What Works For You, The Nicotine Patch Or The Stop Smoking Injection?
Author: Rory Herts
Cigarette smoking is a widespread habit that has causes a lot of deaths each year. As a matter of fact, 440,000 people die from cigarette smoke each year in the United States alone. Statistics show that one out of three adults or 1.1 billion people worldwide have the habit. The most glaring statistic is the fact that 80% of the 1.1 billion smokers of the world have become addicted to using tobacco well before they reached the age of eighteen years.
Because a lot of people know the severe effects of having such a habit, a majority of smokers have made several attempts to quit. Unfortunately, this habit is quite addictive and difficult to let go of. The addictive component of tobacco is nicotine, which is considered even more addictive than heroine and cocaine. As the nicotine intake of a body increases, it becomes physically and psychologically dependent on it. Most users cannot kick the habit because they have a craving for the pleasurable feelings that nicotine induces and they do not realize that they are signing their own death warrants.
Fortunately, smokers who plan on kicking the habit can now depend on aids like the nicotine patch and the stop smoking injection to stop this addiction.
The Nicotine Patch
A nicotine patch is a medicated adhesive patch that is placed on the skin to deliver a time-released dose of medication thorough the skin and into the bloodstream. This is used as a method to break nicotine dependence through smoking.
There are several steps that a person needs to undergo in order to break this dependence as the nicotine patches come in 3 dosages of 21 milligrams, 14 milligrams and 7 milligrams. The amount of tobacco a person usually consumes in a day determines the strength of the patch they need to start with. A heavy tobacco user will be initially given the maximum strength for 6 weeks and a moderate user will be given the 14 mg nicotine patch and so on.
After the initial phase the person will be given the lower dosage for another couple of weeks and then finally the lowest dosage will round off a total of 13 weeks usage. At the end of this period, a person should have broken the addiction to nicotine.
The Stop Smoking Injection
Although this system may be too good to be true, it is actually available in the market. People who have tried it swear that they have stopped smoking altogether. A stop smoking injection is one of the most successful methods used to help someone quit smoking. It has a 70-80% success rate.
The stop smoking injection contains substances that block the nicotine receptors in the brain. Since your brain does not recognize nicotine anymore, the craving for it stops. Generally, one-stop smoking injection should be enough to help someone stop his or her tobacco use, but there are some cases where another injection is needed. The good news is that the stop smoking injection is very affordable, especially if you compute the money that you spend on tobacco products as well as the future costs of your medical bills.
Although both systems are quite effective, using a stop smoking injection makes quitting easier because it doesn't require a lot of doses. It only takes a shot or two to end a smoker's nicotine craving. Smoking cessation can't get any easier than that.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/medicine-articles/what-works-for-you-the-nicotine-patch-or-the-stop-smoking-injection-220578.html
About the Author
Interested in quitting the easy way with a stop smoking injection? Visit stopsmokinginfos.com and also learn all about the stop smoking pill and trying to stop smoking with Prozac.
[TEMPLATE]cannibis[/TEMPLATE]
Can someone help me with my essay?My tutor wants me to prevent my essay from being a collection of statement?
Smoking should be banned in public places
This essay investigates the question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places. The essay will cover the advantages and disadvantages of banning smoking in public places and how people react to this controversial issue. It should be pointed out that this question has been badly debated all over the country and there are many different views.
Let us first of all consider the point of view that over 40,000 careful studies have proven that smoking causes disease and death (http://www.ash.org.uk/). Every medical and health agency agrees to the fact that smoking is a problem and an estimated 1,000 people in Britain die every year from smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and heart diseases. (http://www.guardian.co.ukl)
Smoking affects not only smokers themselves, but also non-smokers. Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be a major source of indoor air pollution and the inhalation of it is known as passive smoking.
Majority of the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk) scientific studies have concluded that passive smoking increase the risk of contracting fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart problems, and is associated with a variety of health problems in children including cot death and chronic middle ear infections.
Based on the findings of the SCOTH (Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health) report and California EPA review (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk);ASH estimates that about 600 lung cancer deaths and up to 12,000 cases of heart diseases in non-smokers can be attributed to passive smoking each year in the U.K. Non-smokers exposed to passive smoke have around a 25% increased chance of contracting heart disease even though on average they inhale the equivalent of 1% of the smoke that a smoker does. Also, the cancer risk for non-smokers exposed to tobacco smoke is approximately in proportion to exposure when compared to the risks faced by smokers.
Likewise, in a 1992 report, the Royal College of Physicians estimated that 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year in the U.K. as a result of illnesses resulting from passive smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). Also, the impact of smoking on health inequalities is carried from generation to generation. Children whose parents smoke are three times, as likely to smoke themselves and are also more heavily exposed to the harmful effects of smoke pollution. In consequence, children exposed to smoking environments are more likely to go on to become smokers themselves and suffer the ill effect of it.
Smoking does not only bring health problems, but also environmental problems. The 1999 office for National Statistics survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/) into attitude to smoking found that 62% of non-smokers would mind if people smoked near them because it causes unpleasant smell, and 38% said that it makes clothes stink. Furthermore, the careless disposal of smokers’ materials is one of the main causes of fire and smoking related litter at home and outside. This evidence supports the point of view that banning smoking would be a good idea as it would reduce all these problems.
In addition, according to a 1995 survey (http://www.ash.org.uk/), smoking related litter was found in over 88% of all U.K. surveyed streets and further research showed that only 53% of smokers had ever used a bin to dispose of butts, whilst 75% admitted to dropping them on the ground. Also, the GLA (Greater London Authority) itself recognizes that cigarette butts accounted for 40% of all the street litter in London. This further supports the opinion of those who believe smoking in public places should be banned.
Having considered the health and environmental problems posed by smoking, successive expert panels and government committees have emphasized the need for protection of non-smokers from second hand smoke, including the restriction of smoking in public places.
The 2004 U.K. Government’s Public Health White Paper (http://www.ash.org.uk/) has already introduced a smoking ban in Scotland in March 2006 which will come into effect this year in the rest of the U.K. According to health campaigners, the Scottish smoking ban has improved trade and lured new customers to pubs three months after the stub-out. Furthermore, the ASH (http://www.ash.org.uk/) Scotland survey found that 24% of customers said they are more likely to visit pubs now they are smoke-free and just 10% would go less often. Moreover, levels of air pollution in Scotland’s public places have dropped by 86% since the smoking ban was introduced in March, according to new research. Professor Jon Ayres (http://www.forestonline.org.uk), who is carrying out the study, points out the fact that the smoking ban was always going to benefit workers more. This suggests that the introduction of a smoking ban in public places will be an advantage for workers especially those who are working in pubs and restaurants, yet another argument to support a ban in public places.
Soon after the evaluation of the gradual improvements in Scotland, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places which will come into force in England on July 1, 2007, Northern Ireland on April 30, 2007, and Wales on April 2, 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk). The smoking ban will cover all enclosed public places such as pubs, clubs, restaurants and cafes. However, exemptions include private homes, residential care homes, theatre stages etc. In Ireland like Scotland, the ban has so far proved successful which suggests that in England it may have a similar effect
Most people, especially non-smokers agree to a smoking ban in public places. An editorial in the Lancet argued that 80% of people in the U.K. are non-smokers, saying they have the right to freedom from exposure to proven carcinogens. It also highlighted a study by the Royal College of physicians, which said that a smoking ban would help 300,000 people quit smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk). The results of this study along with the editorial, add even more weight to the argument for banning smoking in public places.
Dr. Astrid James, deputy editor of the Lancet believed that banning smoking in public places would prevent cancer deaths as well as heart and chronic lung cancer deaths in the U.K. Not only would this have obvious positive effects on individuals affected by cancer, there would be long term benefits for the NHS i.e. less cancer would mean less money would need to be spent on treatments.
John Britton, a professor at Nottingham University (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk), said that smoking ban in public places will be an effective means of reducing the numbers of people who take up smoking especially young children. In addition, a report from the BMA says that children, pregnant women, people with lung and heart disorders are vulnerable to passive smoking, and that smoking restrictions would protect the population. While there are those who agree with this, there are also those who argue that if people are not allowed to smoke in public, they will be forced into their homes where passive smoking will still affect their families.
Although many workplaces already have a non-smoking policy, many people want a total ban on smoking in workplaces. Based on ASH and Cancer Research UK survey, people said that the new law should apply without exemption. The poll showed 85% of people would visit bars and pubs as often or even more often if they were smoke-free by law. Ruth Basworth of Boots Health Club told the BBC, “Everyone has the right to be protected from harm and enjoy smoke-free air”. She added that, “For any smoker trying to quit, smoke-free environments will increase their chances of success as social pressures to smoke will be reduced (http://www.vitabeat.com). So it seems that there is a lot of evidence to support the ban on smoking in public places. However, not everyone agrees that the ban would be effective.
In a report by ASH, 20% smokers were revealed as planning to give up the habit, but it also pointed out that more than 80% of smokers who are willing to give up smoking are not influenced by Britain’s proposed public smoking ban (http://www.vitabeat.com). Does this suggest that a ban would be a waste of time?
According to a report by the office for National Statistics, the majority of people are still opposed to a ban on smoking in all public places. The report found that 65% of people favored restrictions in pubs but only 33% wanted a total ban; 48% wanted pubs to be mainly non-smoking with smoking areas. It is argued that smokers who freely choose to smoke and are harming themselves, have the right to, in the same way that they are free to choose to take their own lives. Simon Clark, director of FOREST, said that by banning smoking in every public places, the government is ignoring public opinion. (http://www.forestonline.org)
A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Secretary of State for Health John Reid. However, the Royal College of Physicians opposed to Reid saying that after investigating Scotland, it has found out that smoke-free households have increased from 22% to 37% within last year (http://en.wikipedia.org). Here we have the point of view that a ban could actually increase smoking at home and may not be beneficial at all.
Likewise, an article on smoking on the internet argues that a smoking ban will affect the business of those hospitality companies especially those that allow smoking (http://www.savethegoldfish.co.uk). Furthermore, a report from the Restaurant Association reveals that £346 million could be lost in income and 45,000 jobs if restaurants were forced to ban smokers (http://www.ash.org.uk). The result of this could be a negative impact on the catering industry as it would lessen the number of customers using restaurants which in turn would result in decrease in jobs.
Having considered both the arguments for and against a smoking ban in public places, opinion seems to be divided. On one hand, by banning smoking in public places, smokers’ civil liberties are taken away, and on the other hand, non-smokers are being protected from the health effects of passive smoking.
At the end of the day, whether smokers like it or not, the smoking ban will be enacted in July of this year, and time will tell it was a good decision by the government or not.
The FDA, and Government in the US, are not concerned with the health hazards of tobacco!
If there were genuine concern for health, why are so many people addicted to drug companies’ drugs prescribed by the good ‘ole doctor-world? Why do drunk drivers not go to jail like all other felons? Why are fake sugars, fake foods, quick-fix diet pills, canned miracles whatever? allowed to be served and offered to us by these advocates to ban smoking-inside outside? Where are people supposed to smoke? In their cars?
Isn’t the Constitution supposed to be upheld by our lawmakers,elected officials, policemen, the Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is this not an important violation of our rights by law? Shouldn’t they have to show why their local, state, laws are able to supersede the Supreme law of the Land?
Health issue aside, because that is a joke! Please the government does NOT CARE about your health or they would disallow doctors from hooking the American public on: ameriel, Lunestra, paxil, and the list goes on..that little purple pill. Commercials are allowed to target the public: Go ask your Doctor for this drug.”
Now isn’t that a little bit like the professional expert turned drug dealer for the pharmaceutical drug lords?
In answer to your question:
I do not believe smoking ought to be allowed to be banned from bars and public places (designated smoking areas). Smokers have EQUAL right under the law to live in the SAME space as non smokering types. This is supposed to be a free country..but it’s turning into a police-state-where bans are inforced with legal recourse (early Nazi Hitler days) and legal force, and police interference in the normal lives of we tax paying (to pay your salaries) hard working,, loving American folks are treated like we still require this vigilant supervision. I thought when I grew up I would be free. What a joke. How can we be free to choose if we’re not free to choose for ourselves to smoke or not smoke. Why do people who don’t smoke have more right to the same space than the smoker? No one can tell you this?
Don’t the police already run enough of our lives, and control us enough?
What’s next? Illegal to make sex noises in your home because someone else said they can hear it and it’s UNHEALTH! to hear people making love! Or, how about making it against the law for people to be fat? Have food police knocking donuts and taking candy away from the people we see who are fat because we don’t like it….”it’s so bad for them to be fat, we’re only doing it for their own good, you know.”Please stop trying to fix everyone out there and worry about yourself!
I gotta find a new place to live it it gets any worse…..sigh.
Is smoking a target for law makers to use for the “Mommy Vote” or is it a legitimate concern for Health?
Please explain your reason for banning cigarettes as well as explaining why fast food is exceptable even though it results in heart related deaths each year. Also imagine if cigarettes only effected the smoker and not the other people in the vicinity, would it have the same laws as implemented now or would the laws be different.
I vote neither. It is about ‘nanny state’ activists trying to control as much as they can about everyone’s life. Please show your source for the claim that fast food results in heart related deaths every year. I don’t buy that or any claim that second hand smoke has ever killed anyone.
Note: I have never smoked and avoid people when they are smoking.
Why is pot illegal, when tobacco isn’t?
Before you get angry, just read what I have to say.
By the way, I don’t smoke pot (never have), I’m just an angry because tobacco is so much worse for you, but they don’t do anything about THAT.
Over 240 different cancers can be caused by smoking/chewing tobacco.
Smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related.
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.
Second hand smoke can give children asthma.
Tobacco is much more addicting than marijuana.
Marijuana does not cause cancer.
People do not die from diseases they get from smoking marijuana.
Marijuana is not addicting.
But, tobacco continues to remain legal, when pot isn’t? Why?
Another thing that bothers me as that they get so worked up about pot, but they don’t do nearly as many things to stop the use of hard drugs like heroin, meth and cocaine.
I’m not exactly for legalizing pot, but I just think if IT’S illegal, tobacco should be as well because it’s even worse.
What do you think?
Two other things, pot always has medicinal benefits, cigarettes DON’T. There also isn’t a reason to want to smoke cigarettes, besides “looking cool” and already being addicted, while people smoke to get high.
They’d make just as much taxing pot.
Can’t tax weed because anyone can grow it. Believe me, its all about tax. Gov also wants to outlaw cigarettes because for some crazy reason they believe they must protect us from ourselves but it would upset too many people that are already users. Cigarettes are the excepted evil.
Also cigarettes have been linked to saving many lives. Those of children when their parents escape outside to de-stress. I think its saved my son 3 times today. (No I never smoke around him or let his see me)
Truthfully: Weed has been linked to temporarily retarding emotional growth and logic skills. Example. If you start smoking weed regularly at 16, three years later you will still have the emotional skills and reasoning as you did at 16. However. If you stop smoking weed you will begin to develop regularly again. So say the same 16 yr old stopped smoking at 19, a year later he will have the emotional skills of a 17 yr old. Make seance?
Weed is mentally (and possibly slightly physically) addicting, just ask someone that smokes regularly and is out and can not get more. Its just as bad as craving a cig.
Why are republicans getting mad at Obama for signing the smoking bill? Does it make you no longer pro-life?
Tobacco use is the nation’s number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. The facts are clear. Over 40,000 careful studies have proven that smoking causes disease and death. Every medical and health agency agrees. Each year, more Americans die from smoking-related diseases than from AIDS, drug abuse, car accidents and murder combined.
Take a look at the facts about cigarette smoking and your lungs.
Cigarette Smoking — The Facts
An estimated 430,000 Americans die each year from the effects of cigarette smoking.
* Smoking causes 20% (or 1 in 5) of all deaths in the United States each year.
* Cigarette smoking is the major cause of:
o emphysema
o lung cancer
o chronic bronchitis
o heart disease and stroke
* In 1988, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that nicotine is just as addictive as heroin and cocaine. A “hit” of nicotine reaches the brain in seven seconds, twice as fast as heroin injected into the vein.
* In the U.S., about 1.3 million people quit smoking each year, but about 48 million continue to smoke.
* It is estimated that 8,200 (19.8%) of the deaths in Washington state in 1997 were attributable to smoking.
* The 1998 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) reported that 21.4% of adults in Washington State currently smoke.
Tobacco Costs — The Facts
* Cigarettes are the most heavily advertised products in the U.S.
* Tobacco companies spend over 4 billion dollars each year on advertising and promotion of their deadly products.
* Smoking costs the nation over $100 billion per year in health care costs and lost productivity — that’s about $398 per American each year.
* In Washington state $1.3 billion is spent each year on health care costs associated with caring for people with tobacco related illnesses.
Women and Smoking — The Facts
* Lung cancer has now surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths among women.
* Current female smokers aged 35 and older are more than 10 times as likely to die from emphysema or chronic bronchitis than nonsmoking females.
* Americans are starting to smoke at a younger age, especially young girls.
* Pregnant smokers have higher rates of miscarriage, stillbirths and babies who are born too soon. More of their babies die soon after birth from crib death than newborns of nonsmoking mothers.
* In 1997, nearly 11,000 Washington babies were born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
* As more women start to smoke, their death rates from smoking-related lung diseases are fast approaching male smoking rates.
Men and Smoking — The Facts
* Cigarette smoking is the #1 cause of cancer death in men.
* Current male smokers over age 35 are almost 10 times more likely to die of lung disease and 22 times more likely to die from lung cancer than nonsmoking males.
LINK
http://www.alaw.org/tobacco_control/quit_smoking_today/quit_kit/facts_about_cigarette_smoking.html
Why are republicans advocating the right of a business to intentionally sell a poisonous substance to people in order to turn a profit? If you do not support his decision does it no longer make you pro-life?
Republicanazis are for lung cancer for all.
_____ out of every five deaths each year is related to smoking?