Why Barack Obama should come clean about his smoking and what he can do to quit

As a physician I believe that your personal health should be private. I can certainly understand why the American people would want the right to know about a potential presidential candidate's health prior to an election. However, afterwards, the health of a President, unless life threatening should probably remain private. That said, the President recently had a complete physical and the results of that physical are now public. In addition to knowing the President's blood pressure and cholesterol numbers, we now also know according to a New York Time's report (President in ‘Excellent Health,’ Routine Checkup Finds) that President Barack Obama continues to smoke. Though I still believe that health should be a private matter for patients, even if that patient happens to be the President, since our President has chosen to reveal his health information, I think that he should officially come clean about how much he smokes. According to the New York Times report, all we know is that he doesn't smoke on a daily basis, but rather smokes infrequently. In June, the President was quoted as saying, “Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No.”

Tobacco smoke in the US is an important matter. It is currently the single leading cause of preventable death and accounts for billions of dollars in health care costs. Given our current health care crisis, including the escalating costs of health care, I think it would be important for the President to discuss the burden of tobacco in this country as well as his own struggle in quitting cigarette smoking.

Now as far as what the President can do, a lot depends on how much he smokes. My guess is that he probably smokes a few cigarettes a few days a week during stressful times. If this is the case, then withdrawal is likely a minimal concern, and his nicotine consumption is probably just reinforcing this very bad habit. If that is the case, stress management techniques are probably the best way to quit. I advise patients who smoke only a few cigarettes a day to think about what else they can do to manage their stress besides smoking. For example, taking a walk, reading a book, meditation, prayer, etc. Something that is relaxing and reduces stress. Certainly our President is under a lot of stress and one can understand why he would need some sort of stress relieving activity. Smoking cigarettes is obviously not the best way to reduce stress.

If the President does smoke more than just a few cigarettes a day, the current guidelines recommend that most patients benefit from pharmacotherapy (medication). Nicotine replacement in the form of lozenges, gum or the patch have been effective in doubling quit rates. Even more effective than nicotine replacement are pills, specifically buproprion or Chantix (Varenicline). Recently there's been some concern about safety issues regarding Chantix, ( see More FDA warnings should not be cause for worry. and Where's the Good News about Chantix? ) initially brought up by the FDA. However, these safety concerns have not seemed to have panned out, and more recent studies seem to indicate that Chantix is very safe given certain precautions, specifically worsening of mental conditions. Patients using any form of a medication should be aware that quitting cigarettes (with or without medication) can worsen underlying mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety.

In addition, I have blogged previously about Electronic Cigarettes , which I have received a number of comments (also see More on Electronic Cigarettes or E-cigs ). I think those who responded are mostly e-cigarette users that have misunderstood my objections to e-cigarettes. My objection is not that I am opposed to the existence of electronic cigarette. It's more that e-cigarettes are not regulated, so 1) their safety cannot be completely ascertained and 2) they are being promoted as a smoking cessation treatment, which they have not proven to do. E-cigarettes are likely a healthier alternative to tobacco smoke, but should be regulated by the FDA since they do contain nicotine. I'm also bothered that electronic cigarettes are sold in our shopping malls, and can potentially be purchased by children. Electronic cigarettes are probably less carcinogenic, than tobacco cigarettes. However, nicotine itself has unhealthy effects, and the goal of smoking cessation should be getting off nicotine completely. All of the treatments for smoking cessation such as the patch and the gum and even the pills are only supposed to be used for short periods of time, usually three months to no more than 6 months. Electronic cigarettes might be safer replacement for tobacco cigarettes, but are not designed to get patients off of nicotine. Generally, most of the nicotine replacement products work by giving patients a continuous supply of nicotine, and eventually weaning that level down once the patient has been off tobacco cigarettes for a few weeks. For example, with the nicotine gum or lozenge, you don't take a piece of gum every time you crave a cigarette. Rather, you use the gum continuously throughout the day, starting with about 15 pieces per day eventually decreasing the number. Theoretically, the electronic cigarette could be used in that manner, but by just replacing a tobacco cigarette, you are not addressing the behavioral issues related to smoking cessation. So, while I believe that electronic cigarettes may be safe, I also believe they should be regulated by the FDA and should not (until proven) be used or promoted as smoking cessation agents.


The President could also call 1-800 QUIT NOW. This is a 24/7 support line designed to help patients quit tobacco products. It is free and fully funded by money from this tobacco settlements. This program can be used use in conjunction with treatment from your health care provider as well as with medication, nicotine replacement and other smoking cessation techniques.


Bottom Line: While I do believe the President's health is a personal matter, since he has come out admitting that he is still smoking cigarettes despite his promises to our First Lady, I believe that he should admit to exactly how much he still smokes as well as further discuss his own personal struggles with his addiction. This will hopeful bring additional attention to the problem of cigarette smoking, which remains the single leading cause of preventable death in our country.

Finally! FDA Questions Safety, Quality of Electronic Cigarettes

As reported first in the WSJ Health Blog, the FDA is finally looking into electronic cigarettes, and they don't like what they see. Here is the FDA press release and here is the full report.

I have previously posted on my concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes. These posts are some of my more popular ones, with so many readers not understanding my concern. Their points are that e-cigarettes are at least better than tobacco cigarettes, and nicotine itself is safe, since it is sold over the counter. However, the FDA seems to validate my concerns. Here's what they found.

• In testing 19 products from two manufacturers, investigators found that the majority tested positive for tobacco impurities thought to be harmful to humans.


• In one sample, the FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans


• Half of the samples appeared to contain known carcinogens


• Some products testing positive for nicotine even though the label said no nicotine was present.

The FDA is also concerned about the appeal of e-cigarettes and the easy availability to children:

These products are marketed and sold to young people and are readily available online and in shopping malls. In addition, these products do not contain any health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or
conventional cigarettes. They are also available in different flavors, such as chocolate and mint, which may appeal to young people

Thus, I stand by the statements in my previous posts. Electronic cigarettes are not safe and should not be used to replace tobacco products, nor as a substitute for smoking cessation agents.

More on Electronic Cigarettes or E-cigs

I continue to receive multiple comments on my original post Electronic Cigarettes and appreciate them all. There is an avid group of e-cig users that does not appreciate my opinion on this topic. Rather than respond to several recent comments on the original post, I thought it would be more effective to just generate a brand new post. Here are my responses to some general concerns/criticisms.

If electronic cigarettes are a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes, why do you oppose them?
I think most people, even tobacco cigarette smokers, will agree that tobacco cigarettes are harmful in many ways. E-cigarettes may be safer than tobacco cigarettes. However, I have no way of knowing this. There is simply no published studies in the medical literature (and the few in existence are from the manufacturers). Yes, e-cigs don't have the carcinogens that tobacco cigarettes contain, and it is most likely that they pose no more dangers than those we already know to be attributed to nicotine. However, without regulation and research, I can not recommend these to patients. My opposition is more with the regulators than the electronic cigarettes. First, e-cigs are drugs by definition. Therefore, the fall within the jurisdiction of the FDA, who has turned a deaf ear to this issue. Many users buy these products online from China, and there have been several recent health related risks with products from China. In addition, many of the e-cigs sold in the US are sold in retail shopping malls. Since the FDA has chosen to ignore e-cigarettes, there is nothing really stopping vendors from selling these to minors. I strongly believe that the FDA should regulate these products as the drugs they are, which would include ensuring that they are safe. If patients choose to use e-cigarettes as tobacco cigarette alternatives, I would rather them purchase this from behind the counter of a CVS then from a questionable online site selling non-US made products.


There are plenty of nicotine replacement products out there. These are safe, so why do you think electronic cigarettes post a threat?
First, all nicotine replacement products (patch, gum, etc.) are regulated by the FDA and have been proven to be safe. E-cigarettes have not been proven safe. Secondly, nicotine has risks associated with it. These risks are clearly labeled on all nicotine replacement products. Every medicine we dispense has risks and benefits. With nicotine replacement products, the risk of short term nicotine use is outweighed by the benefits of stopping (hopefully permanently) tobacco cigarette smoke. No nicotine replacement product is intended for long term use. Caffeine also has side effects. Though I think it is OK for patients (without certain health conditions) to drink a cup or two a day, I would not recommend six or seven cups of coffee a day because of adverse effects. Thus, even if e-cigarettes are proven as safe as nicotine replacement products, I still would not recommend their regular use (though if studies were done, I would agree that this would be preferred to tobacco smoke).

I have tried everything to stop smoking. Electronic cigarettes were the only thing that worked for me. Why do you oppose e-cigs when current methods don't work and some, especially Chantix, might even be dangerous.
Current methods do work and about double your chance of successfully quitting. E-cigarettes may be effective smoking cessation devices, but they have not yet proven to be effective. Also, there is a difference between quitting tobacco cigarettes and quitting nicotine products. Nicotine replacement products like the patch are not intended for permanent use. E-cigarettes were designed to be tobacco cigarette replacement products, not smoking cessation aides. It is also possible that smokers will use e-cigarettes in place of SOME of their tobacco cigarettes. Although this does decrease exposure to known dangerous products, e-cigarettes might therefore actually prolong tobacco cigarette smoking.
Lastly, Chantix has gotten a bad rap. have posted several times about Chantix here, here, here, and here and most recently in the post Prescription Drugs: Risk vs. Benefit vs Cost- The Chantix Example . Chantix is the most effective smoking cessation agent available. Though post-marketing safety data suggest that Chantix may be associated with depressed mood, agitation, and suicidal behaviour or ideation; these also occur with smoking cessation alone. Thus, it is unclear if some these reports are due to taking Chantix or stopping smoking. Since there was at least one report of these side effects with a patient who was taking Chantix, but still smoking, the FDA appropriately decided to add this to the warnings section on Chantix' label and is currently conducting an extensive safety review. Again, all medications have risks and benefits. Being the most effective agent, these potential and rare risks are likely worth the benefit. E-cigarettes have not been tested so the risk is not known, and it is unclear whether they are effective in smoking and nicotine cessation.

4 Things the FDA Should Go After Besides Cheerios

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the FDA has decided to go after the makers of Cheerios. You can read their warning letter to General Mills here. The issue the FDA has is not that Cheerios doesn't really lower your cholesterol, but that the language on the box, specifically that eating Cheerios can "lower your cholesterol 4% in six weeks" means that Cheerios is intended for the use of lowering cholesterol, and is therefor a drug. Former FDA chair Dr. David Kessler's book "A Question of Intent" covers this topic nicely. He describes his struggle to try and regulate big tobacco. Since tobacco grows naturally, the argument was that it could not have been intended for a specific use. However, Kessler's fight was to show that the companies manipulated natural tobacco and the way it was delivered to cause an intended response, i.e satisfaction and addiction.





There are other foods that can make health claims, and the FDA's letter to Cheerios points out that soluble fiber products can talk about health benefits, as long as they add an "as part of" clause to the packaging. Though Cheerios has this, they feel the more prominent claim on the box (though not stated in the letter, it's basically their entire marketing campaign) is much stronger.





Since Cheerios does have clinical data to support a 4% reduction in total cholesterol, I am less worried about the stating this, but more concerned about patient's perception about what that does to cardiovascular risk. I have so many patients that are at risk for heart disease, warrant lipid lowering medications by any guideline, and yet are so affraid of medications ask if we give something like Cheerios a try first. The problem is that even though Cheerios may lower your cholesterol by 4%, this probably has no impact on your risk for heart attack or stroke. If you look at all of the cholesterol studies (any drug in any population) it is clear that to derive benefit you need at least around a 25% reduction in bad cholesterol to get any gain. Thus, my problem with Cheerios is not their claim to lower cholesterol, but the implication that this will make a bit of difference when it comes to heart attack or stroke.





However, there are several things that the FDA could focus on that, in my opinion, would serve a much greater purpose.





1. Medications approved not as drugs, but devices, so they seem like they work.


My favorite pharmacist blogger Mr. Medsaver recently gave a great example of this in his post regarding Allergen which is marketed under the names Chloraseptic Allergen Block and Little Allergies. These products are approved by the FDA, not as drugs but as devices. There is actually no active medical ingredients. These products are essentially petroleum jelly that you put under your nose. Their is absolutely no data whatsovere to suggest that these products do anything at all. Yet, patients wanting to help themselves or children who suffer from allergies and are affraid of side effects from actual medication will likely spend millions of dollars this year on a product which has never been shown to be effective, and is likely not. The FDA needs to work on this loop hole.





2. Supplements that imply health claims
To me this is a much greater problem. At CVS.com you can get Ez Diet Carb Suppressor Capsules which have no real ingredients that have been shown to actually lose weight. The name implies they work, but a claim is not being officially made. At GNC.com, a reputable supplement company, their Mega Men 50 supplement is a "healthy aging program for men over 50" and should be taken to "support prostate health" "support eye health" and "provides antioxidant protection." The FDA does not consider these claims as serious apparently as Cheerios, because they are stating that they support eye health for example, and not improving your vision. However, I betting that more people spend their dollars on supplements then Cheerios for health improvement. In addition, unlike Cheerios which at least provides breakfast, the evidence for vitamins and supplements are poor. I discuss this more in my previous post Which Vitamin Should I Take?




3. Homeopathic agents that imply anything
Airborne, Head On, etc. Enough said. At least vitamins and supplements have some potential value. These products have no potential benefit, clearly are making claims, and do absolutely nothing. Innocent patients are wasting millions of dollars on these products.




4. e-cigarettes

These products are drugs without question. They ought to be regulated by the FDA and they have not been proven safe in humans. Though the FDA may not be able to do much about products sold over the Internet, e-cigarettes, which are nictoine inhalers marketed as safer alternatives to cigarettes and smoking cessation aids, are being sold in U.S. shopping malls. There sale in the U.S. should be abruptly halted. See more on my previous post.