24 septembre 2009
Denial phase of emotional recovery after smoking
The denial phase of emotional recovery is associated with ending a long and intense chemical relationship. It is the flip-side of active dependency denial, which used distortion and blocking techniques to provide cover and insulation that enabled us keep our nicotine relationship ongoing, while suppressing most anxieties associated with doing so. Denial is the unconscious defense mechanism - just below the surface - that allows us to resolve the emotional conflict and anxiety that would normally be felt by a person living in a permanent state of self-destructive chemical bondage.
Most nicotine addicts we'll see today are well insulated by a thick protective blanket of unconscious denial rationalizations, minimizations, fault projections, escapes, intellectualizations and delusions. They insulate them from the pain and reality of captivity, or create the illusion that the problem is somehow being solved. But here, during recovery, those same anxiety defense tools will now distort reality to buffer and aid transition to a nicotine-free life. Although we may say we are ending nicotine use, on a host of levels the mind isn’t yet convinced. If convinced, why do so many of us initially treat recovery as though some secret or hide in isolation? Why do we need an escape path? If convinced, why take comfort in knowing where that one hidden cigarette rests or the location of that last pouch, tin or pack? Why not throw them out, along with the ashtray or spit can?
The denial phase protects against the immediate emotional shock of leaving the most intense relationship we may have ever known, while embarking upon a journey from which there should be no return. It’s a shock buffer that allows us time to come to terms with where we now find ourselves. It operates unconsciously to diminish anxiety by refusing to perceive that recovery will really happen. While a positive force in allowing this journey to commence -- including allowing you the courage to reach for this book – it can also forecast relapse. It hurts to recall the number of times I went three days and then “rewarded” myself with that one puff that spelled relapse. It almost seems as though I’d endured the worst of withdrawal just to renew and invigorate lame “it’s too hard” rationalizations for continued smoking. Clearly I hadn’t made it beyond denial. But if I had, next up would have been anger.
24 juin 2009
Package onserts
One of the vehicles for the corrective statements is a
cigarette package onsert, which the district court ordered
Defendants to “affix to cigarette packaging, either on the outside
of or within the outer cellophane wrapping around the package
. . . in the same manner as certain Defendants, such as Philip
Morris and Brown & Williamson, have utilized package onserts
in the past.”
Defendants
object that the onserts violate the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act (“Labeling Act”), which provides that “[n]o
statement relating to smoking and health, other than the
statement required by section 1333 of this title, shall be required
on any cigarette package.”
The Labeling Act defines a “package” as “a pack, box,
carton, or container of any kind in which cigarettes are offered
for sale, sold, or otherwise distributed to consumers.” A package onsert is “[a] communication affixed to
but separate from an individual cigarette pack and/or carton
purchased at retail by consumers, such as a miniature brochure
included beneath the outer cellophane wrapping or glued to the
outside of the cigarette packaging.”
25 mai 2009
Smokers lawsuit against tobacco companies
The California Supreme Court ruled against the people who smoke last year, saying a federal law on tobacco products advertising and the companies’ First Amendment rights to commercial speech allowed the marketing campaigns.
The federal legislation confirms the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to control deceptive or unfair practices in cigarette advertising.
The smokers sued under a California law that bars unjust competition. The competition is alleged to be unfair in this case because competing tobacco companies that respected state law acted at a disadvantage.
Urging the Supreme Court to turn down the case, the tobacco companies said the federal legislation pre-empted any state law ban on cigarette ads if the ban was based on health and smoking.
In January, the court decided another tobacco case, where smokers in the northeastern state of Maine are suing tobacco companies for alleged deceptive advertising of «light» cigarettes.
02 avril 2009
Popular cigarettes created by the company Ligget&Myers
Cigarette smoking has become a style icon for many people around the
world. The cigarette has become very common among people of every age,
race and social class. You can find people smoking cigarette in many
places you visit. Whether you attend a social function or family, you
will most likely find people smoking cigarette. Even people don’t mind
to smoke in the parks and in the public places. You will find people
smoking in the offices, parties and get together. There are different
brands of cigarette which you can find in the market. There are few
companies, which offer the best quality of cigarettes on the market.
L&M
is one of the popular cigarettes created by the company
Ligget&Myers. Ligget & Myers Tobacco Company was founded in
1873 after a partnership between J.E. Ligget and George Smith Meyers
was established. The trade name of the cigarette was derived from the
initials of its producer L&M “Ligget & Meyers”. The cigarettes
by L&M Company are most preferred by a large amount of people.
L&M Company offers the best quality of cigarettes to the people
with a smooth and rich tasting flavor. The L&M Company makes sure
that they are able to maintain the quality and rich taste in the
cigarette while still maintaining a competitive price.