Sell your cigarette stocks - smoking to end.

"... scientists at Cornell Medical School might have the ultimate solution – a nicotine vaccine.

Essentially, it’s an injection to the liver that blocks nicotine from reaching the brain. So smokers would get zero pleasure from lighting up, no matter how many puffs they take. ..."

more details (video & text) at: http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2012/07/18/video-nicotine-vaccine-is-philip-morris-worst-nightmare/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, basically I would just smoke more and more, and go thru withdrawal at the same time...

Great idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it is and will save millions in healthcare costs.

For example: Smoking is very popular in Brazil still so the public health service (SUS) could pay smokers to get the injection (recording their IDs,* to prevent multiple collecting) and still come out way ahead! Payment should be minor so no non-smokers would put up with irritations and greater cost of becoming an addicted smoker. I.e. before giving the injection (and the payment) the clinic asks you to demonstrate you can deep inhale, hold the smoke in lungs 10 seconds without any coughing etc.

*Everyone living in Brazil, even me a US citizen, has an ID card. In high-tech US, their finger print is scanned into national data bank, like now done when I go thru customs at the airport when re-entering the US and is not uncommon elsewhere.

BTW as the link of OP has been compressed, I tell last part of it: " ... Phillip Morris´s worst nightmare"

BTW2: I´m a Cornell grad - proud of their work, which is typical of Cornell, which usually is in the top 10 universities for science and the med school, in NYC, may be the world´s best. (But my PhD school, Johns Hopkins, would certainly dispute that claim.) I graduated from Cornell´s experimental 5-year program, called "Engineering Physics," which was soon discontinued as too good, too tough even for Cornell, as half my class transferred out to easier 4 year programs like Chemical or Electrical engineering.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm guessing you're not a smoker...

I would love to quit smoking. It's a nasty habit, and an expensive one at that.

But, I'm not ready to go thru the withdrawal symptoms just yet. Come up with a "painless" way to quit, and I'd be willing to bet many of us would toss our ashtrays out.

Sure, there are patches and gums... But they cost more than the smokes do.

So, until there is a better way to quit, I will continue to light up. *sigh*

 

Wow. A whole 'millions'.

I can't speak for any other country, but every time I've seen a study of smoking in the UK the conclusion has been that smokers pay a ton of smoking taxes and generally die younger and faster so they cost less in healthcare and pensions. If you're looking at this from a financial standpoint, the UK government should be encouraging smoking.

 

It is a good idea and I hope to see it available soon for those who want to quit and those who don't want to start.

 

I have made that same argument in another thread, but one needs to consider the loss of productivity, both of the smoker and those who care for the smoker in hospitals etc.

I concluded that from economic POV, all already retired should get free cigarettes but none of those still working, paying taxes. Taxes collected on cigarettes are small compared to those on most incomes so we need to keep the country´s workers alive and paying my Social Security etc. benefits as long as possible. Thus no anti-smoking injections for the retired - free cigarettes instead. Lets put some excitement into the old folks homes - Daily contests to see who can smoke the most cigarettes in 10 minutes, etc. with exhaling thru nose required to avoid being dis qualified.

 

Interesting, to say the least

Interesting, indeed.

To the other, there is a little whisper in the back of my mind that says, "This will go badly."

I hope I'm wrong.

 

For once in a great while, I agree with Tiassa. This *WILL* fall flat on it's stupid face! Anything that prevents smoking but does NOTHING to relieve the withdrawal symptoms is worse than worthless. It's nothing but a chemical iron mask placed over a person's face.

 

I have impression that other drugs can reduce or eliminate withdrawal symptoms from fact that some terminate harder drugs under care - not just go "cold turkey."

Probably, as with some other injected drugs, a time-released formulation is possible* so first week after injection pleasure from smoking a cigarette would not be completely abolished but the craving for a cigarette would nearly be satisfied by smoking.** I.e. withdrawal does not need to be a step function - just a slowly reduced urge to smoke as smoking gives ever less pleasure over a few months until one concludes that the cost of cigarettes is too great for the little pleasure they still give. (I have read some prostate cancer control drugs are injected only twice per year but have no direct knowledge about that or cigarette withdrawal problems either as I have never smoked.)

* I think "micro-sphere encapsulation" is used with a mix of coating shells that very slowly dissolve at different rates.

** Sort of like a 20 cigarette "pack a day" smoker still smoking 20, but feeling as if he only smoked 19.

 

All I can say, Billy, is that every word you've written was spoken by a true non-smoker who knows nothing about the subject they're addressing. Your "impression" is completely false - IF there were real drugs that could truly reduce or (GASP!) eliminate withdrawal symptoms, why would we need this silly drug at all? The REAL problem is that an addiction, expecially smoking, is about half physical (chemical) dependent and half psychological. And the reason ALL of the common "quitting aids" fail to help the vast majority of smokers who really want to quit is simple - they do nothing to address anything beyond the physical/chemical part.

And for what it's worth, mico-encapsulation is very, very old technology. It was already in use even before it was employed in the very first (and all) nicotine patch. I know because I worked for a company that had been using it for years before I ever arrived there and that was about 20 years ago.

So I surely would not use this "development" to praise Cornell because it actually makes them look rather stupid. :shrug:

 

There is one huge advantage of this new thing: It forces the smoker to give up, no matter what. If I get it correctly, just one vaccine can make smoking a not-pleasurable/wished thing. So once you got this shot, you are not going to enjoy smoking, although you might suffer withdrawals, eventually you are going to give it up. After all, why take/smoke something if it has no effect on you?

 

I wouldn't be so sure you're in agreement. I don't agree with Tiassa on... anything, really. But I'm reasonably certain in this case you might have misinterpreted in your eagerness to agree with him.
My thoughts on this matter are based on a an aspect of smoking which has little to do with a physical addiction.

 

As one who never smoked I don´t know about suffering when quiting. I would guess it is not very bad if done as follows for an addicted pack a day (20 cigarettes) smoker:
week / number smoked per day
1 /19
2 /18
3 /17
...
17 / 4
18 / 3
19 / 2
20 / 1
none there after.

Has any smoker who wants to quit tried a plan like this?

The injection, in time release form, would slowly reduce the pleasure of smoking and help one stay on schedule.

Rather than the iron mask Read-Only called it, I would view it as a "will power aid" but I have only theory, not experience to guide my thoughts, so what do smokers know FROM EXPERIENCE, not just their ideas / theory about a phase out plan? With increasing timed release of the drug, the decreasing pleasure I would strongly think makes continuation on schedule easier.

Surely some of you smokers out there must have tried to reduce the number of cigarettes you smoked each day - what was it like, even without the injection helping to slowly reduce the desire / pleasure?

 

Yes, it's quite simple to see that you've never smoked, Billy, and that's precisely why you didn't understand me at all. Fraggle was right on every point he made - but you didn't even begin to understand him either. Shame.

I've been a smoker for over 40 years, between two and three packs a day for all that time. I've also spent a TON of money, effort and agony in trying to quit. It's also pretty silly on your part to attempt to tell others about something of which you have NO experience with and are so FAR from even beginning to understand. To my way of thinking, that's the absolute height of absurd egotism!

I've tried every method available to aid in stopping and none of them offer anything of value. The part you - and the Cornell people fail to grasp - is that the physical addiction is only a small part of the problem - it's the psychological part that presents the real challenge. It's FAR more a powerful influence than anyone who's never experience it can ever imagine. You probably think something like a toothache or gunshot wound hurts pretty bad, right? Well, I can tell you first-hand that I've experienced both of those (more than once, actually) and they barely register on the scale on mental anguish suffered by a truly confirmed smoker who is trying to quit.

 

But I did not do that. I have more than twice admitted I have no first hand experience with the problems of quiting.

What I did do was ask if any smoker had experience with a slow phase out plan - something like one less cigarette each week. I speculated that such a plan would be easier to stick with if the time released drug also made the pleasure smoking gives slowly decrease too on the same schedule.

Unfortunately, you did not tell what experience you have had, if any, with this type of slow phase out plan. In your case (~2.5 packs per day) the phase out at one less per week would last a year.

 

Correct - you didn't say that in so many words - it's your rather brash overall assumptions that prompted that comment from me.

I clearly told you that I HAVE tried every possible product and approach that's ever been proposed - and that clearly includes your snail's-pace slow approach. And I would assume that it should be obvious that I have not tried it with this particular drug since it isn't even available on the market yet. I also reported that none of them worked for me and I also explained in detail WHY they all failed.

At this point, I've no idea what additional info you want from me or anyone else. So I will restate what I've already said: This drug is BOUND TO FAIL simply because it does NOT address the larger, more important and powerful part of smoking addiction. I personally wish it would work (just as I did with all the other things I've tried!!) but I honestly see no hope for it to succeed.

 

Basically yes. But if your choice is that vaccine or dying a pretty horrible death, I think you'd choose the vaccine.

Another way to look at it is that it's a substitute for willpower. A lot of people know they should quit but can't bring themselves to actually quit because of their chemical addiction. Such a vaccine makes NOT smoking more pleasurable than smoking.

 

Nope, you don't quite get it either. Don't you imagine I've thought of all that during my 40+ years of smoking and wanting to quit? Seems to me that LOTS of people simply don't understand that the chemical part of the issue is NOT the major problem. Go back and reread my posts because you're still missing the main point...