Furious Seasons

June 24, 2009

Pres. Obama Should Push Back On Questions About His Smoking

I've noted before that the DC media has had much fun poking at President Barack Obama about how much he still smokes and how I think the media ought to stay out of the President's private life (or do they plan on asking what he eats each day, if he drinks soda pop and whether he and the First Lady have sex?) and stick to far more important questions.

But, no. During yesterday's press conference a reporter who identified herself as a former smoker went after President Obama about smoking. If I've watched one trend over my 15 years as a reporter, it's that once a media person stops drinking or smoking (or whatever), they become most virulent in attacking that which they once did. For instance, I know of recovering alcoholics in the press corps who will go hammer-and-tong on homeless housing programs where chronic inebriates are allowed to drink, even though there's good evidence that such programs are helpful, simply because the method of stopping drinking that worked for them must work for one and all (no, I won't get into any names here). You'd think their editors would be smart enough and attentive enough to questions of unfair bias to assign such stories to clearer minds, but when it comes to that perceived to be a vice all those old standards fall apart.

Here's yesterday's exchange (deep down in this transcript) between McClatchy's Margaret Talev and President Obama:

"Q: How many cigarettes a day do you now smoke? Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people? And do you believe the new law would help you to quit? If so, why?"
"THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the new law that was put in place is not about me, it's about the next generation of kids coming up. So I think it's fair, Margaret, to just say that you just think it's neat to ask me about my smoking, as opposed to it being relevant to my new law. (Laughter.) But that's fine, I understand. It's an interesting human -- it's an interesting human interest story.

"But I've said before that, as a former smoker, I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don't do it in front of my kids, I don't do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95 percent cured, but there are times where -- (laughter) -- there are times where I mess up. And, I mean, I've said this before. I get this question about once every month or so, and I don't know what to tell you, other than the fact that, like folks who go to AA, once you've gone down this path, then it's something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don't want is kids going down that path in the first place. Okay?"

If the President was once a pack-a-day smoker, then 95 percent cured would translate into something on the order of seven cigarettes a week as his current consumption (rumor has it he smokes Parliament Lights, or P-Funks as they are known), plus all that nicotine gum he reportedly chews--and the media is chipping him up about it? And asking if he smokes in front of others? Does Talev ask stupid, biased questions in front of the world? Please. I'm glad the President called Talev, clearly religious on the matter (hopefully, her bureau chief chewed her ass out afterwards), out for messing with him on what is fundamentally a trivial matter and a personal choice.

That said, I'm a bit tired of watching the President handle the smoking question with such selfishness (I don't know another term to use here, but I can assure you that his smoking is not all about him). The reason the media keeps pressing him on smoking has very little to do with him per se and everything to do with a culture war over smoking and other Nanny State concerns (food, soda pop, weight, exercise, guns, etc.). Between 40 million and 50 million American adults smoke cigarettes regularly and there are millions more closet smokers out there as well. The sheer persistence of this bloc of smokers drives the anti-smoking advocacy groups (funded with billions of dollars from pharma companies, pharma-connected foundations and a huge slush fund from the Master Tobacco settlement of the 1990s) and Nanny State health departments absolutely batty. They've been rolling out their smoking education programs since the early-1990s (often making spurious claims about smoking), running smoking ban initiatives throughout the country (often making unscientific claims about secondhand smoke), driving up the price of cigarettes and other tobacco through their tax-loving minions in various state legislatures and the Congress and, finally, getting regulation of tobacco into the hands of the FDA. And yet 40 million to 50 million adult Americans make the choice each day to light up. (For the record, I am one of them.)

What the anti-smoking advocates want is a big symbolic victory, their grand teaching moment and they want it in the form of President Obama.

I think that the President should use the opportunity to shift the conversation from one of when is he going to quit 100 percent (from the looks of things, I'd say never) to pointing out to his occasional interrogators on the subject that the tens of millions of Americans who do smoke also have rights and that those rights are being trampled on a regular basis. I don't even think I need to get into the housing discrimination that smokers now face across the country and that a lot of that discrimination disproportionately targets lower-income Americans and, in some cases, Americans with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia (some of the most disadvantaged Americans of all). The President ought to use questions about his smoking to point out how nutso this kind of discrimination has gotten (real world example: a friend of mine in Seattle was recently denied a new apartment due to the fact that he told the landlord he wouldn't smoke on the property and the landlord told him that he wouldn't rent to a smoker under any circumstances regardless of where they smoked), particularly in regards to a product that is legal (or are we going to start denying rental housing to someone who drinks a six-pack a week?). It would be really nice to hear the President go all-contrarian and community organizer on the ex-smokers who toy with him.

I think President Obama should use future questions about his smoking to make the point that, like it or not, nicotine is a stimulant, well-known as such for hundreds of years and that it does have beneficial effects (as does caffeine, as do other stimulants). The President could even use these supposed teaching moments for a teaching moment of his own and ask why if so many millions are into nicotine while the most common delivery method of said nicotine is allegedly so bad, then why hasn't some smarty pants come up with a better, safer nicotine delivery method. I can assure you that nicotine gum is not a replacement and neither are the Swedish snus and the e-cigarettes. There is something deeply magical about a cigarette and perhaps it's time for a federal stimulus program to find a way to replicate that magic in a more socially-acceptable form.

In other words, it's time for President Obama to stop acting so conflicted about his own smoking and embrace it a bit more, at least psychologically, and also realize that the game is far bigger than his own smoking and that it speaks to the concerns, in all directions, of many millions of Americans who smoke and are feeling quite put upon these days.

It sure would be a hell of a lot simpler than figuring out what tone to strike on Iran, dealing with the economy or engineering a victory on health care reform.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at June 24, 2009 11:45 AM

del.icio.us Digg it reddit

Comments

OMG... The President should "stop acting so conflicted about his own smoking" ?!? So now let me get this straight, you're telling Obama how he should FEEL about his own personal habits? I don't think I know any smokers who "embrace" their smoking. It's a habit that most people feel put upon by and wish to be rid of because they all know that it can lead to horrible health problems and quitting is extremely difficult. It's an addiction and most people ensnared in it don't usually feel like "embracing" it, they feel burdened by it.

All this nonsense in this post about the Nanny State and dictating how Barack Obama should feel and talk about smoking is really turning me off to this blog. I come here for news about the mental health industry not anti-Obama bashing. And including a little bit about how much schizophrenics smoke doesn't hack it.

Don't expect another donation from me during your next fundraiser. I'll get my pharma news elsewhere. Maybe Fox news is looking for a new correspondent and you can hop on there and bitch and moan about how Barack Obama isn't validating your pet opinions about smoking (while the world goes up in flames - I mean, don't you think the guy has other things to worry about?!)

Good luck.

Philip Dawdy responds: sorry to see you go. and yes obama does have other things to worry about and so too presumably should the white house press corps.

Posted by: David at June 24, 2009 12:30 PM

Well humph! Maybe that last commenter was the one who wanted to get my medical license pulled for writing you a sarcastic letter stating that you shoould be able to smoke in the privacy of your own home for the sake of your mental health. Nicotine is a drug and helps people with schizophrenia and other mental problems. Maybe being sane in the present is worth the risk of later getting heart disease and cancer? Disclaimer. I have smoked two cigarellos in the past year and lied about it to my wife.

Posted by: Doug Bremner at June 24, 2009 02:36 PM

"I can assure you that nicotine gum is not a replacement..."

yes it is. I've never been a smoker because, well, I value my lungs and also because smoke is hot and it hurts. But I chew nicotine gum sometimes. and the nicotine hit is a lot better than I've ever had from smoking (the few times I've tried).

I think you need to chew harder.

Posted by: Neuroskeptic at June 24, 2009 03:51 PM

i'm with philip on most of this post and he'll be far better off without readers like the one above who missed the point.

Posted by: Jones at June 24, 2009 03:55 PM

This whole smoking sham has become ridiculous among supposedly recent ex-smokers. It is even more hilarious that a Margaret is all over the internet screaming how everyone should not smoke and how holy she is now that the demon has been removed by way of exorcism with the use of Chantix, the new big killer. This whole idea that smokers are evil, disgusting and somehow beneath the non-smokers are common place and big pharma has had a helping hand with this idea. Big tobacco has paid for pharma to promote these novel drugs. Pharma has a responsibility to play show and tell to the public about the reality of their quit smoking promotions among their paid experts and how these doctors have taken money from big tobacco and also pharma. It’s time for some truth in America.

Hey, good idea about going on the Fox Network! They have the highest rating for a reason. They tell the truth. You said nothing bad about the President, just the truth about smoking.

Posted by: John Q at June 24, 2009 04:12 PM

Poor Obama. He can't even smoke in his own House.

Just so they don't give him Chantix or Zyban [Wellbutrin]. The Cold War might heat up again.

I disagree with the first writer because I think smoking is a HUGE issue with the mental health news. It is probably the second most important issue they have [after the meds]. Everyone knows that smoking helps people who are "mentally ill" and also helps people who are tense and intense.

Ever since the smoking bans, people have turned to food instead and America is grossly overweight. This is not good for ones health either.

Here is an article from the American Psychiatric Association regarding smoking & schizophrenia. Seems like smoking even prevents people from ever developing the disease. Can't have that!
---------------------------------------------
Smoking May Protect Against Schizophrenia

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Dec 29 - Cigarette smoking at age 18-20 seems to be associated with a reduced risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia, according to researchers. However, they say, any possible benefit is greatly offset by the harm of smoking.
"Many case-control and cross-sectional studies have observed an association with cigarette smoking after the onset of schizophrenia, and there is evidence to suggest that smoking may improve symptoms in people with this disorder," Dr. Stanley Zammit from the University of Wales College of Medicine, UK, and colleague write in the December issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry.
In a longitudinal study, the researchers examined whether smoking alters the risk of subsequently developing schizophrenia. Included were 50,000 Swedish conscripts who were followed up by record linkage to the National Register of Inpatient Care from 1970 to 1996 to determine hospital admission for schizophrenia.
A total of 362 (0.70%) subjects were diagnosed with schizophrenia by 1996. After adjustment for confounders, the team observed an association between smoking cigarettes at age 18 and a lower rate of developing schizophrenia.
A linear relationship was found between the number of cigarettes smoked and a lower risk of schizophrenia (adjusted hazard ratio for linear trend across smoking categories, 0.8). The adjusted hazard ratio for heavy smokers was 0.5.
While the investigators caution that the harmful effects of smoking outweigh any possible benefits, they note that further investigation may lead to important findings about the etiology of schizophrenia at the molecular level.
Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:2216-2221.
------------------------------------------
Remember, too, that being medicated to the hilt on psychotropic meds causes a decrease in lifespan of 15 to 25 years. Smoking causes a decrease in lifespan of 5 and one-half years.

Posted by: Rosie at June 24, 2009 05:16 PM

Philip,
As you know I'm not a smoker. So I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on why nicotine gum doesn't do the trick. I know there are a lot of behavioural connections that go with cigarettes that make it hard to quit. I can see that chewing gum, well, wouldn't do all that great behaviourally. Is that what you mean or are you talking about the nicotine "hit?" If the later, would chewing more pieces do it?

Hey, if you guys keep talking about the benefits of nicotine I may take up chewing nicotine gum myself. I tried mightily to smoke in my late teens. I thought it was very suave. It continues to be branded as something grown ups do, so don't be surprised kids will do it. I could never master the art of smoking and breathing at the same time. Turns out I have asthma. Cigarette smoke seems to bother me more than wood smoke (my heating source) or marijuana for some reason. It has a sort of "sharp" edge to it that almost stops my breathing if I'm close to it.

I'm rather appalled at your friend's prospective landlord. How weird. My best friend smokes and she clues me in on some of the crap she has to put up with. I'm not sure why anyone would think that sort of rudeness would ever help anyone quit. She wants to, but I see her get her back up when this stuff happens and who can blame her? It's usually strangers when she's outside on a smoke break. Almost as if it's any of their business.

I do believe second-hand smoke is not a good thing. I know it bothers me. But Seattle sounds really, really crazy about this stuff. We should be able to work these things out, fergawdsake.
Sherry (daughter of a reporter who sobered up but didn't seem to get weird about it. He was a jerk about other stuff.)

Posted by: Sherry at June 24, 2009 06:54 PM

Peace be with you Philip

I'm feeling you here bro. I too battle with nicotine smoking. I also agree with your first paragraph that Obama should be hammered on sooooo many other more urgent issues than whether he puffs a fag once in a while.

I'm not sure I understand what Dave was talking about. He kind of sounded like one of those psycho-iatrists who spin of few truths with their bullshit in order to give it the air of "authority." I'm curious if he ever really gave you any money in the first place.

I know you may reject this comment, but I really feel he is playing the provocateur. Either that or he is one of those "closet smokers." Either way, an OMG along with an I quit seems a gross overreaction. Especially since he didn't even question your main point.

I'm not sure I agree eye to eye with all you posted, but believe you make some good points that are not made in the "mainstream." Isn't that the purpose of alternative media? Maybe I'll fly a sign for you on your next fund raiser to off set Dave. Keep up the good work.

love eternal
tad

Posted by: tad at June 24, 2009 07:25 PM

The topic of smoking is relevent as it has to do with freewill and rights of an individual to consume drugs. I do think people have the right to consume any drug they want. To force people to abstain, such as the prohibition of alcohol, does not work.
The same as forcing Schizophrenic's TO consume drugs, because YOU say the drugs work.
Force does not work. Reason and persuasion often does.

The cost of jailing the relatively harmless drug of marijuana is expensive and very similar to the prohibition of alcohol.

Smoking tobacco, a legal drug , is the same as drinking alcohol, an adult personal choice, and I agree the Pres. should ridicule those that question his private life.

Posted by: markps2 at June 25, 2009 05:57 AM

Can't vouch for today, but having known the reporter at hand personally at one point several years ago, she once smoked like a chimney.

How shocking (LOL).

Posted by: Larry at June 25, 2009 07:00 AM

You know, Obama as President can choose whereever he wants to smoke, that's the difference between him and Dawdy, and WHY this is a crock of shit.

Dawdy's landlord converts the building to non-smoking only, and leaves long time residents having to bow down to ignorant political bullshit that runs this country.

The fact that someone is using that half-satirical letter Bremner wrote to yank his medical license is exactly WHY this post is on a mental health blog like this one!

1. Discrimination of patients with mental health dx

2. Housing discrimination

3. Freedom of speech, via writing a blog w/out retaliation from the work place.

The fact that Bremner has any heat on him at all for defending someone's rights as someone with mental illness dx, and he has the internal heat placed on him by a psychiatric department (I assume)at Emory University, where excuse me for living, Senator Grassley is investigating CHARLES NEMEROFF...the most conflicted KOL out there for psychiatry, well if that isn't mental health blog news I don't know what is.

Obama is a topic here because there is a health reform at stake that surely will again leave mental health care at the bottom of the barrell where it is now, under-funded, inadequate and lacking housing and a non-pharma influenced paradigm in place.

The DNC received 1 million dollars from Pfizer for box seats!

Obama's got pharma-backing and if no one sees this then I shall call you fools and nothing more, it's a sealed-deal at the FDA for drug approval that is taking the next generation of kids down to hell with antipsychotic use, and yes I agree, Obama should give CHANTIX a whirl and just see how things turn out!

Posted by: Stephany at June 25, 2009 10:52 AM

oh yes, nothing more vindictive and hypocritical than a convert to rightousness, especially if there's something to be made out of it....

Posted by: brod at June 25, 2009 02:09 PM

I did my clinical internship at residential crisis treatment center and I can tell you that smoking does, in fact, help some people with mental health problems cope. I have every reason to believe that it helps regular folks cope as well.

One of the reasons kids don't buy into the anti-smoking efforts is that they are well aware when they're being bullshitted. Most of the negatives about smoking are true, but when you fail to acknowledge any of the positives, people can tell that you're making half an argument and not respecting their intelligence.

The reason Obama can't push back on just about any issue related to his personal life, by the way, is that he knows that his personality is a big part of how he gets things done. I won't call it "cult of personality" just yet, but it's heading in that direction, folks.

Posted by: CigarShrink at June 28, 2009 06:32 PM

My comment is mostly directed to the first commenter , who so rudely stated that smokers don't "embrace" their smoking. He obviously doesn't know many smokers, or the ones he knows are afraid to admit that they smoke because they want to.

Personally, I DO embrace my habit/addiction, fully and enthusiastically. I love smoking. I love the taste, the smell, and the reduction in my stress levels. I'm bipolar and have fibromyalgia, and don't have health insurance, so can't afford medications. The ONLY relief I get is from smoking, and as long as it continues to be legal, I will continue to do it.

People seem to get rabid about their right not to be exposed to my smoking, but what about my rights? I'm not allowed to smoke on government property, but I pay taxes just like the nonsmokers do, so it's just as much my property as theirs (actually, I pay MORE taxes than they do. As of April of this year, a the price of a pound of tobacco to make cigarettes with went from $15 to $40, ALL in taxes. That's an increase of almost 200%)

I've never once seen an article in the paper about a smoker killing someone because nicotine caused a car wreck. On the other hand, alcohol kills innocents every single day in this country. I see constant complaints about smokers causing insurance rates to increase due to smoking related health issues; but not one complaint about the increased health care costs due to cirrohsis of the liver, liver cancer, etc. caused by drinking. And what about the costs associated with long term care for those injured by drunk drivers?

Haven't we learned anything from the attempts to legislate personal choices in the past? Prohibition failed miserably, only succeeding in putting huge amounts of money into the hands of criminals willing to supply people with alcohol, and killing those who bought contaminated liquor. The "War on Drugs" is just as much of a failure, putting millions of dollars in the hands of criminals supplying the drugs, and costing the taxpayers more millions to keep people in prison, without doing anything at all to actually reduce drug use. Any attempt to make tobacco illegal will have exactly the same result.

It is not possible to legislate personal choice out of existence, no matter how hard the government tries, encouraged by those who think that only the choices THEY make are valid. My choices may not be the same as the choices someone else makes, but I will support their right to make those choices, just as I will defend my own right to choose for myself.

Posted by: kimmieCollas at July 8, 2009 11:09 PM