This choice, like many choices involving vices or other intentional deviations from happiness vs wellbeing, are too often assumed to be made in ignorance. This same misunderstanding also happens when one political persuasion attempts to rationalize the choices of another.
I know some people who express the same. I just don't know very many at all who express the delusional sentiments from TFA.
Unless you've invented a mind-reading device I'm pretty sure you're talking out of your ass. Most people, including myself, might at times express a lack of desire to quit smoking, but it's often not how we really feel about it (especially not in the morning).
You may feel that. But you can't know what other smokers feel, either.
Smoking happens to be a vice that has particularly noticeable side-effects on the rest of society. If you lived alone, had an adequate ventilation system (which does not distribute your smoke to your neighbors), and only smoked in your own house, I doubt there would be many complaints. The problems start when you have a family, or when you go outside where others now have to deal with your smoke.
Addiction makes you crave something in an irrational way.
Logic and thinking are not the proper tools to make you stop the craving.
Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
Recovering from addiction, as well as getting addicted, are mostly social and biological processes.
You might want to read about the Rat Park experiment, here's a quick link: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/what...
12 step programs work for about 40% of the people who participate, and a large portion of that success is attributed to the availability of such programs. [2]
I believe logic has it’s place. Like a 12 step program, it won’t work for everyone, but there is a place for rational approaches to treatment of addictions.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_...
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evidence-based-livin...
My knowledge of them is very limited to pop culture (like its depiction in TV shows such as The Wire, Breaking Bad and Grey's Anatomy), but their depictions always seemed annoying to me because they are all about god, submission to a "higher power", and "the original sin"/"flawed humans" in one way or the other. If you are actively atheist, you will find this approach off-putting and it won't help you.
Reading their brochure, however, it seems they are effectively not a 12-step program, since they ditch or ignore most of the steps (a must if they want to remain religion-neutral, since about half the steps mention god, a higher power or prayer in one way or the other).
From their brochure:
> "What about the 12 Steps? How can you be A.A. without following them? A.A. co-founder Bill W.’s thinking evolved on many issues [...] he wrote that, “so long as there is the slightest interest in sobriety, the most unmoral, the most antisocial, the most critical alcoholic may gather about him a few kindred spirits and announce to us that a new Alcoholic Aonymous group has been formed [...] these rampant individuals are still an AA group if they think so!”"
That's a very lax definition. It's very hard to measure effectiveness with this...
I'm not sure how standard AA can help an atheist, since about half their 12-steps mention god, submitting to a higher power or praying. If atheists say it helps them, I believe them -- who am I to doubt it? But I don't understand the principle at work.
Being willing to alter your deepest held beliefs predisposes you to altering other things about your life, from big things like moving across town to small things like taking a lunch break at a different time.
There's also a social element that I think is hard to reproduce in a secular context. Convincing a bunch of adults to coordinate their schedules is much easier if they believe that they will go to heaven if they do so. Furthermore, you already have a public building as a location to hold meetings. Hell, even the architecture of a lot of churches is awe-inspiring. They're physically designed to be these places where you come to terms with your faults (sins) and begin to deal with them. Of course, that also means that their design is religious, with religious iconography in the stained windows and on the walls.
Just wanted to offer a different perspective.
> we don't need to be implicitly told by others that all such reasoning about how or when to go about quitting is nonsense, that we "should just do it".
Never said anything like that or even tried to imply it.
I personally struggled with smoking for many years, and I don't wish that or any addiction struggle upon anyone. And because I've been there, I know logic and reasoning don't cut it. In my case, what pushed me to quit smoking was someone very close to me who helped me do it with some tough love and a lot of support. Definitely did not "just did it", but also reason didn't really play a central role either.
Also no one said addicts were akin to blind rats in a cage. You might actually want to go and read about the rat park experiment. It basically suggests that our environment and overall social situation are way more important factors in triggering and sustaining addictions, rather than any individual trait or pre-condition.
That said, I agree that our social situation and environment have a lot to do with addiction, and definitely think this applies to cigarettes as well. Moving with the same thread in mind, this is also why I think attempting to quit, either cold turkey or incrementally, is usually better when one has the time and lack of other major stresses to seriously try it.
I've had many periods of being near broke, barely making ends meet with work that is underpaid and difficulty focusing on the steps necessary to improve my situation. In such situations, smoking has been one of the small dirty pleasures that helps ease these anxieties. And if focusing is already difficult in such a crucial moment, well you can imagine trying to hold onto focus while also trying to quit.
None of this is to downplay how dangerous it is to smoke under almost any circumstances, but i'd definitely say that there are both better moments and worse moments for trying to leave it behind.
Yes, it is. Believe it or not, I described it. I wasn't describing the logic of being addicted, or of how to overcome addiction, but of conditions that affect the decision to try to quit.
> Look at the 12 steps program of AA, there are no "thinking" or "logic" steps.
You're either deliberately or ignorantly misrepresenting the 12 step program. They are nearly entirely about reasoning (even if you don't particularly subscribe to the suggested reasoning).
If you are a positive reinforcement type of person, keep a "money and time I didn't spend on cigarettes" and "days of life saved to spend with my kids" counter as a reinforcement every time you log in.
FWIW, I know some have said this is bad advice, but it's remarkably similar to my most recent attempt that had any kind of success. I did taper first, but when it came time to actually follow through, I did reserve some time for self isolation. I did drink myself to sleep (I basically had a drink any time I had a craving for a smoke). I did substitute long distance cycling! All of this helped immensely.
Unfortunately, most of that is available to me right now. I'm fortunate to be working, but I'm currently working far more than I should. My family is depending on me for routine contact (and I on them) for mental health during isolation. I don't currently have access to my bike, and even if I did I would not have the time or energy to exercise.
I will get there again. It's just not the time. Thanks for the advice though!
It's also probably a good idea to disclose that it can be pretty nauseating in its own right, and that it's often paired with other drugs like guaifenesin that are even more likely to cause nausea and vomiting.
Like, don't get me wrong, if folks wanna take a robotrip to quit smoking, I'm not going to dissuade them. It's crazy what works for some people. But I don't think just encouraging people who are desperate to find a way to quit smoking to take a robotrip without warning is a good idea at all.
Also, thanks for the positive re-inforcement idea.
High dose NAC with a couple night’s of Xanax to sleep would probably be better.
1- every day I'm not smoking has a positive impact on my health. Even if it's a few days
2- I had to make it as easy to quit as it is to restart smoking. Because restarting smoking is too easy and there is nothing I can do about it
3- my environment can make it more easy or more difficult for me to stop. So I had to be ready to stop when the conditions were ideal. For instance, my partner was a smoker too, which made it more difficult for me stop. So when she finally decided to quit smoking, I was able to immediately stop too. We encouraged each other and succeeded together
the health impacts of coffee are significantly less than the health impacts of smoking. Coffee doesn't cause cancer or heart disease. ~480000 americans don't die every year of caffeine-related illnesses. being dependent on anything sucks, but a dependency on something that's not really even bad for you is a lot different than a dependency on something that has a decent chance of killing you.
Smoking is a horrible delivery mechanism. There are others that seem to present far fewer downsides.
The tl;dr is that, for a lot of different reasons that aren't your fault, you've become convinced that quitting smoking is a lot harder than it actually is. If you have any feeling like you would like to quit (or that you think its gross) then go grab the PDF and give it a shot.
I dropped the habit two years ago and have never had a slight urge to try again. The text is a little cringeworthy, but if you can look past it you will see the benefits
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingJUUL/comments/d10l69/full_p...
In a subreddit called "QuittingJUUL", none the less! An entirely new generation is getting to learn about Carr's book.
Quitting smoking is both easier and harder than you think it is, but having done it, I learned a lot about my mind and the way humans think in general. Another step on the path to enlightenment.
Good luck.
When one accepts that the rational choice is to continue smoking, then it is much easier to deal with the emotions that come with quitting.
That being said, I am a huge fan of nicotine. Gum, patches, vape, snus, are all great. If you want to explore your subconscious then a nicotine patch before bedtime is diving straight into the deep end.
There's truth to the joke "quitting is easy, I've done it many times". It's not the quitting part you have to worry about.
If so, doesn't that mean it's something we should probably ban as a society and provide transitional support to help wean people off of it more gracefully? Even if tobacco itself remains an accessible substance, getting rid of pre-rolled cigarettes would probably annoy a large portion of the population into quitting.
I've never been a smoker so I can't really relate, but sugar is addictive as hell and quite terrible for you as well. I try and minimize deserty things and get really annoyed when something I'd like (like a nice dry cracker or a marinated piece of meat) is needlessly slathered in sugar. I, personally, want regulations that would push prepared food back into the realm of healthy because, even if the taste suffers a little, it'll let me relax a bit when trying to consume food healthy while also feeling the time stresses of a full time job & commute.
We, as a society, have allowed our food supply to get saturated with sugar - fixing that is just as controlling of our lives as allowing it was in the first place.
We, as a society, have allowed tobacco smoking to bloom as it has - fixing it is just as controlling of our lives as allowing it was in the first place.
If your basis for banning smoking is that it harms smokers, then you have no logical reason to stop at smoking. The leading cause of death in the US is heart disease, if you ban smoking, you should also ban everything that can contribute to an unhealthy diet. The US has 12.4 traffic deaths per 100,000. Given that why would should anybody be permitted to drive for non-essential purposes? Millions of people suffer negative effects from social media and video game addiction, why should they be allowed to consume those products? Less that 5% of US adults get 30 minutes of exercise per day, so why should I be allowed to stream Netflix or YouTube for as long as I like?
If you think it’s the governments responsibility to ensure we make healthy choices, then you really can say goodbye to any sense of freedom over your life. Unless you think that should apply to smoking only, in which case you don’t have a rational argument.
How many processed foods would contain sugar if it raised the price by a few cents per unit cost?
If we're going down the market path of "letting people choose," why not let them bear the real cost of sugar proliferation?
Hey it's a libertarian site talking about sugar subsidies:
https://reason.com/2019/02/27/sugar-subsidies-are-welfare-fo...
For my part, since we're doing market-based stuff for diet, I'd rather end meat, dairy, and sugar subsidies entirely. (I'd actually rather we subsidize vegetables and so on, but I'd be okay with ending all of them.) Let people buy food as it really costs, and then let's see what the national diet looks like.
I know it will sound too obvious but my thought when I read the above is that the best time to reach people about the dangers of smoking is before they start smoking.
I am not so sure that smokers are aware of the risks of smoking, especially when they first start smoking. A big one a smoking friend told me that he could tell himself was decreased lung capacity. I don't know if this is scientifically proven (anecdotal evidence) but he says he used to swim longer when he was younger (and didn't smoke).
Just spitballing: How do you feel about a ban on buying tobacco related products without a license/prescription? Like you can buy cigarettes and such only if you have a document that says you need it?
In my opinion if you want people to quit smoking you need to give them the tools to create that feeling without smoking. Otherwise people will seek that feeling out when they're trying to quit and the easiest way for them to get it is to light a cigarette.
I don't smoke and I have no intention of learning the nice, peaceful feeling. I was just saying that we already require people to be twenty one years old to buy tobacco. I completely support legalization of all drugs but perhaps there should be some supervision. I thought requiring a prescription/license to buy drugs makes sense. We require a doctor's visit to get birth control pills.
Perhaps we could even get rid of the age limit if we require a prescription... Or do you fear the market will flood with unlicensed (possibly adulterated/low quality) tobacco products if we make it too difficult to get tobacco without a license/prescription?
This is not the logic of most smokers I know (myself included). My reasoning, like that of most smokers I know, is:
1. I know how bad smoking is.
2. I know how hard quitting is.
3. I know the mental health effect of a quitting effort (whether successful or not) is challenging and unpredictable.
4. I have a lot of other challenges in life that incentivize putting off #2-3 until such a time as I think I can weather the storm and have a high chance of success.
Most smokers try and fail to quit multiple times before they succeed. It's a strong addiction, with a lot of negative emotional associations.