Is tobacco dependence a disability?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010 I am giving a speech to the Nutrition and Health conference in London today (the venue, the Soho Theatre, is just around the corner from my office) so while I am otherwise detained here is an email that we have just received:
My wife [a 40 a day smoker] and l recently had to endure a journey back from the Algarve which consisted of a 4 hour train journey, followed by a 14 hr train journey, followed by a 7 hour train journey, followed by a 3 hour train journey, followed by a 19 hr ferry journey followed by a 3 hour coach journey. The total journey time of 50 hours was 'squeezed' into a total of 60 hours. For most of the journey my wife was unable to smoke - the only exception being the few minutes between trains or going out on deck on the ferry. To say this denial of nicotine caused her inconvenience is an understatement!
My wife basically is unable to function properly unless she gets a regular 'hit' of her drug of addiction. In other words her dependency on nicotine "has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities" such as undertake a long train journey.
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as "someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities" so to all intents and purposes my wife is disabled. As a disabled person none of the trains or airlines we have travelled on recently have made 'reasonable adjustments' , as required under the DDA, to ensure she is not discriminated against as a result of her disability.
Some airports - Rome and Frankfurt - do offer enclosed smoking cabins [usually sponsored, and presumably built by, tobacco companies] at the departures areas unlike most UK airports [Bristol is the only one I know with access to a smoking area beyond the security barriers]. We even had a situation recently where, during a 3 hour concert, there was no smoking area provided in the venue we were told that if she left the area for a smoke there was no re-admission to the concert hall as this would be 'administratively difficult' ie we couldn't be ar*ed to put someone on a door to issue pass outs and let smokers back in again.
Maybe it is time for Forest to seek to define nicotine dependence as a disability [cocaine addicts after all get free needles and coke substitutes supplied by the state to 'support' them in their addiction] and have it included in the scope of the DDA to force organisations to provide facilities for smokers where feasible.
It may not be a political winner for most parties but perhaps the likes of UKIP might be prepared to take on the EU on this matter on behalf of the large numbers of disabled people who are discriminated against on a daily basis and for whom their normal day to day life [and that of their partners/families] is impacted upon.
I'd like to comment but I haven't got time. (Not sure that I'd want to define "nicotine dependence" as a disability, though.) I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Reader Comments (26)
Although I do feel sorry for both this man and his wife, I have never subscribed to the belief that the use of tobacco, in any form, should be classed as an "addiction".
I smoke when and if (can't say where) I like. I might smoke as many as 10 cigarettes on one particular day, usually depending on who's company I am in, and then there will be other days, when I do not smoke at all.
I smoke purely because I like the taste and the smell, the same reasons as I like certain foods or drinks, and I certainly get very annoyed if I am told by anyone that I can't smoke here, or can't smoke there, but I would be equally annoyed if I was told I could eat something with garlic in because someone else said it makes their clothes and hair stink.
When I hear stupid remarks like that it makes me want to smoke or eat garlic or drink wine, whatever all the more.
If I have an addiction of any sort at all, it is an addiction to freedom. I crave it day and night, and I hate anyone who tries to wean me off my addiction.
But to try comparing smoking tobacco with the taking of hard drugs in my view, is just not on. Sorry!
p.s. to last post.
Sorry for any confusion, but what I meant by saying that I don't think smoking should be seen as an addiction, was that if "having to smoke" was ever classed as a disability, then surely this would mean the smoker was an addict!
ASH in America are spinning the other way now, in that smoking itself is not an addiction, but purely the nicotine. Hence smoking is a choice and tobacco companies cannot be sued, Dr. Michael Siegel is livid.
"Action on Smoking and Health Destroys Argument for Plaintiffs in Tobacco Litigation; Argues that Smoking is Not an Addiction, Only Nicotine Is"
"According to ASH, smoking is a choice and not an addiction. Smokers make a free and conscious choice to smoke and their behavior should not be viewed as addictive. The only aspect of their addiction - says ASH - is the addiction to nicotine, and smokers who continue to smoke are making a deliberate and free choice to obtain nicotine from cigarettes rather than from nicotine replacement products that are available on the market."
"The rest of the story is that in its zeal to support oppressive and extreme policies that aim to punish and further marginalize smokers, ASH has backed itself into a corner and been forced to make a scientifically invalid argument that is not only false, but which does damage by destroying the plaintiff's position in thousands of lawsuits against the tobacco companies."
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
I'm not sure about classing smoking as a disability but there is a lot in what he says.
Apart from my greatly reduced use of pubs and restaurants, discrimination against smokers is now so bad that I avoid airports and airline travel and rarely travel by train. In fact, since the ban, I don't go to events such as concerts and football matches because of the discrimination meted out. On the plus side, however, the ban was a significant factor in taking early retirement which I was lucky to be able to afford and do not regret doing.
It would be interesting to work out how much cash I might have spent on the above activities during the last three years, money that I have saved but in reality I would probably rather have spent were it not for the Ban. This money has of course been lost to these organisations but then they probably didn't realise that smokers would stop coming through their doors and did nothing to help us.
No, it's not a disability, even if the ability to succeed when quitting is genetically determined.
However, the idea to badger, hassle and harangue smokers to quit is the problem here -- what the smoker community is experiencing is deliberate, institutional harassment.
Using a stupid law to combat another stupid law with stupid argumentation is ... well... stupid.
We need less insanity, not more.
(I can see you could make the argument your way, but to be honest, the entire concept is totally dysfunctional in the first place, you can't clean up the Augean stable by adding more BS. The core thinking it broken, and that is what will have to be fixed, anything else will just be a botchjob.)
---
Btw, did you know that electric cigarettes have been banned too?
Each to their own. We all have our own way of coping with the benefit some of us obtain from nicotine, whatever dose we we require. I am a heavy smoker but can manage several hours with nicotine gum and/or nicotine inhalator. As for the Electronic Cigarette, they are not banned everywhere yet, in fact, much to my surprise, you can buy the disposable version on EasyJet. Again, my personal experience of the eCig is that I don't like them much. I have one but when I have used up the refills I don't think I will bother with any more. I like nicotine. I have created my own dependancy for it. I would not say it was a disability, as the addiction is phsycological not physical - yes, there may be physical manifestation of denial, but nothing like what happens to a heroin addict or alcoholic when they go without. It may well be the nicotine which I want but there is no better way of getting it than through the natural process of tobacco.
The lady in question just cant help it, it's in here genes you see: http://www.121doc.co.uk/news/smoking-addiction-is-genetic-624-273.html
God give us strength!!!
Ecigs aren't banned in the UK yet but it's on the cards for June.
The MHRA define nicotine (and therefore tobacco) as a substance that causes disease/addiction/mental disorder. They say:
Determination of dependence/addiction
Addiction is defined as a disease within the standard medical reference, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Substance dependence/addiction is defined as having three or more of the following elements
* Tolerance
* Withdrawal
* Large amounts used over a long period
* Unsuccessful efforts to cut down
* Time spent in obtaining the substance replaces social, occupational or recreational activities
* Continued use despite adverse consequences
By these criteria, nicotine (and as a consequence tobacco products) would be defined as being addictive/causing dependence as it meets 5 out of the 6 elements. Only time spent in obtaining the substance replaces social, occupational or recreational activities may not be applicable.
http://vapersnetwork.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=194&pid=1677#pid1677
Whatever laws protect and support people with established diseases/addictions/mental disorders/ should apply equally whatever the substance.
"someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities"
By this defintion, nicotine dependence or addiction - I don't know the precise medical definitions - is not a disability. It is vindictive and unreasonable smoking bans which cause the problem. If I don't drink coffee for two days, I get a bad headache; but that is not a problem as coffee drinking has not been banned. If I don't breath for two minutes, I pass out, but, since my lungs work, that is not a problem. The lady's problem would have been even greater had she been travelling by train in the UK, where smoking is banned on platforms. Perhaps it could be argued that smoking bans have made it a disability.
It would be very much in the interests of drug companies to class nicotine dependence or addiction as a disability.
Banning smoking in Members Only smoking clubs must surely be against some European law. Rather than wait around to find out precisely which, I suggest taking it for granted and starting up smoking clubs.
Kate, I've read your exchange with health person and am very impressed. If, as you say, ecigs are banned eventually, take a lesson from the smoking ban. Don't just accept it - put up a fight. There are two reasons they want to ban ecigs: the first is drug companies' profits and the second is that they look like cigarettes, particularly to cctv and in crowded pubs and stadiums. At least arrange the manufacture of several thousand imitation cigarettes. These days, even putting one behind your ear will unnerve many people.
Hi Jon. I agree that the problem is socially created - vested interests have taken a recreational habit and turned it into a medical problem - very profitably.
We're putting up a good fight for ecigs and if it comes to the crunch I think we'll see a court case that might expose the medical nicotine scam.
As far as the disability issue goes, I tend to agree.
I lost my job as a PA just over a year ago because I could not face a day in the office without being able to have a smoke and the new company policy was absolutely no smoking, anywhere, inside or out, during working hours. Yes, I could have taken a lunch break, but since my depression problems, exacerbated by the smoking ban, it was more beneficial for me to work through lunch and leave an hour earlier. Besides, chain smoking during a lunch break is not as beneficial as spacing smoking breaks out throughout the day.
I am now driving for a living, vans and lorries but find that with the restricted speed on most of these vehicles to 56 mph, long motorway journies become tedious and hypnotic. In order to stay alert and safe on the road I do occasionally smoke whilst driving, despite it being illegal. In fact, the majority of lorry drivers who smoke do the same. It helps to avoid accidents by aiding concentration. I frequently smoke when driving my car.
If a ban comes into force which makes smoking in all vehicles illegal then I would very much look into the route of disability in so far as looking for disability payments as I would not feel able to go to work if I could smoke en route, neither would I feel safe to continue the work that has so far done the most to lift my depression.
Stopping for a smoke does not have the same affect on concentration as actually smoking whilst driving.
Perhaps this issue is something that the H&S Executive need to look into, seeing as they regulate on everything else that just might cause harm or injury! Lack of concentration whilst driving any vehicle, never mind a darn great truck, is not the safest thing to do and if smoking a cigarette can help to avoid such accidents, then surely it should be justified?
Perhaps not, that would be too logical.
The one thing that has got a lot worse for me since this last major bout of depression, caused substantially by the smoking ban, is that my claustrophobia has got worse and continues to do so. It is something I have lived with all of my life, but only in the last few years has it become difficult to cope with, to the point where I now wear an SOS necklace for fear of being in an accident and coming round strapped to a stretcher, which would totally freak me out! For the first time in over 50 years claustrophobia is causing me some debilities.
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Join in with the victim mentality and smokers may as well just donate to ASH.
People demanding 'rights' is how we are in the place we now occupy. Forest adopt the correct approach, we don't apologise, we assert our preferences in a free country.
I agree with Supporter - and I think it's more than a merely linguistic quibble.
'Rights' is one of those words that tends to smack of student activism, placards, and clenched fists.
Nowadays, its very mention tends to create an equal-and-opposite reaction in many of its hearers.
Rights are things that are GIVEN. And, as such, may just as easily be taken away.
In this respect, they are (essentially) little more than Priviliges.
Who, however, will willingly die for 'rights' ?
'Freedom', however, tends to be pre-existing, viewed as an essential element of the Good Life, a vital component of spiritual, emotional, and intellectual growth, and something that millions HAVE died trying to protect - in the less comfortable age before television (Mogadon for the Masses).
'Rights' are an oxygen mask for the short-winded.
'Freedom' is the very air we beathe.
It's THE word we should never tire of using.
Unless we've become tired of Life itself........
(And I can't wait for the Three Stooges to offer us THEIR enlightening opinions on the subject).
And whilst on the subject of 'air', I've just come across this piece of tendentious mush from (where else ?) the 'Guardian' - regarding Jeremy Clarkson's sad position as tenth in 'a list of the top 10 most POLLUTING celebrity motorists.'
The writer is speaking, of course, of something called 'CARBON emissions'.
Carbon is the very basis of ALL life on this Planet.
And yet how easily the Opinion-Formers have themselves come to accept the Carbon-As-A-Threat-To-Life argument (which they propagate with increasingly feverish intensity).
If such palpably unscientific absurdity has come to be accepted SO easily and SO unquestioningly in a supposedly 'scientific' age, we must not be surprised at all the other drivel we're fed daily - like hungry fledglings, with our beaks continually open for more.
Yummy !
(I dunno - they'll be trying to TAX it next)
Yes. Noone is born with any rights. We are born with instincts, survival and procreation, but not rights, these are bestowed upon us by a civilised society.
I will always remember one of those police action type of documentaries. They were in Upermill on a Friday night. A policeman had arrested a youf and was escorting him to the van. The youf said "what about my human rights". The policeman answered, "human rights? you are not even human"!
My husband has a fear of flying and after security check in its impossible to smoke, so he disappears into the mens room frequently before boarding to have a smoke and calm his nerves.
I'm always expecting to see him being dragged out by the ear by airport police but he tells me that there's more than him having a smoke in the loos.
People get counselling and all sorts of help for fear of flying but a few smokes does the trick for a lot of people and doesent cost a fortune unlike getting so called 'professional help'.
The damage these anti bastards are causing, like forcing people to quit their job like Lyn above, is an abomination to a person's personal freedoms,
" an abomination to a person's personal freedoms............."
Quite right, Ann.
Some time before the Ban came into force, when arguments were raging about whether smoking should be banned in places where 'food was served' (remember that ?), I wrote a letter to Conservative Central Office on this very subject.
Somewhat naively (I was younger then), I expected an eruption of volacanic anger from the Tory High Command at this most undignified assault upon our liberties.
Big mistake.
The un-nameable wench - obviously a keen student of Mill and Hayek - wrote back to inform me that:
"OTHER people have freedoms, too, Martin !"
Since I had broached the matter of smoking rooms, smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs etc, I can only conclude that the lady's interpretation of 'freedoms' was rather more restrictive than mine.
HERS was the freedom of anti-smokers to go into a Smoking Area or Smoker-Friendly Pub, and DEMAND that the smokers STOP.
Obviously aghast at Labour's rather confused position on the subject, she also reminded me that:
"The Chief Medical Officer has also threatened to RESIGN !"
(My capitals, her exclamation mark).
Like I should be persuaded by the hissy fit of a mere civil servant ?
It's from that point that I began to have my doubts about the New Conservatives, and their doltish crypto-authoritarianism..................
One thing I would like to pick up from your post Martin; something which I had completely forgotten about, and that is "when arguments were raging about whether smoking should be banned in places where 'food was served"
I didn't personally accept this argument, but I know scores of people who did, and looking back on it now, wasn't it just the most ridiculous argument anyone could possibly dream up?
The smoking ban, was brought in because we were led to believe that the second-hand smoke from other people's cigarettes, cigars or pipes, were harmful to those who were around it, and that it could or would, lead to heart, and other problems and possibly cancer.
So why did anyone believe that smoking should be banned in places serving food? What the hell has food got to do with second hand smoke? Would our bacon rolls suddenly have a heart attack? Would our fish and chips end up with cancer?
We should have seen the writing on the wall then, and realised that the ban was more to do with certain people just not liking the smell of tobacco, which of course then escalated to the big pharmaceutical companies jumping on the bandwagon and realising that they could make a fortune out of it. This in turn led to the so called "scientists" and other "experts" selling their services to the highest bidders by providing them with "scientific proof" that smoking kills everyone within a ten mile radius, or more if you are willing to pay.
Quite right, Peter !
Even in its own terms, the no-smoking-where-there's-food argument was ridiculous and wholly irrational:
"The spraying of mustard gas, Phosgene, and Plutonium-based aerosols is forbidden in areas where food is likely to be consumed".
Perhaps, however, this was just a TACTICAL foot-in-the-door ploy ?
People won't accept a TOTAL ban.
But they MIGHT accept a PARTIAL one (SMOKE + PORK PIES = DANGER).
And if they do - why not go the whole hog ?
I suspect the no-smoking-in-cars argument proceeds from the same idea (beginning with the Children Argument).
And then we can move on to An Englishman's Castle.
Once you've seen through Their deviousness, they become SO predictable.
Let us hope that future history books will recall this as the Age of Silliness - from which we eventually recovered...............
PS:
And the same goes for the Pubcos' Level Playing Field argument.
If Joe Public decides to frequent the smoker-friendly pub, then it MAY just be that THAT is what Joe Public wants. Why should retailers not be willing to service his needs ?
Something doesn't ring true here..........
PPS:
Has this thought struck anyone else (as it just has me) ?
There's more intelligent, informed, and occasionally passionate DEBATE on THIS forum between people who are (essentially) On The Same Side than you will nowadays EVER find between the main political parties.
I think that tells us SOMETHING..............
(As if we didn't know).
"and realised that the ban was more to do with certain people just not liking the smell of tobacco"
How very very true Peter, you've coined it in one, and I would add 'butts' to that.
The worried well, the seismic shift in false wealth
when everyone was beginning to think they were upper class, with percieved upper class tastes and because they were worth it, smoking and smell and butts took the hardest hit.
They didnt need the fags any more, it gave out the wrong image - too working class.
Snorting coke was OK, very acceptable and trendy, and of course very clean and efficient and didnt leave a trace of smell not to mention dirty butts and OMG how working class.
Shooting up was OK too, very daring if you knew how to handle it.
While the Sharks circled, saw a nice easy little earner, set up their various brainwashing industries, easy peasy, money for old rope.
And the rest is history.
Martin, you asked "Has this thought struck anyone else (as it just has me) ?"
I have certainly believed the same for a number of years, greatly assisted by the fact that none of the 3 main parties would know, let alone understand, what intelligent, informed and passionate (occasional, or otherwise) debate was!
That said, I also think it totally disgusting and unfair that these same 3 main parties are given the time to debate on main issues on the TV in the run up to the election, but the lesser parties are being denied the right to be included. It is as if we only have the choice of these 3 on May 6th, which is not in the least bit true!
These elections are becoming more and more orchestrated to keep the spotlight on the main 3 and deny the smaller parties the chance of getting even a step up the political ladder!
Is that really and free and democratic society? I don't think so.
I agree Lyn, it is grossly unfair. All parties running for election should be allowed to dabate on TV as well as the main parties.
Its not as if it would be interrupting anthing even mildly intelligent or enjoyable for viewers, as there's nothing on TV these days only crap.
Democracy how are ya!
Ann and Lyn -
Yes, it IS totally unfair.
But predictable - if you accept the premise that the Big Three PLUS the Media together constitute the New Establishment.
Since, despite the wholly overblown 'differences of emphasis' that surface from time to time to confirm our tribal allegiances to the Blue, Red, and Yellow Teams, it is ONLY today the minority parties which articulate the undoctored, and highly variable, views of the Electorate.
The New Establishment has its own agenda, and would probably do away with political parties immediately if it could - together with all those tedious elections.
But our faux-democracy acts as a useful safety valve - until such time as a fully-functional Control Grid is in place (to keep us in OUR place).
In the Land of the Free, after all, certain categories of people are now routinely placed on an FBI watch-list as potential 'terrorists', including:
Devout Christians.
Home educators.
Defenders of the Constitution.
Anyone questioning the New World Order and Globalism.
And so on.
In the UK, they'd probably add:
People defending the rights of minority parties.
Or of smokers.
And all regular contributors to 'Taking Liberties'.
Very soon, anyone asking ANY serious questions about our power structures and laws will be listed as 'potentially subversive'.
It's only a matter of time.
And - like Neo in 'The Matrix' - people will have to decide pretty soon whether to take the Blue Pill, or the Red Pill*.
I made my choice some time ago.............
*(No, I'm not just talking 'politics')
Well said and well put Martin V. You have, I think, hit the nail on the head.