Hooked on the nicotine addiction thesis: a response to DiFranza

Reuven Dar,Hanan Frenk

doi:10.1186/1477-7517-10-31

Abstract

DiFranza’s rebuttal to our critique of the “Hooked on Nicotine” research program misconstrues our arguments beyond recognition. The grossest misrepresentation of our critique by DiFranza is that we devise (by thwarting science) to rescue “the conventional wisdom” of the “threshold model of nicotine addiction.” In fact, the difference between our positions lies elsewhere: We believe that nicotine is not an addictive drug and that its contribution to the smoking habit is secondary; DiFranza believes that nicotine is so powerfully addictive that novice smokers can lose autonomy over their smoking behavior after one cigarette or even following a single puff. Our review aimed to critically examine the empirical basis of this extreme version of the nicotine “addiction” model. In this brief commentary we illustrate how the commitment to the nicotine “addiction” theory has biased the methodology and the interpretation of the data in “Hooked on Nicotine” research program.

Highlights

DiFranza’s rebuttal to our critique of the “Hooked on Nicotine” research program misconstrues our arguments beyond recognition
Are some examples of arguments misconstrued by DiFranza: We did not “argue that the data that describe the early onset of nicotine addiction is so different from the conventional wisdom that it is irrelevant” or that “this entire description of the characteristics of tobacco addiction should be ignored by tobacco researchers because it contradicts the DSM.”
We have provided empirical evidence in support of the view that most of the effects of NRT is attributable to placebo [5], that the alleged euphoric effects of nicotine are an experimental artifact [6] and that craving to smoke is largely attributable to psychological factors rather than to nicotine deprivation [7,8]

Summary

Introduction

DiFranza’s rebuttal to our critique of the “Hooked on Nicotine” research program misconstrues our arguments beyond recognition. 4).” The real difference between our positions lies elsewhere: We believe that nicotine is not an addictive drug and that its contribution to the smoking habit is secondary; DiFranza believes that nicotine is so powerfully addictive that novice smokers can lose autonomy over their smoking behavior after one cigarette or even following a single puff.

Results

Conclusion