Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article


Posted by AudreySilk on 06 Dec 2012 at 13:37 GMT

Just wondering if simple free will to continue smoking was accounted for as a confounder or that it would ever occur to researchers as a possible explanation to be looked into.

Competing interests declared: Advocate for smokers' rights.

RE: Confounders

jmfletcher replied to AudreySilk on 07 Dec 2012 at 00:28 GMT

But what is the relationship between genetic variation in a nicotinic receptor gene and "free will"?

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: Confounders

AudreySilk replied to jmfletcher on 07 Dec 2012 at 13:21 GMT

Under "Background" your premise is that "The observed differences in tobacco control policy effectiveness and why policies do not help all smokers are largely unexplained." And then go on to seemingly presume that the answer must be rooted in biology which itself can only take shape on the predication "who wouldn't quit smoking but those who are biologically defective?" "Defective" (or also described as absent "protection" of a gene -- a detriment) strongly implied by the subsequent solution to "fix" it with: "...pharmacological treatments for current smokers who may be unresponsive to major health policy interventions, such as tobacco taxation.") Treatment by definition means to fix what is bad.

And so I offer an alternative explanation -- free will -- for the "unexplained" that is rooted in psychology instead of biology and ask if that confounder was accounted for? Otherwise it would appear that research in this area considers that incomprehensible.

Competing interests declared: Advocate for smokers' rights.