave him craving more. If the surgeon General’s approach to ending nicotine addiction was valid, then heroin gum and opium patches would be the recommended treatment for ending heroin and opium addictions, but clearly they are not. The above excerpts show that the changing the definition of smoking from habit to addiction was nothing less than the creation of a whole new pharmaceutical market, that is, as quoted above, to prescribe drugs to people who don’t need them by diagnosing people with disorders that don’t exist.
More on the Addiction Myth
Think about how and why you smoke. You are “addicted” to a drug called nicotine that you use to pick yourself up or calm yourself down. There is no such drug. There is no such thing as a drug that is either a stimulant or a sedative depending on which alternative a user would choose. It is simply not possible.
The withdrawal symptoms experienced by smokers trying to quit are nothing more than the deep angst that a nail biter, or anyone else with a deeply entrenched habit would experience in trying to resist such a compulsion or subconsciously activated, automatic behavior. One of the keys to quitting without experiencing cravings is to NOT resist, something that only intensifies the very cravings you are trying to resist. Quitting Is Easy will show you how smoking works so that you can re-create the feelings and satisfaction you get from smoking but without having to smoke so that you don’t have to resist, and it’s got nothing to do with nicotine.
One of the reasons smokers find it so difficult to quit and often return to smoking even years after they’ve quit is because their urge to smoke never goes away, as if smoking were part of who you are — one reason so many consider it to be a very powerful addiction, but it’s not.
Once you understand how smoking works; how you can use it to pick yourself up or calm yourself down; and how your cravings for cigarettes, that irresistible urge to smoke, is not even an urge to smoke but entirely something else and that you don’t have to respond by smoking, then that’s it for smoking. No matter what, you’ll never need or even want to ever smoke again.
* Hazlitt’s The Failure of the New Economics: An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies is not an easy read. For those interested, Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics makes a good primer for that more difficult book.
Copyright © 2015 QuittingIsEasy.com