I don't smoke nor am I Thai and it impacted me. The video made me think about habits I hold and how it might make me feel to see a child imitate them. Maybe it's because I see children as having endless potential and I as having already exhausted mine. Maybe it's because I see children as innocent and I as not.
I’ll find it if I have a chance but there was an /r/AskReddit about “what was a time you majorly impacted someone’s life without knowing it then”.
One redditor told of the time that, when he was a kid, he decided to be goofy and “dress like Uncle”, which naturally included humorously puffing on his pretend “pipe”.
That uncle then had a come-to-Jesus moment and finally quit, from the sight of his nephew seeing him that way.
Similar: if you tell an average person that their earbuds are turned up too loud and it’ll damage their hearing, they likely won’t do anything. Tell them it’s too loud and will damage their headphones, and they’ll turn down their volume for the rest of their lives.
I actually am one of those weirdos that has to use an equalizer for android because i can't stand how loud the lowest setting is. When you work in a relatively quiet office, you sometimes want to be pick up on what other people are saying without having to ask again.
I miss being able to use alsamixer on my rooted android 4 phone. It was by far the best way to control every aspect of sound output on an android phone. It gave you total control over everything, including overriding android's built in limits on various outputs. You could make your external speakers go nice and loud and bring your headphones down really quiet while still being audible. Android's sound management is exceedingly abysmal and just seems to get worse with each new version.
I find the lowest settings on any phone I have tried too loud with any headphones or bluetooth device. I gave up trying. Even in a normal room its painfully loud. Per your username I do have tinnitus also and some minor hearing loss but not massive. No idea why this is so miserable.
I had a similar issue where I bought a pair of in-ear monitors with very low impedance and the lowest settings on my phone/laptop is still too loud. I solved it buying a small headphone amp: https://www.radsone.com/earstudio
It's worked out really well. It's much smaller than most headphone amps and has the added bonus (for me) of making my headphones wireless.
I currently use Music Volume EQ for android and it works. It's annoying sometimes cause I may need to restart every once in a while or reinstall it, but it allows me to turn the equalizer at the lowest level, turn it on, and then listen to that base "quiet" as the new lowest level.
or start a viral social media campaign to shout down and browbeat anyone whose earbud volume is too high (assuming you can scrounge up enough moral reasoning to back your campaign and get the bandwagon effect)
I don't think this is true, maybe except the small minority of expensive headphones affectionados. Average person is not particularly careful about headphones and other cheap tech. Like, not at all.
The ad is very good, but it is also very patronizing. Most smokers know it’s bad, the problem is it’s an addiction. In a way, the ad is very honest, because saying ‘why don’t you just stop your addiction’ is a childish question.
That’s like telling someone that depressed to just realize they are depressed and to stop being depressed. Realizing that you need to quit is not some sort of magick. I think that almost all smokers know that they need to quit. Further the problem is staying quit. Smokers quit all the time but then relapse.
It's not about telling them its bad. It's about twisting their perspective to maybe give them a kick to take action. The kids give them a pamphlet with a hotline. That's trying to get them resources to fight their addiction, not saying "why don’t you just stop your addiction".
Not exclusively in my experience. Sometimes it's about enjoyment, as is the case with many vices. For many, the consequences are known, and the trade off is consciously chosen (and maybe hedged, e.g. with lowered frequency).
I can relate to this on a personal level. I've got 2 small children at home and as you may have guess the 'Rona has increased the stress levels of everyone in the household have been up. I noticed myself getting more frustrated and angry lately, one of the things that helped me really start turning it around was realizing I was setting an example for my kids, and I didn't want my sons to grow up getting angry and dealing with their problems by yelling and shouting.
That thought really changed it from doing it for myself to doing it for my kids. It seems maybe if we thought more about our examples would be mirrored by the young people around us we'd set a better example.
Everything in life is a trade off. Most smokers know its bad but smoking is not 0 benefit, otherwise people won't smoke. They accept the risk and willing to trade the cost with the benefit.
This is a little true, but it's not all true. Just like a drowning man grabs his rescuer uncontrollably, drowning them both, there are actions you may take that you can't fully control. Sometimes a choice is being made, but it isn't being made when you think it's being made.
In our society when someone is highly intoxicated they cannot legally consent to sexual activities - they do have a choice still and are deciding it... we just understand that their thought process is being extremely heavily influenced by an outside source.
For an addict it becomes not a choice, I'm not absolving every addict of everything ever but addiction really screws with your brain and if you have an addictive personality you can end up feeling compelled to do something even while fully accepting you'll feel guilty about it later.
From a technical & mechanical perspective the person has made a choice, from an agency perspective the scenario is less clear and we generally understand that intoxication (either through physical addictions or obsessions) can lower the responsibility of the party involved... and there are a lot of examples toward and against this point in society[1] but I don't think we can clearly consider this a choice.
1. For instance drunk driving is considered in the opposite manner where choosing to drive drunk assumes a greater responsibility, and implies a greater agency, on the actor.
For an addict, its still a choice between continue or work extremely hard to give it up. Sure, you can consider it not a choice, its your preference but I do consider is a choice, I think many other people do as well.
There really isn't much benefit at the beginning. It's an effort getting through not wanting to throw up. I think usually it's about being cool and a rebel.
ha, yep. that's why we persisted. i mean, if by stopping smoking it meant you could live to one thousand years old, then yeah, it'd make a lot of people think again.
People are not simple cost-benefit calculators, and even if they were, it's easy to screw up that calculation when 1) companies spend billions of advertising dollars each year to shift the perceived benefit (+ network effects reaped from years prior), and 2) you don't have experience with potentially addictive substances. Once you're hooked, it's no longer a fair fight, particularly if you have a susceptible personality.
> They accept the risk and willing to trade the cost with the benefit.
The cost doesn't come until much later (sometimes never). Most smokers secretly hope they'll never have to pay the piper. For the majority of smokers, they are probably full of regret when the bill finally comes due and cuts their life 20 years short (and/or makes the last few years utter misery).
it really comes down to immediate expense versus deferred, as in the health costs are deferred to the point that people don't feel the impact until it is upon them.
so the only solution is to make the product cost so much that the immediate cost becomes the concern or just outright ban it. The US issue is too many states rely on the tax and penalty revenue associated with the products they may be loathe to give it up.
Smoking also affect living beings around, and the environment (There are like 10 to 50 cigarettes butts every meter in the grass, on a city road side, here in France). So not just the smoker itself.
It's not like consuming junk food/drinks, where you harm yourself mostly (there are also environmental issues though)
Just to play devils advocate regarding passive smoking (not saying it not annoying for others, and the cigarette butts is just irresponsible - I would hope its not all smokers that do that, but clearly enough do that it's noticable).
>The study doesn't cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else's cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease.
>Previous cancer studies have had mixed results, the researchers said, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still calculate secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 deaths from cancer a year.
> Smokers are fully aware of the health risks of smoking. But they ignore all warnings from friends, family and outsiders. Because the only voice they listen to is theirs. And it tells them things like, "Everything causes cancer these days" or "I can give up whenever I want.
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.
You really should read allen carr's easy way to quit smoking. I was a smoker for a long time and would say exactly what you've said here. The main pull for me was always the social smoking as well.
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
I strongly agree. This book is the way. Your might not quit right away, but if you let it, it will infect your mind with a new virus that outcompetes the cigarette meme over time.
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.
Listening to the audiobook while smoking is how I quit. Took me two attempts but it really wasn’t some grueling, terrible ordeal the whole time. Smokers and non smokers alike romanticize smoking excessively. Listening to Carr helped me realize that smoking is actually a huge pain in the ass that makes your life worse instead of something so pleasurable that living life without it seems like asceticism.
I also quit directly because of Allen Carr's Easy Way to Stop Smoking. This is a fantastic book, and I gladly gift it to anyone I know who wants to stop smoking.
Thank you for the suggestion (and I see all the other praise for this in the sub-comments). I will definitely give this a read as soon as I have time available.
> Most smokers try and fail to quit multiple times before they succeed. It's a strong addiction, with a lot of negative emotional associations.
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?
As a smoker I'd be fully in favor of that. Anything that lets existing smokers do their thing, but makes it significantly more difficult for non-smokers to start, is a good thing.
In the US we tried a program called DARE that was focused on telling kids about the dangers of harder drugs to try to get them to stay away. That program was later discontinued because it was shown to have no impact. Part of the problem here is that we focus on the negatives of smoking as the reason for quitting. But nobody ever talks about how good it can feel to smoke a cigarette. It's relaxing. The nicotine creates this nice, peaceful feeling.
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.
> In the US we tried a program called DARE that was focused on telling kids about the dangers of harder drugs to try to get them to stay away. That program was later discontinued because it was shown to have no impact. Part of the problem here is that we focus on the negatives of smoking as the reason for quitting. But nobody ever talks about how good it can feel to smoke a cigarette. It's relaxing. The nicotine creates this nice, peaceful feeling.
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?
Do you really think most smokers hit those points over and over?
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.
So here's a fundamental issue I have with this brand of Libretarianism - states have laws, they have laws whether they're prohibitions or allowances. Most humans agree infanticide is bad so that's been illegal for a lot of history. Most of the laws in society aren't just to wag a finger at someone and saw "naughty naughty!" they're there to make sure that people with disproportionate amounts of power don't take advantage of other people. Minimum wages are there to protect workers, not just needlessly increase the bottom lines of companies - contract law exists to prevent private entities with guns from just having whatever they want...
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.
plenty of people can't stand perfumes. i could die of an asthma attack with that stinking lady getting on the bus i'm on. i get off the bus because i'm not going to try and kim-jong-un others for me.
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.
This logic is completely backwards. People should generally be given the freedom to make their own choices in life. If the government wants to take your freedom to choose something away, it should have a very strong reason for doing so. I would also suggest that if a government wants to take liberties away from the individual, it should really only be done in situations where the choices of the individual are very likely to harm others (which smoking isn’t, given how regulated it is, the general public is no longer at risk of harm from secondary smoke).
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.
I know many smokers that have different logic. They know how bad it is, yet for them it is not hard to quit, but they choose to smoke (often only occasionally or "celebratory" as some insurances call it). Many just don't want to quit, don't try, and accept the trade offs of enjoying their vice vs its harms.
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.
> Many just don't want to quit, don't try, and accept the trade offs of enjoying their vice vs its harms.
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).
> This choice, like many choices involving vices or other intentional deviations from happiness vs wellbeing, are too often assumed to be made in ignorance.
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.
> I know many smokers that have different logic. They know how bad it is, yet for them it is not hard to quit, but they choose to smoke (often only occasionally or "celebratory" as some insurances call it). Many just don't want to quit, don't try, and accept the trade offs of enjoying their vice vs its harms.
I know some people who express the same. I just don't know very many at all who express the delusional sentiments from TFA.
Yup. I've solved many a perplexing problem over a five minute cigarette break. Now that I've quit, I find a brisk five minute walk is a suitable substitute, but not quite up to par with the nicotine. I consider it a good compromise though, considering the health risks.
What's your caffeine intake like? I'm wondering if drinking an extra cup of coffee can help cognitively or if the caffeine stimulation just makes the nicotine craving worse.
I don't think there is a general answer. I have to quit coffee when I try to quit smoking (it reduces the craving and helps me to sleep at night), but I know people who have quit substituting the tobacco with huge amounts of coffee. You will have to find what works better for you. Good luck!
Very high. I only stop when I start getting the jitters. although, back when I smoked, I was never one that had to have a cigarette and coffee together, but I hear it's very common.
FWIW, if you find nicotine (or caffeine as suggested in nearby comments) helps you cognitively, that's a potential sign that you have a dopamine deficiency (i.e. ADHD).
Is caffeine any different? I went 40 years without it but started when I had a need for some energy as life was so bad. I tried to quit after two years and had 30 days + of migraines that never left of abated so I went back on it. I want off but I am not in a position to have MORE pain and headaches now as life has collapsed. I wish I had never had a coffee. The small boost and bowel regularity are benefits, but the dependence is miserable. Even getting off a cup a day is super painful for me and I have read I am not alone...but people who aren't as affected think its ridiculous.
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.
Taper down, don't quit cold turkey. Reduce your intake by 10% a day. Eventually you'll be at a low enough level you can stop and the side effects will be minimal.
AA is also pretty well known for having very mixed success rates [1]. I believe the truth of the matter is people form addictions for a wide variety of social, psychological, and physiological reasons.
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.
Excuse my ignorance, but is there an atheist form of AA and similar 12-steps programs?
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.
Interesting! I didn't know, for example, about Secular AA.
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...
Hi, Although AA references a "higher power" and a lot of their rituals are obviously based on Protestant Christianity, there are quite a few long term members who are openly agnostic or atheist. I myself prefer the term agnostic, as although I doubt there is a God out there, I would find it pretty cool if I was wrong. Anyhow, If that is what is keeping you or a friend from trying it out, please don't let that stop you. Also feel free to contact me, email in profile.
Thanks for the offer! I know it's a cliché to say this, but I'm not an addict (no alcohol, no drugs, no smoking, no overeating, nothing I'd consider an addiction. Maybe I could do more physical exercise though!) and I'm not looking for help for myself or anyone I know. I was just curious about this aspect of AA :)
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.
My understanding of the principle is that you often need a much larger rework of your life to quit an addiction than just changing the habit itself. So much of an addiction is the habits and preconditions that you take before using a drug. For example, first a person might have a lunch break at 12:30, then they'll go and talk to coworker X who also has a lunch break, then they'll take a walk, then they'll start lighting up. All of these little habits have nothing to do with smoking individually, but your brain is already primed to assume 'lunch break -> chat -> walk -> smoke'.
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.
Charlie Munger has a theory of hour AA works that is pretty convincing. He says that AA uses a number of natural psychological tendencies together to create a "Lollapalooza effect" that helps people to stay stopped, once they quit drinking.
The craving itself is irrational but logic and thinking are useful tools to stop. Allen Carr's "Easy Way to Stop Smoking" is a testament to that. While everyone knows that smoking is bad for health, many people don't know to what extent or have mistaken beliefs about the benefits of smoking.
You reply just sounds condescending. Yes, smokers (myself a smoker) know that their logic isn't ideal on this and we're aware that much of it is biological and emotional, but there is room for reasoning about when to try quitting for a less stressful and more likely optimal result. We're not simply blind rats in a cage just because we have this ferocious addiction, and 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".
Sorry about the tone, wasn't my intention to be condescending.
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.
Thank you for the apology and I myself apologize for my own annoyed tone. Your first comment just struck a chord with me and especially since I was out of cigarettes right when I read it (nasty little coincidences).
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).
It took me dozens of attempts. Find three days. Use the next long weekend. No excuses. Cold turkey on Friday afternoon, drink yourself to sleep, self-isolate until Monday afternoon, incorporate endurance exercise (long distance cycling is very good) if at all possible. Try not to schedule critical family/business meetings on Tuesday/Wednesday. Exercise Tuesday/Wednesday.
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.
It's a common phrase that means to drink enough alcohol to pass out. Presumably because otherwise sleep would be difficult to find, due to withdrawal symptoms.
I downvoted you because these are terrible suggestions. Tapering down is a far easier way of quitting most addictions. Drinking yourself to sleep is always a terrible idea.
Actually I’ve seen variants of this work in many different ways. Listen, you got yourself already onto a powerful drug. People use drugs to come off other drugs all the time, and it works. In fact I think it has a high success rate if done properly.
High dose NAC with a couple night’s of Xanax to sleep would probably be better.
It's probably a good idea to disclose, for anyone who isn't already aware, that DXM (dextromethorphan) is a dissociative hallucinogen. It doesn't take much more than a normal dose to experience mild intoxication, and "a lot" can be a pretty intense (and for many, unpleasant) experience even if you're expecting it.
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.
> Find three days. Use the next long weekend. No excuses. Cold turkey on Friday afternoon, drink yourself to sleep, self-isolate until Monday afternoon, incorporate endurance exercise (long distance cycling is very good) if at all possible.
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!
Thanks for your supportive comment. Exercise helps. Time helps, to a point (2-3 days). Obviously anything like this is highly personal, and anyone who hasn't done it should be "taken with a grain of salt" (ignored). Remember not to take yourself too seriously :)
It think you are right, and I explain the same concept as: rational people don't quit smoking. The logic is simple and entirely correct. Quitting tomorrow has the roughly same health benefits as quitting today. Quitting today incurs a lot of pain, so it is better to quit tomorrow. By induction, never quit smoking.
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.
I quit smoking in 2013. Before that I tried more or less every month for 2 years till I succeeded. The logic was :
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
Quitting smoking is attainable.. Sure there is some uncomfortable days, but its completely tolerable. The greatest marketing tobacco came up with is how difficult it is to quit. Its a mind fornicator.
It's definitely attainable, but I feel like there is quite a bit of variance in how painful it is for various people. But I totally agree that quitting has been marketed as more challenging than it is.
I remember that when I was a teenager, every male around me (both adults and kids of my age and older) smoked. But I never tried, not even once. My reasoning was the following: if I try it and I don't like it, then I would regret trying (because by definition of "don't like it", it will be unpleasant). But if I try it and I like it (which will mean that I will feel that this is good and pleasant), then I'll just become one of them - one of those who can't live without cigarettes. So thus I never tried.
Good for you, but I don't think this is necessarily an example that applies in the general case. I was just about the last member of my cohort to start smoking, and nearly unique in not having done so until I was actually old enough to legally buy my own. But I did start.
I think growing up I feared the social stigma more than anything else. As I've become older though, and heard accounts from some of my friends who tried harder things... I realized what I don't like is the idea of an artificial high. I gain joy from the simple pleasure of taking a walk through nature, or listening to music with pleasant harmonies. Wouldn't an artificial high, being more powerful, work to make those things less joyous in comparison? Whether it's true or not, my fear of that possibility has steered me clear of the stuff for good. I don't want to depend on some substance to enjoy life, I would rather just enjoy what's already around me.
This has some parallels to the psychological effect that I don’t recollect the name for. It goes something like this: Tell a kid to clean their room and they will come up several excuses to not do it, “I’m busy”, “I will do to tomorrow” etc. So you ask the kid, “given a choice between cleaning a room and not cleaning a room, what would be the reasons why a kid will choose to clean it?”. This triggers the positive reasons in their head to actually do it. Use responsibly.
Never smokers just don’t understand. It’s not that you don’t know that it’s bad for you(duh) or that you don’t want to quit. It is because it really is that hard to quit. For me, suppressing the desire to smoke felt like the worst restless leg syndrome but it wasn’t in my legs, it was deep down in the core of my being. Plus I genuinely enjoyed it. It took me over 10 years, dozens of attempts, and having a child(extra incentive) to finally overcome cigarettes.
And I don’t think I would have made it without the help of vaping which, yes, I also eventually quit. I made my own flavorless juice and titrated the nicotine down to zero which made it real easy to stop vaping at that point.
Regarding other things "never smokers" may not understand:
Before I started smoking (relatively late in life), I didn't really grasp that smoking is non-trivially immediately psychoactive.
Like I thought it was something that you did just to do, and then it quietly wormed some sort of hook into your brain that made you feel bad if you stopped, but the whole thing happened entirely "subconsciously".
Maybe I was just especially retarded, and most people properly understand this.
I grew up in a household where chips, soda, and ice cream were dinner. I've been at points in my life where easily 70% of my daily calories were sugar. My body hurt and I felt like shit, but those moments where I took that first bite of ice cream in an hour were bliss.
Quitting it was fucking painful. I was tired, irritable, and had this constant feeling in the back of my throat of just needing some sweets. I managed to go a whole year without any sweets at all an finally forgot the feeling and managed to lose a bunch of weight, then someone gave me a box of chocolate and I've been trying to quit (and failing) for two years. Whenever I make some progress on quitting, someone offers me some sweets and the cycle starts all over again.
Just looking at the obesity problem in the world, I think loads of people are suffering from an equally debilitating addiction, but they're not targeted by ad campaigns asking them to quit, and they've never tried to do so. People who've tried to lose weight will often say it's incredibly tough, and a lot of experiences seem to align with what smokers describe.
Fasting might be easier than quitting sweets outright. Doing a 36-hour fast once a week is incredibly effective (basically skip a whole day, plus sleep)
There is no doubt that quitting smoking or nicotine products is incredible difficult for some people.
The worst thing about nicotine is how it alters reality so much. It’s like a science fiction mind control nightmare. From the outside I see people standing in the cold with a burning bit of crap in their mouth. To them it is among the most important thing in their lives.
It is why I think we should ban commercial sale of nicotine completely, whether through smoking or vaping. I’m not directing this at you personally, but I’m sick of hearing mind hacked smokers complaining about how hard it is to quit and how good their lives were standing in the cold with a burning piece of crap in their mouth. You want to grow your own tobacco and smoke it, be my guest. But letting someone make money from hacking your brain permanently? That is madness. If the brain was a software product you would urgently patch the nicotine receptor as a critical vulnerability.
I like the idea behind this article, but a 62% increase in calls to phone hotline after an ad campaign doesn't sound that amazing to me. Ads are pretty effective in general; even just reminding someone that a hotline exists to quit smoking would cause an increase.
"I didn't say 'it's bad', I said 'it's bad for you'. Just because you're a little kid doesn't mean you get to move goal posts, so try again."
edit: that's my answer. If you say I must be impressed because those other people are, then you're wrong. Smoking is bad for kids an it's bad for adults, adults get to make choices that harm them, ask parents for details, case closed.
Smoking is clearly not healthy. But I wish the benefits of nicotine were more widely known and discussed.
I smoked from age 16 to 23 and now I'm 27. I've had cravings for the stimulation that I miss for the last 4 years. I expect to have them for the rest of my life.
As a teenager, smoking was mysterious and therefore attractive to me because everyone seemed to agree that it's bad. The benefits were a secret that I had to discover through first-hand experience.
I don't regret quitting smoking and I'm not planning on starting up again, but the "smoking is bad" messaging is not as clear-cut as it seems.
It's just like every other stimulant, be it cocaine or methamphetamine or caffeine or ecstasy. They all come at a cost, and if they're mild enough for you to use regularly you build up a tolerance and need it just to be at the same level you were without it.
You seem to have tackled the "little monster" of nicotene-directed urges but not the "big monster" of urges that come from the programming in your brain. You definitely should read the book mentioned in the other comment, The Easy Way to Stop Smoking, by Allen Carr. Time to take down the big monster.
I'm sorry, this book really doesn't speak to the reasons why I smoked (cognitive stimulation, social connection, a reason to take a break).
I'm glad it's help other people but it feels out-of-touch in exactly the way that I highlighted in my comment above: it demonizes cigarettes, describing the harms of nicotine without the benefits.
In many ways, nicotine is similar to amphetamines or caffeine. Adderall isn't healthy but people take it for a reason. It doesn't help anyone to pretend like it's totally irrational to consume addictive stimulants.
Interesting, the book worked for me, particularly because it did address reasons (that I thought I had) like cognitive stimulation, social connection, and taking a break.
I'd like to add; that I think that all of the stimulants mentioned above result in a net loss of energy and focus, even if the peaks are higher.
Shaming guys with small penises and feminity simultaneously ... even as issue at hand has nothing to do with penis size ... and nothing to do with feminine women either ...
Whoever smokes and wouldn't mind quitting if it wasn't hard I recommend to consider the following (based on my experience and understanding, trusting me is your own risk):
1. switch 100% to vaping (try a nicotine-heavy liquid if you don't enjoy what you try initially), get rid of cigarettes. Make sure to find a flavor you enjoy and try different ones every now and then.
2. you'll find your health improving soon: vaping is not 100% safe but usually a much healthier choice than cigs because no tar, heavy metals, formaldehyde etc. I bet your doctor will tell you "good job!" once they notice the changes in your health.
3. quitting is going to be much easier than you imagine at this moment. I just stopped one day and had no problem, I even enjoyed the mildly weird feeling during 2 days (but gained a couple of extra pounds).
Perhaps this depends on the kind of the vaping liquid you use, I only tried one kind. Don't try butter/caramel-flavoured liquids or THC oils - these are dangerous.
My doctor said exactly this when I switched to entirely to vaping. It's a shame how much momentum there is behind banning the sale of vape products when the positive health effects are pretty clear.
The downside of vaping is that the flavoured vape products are being marketed at teenagers. IIRC smoking was at a very low rate for youth after decades of improvements and then vaping has seen nicotine use rise in this demographic.
This. Vaping companies have jumped on the "help older smokers quit" angle while marketing candy flavors and hi-tech e-cigs that are clearly not aimed at established cigarette smokers. Vaping may also be relatively safer but the ridiculously high levels of nicotine are solely intended to hook very young kids for life.
To help smokers quit, vaping only needs to temper their physical and psychological cravings and be in the same realm of affordability, availability and ease-of-use. Selling cotton candy vape juice delivered with a apple-esque vaporizer and slick ads & commercials is not to "help smokers quit"
"Cotton candy vape juice delivered with a apple-esque vaporizer" is a great thing to replace cigs. Although it shouldn't be marketed as "help smokers quit" it should be as "help smokers get healthier and stink less" (getting healthier is not proven by an FDA-accredited institution but I would bet that's true). And once you switched - I believe it can actually be easier to quit than cigs are (was very easy for me, perhaps that's just me, needs testing).
Granted, being a kid in the 1980s strongly biases me, but this looks a lot like several moral panics from when I was a kid.
> IRC smoking was at a very low rate for youth after decades of improvements and then vaping has seen nicotine use rise in this demographic.
Okay, but smoking and nicotine use are very different metrics. Looking at number of smokers + number of vapers is a bit like looking at the number of drunk drivers + number of people biking without helmets. There's a heavy relative harm weighting factor missing if you just sum the numbers, especially if kids aren't vaping tocopheryl acetate or diacetyl.
Some parties strongly suspect that vaping is a gateway to smoking, but the studies I've seen are contradictory (granted, I haven't looked in depth). After all I was told about marijuana leading to crack cocaine use as a kid, I'm strongly skeptical of any gateway hypothesis that's not supported by rigorous studies. Rebellious kids tend to do all kinds of things, generally starting with less risky things, and if your study doesn't control for this, your study is going to show a causative link between stepping on sidewalk cracks at age 5 and using crack cocaine at age 17.
On the one hand, we do want to protect people from stupid decisions in their wild youth. On the other hand, the gateway hypothesis is the best argument I've seen against vaping, and it doesn't look like a good argument from where I'm sitting.
I think there's also a lot of hysteria that fruity vapes are targeted at kids. There must be tons of people over 21 who secretly like wine coolers and secretly like fruity vapes.
I've never been a cigarette smoker, and have only smoked a handful of cigars, but I've tried vaping a few times and found it pleasant. If, in another decade, vaping turns out to be no more harmful than my occasional single malt habit or my grilled red meat habit, I might take up vaping regularly at the age of 50. I get plenty of exercise, watch my weight, practice intermittent fasting, and spend a bit of my health budget on a small number of vices.
Marketing addictive substances should just be outlawed. Marketing substances that are both addictive and scientifically proven to harm children/adolescents development specifically targeting teens should be outlawed absolutely - everybody participating in that should be punished, e.g. the way it works with child porn. At the same time people who choose to buy and use the substances without being advertised to should be allowed to.
There was an outbreak of lung injury over the last year that became associated with black market THC products that were cut with chemicals that are not safe to inhale, such as vitamin E oil.
Yeah, I thought that was limited to black market products only though (filled with cutting agents and heavy metals). They basically deemed it safe if you're buying lab-tested products from licensed dispensaries. Seems like overkill to say "THC is dangerous" since THC is not the part that's causing the side effects?
Sure, THC itself (at least in reasonable doses, taken by a mentally stable person) is not dangerous, vaping [black market] THC oils is. We don't vape anything but nicotine here in Europe, we just smoke weed occasionally when we want THC so we have no vaping-related deaths here.
Nicotine probably doesn't affect the brain in a permanent negative way.
THC probably does affect the brain in a permanent negative way.
Although they said "THC-oils" which implies they are talking about the black-market issue, I think unlike vaping nicotine which is probably mostly safe. Vaping THC-oils should only be seen as safer than smoking THC.
This is a bold statement that Nicotine is perfectly safe while THC causes permanent brain damage.
The studies are far from conclusive (and mostly lean to the opposite of what you're suggesting). I'd advise against making such strong statements such as these since the science simply isn't on your side here.
"probably does" mixed with the phrase "permanent negative" does indeed make it a bold statement.
If the comment had said "may or may not cause damage", that's a different thing. But the resulting phrase "probably causes permanent brain damage" is definitely a loaded statement to not back up with evidence.
Sources for the long term effects on the brain mentioned in the above journal quote the following "While changes in the hippocampus and parahippocampus were frequently identified, the findings were inconsistent across studies."
And the above journal also makes an effort to mention how "low to moderate quality" the data is.
For what is the world's most popular recreational drug, it's astonishing to see the lack of research committed.
On the topic of vaping to quit I would add something I learned my self.
I tried to quit smoking with vaping 3 times before it worked and it was due to a multitude of reasons.
1. Cheap vaping kits. They leak, are hard to change the coils and to fill up with liquid. On my current attempt, I got a proper set (40eu) and made sure it fills up by unscrewing the top and not the whole top bit. It stops leaking, its easier to fill up and its less of a chore.
I think that was the main reason as with cheap kits, they would leak, be hard to maintenance and it was such a hassle that picking up a cigarette and lighting it up was much easier.
2. Flavours, as you mentioned finding a flavour you like and sticking to it is key. I tried many and found just the right flavour level that suits me and it was a huge break through for me.
I started on 12mg nicotine level, lowered to 6mg after 4 weeks, and 6 months later I'm on 3mg and feel so much better. My next step is to go no nicotine vape then kick it entirely.
Don't start vaping to quit. Start vaping to ditch cigarettes for something better (healthier, better taste, more convenience, perhaps even more nicotine). Buy the best device you can afford. Forget about quitting - enjoy your new experience: you can choose a taste, you can choose strength, you can inhale any volume you want wherever and whenever you want, you don't stink, your health is actively improving from the level set by smoking cigarettes.
And only as enough time passes (not less than some months) - consider quitting if you want.
I took a few weeks to stop smoking reguarly(20 in 2-3 days) , only when i was drinking. Then stopped totally when we stopped meeting for drinks with the covid19 "stay home" restrictions.
I think i still want to smoke when out for drinks. Like, what do you do? Just gulp all the beer in 1 go and leave? The smoking is good for pauses in between the alcohol.. But temporarily stopping is no hardship.
165 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] threadTitle violate HN guidelines against inventing editorizalied titles.
The article suggests that it works because it fits in with Thai culture. That's not it. I'm not Thai, and it had an impact on me.
It's the story of a child saving an adult's life. That will have an impact in any culture.
One redditor told of the time that, when he was a kid, he decided to be goofy and “dress like Uncle”, which naturally included humorously puffing on his pretend “pipe”.
That uncle then had a come-to-Jesus moment and finally quit, from the sight of his nephew seeing him that way.
It's worked out really well. It's much smaller than most headphone amps and has the added bonus (for me) of making my headphones wireless.
As a gay man, this anti-smoking ad campaign doesn't really appeal or apply to me, but I could see why it would be effective for heterosexuals:
https://youtu.be/82x9pzHkHK4?t=16
Edit: nevermind, this is satire.
Yes it's addictive, but the first step towards quiting is accepting, or rather convincing yourself, that you need to quit now!
This ad is a step towards that, making people realize that they need to quit.
Once that threshold is crossed, rest follows at it's own pace.
Not exclusively in my experience. Sometimes it's about enjoyment, as is the case with many vices. For many, the consequences are known, and the trade off is consciously chosen (and maybe hedged, e.g. with lowered frequency).
That thought really changed it from doing it for myself to doing it for my kids. It seems maybe if we thought more about our examples would be mirrored by the young people around us we'd set a better example.
This is only true at the very beginning of a smoker's habit.
I know a lot of smokers. Exactly zero of them are "willing" to trade the cost for the benefit, for any meaningful definition of "willing".
Addiction is hard. Many addicts rationalize, but few truly "choose".
For an addict it becomes not a choice, I'm not absolving every addict of everything ever but addiction really screws with your brain and if you have an addictive personality you can end up feeling compelled to do something even while fully accepting you'll feel guilty about it later.
From a technical & mechanical perspective the person has made a choice, from an agency perspective the scenario is less clear and we generally understand that intoxication (either through physical addictions or obsessions) can lower the responsibility of the party involved... and there are a lot of examples toward and against this point in society[1] but I don't think we can clearly consider this a choice.
1. For instance drunk driving is considered in the opposite manner where choosing to drive drunk assumes a greater responsibility, and implies a greater agency, on the actor.
Yes of course there could be other entity that try to shift my perceived but its still on me to take that into account.
>Once you're hooked, it's no longer a fair fight
Life is never fair. if I have a susceptible personality, that mean I just have to fight it harder than other people.
The cost doesn't come until much later (sometimes never). Most smokers secretly hope they'll never have to pay the piper. For the majority of smokers, they are probably full of regret when the bill finally comes due and cuts their life 20 years short (and/or makes the last few years utter misery).
The title for World's Cleverest Anti-Smoking ad really should be given to whatever actually gets people to stop smoking.
so the only solution is to make the product cost so much that the immediate cost becomes the concern or just outright ban it. The US issue is too many states rely on the tax and penalty revenue associated with the products they may be loathe to give it up.
> And calls to the hotline went up 62% in 1 month.
It's not like consuming junk food/drinks, where you harm yourself mostly (there are also environmental issues though)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-f...
>Previous cancer studies have had mixed results, the researchers said, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still calculate secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 deaths from cancer a year.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I know some people who express the same. I just don't know very many at all who express the delusional sentiments from TFA.
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.
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.
Also, thanks for the positive re-inforcement idea.
High dose NAC with a couple night’s of Xanax to sleep would probably be better.
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.
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!
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.
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
And I don’t think I would have made it without the help of vaping which, yes, I also eventually quit. I made my own flavorless juice and titrated the nicotine down to zero which made it real easy to stop vaping at that point.
Before I started smoking (relatively late in life), I didn't really grasp that smoking is non-trivially immediately psychoactive.
Like I thought it was something that you did just to do, and then it quietly wormed some sort of hook into your brain that made you feel bad if you stopped, but the whole thing happened entirely "subconsciously".
Maybe I was just especially retarded, and most people properly understand this.
I grew up in a household where chips, soda, and ice cream were dinner. I've been at points in my life where easily 70% of my daily calories were sugar. My body hurt and I felt like shit, but those moments where I took that first bite of ice cream in an hour were bliss.
Quitting it was fucking painful. I was tired, irritable, and had this constant feeling in the back of my throat of just needing some sweets. I managed to go a whole year without any sweets at all an finally forgot the feeling and managed to lose a bunch of weight, then someone gave me a box of chocolate and I've been trying to quit (and failing) for two years. Whenever I make some progress on quitting, someone offers me some sweets and the cycle starts all over again.
Just looking at the obesity problem in the world, I think loads of people are suffering from an equally debilitating addiction, but they're not targeted by ad campaigns asking them to quit, and they've never tried to do so. People who've tried to lose weight will often say it's incredibly tough, and a lot of experiences seem to align with what smokers describe.
The worst thing about nicotine is how it alters reality so much. It’s like a science fiction mind control nightmare. From the outside I see people standing in the cold with a burning bit of crap in their mouth. To them it is among the most important thing in their lives.
It is why I think we should ban commercial sale of nicotine completely, whether through smoking or vaping. I’m not directing this at you personally, but I’m sick of hearing mind hacked smokers complaining about how hard it is to quit and how good their lives were standing in the cold with a burning piece of crap in their mouth. You want to grow your own tobacco and smoke it, be my guest. But letting someone make money from hacking your brain permanently? That is madness. If the brain was a software product you would urgently patch the nicotine receptor as a critical vulnerability.
"I didn't say 'it's bad', I said 'it's bad for you'. Just because you're a little kid doesn't mean you get to move goal posts, so try again."
edit: that's my answer. If you say I must be impressed because those other people are, then you're wrong. Smoking is bad for kids an it's bad for adults, adults get to make choices that harm them, ask parents for details, case closed.
I smoked from age 16 to 23 and now I'm 27. I've had cravings for the stimulation that I miss for the last 4 years. I expect to have them for the rest of my life.
As a teenager, smoking was mysterious and therefore attractive to me because everyone seemed to agree that it's bad. The benefits were a secret that I had to discover through first-hand experience.
I don't regret quitting smoking and I'm not planning on starting up again, but the "smoking is bad" messaging is not as clear-cut as it seems.
I'm glad it's help other people but it feels out-of-touch in exactly the way that I highlighted in my comment above: it demonizes cigarettes, describing the harms of nicotine without the benefits.
In many ways, nicotine is similar to amphetamines or caffeine. Adderall isn't healthy but people take it for a reason. It doesn't help anyone to pretend like it's totally irrational to consume addictive stimulants.
I'd like to add; that I think that all of the stimulants mentioned above result in a net loss of energy and focus, even if the peaks are higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2nvAFOk7x0
The subtext is "you are speeding because you have a small penis".
1. switch 100% to vaping (try a nicotine-heavy liquid if you don't enjoy what you try initially), get rid of cigarettes. Make sure to find a flavor you enjoy and try different ones every now and then.
2. you'll find your health improving soon: vaping is not 100% safe but usually a much healthier choice than cigs because no tar, heavy metals, formaldehyde etc. I bet your doctor will tell you "good job!" once they notice the changes in your health.
3. quitting is going to be much easier than you imagine at this moment. I just stopped one day and had no problem, I even enjoyed the mildly weird feeling during 2 days (but gained a couple of extra pounds).
Perhaps this depends on the kind of the vaping liquid you use, I only tried one kind. Don't try butter/caramel-flavoured liquids or THC oils - these are dangerous.
To help smokers quit, vaping only needs to temper their physical and psychological cravings and be in the same realm of affordability, availability and ease-of-use. Selling cotton candy vape juice delivered with a apple-esque vaporizer and slick ads & commercials is not to "help smokers quit"
Some of the bigger vaping companies are owned by tobacco companies. e.g. Juul.
> IRC smoking was at a very low rate for youth after decades of improvements and then vaping has seen nicotine use rise in this demographic.
Okay, but smoking and nicotine use are very different metrics. Looking at number of smokers + number of vapers is a bit like looking at the number of drunk drivers + number of people biking without helmets. There's a heavy relative harm weighting factor missing if you just sum the numbers, especially if kids aren't vaping tocopheryl acetate or diacetyl.
Some parties strongly suspect that vaping is a gateway to smoking, but the studies I've seen are contradictory (granted, I haven't looked in depth). After all I was told about marijuana leading to crack cocaine use as a kid, I'm strongly skeptical of any gateway hypothesis that's not supported by rigorous studies. Rebellious kids tend to do all kinds of things, generally starting with less risky things, and if your study doesn't control for this, your study is going to show a causative link between stepping on sidewalk cracks at age 5 and using crack cocaine at age 17.
On the one hand, we do want to protect people from stupid decisions in their wild youth. On the other hand, the gateway hypothesis is the best argument I've seen against vaping, and it doesn't look like a good argument from where I'm sitting.
I think there's also a lot of hysteria that fruity vapes are targeted at kids. There must be tons of people over 21 who secretly like wine coolers and secretly like fruity vapes.
I've never been a cigarette smoker, and have only smoked a handful of cigars, but I've tried vaping a few times and found it pleasant. If, in another decade, vaping turns out to be no more harmful than my occasional single malt habit or my grilled red meat habit, I might take up vaping regularly at the age of 50. I get plenty of exercise, watch my weight, practice intermittent fasting, and spend a bit of my health budget on a small number of vices.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s...
Sure, THC itself (at least in reasonable doses, taken by a mentally stable person) is not dangerous, vaping [black market] THC oils is. We don't vape anything but nicotine here in Europe, we just smoke weed occasionally when we want THC so we have no vaping-related deaths here.
THC probably does affect the brain in a permanent negative way.
Although they said "THC-oils" which implies they are talking about the black-market issue, I think unlike vaping nicotine which is probably mostly safe. Vaping THC-oils should only be seen as safer than smoking THC.
The studies are far from conclusive (and mostly lean to the opposite of what you're suggesting). I'd advise against making such strong statements such as these since the science simply isn't on your side here.
If the comment had said "may or may not cause damage", that's a different thing. But the resulting phrase "probably causes permanent brain damage" is definitely a loaded statement to not back up with evidence.
It's not hard to find many journal articles that conclude it might -
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-160833 or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182105/
What journal articles conclude it might not?
That would change my opinion to "may or may not cause damage"
And the above journal also makes an effort to mention how "low to moderate quality" the data is.
For what is the world's most popular recreational drug, it's astonishing to see the lack of research committed.
Vaping is a great product for quitting nicotine. It should definitely be more accepted as such, and not just be seen as an alternative to smoking.
I tried to quit smoking with vaping 3 times before it worked and it was due to a multitude of reasons.
1. Cheap vaping kits. They leak, are hard to change the coils and to fill up with liquid. On my current attempt, I got a proper set (40eu) and made sure it fills up by unscrewing the top and not the whole top bit. It stops leaking, its easier to fill up and its less of a chore.
I think that was the main reason as with cheap kits, they would leak, be hard to maintenance and it was such a hassle that picking up a cigarette and lighting it up was much easier.
2. Flavours, as you mentioned finding a flavour you like and sticking to it is key. I tried many and found just the right flavour level that suits me and it was a huge break through for me.
I started on 12mg nicotine level, lowered to 6mg after 4 weeks, and 6 months later I'm on 3mg and feel so much better. My next step is to go no nicotine vape then kick it entirely.
And only as enough time passes (not less than some months) - consider quitting if you want.
That would work better. IMHO.
I think i still want to smoke when out for drinks. Like, what do you do? Just gulp all the beer in 1 go and leave? The smoking is good for pauses in between the alcohol.. But temporarily stopping is no hardship.