text:
Talk:Arthur Harris

Controversy
I have removed from the lede the section: "The argument Harris continued to adhere to an area bombing strategy due to the inaccuracy of his bomber force, despite the absence of evidence (or even attempts to gather any) of its effectiveness, is based on a misapprehension of the circumstances. He was not dissuaded from it by his seniors, Portal and Churchill, both of whom had access to better intelligence than Harris, nor were there serious misgivings about the campaign expressed by his seniors (or anyone in the Government) at the time."

which strikes me as not the main criticism levelled at Harris. It also fails encyclopaedic style; we should give an account of the controversy, not try to kill it at first mention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article here does not even mention the controversy. A badly lopsided article. More info here and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.205.56 (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bombing of Dresden in World War II
 * The Independent (9 November 2006): Anthony Grayling why bomber Harris was wrong in every way
 * The Observer (20 August 2006): RAF tribute stirs up 'war crime' storm

re the inclusion of photos regarding on this matter, an edit war is developing with the other editor insisting that the photo at issue is "POV". This argument misuses WP:NPOV because the Wikipedia principle applies to ARTICLES. An edit can, indeed, make an article biased. But note that this is assessed by looking at the WHOLE article after the edit has been made. If photos themselves were POV then neutrality would be a grounds for deletion over at Wikimedia Commons. I've contributed to and been involved with policy discussions over at the Commons for years and I can assure you that the idea that a photograph is inherently non-neutral is not a generally accepted principle. It follows that "that photo is POV" is an invalid argument.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the photo itself, it's the inclusion. It biases the view against Harris, makes it look as if he personally killed the people in the photo, & AFAICT, adds nothing. They were victims of the policy, not the man, & as such, the pic, if it belongs anywhere (& I'm not convinced), it belongs on the strategic bombing page.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The man is controversial because of the consequences of the policy he advocated. If you really believed this argument separating the man from his policies I would think you would be applying it consistently by removing the text that goes to this point as well as the imagery.  How can it "add nothing" at the same time that it "biases the view against Harris"?   Something that allegedly tips the scales has to have some substance.  Your objection thus appears to be that the material at issue makes the case too strongly for Harris' tenure being controversial.  Is the most appropriate response to that view to increase the reader's ignorance about why many view Harris' policy critically OR to increase the reader's knowledge about the competing view?  It is most respectful of the reader to present both views as persuasively as the inherent merits of both views allow such that the reader then draws his or her own conclusion.  Cutting a hole in one side or the other is far less appropriate, I suggest, since it involves Wikipedia editors pre-judging the merits of each case and then letting that view determine how the cases for and against will be presented to the reader.  Instead of weakening one perspective, in other words, I suggest strengthening the other.  You are going to have an edit war when instead of presenting your own case you rewrite or, in this case, just delete part of the case presented by others.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠The man is controversial for endorsing & continuing the policy. He did not carry out the acts himself. The victims are a product of the policy. Put it at strategic bombing, because that's where it belongs.
 * ♠"the material at issue makes the case too strongly" Bull. That picture doesn't "make the case". It isn't even about the case, which is "made" (or not) at strategic bombing. What's at issue on this page is Harris' role in carrying out the policy. That photo adds nothing to understanding his role. Want to make the case for or against strategic bombing & Harris' defense of it? Cite from Terraine's criticism of not doing more minelaying. Or explain why Harris continued to defend throwing his aircrews at targets that got better & better defended as the war went on, & the Germans knew the bombers would come back. We call Haig an idiot for doing it at Verdun; why not Harris?
 * ♠"How can it 'add nothing' at the same time that it 'biases the view against Harris'?" Simple. You want to use the picture to dirty Harris, not to inform. The picture is deliberately evocative, & not directly related to any act Harris carried out on his own. It amounts to calling him a baby killer. Was he on the mission that killed those people? No. Was he on any bombing mission over Berlin in WW2? No. Was he ever on any bombing mission in WW2? No.
 * ♠This picture is being added AFAICT only to bias the reader against Harris. Where are the pictures of bodies on Göring's page? On Spaatz's? On LeMay's? On Himmler's? On Hitler's? Nowhere, & for the same reason. Leave it out.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go over to the Vladimir Lenin page and remove the photos of the bodies arguing "Lenin did not carry out these acts himself" and see if the consensus supports your view. You could also go over to the Karl Hermann Frank page and complain that the article portrays the subject as a "baby killer" because of the imagery included.  The fact of the matter is that your "nowhere" claim is simply false.  "Where" must be and is assessed on an article by article basis.  In this case the civilian deaths consequent to Harris' policy is a non-trivial issue with respect to Harris and his legacy.  You state here that Harris' policy should be disagreed with on the basis of targets being too strongly defended etc, ie without reference to the issue of civilian casualties.  The fact of the matter is that there IS an issue (see the sources another editor called attention to above, and other reliable sources such as The Times which two decades ago identified Harris as a "fanatical believer in the carpet bombing of civilians").  WP:NPOV means a full and frank presentation, not a whitewash.  I should think that such a presentation should be possible without the WP:CENSORship you demand.  I've already tried to accommodate your concerns with respect to the prominence this is given, but I take it you are unwilling to entertain any compromise.  I would invite you to consult Assume good faith and consider the possibility that I am interested in making Wikipedia more informative and encyclopedic as opposed to "dirty"ing anyone.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠If you were paying attention, you'd have noticed a clear & unambiguous distinction between Harris, who followed policy, & Lenin, who made it.
 * ♠"your "nowhere" claim is simply false" Since I never once mentioned Lenin or Frank, it's still true. I also draw a distinction between Lenin, who AFAIK never masterminded gas chambers, & Himmler, who did. Nor, frankly, do I care, since in either case there'd be a good reason to leave in pictures of bodies. Where is the good reason here?
 * ♠You don't want to dirty Harris. So be it. Nevertheless, that's how it looks by your insistence on this photo. Why not one more representative? Hamburg burning? Berlin in ruin? Both of which would be directly related to Harris' actions & would still be in keeping with the criticisms. What is it about dead bodies that makes it so important--except for the emotional impact in criticising Harris' stance? And, I repeat, why here? And why not Spaatz, or LeMay, or Göring?
 * ♠"civilian deaths consequent to Harris' policy" And that is the other reason I think you're out to dirty Harris. It wasn't his policy, it was the policy of the British government. You appear to be trying to make Harris carry the weight. So why not put this on Portal's page? Or Churchill's? Or, as I keep asking & you keep ignoring, strategic bombing, where there is at least a causal connection? Why here?
 * ♠"without reference to the issue of civilian casualties" Without unde weight given civilian casualties, certainly, which this picture also does, by its emphasis on the dead only. (We can argue elsewhere about the supposed innocence of said civilians.) It makes no difference, since, as already said, Harris didn't make the policy. It appears this photo is intended to make out he not only did, but personally carried it out. And you keep throwing up every extraneous argument you can think of, not one really explaining what it is about this picture that makes it so valuable to understanding Harris' actions.
 * ♠"'Where' must be and is assessed on an article by article basis" So it is. And you have to justify inclusion. Claiming censorship is nonsense. You want it in, justify it. Your wanting it that way doesn't get it. And I don't need a reason to delete it. Adding an evocative picture simply because "we can" isn't NPOV, contrary to what you may think: it's biasing the reader against Harris, & that makes it a POV add. Get over it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contention that Harris was just following orders is not supported by the sources. Were it true that Harris had no more responsibility than the airmen who opened the bomb doors, Harris would not be a controversial figure.  re the question I "keep ignoring", at issue here is not your deletion of material at another article but at this article.  Please see Talk page guidelines.  Why not imagery of Hamburg burning?  I have no objection to this, but note that it's primarily the civilian deaths and injuries that makes Harris controversial, not the property damage.  Amongst the sources that have as their central topic the moral opposition to Harris, show me the ones that focus on the latter instead of the former if that's what you believe is most controversial.  In any case, you don't seem keen to acknowledge any controversy at all; you have not attempted to exchange this photo with another one more satisfactory to you.  You DO need to provide a reason why the argument for inclusion is invalid once an argument has been advanced.  If this were not the case please cite where in Wikipedia policy it says deletionists are not under an obligation to engage on the Talk page.  Finally, note that in this Talk section three persons have voiced concern over the minimization of Harris' responsibility for the civilian consequences and only one, you, feels that there is not a POV problem here in need of correction.  I'm tagging the article as non-neutral unless and until this consensus opinion should change.  Not "biasing the reader" means respecting the reader's capacity to draw appropriate conclusions following a full and frank presentation of alternative perspectives, not whiting out what you consider too much for the reader's tender sensibilities.  Andrew Roberts (historian) defends the morality of Harris' bombing in his 2009 book The Storm of War AND he includes this photo.  If he can do it why can't you?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * ♠"argument for inclusion is invalid once an argument has been advanced" So where is it?
 * ♠Andrew Roberts? I'm happy for him. He's not WP, nor is he this page. You have yet to offer a reason this page should include it. One appearance in one source is not a reason.
 * ♠"Your contention that Harris was just following orders is not supported by the sources." Your contention Harris was making the policy certainly isn't. Care to offer a source showing Harris was in the meetings with Churchill & Lindemann where the dehousing policy was decided? Harris was unquestionably a fervent advocate for strategic bombing. That's a very different thing from being an architect of the policy. I can't help it you seem not to know the difference.
 * ♠"at issue here is not your deletion of material at another article" At issue here is your inclusion of a photo. Which you continue to refuse to offer any rationale for including, beyond your criticism of Harris, which is a separate issue. Show me how that photo adds to my understanding of his actions. Show me how it does anything besides make him out a butcher. You continue to refuse.
 * ♠"sources that have as their central topic the moral opposition to Harris" Their central topic? Not any that criticise Harris' actions, but only ones about "moral opposition"? So Terraine's criticism is invalid because it's not "moral opposition" & not a "central topic"? How about ''Ethics & Airpower"? It's not strictly about Harris. Does it not count, either?
 * ♠"you have not attempted to exchange this photo with another one more satisfactory to you" Because I feel no particular need for photos of dead civilians. I disagree the civilian deaths were unjustified, & I find the discussion of the issue as presented suffices.
 * ♠"respecting the reader's capacity to draw appropriate conclusions following a full and frank presentation" It also means not weighting the scales in how it's presented, & that's everything from choice of words to choice of images.
 * ♠"tagging the article as non-neutral" Ridiculous. Just because you can't get one lousy photo in? Read the actual content of the page, why don't you?
 * ♠"minimization of Harris' responsibility" For the execution, no. I do disagree on his responsibility for the creation of the policy, as noted. Harris didn't decide it. If you think he did, show me the source saying he was in the policy meetings. And I disagree on the alleged immorality of it. That is a debate for another page, because that is about the policy, not Harris. As for Roberts, it appears I'd agree with him. As said, that's a debate for another page.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * why are there pictures of jews on heinrich himmler's page then, if we are to follow your line of reasoning? 2601:281:8000:8C7:B1F8:9169:C286:CE4F (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Even if such photo was appropriate, the date that this particular photo was taken 23 September 1944, indicates that the victims were not casualties of the RAF (See RSF Campaign Diary September 1944 -- the RAF heavies of Bomber Command was still bombing France in support of the Normandy lodgement).

I think that this debate is sterile. Bomber Harris did not decide policy, but he chose to interpret policy in such a way to favour area bombing. Post the D-Day break, he could have chosen to put more emphasis on the part of the policy that emphasised precision bombing. I find it amassing that he was not informed of the ULTRA secret, and I think an PhD exists in detailing exactly why he was not included. Without the information and the source it came from, he could not make the informed decisions that being a party to ULTRA would have allowed.

It is well known that Churchill distanced himself from the policy of area bombing as detailed in the bombing of Dresden: British wartime response article. One of the interesting points to note is the famous first telegram was one that, if not found in the archives by David Irving, was emphasised in Irving's book The Destruction of Dresden -- as was Operation Thunderclap (another piece of Irving's disinformation that still surfaces from time to time).

Given that Churchill and others distanced themselves, then Harris, the public face of Bomber Command for most of the war, ended up with the buck. To argue that he was responsible for the policy is simplistic, while to argue he was free of all responsibility as his apologists do is equally disingenuous.

The thoughts of Donald Bloxham, one of the historians who has pondered on this, is detailed in "bombing of Dresden: war crime", Bloxham considers Churchill to be the man where the buck should stop, so if the image that starts this belongs in any biography it should be placed in the Churchill biography! I can't see that there would be general consensus for this.

As there has been no more debate about this issue here since February, I am removing the POV template at the top of the article. There is no reason why the subject can not be debated further, but until there are concrete suggestions with sources on how we could improve this article there is no need for a POV template at the top of the article.-- PBS (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Harris had little to do with official policy as he wasn't a politician, policy was decided upon by the War Cabinet, of which Churchill as Minister of Defence was head. The War Cabinet looked for advice from IIRC the CIGS, the First Sea Lord, and the Chief of the Air Staff which IIRC was Portal. This was the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Harris' main contribution would have been to inform the Cabinet what his force was capable of, and what it was not.

 * Any 'advocating' of the Area Bombing policy by him is likely to have been due to his recognition that at night the majority of RAF BC was capable of little else. If ordered to implement a policy that was not in his opinion practicable, it was his job to point out this and to provide suggestions on what he considered was practicable. This he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 * " I find it amassing that he was not informed of the ULTRA secret, and I think an PhD exists in detailing exactly why he was not included. Without the information and the source it came from, he could not make the informed decisions that being a party to ULTRA would have allowed." - Harris was not notified of Ultra because he was not one of the two designated UK air commanders to be so-informed. IIRC, Portal was one and I suspect the other was Bufton, but Harris was not informed, as there were only allowed to be two notified persons. The number of nominated Allied persons to be so-informed of Ultra IIRC had been agreed earlier with the Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington. The Allied land commanders so-informed were IIRC, Alan Brooke and Montgomery, together with Marshall and Eisenhower on the US side. I'm not sure of the designated US air commanders, but I suspect it was Doolittle and later Spaatz but I might be wrong, as Marshall was already head of the USAAC/USAAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Cherwell
The article goes, 'In 1942, Professor Frederick Lindemann (later ennobled as Lord Cherwell)...' No, Lindemann had already been ennobled a year before. And the rest of the article's no better. It still makes the false claim that Harris was ordered to stop bombing oil targets in November 1944. In reality, 'From 6 per cent of its bombing total on oil in October, Bomber Command increased the total to 24 per cent the following month.' (Overy, The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, p.385.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Harris had a pre-existing Directive and orders direct from the War Cabinet and the Chief of the Air Staff to carry out the Area Bombing offensive and any new requests that contradicted such orders required specific new orders to be given him whether he approved of the new requests or not.

 * Hence any talk about him being 'unwilling' to do this, and 'having to be 'ordered' to do that, usually fails to take into account this rather simple (and what ought to be fairly obvious) fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's correct. The Area Bombing Directive remained in force until suspended by the War Cabinet in April 1945, so Harris had to carry it out. From autumn 1944 he was also directed by the Air Staff to attack oil and 'transportation' (railway) targets, and any other targets that the Air Staff might care to order, and that's what he did. When 3 Group belatedly converted from Stirlings to Lancasters in autumn 1944 he had one bomber in three fitted with G-H for radar-ranging precision blind bombing, each G-H aircraft painted with twin gold bars on the tail fins for recognition, so that two other bombers could formate on the G-H leader and bomb when the leader bombed. This made 3 Group quite largely into a specialist daylight fighter-escorted all-weather oil-bombing force, though they did other things as well and other groups took part in day and night oil-bombing (to which Bomber Command contributed a greater tonnage, more accurately, than US Eighth Air Force).
 * Harris did that. The fact that he took out bureaucratic insurance against failure, by writing his notorious letters to Portal in which he made clear his scepticism about betting so much on oil, does not alter the fact that he carried out an extremely effective 'precision' oil-bombing campaign, as he was ordered to do. He also carried out an extremely effective 'precision' campaign against rail targets. As for area bombing, the US Eighth Air Force carried out two massive 'precision' raids against their own US-owned Ford-Werke in Cologne in autumn 1944 and neither of them hit the target apart from one bomb on one office building. They didn't try again because they received intelligence (via a laid-off former slave worker who had returned to his home country) that Ford-Werke had pretty much been put out of business anyway by British area bombing of Cologne and other cities, which disrupted power, light, water, telephones, rail, public transport and workers' housing to the point that the factory did not have the supplies, amenities or labour to continue functioning, even though the factory itself was barely damaged -- which was the aim of area bombing, and an aim successfully achieved. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

area/strategic bombing
The 'dehousing' or 'strategic' bombing policy was first suggested by Frederik Lindemann in a paper presented to Churchil in February 1942. German born, he was the chief scientific adviser to Churchill. He believed in eugenics and seems to have conceived a violent hatred of Germans. He also did not believe in the V2 bombs.Pamour (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * " ... conceived a violent hatred of Germans. " - perhaps that was because the Luftwaffe had been coming over and dropping bombs on his country.
 * And not really about Harris. Besides which, it's the product of Bomber Command's inability to hit anything smaller than a city. That it was misguided in its fundamental thrust (civilian morale) is another matter.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  16:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The objective of undermining civilian morale was with hindsight misguided, although much was known of conditions within the occupied territories, due to SOE, etc., very little was known at the time of conditions within Germany, and it was hoped the German people would eventually rise up and overthrow Hitler and his regime and under a new government arrange a peace deal. This was before Roosevelt unilaterally announced a demand for unconditional German surrender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. A move to Bomber Harris can be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 20:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

– For starters, since when do we ignore WP:CONCISENESS to tack on a bunch of la-di-da awards? A baronet is not even a peer, and you can't swing a dead cat in England without hitting a Sir. Might as well tack on OBE etc to the title if we're going to do this. This title is a dead letter I would say. My proposal is to move all the other Arthur Harrises to "Arthur Harris (disambiguation)", on grounds that this guy is easily the main topic (I would guess), even against all the other people of that name, who are obscure -- I'm confident that is true, that like 90% of people are wanting to read about this Arthur Harris, and this will be even more true 100 years from now. However, if you want to keep "Arthur Harris" as a Disambiguation page, we could go with "Arthur Harris (air marshal)" or maybe "Arthur 'Bomber' Harris". Possibly "Arthur T. Harris" or just "Bomber Harris", altho those not as good IMO. Or something. Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet → Arthur Harris
 * Arthur Harris → Arthur Harris (disambiguation)

 * Note: pages with content, such as Arthur Harris, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Arthur Harris → Arthur Harris (disambiguation)" was added to this request to meet that requirement.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 21:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:PTOPIC. None of the other candidates seem close.  WP scatter  t/c 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 * https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Arthur_Harris shows that there were 151 incoming views, and 102 views of the proposed primary topic (~68%), and 16 views of High Sheriff of Essex, while the other topics didn't get enough traffic to go into the anonymous clickstream data (<10 views from any pair of source-destination). This is typically seen as borderline primary topic by usage, because there's already ~32% of readers who didn't navigate to the proposed primary topic. The list currently doesn't sort this very popular topic at the top, so it's plausible that some of the ~32% couldn't actually find this one - I'd start with changing that first. Later, if we verify that the navigation outcomes consistently change so it becomes clear that people overwhelmingly want to see that article, then do that move. --Joy (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Support per Nom BoonDock (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Alternative Bomber Harris or Arthur "Bomber" Harris as the common name -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says that's the common name, and Bomber Harris has redirected here since 2003 (the other one since 2006), so this does make sense. --Joy (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

DDSM
The author cites ACM Harris as receiving the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (DDSM) which did not exist until 1970. Perhaps it should have been the Army DSM, instituted in 1918. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguished_Service_Medal_(U.S._Army) 2600:2B00:821A:C000:917B:9320:B37B:3618 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Arthur Harris


text:
Arguineguín

Arguineguín (Guanche for "quiet water") is one of the most populated towns along the south coast of Gran Canaria, Spain. A once typical Canarian fishing village, it is now home to both locals and tourists, as the settlement has continued to grow. In 2015 it had 2517 inhabitants. It is part of the municipality of Mogán and is located southwest of Las Palmas.

There are several bars and restaurants, the latter specialising in fresh fish caught the same day. Tuesday is market day (the largest on the island). Arguineguín features a beach and a port. Tourism is not as popular in Arguineguín as in the larger places as Maspalomas and Playa del Ingles. Holiday hotels, however, can be found in Arguineguín; Marino I, Dorado Beach, Club Puerto Atlantico, Sunwing Resort Arguineguín, Green Beach Hotel and Radisson Blu Resort to mention the larger ones.

Transportation
The harbour here hosts a ferry service to Puerto Rico de Gran Canaria and Puerto de Mogán whilst another popular way to reach the town from Puerto Rico de Gran Canaria is by trekking over the mountain between the two towns.

The town also lies on several public bus routes offering convenient service to other towns on the island.

Arguineguín is also served by an expressway (GC1) with a nearby interchange and a highway.

Notable people

 * Juan Carlos Valerón, international footballer
 * David Silva, international footballer
 * Aythami Artiles, international footballer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Arguineguín


text:
Smoking cessation

Smoking cessation, usually called quitting smoking or stopping smoking, is the process of discontinuing tobacco smoking. Tobacco smoke contains nicotine, which is addictive and can cause dependence. As a result, nicotine withdrawal often makes the process of quitting difficult.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and a global public health concern. Tobacco use leads most commonly to diseases affecting the heart and lungs, with smoking being a major risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), emphysema, and various types and subtypes of cancers (particularly lung cancer, cancers of the oropharynx, larynx, and mouth, esophageal and pancreatic cancer). Smoking cessation significantly reduces the risk of dying from smoking-related diseases. The risk of heart attack in a smoker decreases by 50% after one year of cessation. Similarly, the risk of lung cancer decreases by 50% in 10 years of cessation

From 2001 to 2010, about 70% of smokers in the United States expressed a desire to quit smoking, and 50% reported having attempted to do so in the past year. Many strategies can be used for smoking cessation, including abruptly quitting without assistance ("cold turkey"), cutting down then quitting, behavioral counseling, and medications such as bupropion, cytisine, nicotine replacement therapy, or varenicline. In recent years, especially in Canada and the United Kingdom, many smokers have switched to using electronic cigarettes to quit smoking tobacco. However, a 2022 study found that 20% of smokers who tried to use e-cigarettes to quit smoking succeeded but 66% of them ended as dual users of cigarettes and vape products one year out.

Most smokers who try to quit do so without assistance. However, only 3–6% of quit attempts without assistance are successful long-term. Behavioral counseling and medications each increase the rate of successfully quitting smoking, and a combination of behavioral counseling with a medication such as bupropion is more effective than either intervention alone. A meta-analysis from 2018, conducted on 61 randomized controlled trials, showed that among people who quit smoking with a cessation medication (and some behavioral help), approximately 20% were still nonsmokers a year later, as compared to 12% who did not take medication.

In nicotine-dependent smokers, quitting smoking can lead to nicotine withdrawal symptoms such as nicotine cravings, anxiety, irritability, depression, and weight gain. Professional smoking cessation support methods generally attempt to address nicotine withdrawal symptoms to help the person break free of nicotine addiction.

Unassisted
It often takes several attempts, and potentially utilizing different approaches each time, before achieving long-term abstinence. Over 74.7% of smokers attempt to quit without any assistance, otherwise known as "cold turkey", or with home remedies. Previous smokers make between an estimated 6 to 30 attempts before successfully quitting. Identifying which approach or technique is eventually most successful is difficult; it has been estimated, for example, that only about 4% to 7% of people are able to quit smoking on any given attempt without medicines or other help. The majority of quit attempts are still unassisted, though the trend seems to be shifting. In the U.S., for example, the rate of unassisted quitting fell from 91.8% in 1986 to 52.1% during 2006 to 2009. The most frequent unassisted methods were "cold turkey", a term that has been used to mean either unassisted quitting or abrupt quitting and "gradually decreased number" of cigarettes, or "cigarette reduction".

Cold turkey
"Cold turkey" is a colloquial term indicating abrupt withdrawal from an addictive drug. In this context, it indicates sudden and complete cessation of all nicotine use. In three studies, it was the quitting method cited by 76%, 85%, or 88% of long-term successful quitters. In a large British study of ex-smokers in the 1980s, before the advent of pharmacotherapy, 53% of the ex-smokers said that it was "not at all difficult" to stop, 27% said it was "fairly difficult", and the remaining 20% found it very difficult. Studies have found that two-thirds of recent quitters reported using the cold turkey method and found it helpful.

Cutting down to quit
Gradual reduction involves slowly reducing one's daily intake of nicotine. This method can theoretically be accomplished through repeated changes to cigarettes with lower nicotine levels, by gradually reducing the number of cigarettes smoked daily, or by smoking only a fraction of a cigarette on each occasion. A 2009 systematic review by researchers at the University of Birmingham found that gradual nicotine replacement therapy could be effective in smoking cessation. There is no significant difference in quit rates between smokers who quit by gradual reduction or abrupt cessation as measured by abstinence from smoking of at least six months from the quit day. The same review also looked at five pharmacological aids for reduction. When reducing the number of smoked cigarettes, it found some evidence that additional varenicline or fast-acting nicotine replacement therapy can positively affect quitting for six months or longer.

Medications
The American Cancer Society notes that "Studies in medical journals have reported that about 25% of smokers who use medicines can stay smoke-free for over 6 months." Single medications include:
 * Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): Five medications have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to deliver nicotine in a form that does not involve the risks of smoking: transdermal nicotine patches, nicotine gum, nicotine lozenges, nicotine inhalers, nicotine oral sprays, and nicotine nasal sprays. High-quality evidence indicates that these forms of NRT improve the success rate of people who attempt to stop smoking. NRTs are meant to be used for a short period of time and should be tapered down to a low dose before stopping. NRTs increase the chance of stopping smoking by 50 to 60% compared to placebo or to no treatment. Some reported side effects are local slight irritation (inhalers and sprays) and non-ischemic chest pain (rare). Others include mouth soreness and dyspepsia (gum), nausea or heartburn (lozenges), as well as sleep disturbances, insomnia, and a local skin reaction (patches). A study found that 93% of over-the-counter NRT users relapse and return to smoking within six months. There is weak evidence that adding mecamylamine to nicotine is more effective than nicotine alone.
 * Antidepressants: The antidepressant bupropion is considered a first-line medication for smoking cessation and has been shown in many studies to increase long-term success rates. Although bupropion increases the risk of getting adverse events, there is no clear evidence that the drug has more or less adverse effects when compared to a placebo. Nortriptyline produces significant rates of abstinence versus placebo. Other antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and St. John's wort have not been consistently shown to be effective for smoking cessation.
 * Varenicline decreases the urge to smoke and reduces withdrawal symptoms and is therefore considered a first-line medication for smoking cessation. The number of people stopping smoking with varenicline is higher than with bupropion or NRT. Varenicline more than doubled the chances of quitting compared to placebo, and was also as effective as combining two types of NRT. 2 mg/day of varenicline has been found to lead to the highest abstinence rate (33.2%) of any single therapy, while 1 mg/day leads to an abstinence rate of 25.4%. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concluded there is no evidence supporting a connection between varenicline and increased cardiovascular events. Concerns arose that varenicline may cause neuropsychiatric side effects, including suicidal thoughts and behavior. However, more recent studies indicate less serious neuropsychiatric side effects. For example, a 2016 study involving 8,144 patients treated at 140 centers in 16 countries "did not show a significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events attributable to varenicline or bupropion relative to nicotine patch or placebo". No link between depressed moods, agitation or suicidal thinking in smokers taking varenicline to decrease the urge to smoke has been identified. For people who have pre-existing mental health difficulties, varenicline may slightly increase the risk of experiencing these neuropsychiatric adverse events.
 * Clonidine may reduce withdrawal symptoms and "approximately doubles abstinence rates when compared to a placebo," but its side effects include dry mouth and sedation, and abruptly stopping the drug can cause high blood pressure and other side effects.
 * There is no good evidence anxiolytics are helpful.
 * Previously, rimonabant, which is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 antagonist, was used to help in quitting and moderate the expected weight gain. But it is important to know that the manufacturers of rimonabant and taranabant stopped production in 2008 due to serious CNS side effects.

The 2008 US Guideline specifies that three combinations of medications are effective:
 * Long-term nicotine patch and ad libitum NRT gum or spray
 * Nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler
 * Nicotine patch and bupropion (the only combination that the US FDA has approved for smoking cessation)

A meta-analysis from 2018, conducted on 61 RCTs, showed that during their first year of trying to quit, approximately 80% of the participants in the studies who got drug assistance (bupropion, NRT, or varenicline) returned to smoking, while 20% continued to not smoke for the entire year (i.e.: remained sustained abstinent). In comparison, 12% the people who got placebo kept from smoking for (at least) an entire year. This makes the net benefit of the drug treatment to be 8% after the first 12 months. In other words, out of 100 people who will take medication, approximately 8 of them would remain non-smoking after one year thanks to the treatment. During one year, the benefit from using smoking cessation medications (Bupropion, NRT, or varenicline) decreases from 17% in 3 months, to 12% in 6 months to 8% in 12 months.

Community interventions
Community interventions using "multiple channels to provide reinforcement, support and norms for not smoking" may have an effect on smoking cessation outcomes among adults. Specific methods used in the community to encourage smoking cessation among adults include:
 * Policies making workplaces and public places smoke-free. It is estimated that "comprehensive clean indoor laws" can increase smoking cessation rates by 12%–38%. In 2008, the New York State of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services banned smoking by patients, staff, and volunteers at 1,300 addiction treatment centers.
 * Voluntary rules making homes smoke-free, which are thought to promote smoking cessation.
 * Initiatives to educate the public regarding the health effects of second-hand smoke, including the significant dangers of secondhand smoke infiltration for residents of multi-unit housing.
 * Increasing the price of tobacco products, for example by taxation. The US Task Force on Community Preventive Services found "strong scientific evidence" that this is effective in increasing tobacco use cessation It is estimated that an increase in price of 10% will increase smoking cessation rates by 3–5%.
 * Mass media campaigns. There is evidence to suggest that when combined with other types of interventions, mass media campaigns may be of benefit.
 * Weak evidence suggests that imposing institutional level smoking bans in hospitals and prisons may reduce smoking rates and second hand smoke exposure.

Pharmacist Interventions
Pharmacist-led interventions have proven to be effective in helping smoking cessation attempts. Many systematic reviews have looked at the importance of pharmacist involvement. In Malaysia, their study looked at how pharmacist intervention in patients' overall healthcare showed improvements in screening early stages of disease. This allowed for earlier treatment starts in smoking-caused COPD. In addition, pharmacists in Malaysia could prescribe NRT products, and when they led a smoking cessation service, it was more successful than other smoking cessation trials in Malaysia. It was also shown that pharmacist counselling and NRT products were more effective in smoking cessation than using NRT alone.

In pharmacist-led smoking cessation services in Ethiopia, the study found statistically and clinically significant benefits favouring pharmacist intervention. They found that structured care, and regular visits, easy accessibility to pharmacists helped more people trying to quit than without. However, the study concluded that more research should be done in the area as they found an unknown risk of bias in the studies included

Another systematic review analyzed pharmacist intervention in smoking cessation and alcohol and weight interventions. They found that evidence suggests that the longer the duration of pharmacist-led intervention, the more influential the attempt at quitting was In addition, they found that community pharmacists were beneficial in delivering public health information. Pharmacists have a great reach in the community to help with smoking cessation and have proven to help with lifestyle modifications and proper NRT use.

Digital interventions

 * Interactive web-based and stand-alone computer programs and online communities assist participants in quitting. For example, "quit meters" keep track of statistics such as how long a person has remained abstinent. Computerised and interactive tailored interventions may be promising, however, the evidence base for such interventions is weak.
 * A mobile phone-based intervention where automated, supportive text messages are sent alongside other forms of support helps more people quit smoking: "The current evidence supports a beneficial impact of mobile phone-based cessation interventions on six-month cessation outcomes."  A 2011 randomized trial of mobile phone-based smoking cessation support in the UK found that a Txt2Stop cessation program significantly improved cessation rates at six months. A 2013 meta-analysis also noted "modest benefits" of mobile health interventions.
 * Interactive web-based programs combined with a Mobile phone: Two RCTs documented long-term treatment effects (abstinence rate: 20-22%) of such interventions.

Psychosocial approaches

 * The Great American Smokeout is an annual event that invites smokers to quit for one day, hoping they will be able to extend this forever.
 * The World Health Organization's World No Tobacco Day is held on May 31 each year.
 * Smoking-cessation support is often offered over the telephone quitlines (e.g., the US toll-free number 1-800-QUIT-NOW), or in person. Three meta-analyses have concluded that telephone cessation support is effective when compared with minimal or no counselling or self-help and that telephone cessation support with medication is more effective than medication alone,   and that intensive individual counselling is more effective than the brief personal counselling intervention. A slight tendency towards better results for more intensive counselling was also observed in another meta-analysis. This analysis distinguished between reactive (smokers calling quitlines) and proactive (smokers receiving calls) interventions. For people who called the quitline themselves, additional calls helped to quit smoking for six months or longer. When proactively initiating contact with a smoker, telephone counselling increased the chances of smoking cessation by 2–4% compared with people who received no calls. There is about 10% to 25% increase in the chance of smoking cessation success with more behavioral support provided in person or via telephone when used as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy.
 * Online social cessation networks attempt to emulate offline group cessation models using purpose built web applications. They are designed to promote online social support and encouragement for smokers when (usually automatically calculated) milestones are reached. Early studies have shown social cessation to be especially effective with smokers aged 19–29.
 * Group or individual psychological support can help people who want to quit. Recently, group therapy has been more helpful than self-help and some other individual intervention. The psychological support form of counselling can be effective alone; combining it with medication is more effective, and the number of support sessions with medication correlates with effectiveness.  The counselling styles that have been effective in smoking cessation activities include motivational interviewing,   cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy, methods based on cognitive behavioral therapy.
 * The Freedom From Smoking group clinic includes eight sessions and features a step-by-step plan for quitting smoking. Each session is designed to help smokers gain control over their behavior. The clinic format encourages participants to work on the process and problems of quitting both individually and as part of a group.
 * Multiple formats of psychosocial interventions increase quit rates: 10.8% for no intervention, 15.1% for one format, 18.5% for 2 formats, and 23.2% for three or four formats.
 * The transtheoretical model, including "stages of change", has been used in tailoring smoking cessation methods to individuals,   however, there is some evidence to suggest that "stage-based self-help interventions (expert systems and/or tailored materials) and individual counselling are neither more nor less effective than their non-stage-based equivalents."

How to set a quit date
Most smoking cessation resources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The Mayo Clinic encourage smokers to create a quit plan, including setting a quit date, which helps them anticipate and plan for smoking challenges. A quit plan can improve a smoker's chance of a successful quit as can setting Monday, as the quit date, given that research has shown that Monday more than any other day is when smokers are seeking information online to quit smoking and calling state quitlines. In Nepal, smokers are not selfish, a health campaign of two weeks is started on the occasion of Valentine day and Vasant panchami to motiviate individuals to quit smoking as a sacrifice for their loved ones and making it a meaningful decision of life. This campaign is taking public attention.

Self-help
Self-help materials may produce a small increase in quit rates specially when there is no other supporting intervention form. "The effect of self-help was weak", and the number of types of self-help did not produce higher abstinence rates. Nevertheless, self-help modalities for smoking cessation include:
 * In-person self-help groups such as Nicotine Anonymous, or web-based cessation resources such as Smokefree.gov, which offers various types of assistance including self-help materials.
 * WebMD: a resource providing health information, tools for managing health, and support.
 * Self-help books such as Allen Carr's Easy Way to Stop Smoking.
 * Spirituality: In one survey of adult smokers, 88% reported a history of spiritual practice or belief, and of those more than three-quarters were of the opinion that using spiritual resources may help them quit smoking.
 * A review of mindfulness training as a treatment for addiction showed reduction in craving and smoking following training.
 * Physical activities help in the maintenance of smoking cessation even if there is no conclusive evidence of the most appropriate exercise intensity.

Biochemical feedback
Various methods allow a smoker to see the impact of their tobacco use and the immediate effects of quitting. Using biochemical feedback methods can allow tobacco users to be identified and assessed, and monitoring throughout an effort to quit can increase motivation to quit. Evidence-wise, little is known about the effects of using biomechanical tests to determine a person's risk related to smoking cessation.

 * Breath carbon monoxide (CO) monitoring: carbon monoxide is a significant component of cigarette smoke, and a breath carbon monoxide monitor can be used to detect current cigarette use. Carbon monoxide concentration in breath is directly correlated with the CO concentration in blood, known as percent carboxyhemoglobin. The value of demonstrating blood CO concentration to a smoker through a non-invasive breath sample is that it links the smoking habit with the physiological harm associated with smoking. CO concentrations show a noticeable decrease within hours of quitting, which can encourage someone to work on quitting. Breath CO monitoring has been utilized in smoking cessation as a tool to provide patients with biomarker feedback, similar to how other diagnostic tools such as the stethoscope, the blood pressure cuff, and the cholesterol test have been used by treatment professionals in medicine.
 * Cotinine: Cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, is present in smokers. Like carbon monoxide, a cotinine test can be a reliable biomarker to determine smoking status. Cotinine levels can be tested through urine, saliva, blood, or hair samples. One of the main concerns of cotinine testing is the invasiveness of typical sampling methods.

While both measures offer high sensitivity and specificity, they differ in usage method and cost. For example, breath CO monitoring is non-invasive, while cotinine testing relies on bodily fluid. For instance, these two methods can be used alone or together when abstinence verification needs additional confirmation.

Competitions and incentives
Financial or material incentives to entice people to quit smoking improve smoking cessation while the motivation is in place. Competitions that require participants to deposit their own money, "betting" that they will succeed in quitting smoking, appear to be an effective incentive. However, it is more difficult to recruit participants for this type of contest in head-to-head comparisons with other incentive models, such as giving participants NRT or placing them in a more typical rewards program. Evidence shows that incentive programs may be effective for pregnant mothers who smoke. As of 2019, there is an insufficient number of studies on "quit and win," and other competition-based interventions and results from the existing studies were inconclusive.

Workplace incentives
A 2008 Cochrane review of smoking cessation activities in work-places concluded that "interventions directed towards individual smokers increase the likelihood of quitting smoking". A 2010 systematic review determined that worksite incentives and competitions needed to be combined with additional interventions to produce significant increases in smoking cessation rates.

Healthcare systems
Interventions delivered via healthcare providers and healthcare systems have been shown to improve smoking cessation among people who visit those services.
 * A clinic screening system (e.g., computer prompts) to identify whether or not a person smokes doubled abstinence rates, from 3.1% to 6.4%. Similarly, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services determined that provider reminders alone or with provider education effectively promote smoking cessation.
 * A 2008 Guideline meta-analysis estimated that physician advice to quit smoking led to a quit rate of 10.2%, as opposed to a quit rate of 7.9% among patients who did not receive physician advice to quit smoking. Even brief advice from physicians may have "a small effect on cessation rates", and there is evidence that the physicians' probability of giving smoking cessation advice declines with the person who smokes age. There is evidence that only 81% of smokers age 50 or greater received advice on quitting from their physicians in the preceding year.
 * For one-to-one or person-to-person counselling sessions, the duration of each session, the total contact time, and the number of sessions all correlated with the effectiveness of smoking cessation. For example, "Higher intensity" interventions (>10 minutes) produced a quit rate of 22.1% as opposed to 10.9% for "no contact" over 300 minutes of contact time made a quit rate of 25.5% as opposed to 11.0% for "no minutes" and more than 8 sessions produced a quit rate of 24.7% as opposed to 12.4% for 0–1 sessions.
 * Both physicians and non-physicians increased abstinence rates compared with self-help or no clinicians. For example, a Cochrane review of 58 studies found that nursing interventions increased the likelihood of quitting. Another review found some positive effects when trained community pharmacists support patients in their smoking cessation trials.
 * Dental professionals also provide a key component in increasing tobacco abstinence rates in the community through counseling patients on the effects of tobacco on oral health in conjunction with an oral exam.
 * According to the 2008 Guideline, based on two studies the training of clinicians in smoking cessation methods may increase abstinence rates; however, a Cochrane review found and measured that such training decreased smoking in patients.
 * Reducing or eliminating the costs of cessation therapies for smokers increased quit rates in three meta-analyses.
 * In one systematic review and meta-analysis, multi-component interventions increased quit rates in primary care settings. "Multi-component" interventions were defined as those that combined two or more of the following strategies known as the "5 A's":
 * Ask — Systematically identify all tobacco users at every visit
 * Advise — Strongly urge all tobacco users to quitBreath CO Monitor.jpg
 * Assess — Determine willingness to make a quit attempt
 * Assist — Aid the patient in quitting (provide counselling-style support and medication)
 * Arrange — Ensure follow-up contact

Substitutes for cigarettes

 * Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is the general term for using products that contain nicotine but not tobacco to aid smoking cessation. These include nicotine lozenges, nicotine gum and inhalers, nicotine patches, and electronic cigarettes. In a review of 136 NRT-related Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group studies, substantial evidence supported NRT use in increasing the chances of successfully quitting smoking by 50 to 60% in comparison to placebo or a non-NRT control group.
 * Electronic cigarettes (ECs): There is high‐certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate‐certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Little is known regarding the long-term harms related to vaping. A 2016 UK Royal College of Physicians report supports using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool. A 2015 Public Health England report stated that "Smokers who have tried other methods of quitting without success could be encouraged to try e-cigarettes (EC) to stop smoking and stop smoking services should support smokers using EC to quit by offering them behavioural support." However, since little is known about long term effects, other regulated options such as nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline or bupropion should be discussed primarily.

Alternative approaches
It is important to note that most of the alternative approaches below have minimal evidence to support their use, and their efficacy and safety should be discussed with a healthcare professional before starting.
 * Acupuncture: Acupuncture has been explored as an adjunct treatment method for smoking cessation. A 2014 Cochrane review was unable to make conclusions regarding acupuncture as the evidence is poor. A 2008 guideline found no difference between acupuncture and placebo, found no scientific studies supporting laser therapy based on acupuncture principles but without the needles.
 * Hypnosis: Hypnosis often involves the hypnotherapist suggesting the unpleasant outcomes of smoking to the patient. Clinical trials studying hypnosis and hypnotherapy as a method for smoking cessation have been inconclusive.  A Cochrane review was unable to find evidence of benefit of hypnosis in smoking cessation, and suggested if there is a beneficial effect, it is small at best. However, a randomized trial published in 2008 found that hypnosis and nicotine patches "compares favorably" with standard behavioral counseling and nicotine patches in 12-month quit rates.
 * Herbal medicine: Many herbs have been studied as a method for smoking cessation, including lobelia and St John's wort. The results are inconclusive, but St. Johns Wort shows few adverse events, but is a contraindication to many medications. Lobelia has been used to treat respiratory diseases like asthma and bronchitis, and has been used for smoking cessation because of chemical similarities to tobacco; lobelia is now listed in the FDA's Poisonous Plant Database. Lobelia can still be found in many products sold for smoking cessation and should be used with caution. Herbal products should be discussed with healthcare professionals before use to confirm safety with other medications.
 * Smokeless tobacco: There is little smoking in Sweden, which is reflected in the very low cancer rates for Swedish men. Use of snus (a form of steam-pasteurized, rather than heat-pasteurized, air-cured smokeless tobacco) is an observed cessation method for Swedish men and even recommended by some Swedish doctors. However, the report by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) concludes "STP (smokeless tobacco products) are addictive and their use is hazardous to health. Evidence on the effectiveness of STP as a smoking cessation aid is insufficient." A recent national study on the use of alternative tobacco products, including snus, did not show that these products promote cessation.
 * Aversion therapy: It is a method of treatment works by pairing the pleasurable stimulus of smoking with other unpleasant stimuli. A Cochrane review reported that there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy.
 * Nicotine vaccines: Nicotine vaccines (e.g., NicVAX and TA-NIC) work by reducing the amount of nicotine reaching the brain; however, this method of therapy needs more investigations to establish its role and determine its side effects.
 * Technology and machine learning: Research studies using machine learning or artificial intelligence tools to provide feedback and communication with those who are trying to quit smoking are increasing, yet the findings are so far inconclusive.
 * Psilocybin has been being investigated as a potential smoking cessation aid for several years. In 2021, Johns Hopkins Medicine has been awarded a grant from the National Institutes of Health to explore the potential impacts of psilocybin and talk therapy on tobacco addiction.

Children and adolescents
Methods used with children and adolescents include: Cochrane reviews, mainly of studies combining motivational enhancement and psychological support, concluded that "complex approaches" for smoking cessation among young people show promise. The 2008 US Guideline recommends counselling-style support for adolescent smokers on the basis of a meta-analysis of seven studies. Neither the Cochrane review nor the 2008 Guideline recommend medications for adolescents who smoke.
 * Motivational enhancement
 * Psychological support
 * Youth anti-tobacco activities, including participation in sports
 * School-based curricula, like life-skills training
 * School-based nurse counseling sessions
 * Access reduction to tobacco
 * Anti-tobacco media
 * Family communication

Pregnant women
Smoking during pregnancy can cause adverse health effects in both the woman and the fetus. The 2008 US Guideline determined that "person-to-person psychosocial interventions" (typically including "intensive counseling") increased abstinence rates in pregnant women who smoke to 13.3%, compared with 7.6% in usual care. Mothers who smoke during pregnancy have a greater tendency towards premature births. Their babies are often underdeveloped, have smaller organs, and weigh much less than the average baby weight. In addition, these babies have weaker immune systems, making them more susceptible to many diseases such as middle ear inflammations and asthmatic bronchitis, as well as metabolic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, all of which can bring significant morbidity. Additionally, a study published by American Academy of Pediatrics shows that smoking during pregnancy increases the chance of sudden unexpected infant death ((SUID) or (SIDS)). There is also an increased chance that the child will be a smoker in adulthood. A systematic review showed that psychosocial interventions help women quit smoking in late pregnancy and can reduce the incidence of low birth weight infants.

It is a myth that a female smoker can cause harm to a fetus by quitting immediately upon discovering she is pregnant. This idea is not based on any medical study or fact.

In a UK study that included 1140 pregnant women, e-cigarettes were found to be as effective as nicotine patches at helping pregnant women to quit smoking. The safety of the two products was also similar. However, life style modification are the preferred method for pregnant women, and they should discuss smoking cessation techniques with a healthcare professional.

Schizophrenia
Studies across 20 countries show a strong association between patients with schizophrenia and smoking. People with schizophrenia are much more likely to smoke than those without the disease. For example, in the United States, 80% or more of people with schizophrenia smoke, compared to 20% of the general population in 2006.

Hospitalized smokers
Smokers who are hospitalised may be particularly motivated to quit. A 2012 Cochrane review found that interventions beginning during a hospital stay and continuing for one month or more after discharge were effective in producing abstinence.

Patients undergoing elective surgery may get benefits of preoperative smoking cessation interventions, when starting 4–8 weeks before surgery with weekly counseling for behavioral support and use of nicotine replacement therapy. It is found to reduce the complications and the number of postoperative morbidity.

Mood disorders
People with mood disorders or attention deficit hyperactivity disorders have a greater chance to begin smoking and a lower chance of quitting smoking. A higher correlation with smoking has also been seen in people diagnosed with the major depressive disorder at any time throughout their lifetime compared to those without it. Success rates in quitting smoking were lower for those with a major depressive disorder diagnosis versus people without the diagnosis. Exposure to cigarette smoke early on in life, during pregnancy, infancy, or adolescence, may negatively impact a child's neurodevelopment and increase the risk of developing anxiety disorders in the future.

Homeless and poverty
Homelessness doubles the likelihood of an individual currently being a smoker. Homelessness is independent of other socioeconomic factors and behavioral health conditions. Homeless individuals have the same rates of desire to quit smoking. Still, they are less likely than the general population to attempt to stop successfully.

In the United States, 60–80% of homeless adults are smokers. This is a considerably higher rate than the general adult population of 19%. Many current smokers who are homeless report smoking as a means of coping with "all the pressure of being homeless." The perception that homeless people smoking being "socially acceptable" can reinforce these trends.

Americans under the poverty line have higher rates of smoking and lower rates of quitting than those over the poverty line. While the homeless population is concerned about short-term effects of smoking, such as shortness of breath or recurrent bronchitis, they are not as concerned with long-term consequences. The homeless population has unique barriers to quitting smoking, such as unstructured days, the stress of finding a job, and immediate survival needs that supersede the desire to quit smoking.

These unique barriers can be combated through pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling for high levels of nicotine dependence. The emphasis of immediate financial benefits to those who concern themselves with the short-term over the long-term, partnering with shelters to reduce the social acceptability of smoking in this population, and increased taxes on cigarettes and alternative tobacco products to further make the addiction more difficult to fund.

Concurrent substance use disorders
Over three-quarters of people in treatment or recovery from substance misuse issues are current smokers. Providing behavioural interventions (such as counseling and advice) and pharmacotherapy including nicotine replacement therapy (such as the use of patches or gum, varenicline, and/or bupropion) increase tobacco abstinence that is sustainable and also reduces the risk of returning to other substance use.

Comparison of success rates
Comparison of success rates across interventions can be difficult because of different definitions of "success" across studies. Robert West and Saul Shiffman, authorities in this field recognized by government health departments in a number of countries, have concluded that, used together, "behavioral support" and "medication" can quadruple the chances that a quit attempt will be successful.

A 2008 systematic review in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention found that group behavioural therapy was the most effective intervention strategy for smoking cessation, followed by bupropion, intensive physician advice, nicotine replacement therapy, individual counselling, telephone counselling, nursing interventions, and tailored self-help interventions; the study did not discuss varenicline.

Factors affecting success
Quitting can be harder for individuals with darkly pigmented skin than individuals with pale skin since nicotine has an affinity for melanin-containing tissues. Studies suggest this can cause the phenomenon of increased nicotine dependence and lower smoking cessation rate in darker-pigmented individuals.

There is an important social component to smoking. The spread of smoking cessation from person to person contributes to the decrease in smoking among different populations or groups. A 2008 study of a densely interconnected network of over 12,000 individuals found that smoking cessation by any given individual reduced the chances of others around them lighting up by the following amounts: a spouse by 67%, a sibling by 25%, a friend by 36%, and a coworker by 34%. Nevertheless, a Cochrane review determined that interventions to increase social support for a smoker's cessation attempt did not improve long-term quit rates.

Smokers trying to quit are faced with social influences that may persuade them to conform and continue smoking. Cravings are easier to detain when one's environment does not provoke the habit. Suppose a person who stopped smoking has close relationships with active smokers. In that case, they are often put into situations that make the urge to conform more tempting. However, in a small group with at least one other not smoking, the likelihood of conformity decreases. The social influence of smoking cigarettes has been proven to rely on simple variables. One researched variable depends on whether there is influence from a friend or non-friend. The research shows that individuals are 77% more likely to conform to non-friends, while close friendships decrease conformity. Therefore, if an acquaintance offers a cigarette as a polite gesture, the person who has stopped smoking will be likelier to break his commitment than if a friend had suggested it. Recent research from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey of over 6,000 smokers found that smokers with fewer smoking friends were more likely to intend to quit and to succeed in their quit attempt.

Expectations and attitude are significant factors. A self-perpetuating cycle occurs when a person feels bad for smoking yet smokes to alleviate feeling bad. Breaking that cycle can be a key in changing the sabotaging attitude.

Smokers with major depressive disorder may be less successful at quitting smoking than non-depressed smokers.

Relapse (resuming smoking after quitting) has been related to psychological issues such as low self-efficacy, or non-optimal coping responses; however, psychological approaches to prevent relapse have not been proven to be successful. In contrast, varenicline is suggested to have some effects and nicotine replacement therapy may help the unassisted abstainers.

Withdrawal symptoms
The CDC recognizes seven common nicotine withdrawal symptoms that people often face when stopping smoking: "cravings to smoke, feeling irritated, grouchy, or upset, feeling jumpy and restless, having a hard time concentrating, having trouble sleeping, feeling hungry or gaining weight, or feeling anxious, sad or depressed." Studies have shown that the use of pharmacotherapies, such as varenicline can be useful in reducing withdrawal symptoms during the quitting process.

Weight gain
Giving up smoking is associated with an average weight gain of 4 - 5 kg after 12 months, most of which occurs within the first three months of quitting.

The possible causes of the weight gain include:
 * Smoking over-expresses the gene AZGP1 which stimulates lipolysis, so smoking cessation may decrease lipolysis.
 * Smoking suppresses appetite, which may be caused by nicotine's effect on central autonomic neurons (e.g., via regulation of melanin concentrating hormone neurons in the hypothalamus). Smoking cessation will increase the persons appetite once again, especially as taste buds can return to its normal function.
 * Heavy smokers are reported to burn 200 calories per day more than non-smokers eating the same diet. Possible reasons for this phenomenon include nicotine's ability to increase energy metabolism or nicotine's effect on peripheral neurons.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guideline suggests that sustained-release bupropion, nicotine gum, and nicotine lozenge be used "to delay weight gain after quitting." There is not currently enough evidence to suggest one method of weight loss works better than others in preventing weight gain during the smoking cessation process. It is helpful to reach for healthy snacks, such as celery and carrots, to aid in the increased appetite while also helping to limit weight gain. Regardless of post-cessation weight gain, there is a significant decrease in risk of cardiovascular disease in those who have quit smoking. The risks of rebound weight gain is significantly less than the risks of continued smoking.

Mental health
Like other physically addictive drugs, nicotine addiction causes a down-regulation of the production of dopamine and other stimulatory neurotransmitters as the brain attempts to compensate for the artificial stimulation caused by smoking. Some studies from the 1990s found that when people stop smoking, depressive symptoms such as suicidal tendencies or actual depression may result, although a recent international study comparing smokers who had stopped for 3 months with continuing smokers found that stopping smoking did not appear to increase anxiety or depression. A 2021 review found that quitting smoking lessens anxiety and depression.

A 2013 study by The British Journal of Psychiatry has found that smokers who successfully quit feel less anxious afterward, with the effect being greater among those who had mood and anxiety disorders than those who smoked for pleasure.

Health benefits
Many of tobacco's detrimental health effects can be reduced or largely removed through smoking cessation. The health benefits over time of stopping smoking include:

 * Within 20 minutes after quitting, blood pressure and heart rate decrease
 * Within a few days, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease to normal
 * Within 48 hours, nerve endings and sense of smell and taste both start recovering
 * Within 3 months, circulation and lung function improve
 * Within 1 year, there are decreases in cough and shortness of breath
 * Within 1–2 years, the risk of coronary heart disease is cut in half
 * Within 5–10 years, the risk of stroke falls to the same as a non-smoker, and the risks of many cancers (mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, cervix) decrease significantly
 * Within 10 years, the risk of dying from lung cancer is cut in half, and the risks of larynx and pancreas cancers decrease
 * Within 15 years, the risk of coronary heart disease drops to the level of a non-smoker; lowered risk for developing COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)

The British Doctors Study showed that those who stopped smoking before they reached 30 years old lived almost as long as those who never smoked. Stopping in one's sixties can still add three years of healthy life. Randomized U.S. and Canadian trials showed that a ten-week smoking cessation program decreased mortality from all causes over 14 years later. A recent article on mortality in a cohort of 8,645 smokers who were followed up after 43 years determined that "current smoking and lifetime persistent smoking were associated with an increased risk of all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular disease], COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], and any cancer, and lung cancer mortality."

The significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality that is present in people who smoke is decreased with long-term smoking cessation. Smoking cessation can improve health status and quality of life at any age. Evidence shows that cessation of smoking reduces risk of lung, laryngeal, oral cavity and pharynx, esophageal, pancreatic, bladder, stomach, colorectal, cervical, and kidney cancer, in addition to reducing the risk of acute myeloid leukemia.

Another published study, "Smoking Cessation Reduces Postoperative Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," examined six randomized trials and 15 observational studies to examine preoperative smoking cessation's effects on postoperative complications. The findings were: 1) taken together, the studies demonstrated a decreased likelihood of postoperative complications in patients who ceased smoking before surgery; 2) overall, each week of cessation before surgery increased the magnitude of the effect by 19%. A significant positive effect was noted in trials where smoking cessation occurred at least four weeks before surgery; 3) For the six randomized trials, they demonstrated, on average, a relative risk reduction of 41% for postoperative complications.

Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness analyses of smoking cessation activities have shown that they increase quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at costs comparable with other types of interventions to treat and prevent disease. Studies of the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation include:
 * In a 1997 U.S. analysis, the estimated cost per QALY varied by the type of cessation approach, ranging from group intensive counselling without nicotine replacement at $1108 per QALY to minimal counselling with nicotine gum at $4542 per QALY.
 * A study from Erasmus University Rotterdam limited to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease found that the cost-effectiveness of minimal counselling, intensive counselling, and drug therapy were €16,900, €8,200, and €2,400 per QALY gained respectively.
 * Among National Health Service smoking cessation clients in Glasgow, pharmacy one-to-one counselling cost £2,600 per QALY gained and group support cost £4,800 per QALY gained.

Statistical trends
The frequency of smoking cessation among smokers varies across countries. Smoking cessation increased in Spain between 1965 and 2000, in Scotland between 1998 and 2007, and in Italy after 2000. In contrast, in the U.S. the cessation rate was "stable (or varied little)" between 1998 and 2008, and in China smoking cessation rates declined between 1998 and 2003.

Nevertheless, in a growing number of countries there are now more ex-smokers than smokers. In the United States, 61.7% of adult smokers (55.0 million adults) who had ever smoked had quit by 2018, an increase from 51.7% in 2009. As of 2020, the CDC reports that the number of adults who smoke in the U.S. has fallen to 30.8 million.

title: Smoking cessation


text:
MIB

MIB may refer to:

Computing

 * Mebibyte (MiB), a multiple of the unit byte for digital information
 * Management information base, a computing information repository used by the Simple Network Management Protocol
 * Modular infotainment platform vehicle infotainment architecture
 * Man-in-the-browser attack

Fiction

 * Men in Black (1934 film), a Three Stooges short
 * Men in Black (franchise)
 * The Men in Black (comics)
 * Men in Black (1997 film), based on the comic
 * Men in Black II, its 2002 sequel
 * Men in Black 3, its 2012 trilogy closer
 * Men in Black: International, its 2019 spin-off
 * Men in Black: The Series, based on the original film
 * The Man in Black (Lost), the main antagonist in the TV series Lost
 * The Man in Black (Westworld), the main antagonist in the TV series Westworld
 * The Medical Inspection Bureau, a fictional organization from the manga series Battle Angel Alita

Places

 * Minot Air Force Base, IATA code MIB
 * International Museum of the Baroque, Puebla, México

People

 * Michael Ian Black (born 1971), American comedian, actor and writer

Organizations

 * Men in Black (disambiguation), in conspiracy theory, a group of mysterious agents
 * Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, England
 * Meiringen-Innertkirchen-Bahn, a Swiss railway company
 * MIB Group (formerly Medical Information Bureau), an insurance industry fraud prevention data exchange
 * MIB School of Management Trieste, an international business school in Trieste, Italy
 * Motor Insurers' Bureau, a British company which deals with uninsured compensation claims
 * M.I.B (band), a South Korean music group
 * Mishap Investigation Board (MIB), an ad hoc NASA board to investigate incidents and mishaps, e.g. the Genesis MIB

Business

 * MCB Islamic Bank, Pakistani bank
 * FTSE MIB (Milano Italia Borsa), the main stock market index of the Borsa Italiana
 * Master of International Business, a postgraduate master's degree
 * Master of Internet Business, a postgraduate master's degree (e.g. ISDI University)

Science

 * Mibolerone, a potent synthetic anabolic-androgenic steroid
 * Motion induced blindness, a visual illusion
 * 2-methylisoborneol, a musty-smelling odorant sometimes found in drinking water and cork taint
 * 2-methylisoborneol synthase, an enzyme

Other

 * Melayu Islam Beraja, the adopted national philosophy of Brunei
 * Message in a bottle, a form of communication in which a message is sealed in a container and released
 * Mint In Box, a collector's abbreviation for an item in mint condition

title: MIB


text:
Robert Metcalfe

Robert "Bob" Melancton Metcalfe (born April 7, 1946) is an American engineer and entrepreneur who contributed to the development of the internet in the 1970s. He co-invented Ethernet, co-founded 3Com, and formulated Metcalfe's law, which describes the effect of a telecommunications network. Metcalfe has also made several predictions which failed to come to pass, including forecasting the demise of the internet during the 1990s.

Metcalfe has received various awards, including the IEEE Medal of Honor and National Medal of Technology and Innovation for his work developing Ethernet technology. In 2023, he received the Turing Award, the highest distinction in computer science. From 2011 to 2021, he was professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the University of Texas at Austin.

Early life and family
Robert Metcalfe was born in 1946 in Brooklyn, New York. His father was a test technician who specialized in gyroscopes. His mother was a homemaker who later became a secretary at Bay Shore High School. Metcalfe graduated from that school in 1964.

Metcalfe graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969, receiving two Bachelor of Science degrees in electrical engineering and industrial management. He then attended Harvard University and received a Master of Science in applied mathematics in 1970 and a PhD in computer science in 1973.

Metcalfe and his wife Robyn have two children.

Career
While pursuing his doctorate in computer science, Metcalfe took a job with MIT's Project MAC after Harvard refused permission for him to connect the university to the then-new ARPAnet. At MAC, Metcalfe was responsible for building some of the hardware that would link MIT's minicomputers with ARPAnet. Metcalfe made ARPAnet the topic of his doctoral thesis, but Harvard initially rejected it. Metcalfe decided how to improve his thesis while working at Xerox PARC, where he read a paper about the ALOHA network at the University of Hawaii. He identified and fixed some of the bugs in the AlohaNet model, then added that work to his revised thesis. It was then accepted by Harvard, which granted his PhD.

Metcalfe was working at PARC in 1973 when he and David Boggs invented Ethernet, initially as a standard for connecting computers over short distances. He later recalled that Ethernet was born on May 22, 1973, the day he circulated a memo titled "Alto Ethernet" which contained a rough schematic of how it would work. "That is the first time Ethernet appears as a word, as does the idea of using coax as ether, where the participating stations, like in AlohaNet or ARPAnet, would inject their packets of data, they'd travel around at megabits per second, there would be collisions, and retransmissions, and back-off," Metcalfe explained. Boggs argued that another date was the birth of Ethernet: November 11, 1973, the first day the system actually functioned.

In 1979, Metcalfe departed PARC and co-founded 3Com, a manufacturer of computer networking equipment, in his Palo Alto apartment. 3Com became a leading provider of networking solutions, and Ethernet became the dominant networking standard for local area networks (LANs). In 1980 he received the ACM Grace Hopper Award for his contributions to the development of local networks, specifically Ethernet. In 1990, the 3Com board of directors appointed Éric Benhamou as CEO instead of Metcalfe, who then left the company. He spent 10 years as a publisher and pundit, writing an internet column for InfoWorld. In 1996, he co-founded Pop!Tech, an executive technology conference. He became a venture capitalist in 2001 and subsequently a general partner at Polaris Venture Partners.

From 2011 to 2021, he was a professor at The University of Texas at Austin's Cockrell School of Engineering, specializing in innovation initiatives. Metcalfe was a keynote speaker at the 2016 Congress of Future Science and Technology Leaders and, in 2019, he presented the Bernard Price Memorial Lecture in South Africa. In June 2022, Metcalfe returned to MIT by joining the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory as a research affiliate and computational engineer, working with the MIT Julia Lab.

Awards
In 1996, Metcalfe was awarded the IEEE Medal of Honor for "exemplary and sustained leadership in the development, standardization, and commercialization of Ethernet." The following year, he was elected as a member into the National Academy of Engineering for the development of Ethernet. He received the National Medal of Technology in 2003 "for leadership in the invention, standardization, and commercialization of Ethernet". In October 2003, he received the Marconi Award for "For inventing the Ethernet and promulgating his Law of network utility based on the square of the nodes".

Metcalfe was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2007, for his work with Ethernet technology. In 2008, he received the Fellow Award from the Computer History Museum "for fundamental contributions to the invention, standardization, and commercialization of Ethernet."

In March 2023, Metcalfe was awarded the 2022 Association for Computing Machinery's Turing Award for his contributions to the invention of Ethernet technology.

Predicted Internet collapse
In 1995, Metcalfe argued that the Internet would suffer a "catastrophic collapse" in the following year; he promised to eat his words if it did not. During his keynote speech at the sixth International World Wide Web Conference in 1997, he took a printed copy of his column that predicted the collapse, put it in a blender with some liquid and then consumed the pulpy mass. He had suggested having his words printed on a very large cake, but the audience would not accept this form of "eating his words."

Selected publications

 * "Packet Communication", MIT Project MAC Technical Report MAC TR-114, December 1973 (a recast version of Metcalfe's Harvard dissertation)
 * "Zen and the Art of Selling", Technology Review, May/June 1992

title: Robert Metcalfe


text:
Whistler

Whistler may refer to:
 * Someone who whistles

Canada

 * Whistler, British Columbia, a resort town
 * Whistler railway station
 * Whistler Secondary School
 * Whistler Blackcomb, a ski resort in British Columbia
 * Whistler Mountain, British Columbia
 * The Whistlers (Alberta), a mountain in Alberta

United States

 * Whistler, Alabama, an unincorporated town until the 1950s, when it was annexed into neighboring Prichard
 * Whistler Geyser, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
 * Whistler Mountain (Washington), a mountain summit in Washington state
 * Whistler Range, Nevada, a mountain range

Elsewhere

 * Whistler Nunatak, Palmer Land, Antarctica
 * Whistler River, New Zealand

People

 * Alwyne Michael Webster Whistler (1909–1993), British Army general
 * Anna McNeill Whistler (1804–1881), James Whistler's mother
 * Arthur Whistler (1944–2020), American ethnobotanist
 * Catherine Whistler is a British art historian and curator
 * Charles Whistler (1856–1913), British writer
 * George Washington Whistler (1800–1849), American civil engineer and railroad builder
 * Harold Whistler (1896–1940), English First World War fighter ace
 * Harvey Samuel Whistler (1907–1976), American violinist, pedagogue, composer, and arranger of music education method books
 * Hugh Whistler (1889–1943), English police officer and ornithologist
 * James McNeill Whistler (1834–1903), American-born British painter, famous for the painting Whistler's Mother
 * Lashmer Whistler (1898–1963), British Army general
 * Laurence Whistler (1912–2000), British glass engraver and poet
 * Rex Whistler (1905–1944), British painter
 * William McNeill Whistler (1836–1900), physician, brother of James Whistler

Animals

 * Whistler (bird), a group of passerine birds in the family Pachycephalidae
 * Goldeneye (bird), a Northern Hemisphere seaduck in the genus Bucephala
 * Groundhog, American species of marmot
 * Hoary marmot, American species of marmot

Fictional characters

 * Whistler (Buffyverse), a character in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer
 * Abraham Whistler, mentor to the Marvel Comics character Blade in film and animated continuity
 * Coach Whistler, a mascot of The Land of Play in Pajanimals
 * Erwin "Whistler" Emory, a character in the film Sneakers
 * James Whistler (Prison Break character), mysterious inmate in the television series Prison Breaks third season

Music

 * Whistler (band), a UK indie band
 * "The Whistler" (song), a 1977 single by the British rock group Jethro Tull
 * "The Whistler", Fourplay's instrumental song on its 2008 album Energy

Television

 * Whistler (TV series), set in Whistler, British Columbia
 * The Whistler (TV series), television show of the 1950s

Other uses in arts and entertainment

 * The Whistler (novel), a 2016 novel by John Grisham
 * The Whistler (radio series), a mystery drama radio show and film noir series
 * The Whistler (1944 film), the first of eight films in the series

Other uses

 * Whistler (radio), a very low frequency radio phenomenon caused by lightning
 * CKEE-FM, identified on air and in print as "101.5 Whistler FM", a radio station in Whistler, British Columbia
 * Whistler, the development codename for the Microsoft Windows XP computer operating system
 * Whistler Group, a company specializing in electronics and automotive laser/radar detection systems
 * USS Whistler (SP-784), a United States Navy patrol vessel in commission from 1917 to 1919

title: Whistler


text:
Arthur Whitten Brown

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur Whitten Brown, (23 July 1886 – 4 October 1948) was a British military officer and aviator who flew as navigator of the first successful non-stop transatlantic flight with pilot John Alcock in June 1919.

Biography
Arthur Whitten Brown was born in Glasgow to American parents; his father had been sent to Scotland to evaluate the feasibility of siting a Westinghouse factory on Clydeside. The factory was eventually sited in Trafford Park in Stretford, Manchester, and the family subsequently relocated there.

Brown began his career in engineering before the outbreak of World War I and undertook an apprenticeship with British Westinghouse in Manchester. In 1914, he enlisted in the ranks of the University and Public Schools Brigade (UPS) for which he had to take out British citizenship. The ranks of the UPS were full of potential officers and Brown was one of those who sought a commission to become a Second Lieutenant in the 3rd (Special Reserve) Battalion of the Manchester Regiment. After service in France, Brown was seconded to 2 Squadron Royal Flying Corps as an observer.

Brown's aircraft was shot down by anti-aircraft fire over Vendin-le-Vieil in France while on artillery observation duties. He was sent back to England to recuperate but returned only to be shot down again, this time with a punctured fuel tank, near Bapaume in B.E.2c (number 2673) on a reconnaissance flight on 10 November 1915. Brown and his pilot, 2nd Lt. H. W. Medlicott, were captured by the Germans. (In June 1918 Medlicott was shot by the Germans while attempting to escape for the fourteenth time). Later interned in Switzerland, Brown was repatriated in September 1917.

After a period of leave he went to work with Major Kennedy RAF in the Ministry of Munitions. This led Brown to meet Kennedy's daughters, one of whom he later married. After the war Brown sought various appointments that would give him the security to allow him to marry. One of the firms he approached was Vickers, a consequence of which was that he was asked if he would be the navigator for the proposed transatlantic flight, partnering John Alcock, who had already been chosen as pilot.

Transatlantic flight
The flight from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Clifden, Connemara, Ireland, took place on 14 June 1919. They departed St John's at 1.45 pm local time, and landed in Derrygimla bog 16 hours and 12 minutes later after flying 1,980 miles (3,168 km). The flight was made in a modified Vickers Vimy bomber, and won a £10,000 prize offered by London's Daily Mail newspaper for the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic. A few days after the flight both Brown and Alcock were honoured with a reception at Windsor Castle during which King George V invested them with their insignia as Knights Commanders of the Order of the British Empire.

Post flight career
Later he worked for Metropolitan-Vickers (MetroVick), the company that had once been British Westinghouse. In 1923 he was appointed chief representative for Metropolitan-Vickers in the Swansea area.

During World War II Brown served in the Home Guard as a Lieutenant-Colonel before resigning his commission in July 1941, rejoining the RAF and working in RAF Training Command as a pilot officer dealing with navigation. His health deteriorated and by mid-1943 he had to resign from the RAFVR and give up his Air Training Corps commitments on medical advice.

Brown's only son, Arthur (known as Buster), was killed on the night of 5/6 June 1944, aged 22, while serving with the RAF as a Flight Lieutenant. His aircraft, a de Havilland Mosquito VI NT122, of 605 Squadron, crashed in the Netherlands. Buster was buried at the general cemetery in Hoorn, the town closest to the crash. The death of his only son affected Brown badly.

By 1948 Brown's health had again deteriorated, although he was allowed to undertake restricted duties as general manager for Metropolitan-Vickers at the Wind Street offices.

Brown died in his sleep on 4 October 1948 from an accidental overdose of Veronal, a sleeping pill, aged 62.

Brown and his wife's ashes are interred at St Margaret Churchyard, Tylers Green, Buckinghamshire, England.

Works

 * reprint READ BOOKS, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4097-1887-1
 * Our Transatlantic Flight, Alcock and Brown, William Kimber, 1969, ISBN 978-0-7183-0221-4

title: Arthur Whitten Brown


text:
Talk:Private Express Statutes

Untitled
It should be noted somewhere when the private cancellations/overprints issue gets fleshed out (articles of their own? better discussed in another article?) that private overprints may make a postage stamp invalid for prepayment of postage. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:13, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As more information accrues, here and at cancellations, about private overprints, the subject may either develop its own article, or become a section of an overprints article. Included in information about private overprints should be some of the information contained here:. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Moved to Private Express Statutes, this is actually a name of a group of laws, the Postal Service refers to them as such, and as the Postal Service is an authority, we should use their nomenclature. Alex756 17:49, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Page does not discuss private carriage on an occasional basis outside of the setting-up of a private delivery service, and the Private Express Statutes do allow for this. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * It is implied, but you can clarify it. — Be bold! — Alex756 16:52, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I think there was a confusion in the article between (1) free carriage with (2) occasional carriage with compensation. I've tried to clarify that and reorganize the material. Alex756 19:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is an additional minor exception that should be mentioned in this article, though I am not sure where to include it -- delivery of letters occurring completely off post roads (for some reason the entire delivery route is off streets where mail delivery is done). --Daniel C. Boyer 15:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who has noticed that the Chapter 3 (Sections 3xy) of Title 39 referenced by Publication 542 do not seem to exist anywhere on the US Code's website for Title 39? --Powerlord 05:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

International mail?
Does the monopoly also extend to international mail? i.e. Can non-urgent international mail (from the U.S. to another country, or vice versa) be sent through a company other than USPS? --208.54.5.136 (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had learned in grad school that the USPS has a monopology on non-express mail sent abroad from the US, and my reading of 39 USC § 602 confirms this (though this monopoly is subject to the exception in 39 USC § 601 for when you pay six times the USPS rate). However, I can find no law covering mail from abroad to be delivered in the U.S. (141.211.86.180 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC))

 * https://about.usps.com/publications/pub542/pub542_ch4_013.htm (39 CFR 320.8) 97.87.10.242 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Rationalization/Discussion
The article could be improved with a discussion of why the law exists, aided by statements made by its proponents at its passing. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Private Express Statutes