Helping smokers to an early grave with Champix

A recent article in the Toronto Star claims the province is considering placing smoking cessation drug Champix (and possibly Zyban), on the list of drugs covered under OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Program).

Diane McArthur, who runs the Ontario Public Drugs Programs Division of the Ontario Ministry of Health, confirms that an “expert advisory committee” has given the green light to the anti-smoking drug Champix and a study of Zyban, another smoking cessation drug, is already underway. The Drug Programs Division is responsible for making decisions on what drugs will be covered under the provincial health plan.

It's estimated that covering the smoking cessation drugs under OHIP will cost Ontario taxpayers $20 million annually.

NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products such as the patch, nicotine gum and lozenges, are not being considered for coverage under the health plan, but the Ministry of Health Propagan . . . er, Promotion announced recently that free nicotine replacement therapy would be available through family health teams to “help” up to 20,000 smokers over the next two years.

At any rate, both Champix and Zyban are reported to have serious side effects, including depression and suicidal ideation.

In June, 2008, Health Canada warned that Champix had caused “unusual feelings of agitation, depressed mood, hostility, changes in behavior or impulsive or disturbing thoughts, such as ideas of self-harm or of harming others, in some users.”

It should be noted that, among the thousands of lawsuits pending against the manufacturers of these drugs are hundreds of cases alleging actual suicides from the use of both Zyban and Champix.

And, in addition to warnings from Health Canada, and the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned pilots and air traffic controllers from using Chantix, as Champix is known in the US. It has also been banned for use by commercial drivers.

Of course, according to the anti-smoker cartel, which likes to depict smokers as social misfits with no redeeming qualities, the risk that a smoker might leap off a tall building or throw themselves in front of a fast moving train is perfectly acceptable. But then, to the anti-smoker zealots, any risk is apparently preferable to engaging in some vile, anti-social habit like smoking.

God save us from those who want to save us from the evils of tobacco, even when faced with the possibility that they may be saving some of us right into an early grave.

The Star article by Tanya Talaga was surprisingly even-handed; not at all what I'm used to from the main stream media, especially from the somewhat liberal-minded Toronto Star. There was no editorializing about the inflated body counts the zealots attribute to smoking. And, even the exaggerated health care costs associated with smoking were attributed to an unidentifiable “they”, as if the author wanted to disassociate herself from the highly suspect claim. “Smoking costs the provincial health system $1.6 billion a year, they say.”

But, what really surprised me was a column by Rosie DiManno the day following Talaga's article. “The argument that smokers put undue strain on our health system has no traction with me, not until universal medical care is denied to piehole-stuffing fat people, the promiscuous, the bareback riders, the booze-hounds, the drug addicts and anyone else whose lifestyle choices put them at risk.” Huh?

What the fuck? This woman comes across like an unrepentant smoker. How did she get a pro-smoking column past the Star's cens . . . er, editors.

Says Rosie: “I’ll pass on the prescription meds, thanks — already have a drug cabinet full of those. But smokes are a one-size-fits-all antidote for what ails you: Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, obesity, mania, anorexia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and deadline freak-out-itis.”

Shit. No doubt about it, the woman's got bal . . . er, backbone. And she seems even more pissed off at the extremists than I am. She's just more articulate than I am at expressing her displeasure. But then, that's why she gets paid the big bucks.

The anti-smoker crowd will likely be calling for her head for some of her remarks.

“Lacking the gumption to make tobacco products utterly illegal yet ever greedy for the impost they collect off the top — which is why sensible people buy their darts from guys who come into the bar toting inventory from the Indian reservation free market — bureaucratic nico-Nazis, adjusting their halos of righteousness, have perfected the practice of suck-and-blow: Smoking bad, smokers’ money good.

They know full well that we, the hounded constituency of tobacco-lovers, will continue to buy cigarettes, regardless of price. Thus, they can simultaneously take the high road — spending oodles on anti-smoking campaigns that have had negligible impact — and the low road, which is to exploit smokers as cash cow.

It’s an endless circle that . . . (ooh, perfect smoke ring I’ve just exhaled here) . . . gives the illusion of efficacy, which, boosted (or not) by the tsunami of junk science smoking studies, justifies spending more money and constantly expanding the hobnailed anti-smoking brigades: $33.8 million lavished on cessation programs and research since 2005.”

Wow. You go, girl. You can read Rosie's column here. Smokers and pro-choice advocates will enjoy it.

As for adherents of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker . . . well, who really gives a fuck?