Smoking and Cancer

[Justforfun000]

People are treating the word weakness with the same approach as the word racism in another thread not too long ago. No one wants to admit that it still applies.

No matter how you slice it, it's still a "weakness" if you aren't strong enough to overcome it. It's just simple definition. However this doesn't mean that weakness has to be any more negative then that. People just don't like being called weak, so they try to qualify it.

[Mrs Kendall]

Obviously, I should have worded my retort more carefully so that people couldn't play bullshit games with it. Two points:

1) The "substance" in question is obviously tobacco (look at the thread title), not tobacco.

2) How does this disprove that it's a weakness? If someone is scrawny by genetics (yes, genes do dictate that some people are scrawnier by nature), does that mean I'm not allowed to say that I'm stronger than him by virtue of having a genetic predisposition to bigger, stronger muscles?

Ok then,

#1. Addiction is addiction no matter what the substance is, if you took my advice and read through a bit of the book you would see that I am right. Addiction is a behaviour, sometimes it's physical and sometimes it's phycological. When someone tries to overcome an addiction they can either quit it all together or they can just move on to another addiction which means they will eventually continue on like that and eventually become addicted to tobacco again, hence the times where people can't quit for good. I'm not pulling this outta my ass here Mike, I just read through the book a couple months ago and I just skimmed through it again this morning when I posted that post. If you still wish to say you're right when you haven't the slightest interest in reading up on how addictions work then so be it. Just please don't try and tell me I'm wrong.

#2. It doesn't really disprove that it's not a weakness, It's all in how you see it I guess. It's hard to say though, I just prefer to give the person the benefit of the doubt and say that they are either trying their best or they just don't want to quit enough. I have no problem with you using the word weakness though, so go right ahead.

[Justforfun000]

#1. Addiction is addiction no matter what the substance is, if you took my advice and read through a bit of the book you would see that I am right. Addiction is a behaviour, sometimes it's physical and sometimes it's phycological. When someone tries to overcome an addiction they can either quit it all together or they can just move on to another addiction which means they will eventually continue on like that and eventually become addicted to tobacco again, hence the times where people can't quit for good. I'm not pulling this outta my ass here Mike, I just read through the book a couple months ago and I just skimmed through it again this morning when I posted that post. If you still wish to say you're right when you haven't the slightest interest in reading up on how addictions work then so be it. Just please don't try and tell me I'm wrong.

Hon, I'm a little confused what you and Mike are arguing now..I don't think he would disagree with anything you just said, I believe the only thing he was standing firm on was that the lack of gumption necessary to quit smoking can be described quite fairly as weakness. It might BE that someone has a harder time then others through genetic susceptability, but that's a separate issue. You know Mike. He doesn't like word definitions to be played with.


Since your number two response is essentially conceeding a point of view regarding it, I think you're both on the same page now.

[Mrs Kendall]

Well, I got that he was saying that addiction to nicotine is different than addiction to alcohol hence his quote below...

1) The "substance" in question is obviously tobacco (look at the thread title), not tobacco.

I assumed he meant that we're talking about tobacco here not alcohol. If I'm wrong there Mike please ignore my post then

[NPComplete]

"We know that there is genetic vulnerability to alcohol addiction."

Obviously, I should have worded my retort more carefully so that people couldn't play bullshit games with it. Two points:

1) The "substance" in question is obviously tobacco (look at the thread title), not tobacco.[\quote]

You asked for evidence that a substance could affect different people by different amounts. This evidence exists. It also suggests that other substances could behave in a similar fashion. Moreover, alcohol addiction and tobacco addiction are very similar in lots of ways (affordable, legal substance, pressure to start (both peer and advertising pressure), and are both highly addictive and potentially damaging), so I hardly think that it is bullshit to compare the two.

2) How does this disprove that it's a weakness?

Weakness is a poor choice of words, especially when it comes to an addiction because it suggests a purely psychological flaw (and I believe this was your intention).

The same substance affecting two different people to a different degree is somewhat like the same rock having two different masses when two people try and lift it. They could be equally strong, and yet one might be unable to lift it. This isn't a weakness, it is an uneven (and uncontrollable) playing field.

You might be technically correct in saying that a mentally retarded person was 'weak' when it came to, say, concentration, or vocabulary, but it would be misleading (not to mention making you look like an asshole).

[NPComplete]

[quote="Darth Wong"]

Obviously, I should have worded my retort more carefully so that people couldn't play bullshit games with it. Two points:

1) The "substance" in question is obviously tobacco (look at the thread title), not tobacco.[\quote]

And, if you're going to nitpick one type of addiction over another, here is a link to a story about a Dutch study of nicotine addiction correlated with genetics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172547.htm

"However, a predisposition for nicotine addiction does not mean that somebody will also become addicted or remain addicted. Smokers who have a genetic disposition can still stop smoking, even though they probably belong to the group who finds it hardest to quit."

And:

"Chromosome 10 contains a region that plays a role in both the number of cigarettes smoked per day as well as the chance that somebody takes up smoking."

This is another factor. If one person is more likely to start an addictive hobby, they are less likely to end up stopping it at some point (because the people who don't start never face the challenge of quitting, so even if they are less able to quit they never find that out).

[Tokaji Kyoden]

Smoking is definitely a weakness in the human physiology/psyche. The fact that people become addicted is directly their fault for starting to smoke in the first place. Quitting however isn't so much a human weakness, as the drug creates a dependancy in the body. However, it is still a matter of willpower, if you don't have the willpower, you are weak, and can't quit.

[NPComplete]

However, it is still a matter of willpower, if you don't have the willpower, you are weak, and can't quit.

Except that if someone is genetically predisposed towards being addicted they will need more willpower than usual to break their addiction. It isn't fair to say that they have less willpower because they couldn't quit. It's like saying that someone that earns a lot less money must be worse at managing their finances if they can't stay out of debt.

Furthermore, if a group is predisposed towards starting an addictive habit, then there are likely to be more of them addicted, even if they have more willpower than others.

As an example, take two populations A and B. A's are less likely to start smoking (1 person in 10 from Group A smokes), but have very little willpower (only 1 in 100 A's can quit smoking). Therefore, 99 out of every 1000 A's smoke. B's, on the other hand, are predisposed to start smoking (say that 8 out of 10 start smoking), but are quite strong willed, 50 percent can quit smoking. However, this means that 400 out of every 1000 smokes.

B's are 4 times more likely to smoke, despite being 50 times stronger (i.e. able to quit).

The point to all this is that, although willpower does play a factor, there are other mitigating concerns. If it turns out that a certain group is more susceptible, more education and funding can be provided to help them quit. More people will be helped by this attitude than by smugness on the part of us non-smokers.

[Darth Wong]

(specifically Chinese/Japanese/Korean lacking an enzyme which aids in alcohol elimination).

Should read 'more often' lacking..... I think that a good proportion of all races do or do not have this enzyme.

Also here:

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html

"The quest for genes that influence alcohol abuse follows two paths. One goal is to locate genes that predispose a person to alcoholism. The other is to identify genes that help to prevent this from happening. Li and his coworkers have made important advances in this latter category. "We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes. The one that is particularly effective is a mutation of the gene for the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase, which plays a major role in metabolizing alcohol. The mutation is found very frequently in Chinese and Japanese populations but is less common among other Asian groups, including Koreans, the Malayo-Polynesian group, and others native to the Pacific Rim. "We've also looked at Euro-Americans, Native Americans, and Eskimos, and they don't have that gene mutation," says Li. Thus, incidentally, the study of genetic mutations and alcoholism links native North-American populations to central Asian ancestors, not to those from China and Japan."

And this proves ... what, exactly? That certain people find alcohol less pleasurable than others? How does that prove your bullshit assertion that all forms of addiction are equivalent? And what about your earlier citation of a study that shows a genetic correlation to people who take up smoking? How does this prove that they need more willpower to quit, as opposed to simply having less willpower by nature? Do you have any other bullshit non-sequiturs and red herrings you'd like to throw my way?

The point to all this is that, although willpower does play a factor, there are other mitigating concerns. If it turns out that a certain group is more susceptible, more education and funding can be provided to help them quit. More people will be helped by this attitude than by smugness on the part of us non-smokers.

Funny; I would say that the last thing you should tell someone who can't quit is that it's not really his fault.

[NPComplete]

How does this prove that they need more willpower to quit, as opposed to simply having less willpower by nature?

You asked this:

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

This evidence exists.

I then used this fact to give an example (albeit a simple one) in which stronger willed people (i.e. those that find quitting easier) are more likely than weaker people to still be smokers because of a higher likelihood of starting in the first place.

I'm not saying that willpower isn't a factor, but your assertion that:

If a significant portion of the population can break it, and others can't, then those who can't are weaker than those who can.

is wrong. Strength of will is just one factor (the one that people have under their control). Nothing is gained by oversimplification here, except a false sense of satisfaction.

Funny; I would say that the last thing you should tell someone who can't quit is that it's not really his fault.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that genetic factors obviated the need for proper motivation, chemical treatment and support programs, I said that the whole situation should be considered when deciding how to deal with the problem. Simply saying "if they can't quit they're weak" is arrogant and shortsighted.

[Darth Wong]

How does this prove that they need more willpower to quit, as opposed to simply having less willpower by nature?

You asked this:

Provide your medical evidence that some people are genetically more addicted by the same substance.

This evidence exists.

Wrong, fucktard. The evidence exists for a genetic correlation to alcohol abuse. That does not mean that susceptibility to addiction itself is an inherited trait. At most, you have presented evidence for alcohol (not tobacco) being more or less enjoyable for some people, which is not the same thing as being more or less addictive. And for tobacco, you have presented nothing more than a statistical correlation with no evidence whatsoever for this specific mechanism you have postulated.

I then used this fact to give an example (albeit a simple one) in which stronger willed people (i.e. those that find quitting easier) are more likely than weaker people to still be smokers because of a higher likelihood of starting in the first place.

More bullshit. It takes a certain weakness to start in the first place, particularly with the bombardment of no-smoking public education campaigns in the last 30 years.

I'm not saying that willpower isn't a factor, but your assertion that:

If a significant portion of the population can break it, and others can't, then those who can't are weaker than those who can.

is wrong. Strength of will is just one factor (the one that people have under their control). Nothing is gained by oversimplification here, except a false sense of satisfaction.

It is the only factor known to exist. It may even be inherited. Your assertion that any genetic link proves your "intrinsic-addiction gene" claim is utter bullshit.

Funny; I would say that the last thing you should tell someone who can't quit is that it's not really his fault.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that genetic factors obviated the need for proper motivation, chemical treatment and support programs, I said that the whole situation should be considered when deciding how to deal with the problem. Simply saying "if they can't quit they're weak" is arrogant and shortsighted.

And denying this for political reasons is stupid and ignorant.

[NPComplete]

which is not the same thing as being more or less addictive. And for tobacco, you have presented nothing more than a statistical correlation with no evidence whatsoever for this specific mechanism you have postulated.

From the article I linked to above:

"..discovered that the variation between smokers in the number of cigarettes smoked per day is genetically determined. The same is true for the degree of nicotine dependency."

i.e. genetics helps determine nicotine addiction.

As for a specific mechanism: I admit I know next to nothing about genetics, but even a cursory look around on the internet finds plenty.

From here:

http://www.apa.org/releases/gene_variations.html

(This is a study performed on mice, but many studies into genetics are performed on other mammals)

"Chrna4 (Cholinergic Receptor Nicotinic Alpha4) contains the instructions to build a protein that is part of a receptor that recognizes acetylcholine, a major neurotransmitter that plays a role in the brain’s pleasure system and also aids learning and memory, sleep, control of muscle movement, heart rate, blood pressure and more. Because nicotine is chemically very similar to acetylcholine, it binds to the same receptors, including those with the protein made from Chrna4. Thus the nervous system responds to nicotine as if it were acetylcholine.

The authors conclude that natural variations in Chrna4 could, by varying how the nicotine receptors works, result in animal-by-animal variation in nicotine tolerance. That may explain why in humans (the gene is found in essentially all animals), CHRNA4 polymorphisms are associated with nicotine dependence. "

Short form: There is a gene which is responsible for building chemical receptors in the brain which can work differently in the presence of nicotine.

The author also says:

"No single gene is going to be the sole determinant of whether someone will become addicted to nicotine or any other substance, because addiction likely is due to the effects of many genes as well as social and other environmental factors.”

However, he adds, “By identifying genes that contribute to whether an individual will become addicted, we will gain important knowledge about the biology of addiction. With that, we will be in a much better position to design more effective treatments for addiction."

And:

"that about half of why a human becomes a smoker is genetically determined; the other half comes from environmental factors."

Which is what I was saying: there are a number of factors including, but not limited to, things that are under a persons control.

More bullshit. It takes a certain weakness to start in the first place, particularly with the bombardment of no-smoking public education campaigns in the last 30 years.

This changes nothing, because most of the literature I've referenced makes mention of the genetic factors at work both when quitting and when starting. Two people might be able to smoke the same number of cigarettes but only one might get addicted. This is independant of willpower, because (as noted above) their brains may be behaving differently to the same amounts of the same chemical.

It is possible to call this change in brain chemistry a 'weakness', but I don't think that that was your intention when you said things like

I knew from a very young age that it was an idiotic activity that only an ignorant fool would do...As for being unable to quit, the fact that some people can quit proves that the people who can't quit are weaker than they are. [\quote]

You are clearly using the word 'weakness' to indicate strength of character and determination. If by 'weakness' you mean to include genetic factors, then your analogy can extend to black people's 'weakness' leading to greater rates of sickle cell anemia. I don't think that you intended to include higher susceptibility to disease as a weakness, and addiction is a disease.

Strength of will is just one factor.[\quote]
It is the only factor known to exist. It may even be inherited. Your assertion that any genetic link proves your "intrinsic-addiction gene" claim is utter bullshit. [\quote]

It is not the only factor known to exist, because, for one thing genetic makeup can alter the amount of willpower necessary for people to have the same chance of quitting.

Furthermore, never have I suggested that there is an on-off gene which allows people an excuse for being addicted to something. I'm just trying to point out that the situation is far more complicated than "stupid weak people like them get addicted, while smart, strong people like me don't".

The reasons I gave were to better help people overcome their addictions. This is a social program designed to fight a disease that affects many people, and affects some of them more seriously than others. I hope you don't think that that is a purely political concern.

[Darth Wong]

From the article I linked to above:

<snip long-winded repetition of my exact point>

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know how to read, moron. That article said the same thing I said: you are confusing genetic variations in drug enjoyment (ie- tolerance) with some kind of intrinsic power to addict and render willpower ineffective.

This changes nothing, because most of the literature I've referenced makes mention of the genetic factors at work both when quitting and when starting. Two people might be able to smoke the same number of cigarettes but only one might get addicted. This is independant of willpower, because (as noted above) their brains may be behaving differently to the same amounts of the same chemical.

Your argument is exactly like the arguments for fat people not being able to lose weight: "some people are blessed with the ability to eat crap and not gain weight, so fatness is genetic!" It's a complete non sequitur; yes, there are some people who, for some genetic reason, can eat shit and not gain weight. It stands to reason there are some people who can smoke shit and not get addicted too. That doesn't mean I can't say the people who can't quit are weaker than those who can. Tell me, if you are genetically a scrawny ectomorph, does this mean I'm not really stronger than you by virtue of being able to lift a certain weight on a barbell?

It is possible to call this change in brain chemistry a 'weakness', but I don't think that that was your intention when you said things like

I knew from a very young age that it was an idiotic activity that only an ignorant fool would do...As for being unable to quit, the fact that some people can quit proves that the people who can't quit are weaker than they are. [\quote]
You are clearly using the word 'weakness' to indicate strength of character and determination.

The fact that some people have greater tolerance or enjoyment of something does not mean it is not a matter of willpower to quit, fucktard. I'm sick of pointing this out to you.

If by 'weakness' you mean to include genetic factors, then your analogy can extend to black people's 'weakness' leading to greater rates of sickle cell anemia. I don't think that you intended to include higher susceptibility to disease as a weakness, and addiction is a disease.

Black people are weaker to sickle-cell anemia; no one denies this. What's your point?

It is not the only factor known to exist, because, for one thing genetic makeup can alter the amount of willpower necessary for people to have the same chance of quitting.

As I said, this is just like the fat-person argument. There are some people in this world who get a free ride. That's lucky for them, but it doesn't change the equation for everyone else.

Furthermore, never have I suggested that there is an on-off gene which allows people an excuse for being addicted to something. I'm just trying to point out that the situation is far more complicated than "stupid weak people like them get addicted, while smart, strong people like me don't".

Well, it quite frankly is stupid to get addicted to smoking in the first place, given the last 30 years of public education campaigns.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ccdpc-cpcmc/ ... ab4_e.html

See specifically the correlation between education level and smoking. High school dropouts are 40% more likely to smoke than university or even tech-school graduates. Oh wait, maybe that's genetic too, so I guess I can't call high-school dropouts "stupid" either!

The reasons I gave were to better help people overcome their addictions. This is a social program designed to fight a disease that affects many people, and affects some of them more seriously than others. I hope you don't think that that is a purely political concern.

It sure sounds like one from where I'm sitting. You're saying that I can't use a word where it properly fits. Usually, when people say that, it's because of something called "political correctness".

[NPComplete]

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know how to read, moron. That article said the same thing I said: you are confusing genetic variations in drug enjoyment (ie- tolerance) with some kind of intrinsic power to addict and render willpower ineffective.

Total strawman. Show me where I have said that willpower is ineffective. What I have said is that willpower is not a be-all-and-end-all measurement. And, if one person experiences a stronger effect from a drug, then they are more likely to be addicted to it, willpower aside.

Your argument is exactly like the arguments for fat people not being able to lose weight: "some people are blessed with the ability to eat crap and not gain weight, so fatness is genetic!" It's a complete non sequitur; yes, there are some people who, for some genetic reason, can eat shit and not gain weight. It stands to reason there are some people who can smoke shit and not get addicted too. That doesn't mean I can't say the people who can't quit are weaker than those who can. [\quote]

Your ability to oversimplify and misrepresent what I've said astounds me. You originally said specifically that ability to quit was a character flaw (stupidity) and didn't acknowledge the presence of other factors (which led to my first post). Now you claim that I'm trying to say that "smoking is genetic", when what I've said is that genetics is a contributing factor.

Your weightlifting analogy is flawed, because everyone can see that the scrawny guy is less able to lift things (and because he can improve in strength over time). If your brain works differently around the same chemical, it's like the same barbell weighing two different amounts for two different people. If the weight increases for me over you, it is misleading to say that my inability to lift it is due to my 'weakness', when we are both the same strength.

The entire world doesn't boil down to your black and white fantasies.

The fact that some people have greater tolerance or enjoyment of something does not mean it is not a matter of willpower to quit, fucktard. I'm sick of pointing this out to you.
[\quote]

And I'm sick of pointing out to you that I'm not saying that willpower doesn't matter, but that instead that it is merely one part of a more complicated picture that you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge. Never mind, preconceptions are fun and easy to cling to.

See specifically the correlation between education level and smoking. High school dropouts are 40% more likely to smoke than university or even tech-school graduates.
[\quote]

Now you're starting to get better at recognizing more than one factor contributing to the same problem.

Political correctness implies that things are being made up to reach a desired conclusion. If there is evidence to support it, it is no longer PC bullshit; it has a scientific basis, and you're ignoring that to fit your own bias.

[Darth Wong]

Total strawman. Show me where I have said that willpower is ineffective. What I have said is that willpower is not a be-all-and-end-all measurement.

In a sociological argument where there is never any such thing as an absolute rule, and pointing this out is nothing more than evasive sophistry at best?

Your ability to oversimplify and misrepresent what I've said astounds me. You originally said specifically that ability to quit was a character flaw (stupidity) and didn't acknowledge the presence of other factors (which led to my first post).

Yes, I made a general statement about a sociological issue rather than a comprehensive description of every conceivable factor, and you decided to turn the thread into "sociology is never absolute". Thanks for the news flash, fucktard.

Your weightlifting analogy is flawed, because everyone can see that the scrawny guy is less able to lift things (and because he can improve in strength over time).

That has nothing to do with the logic of the analogy. Please grow a brain, asshole.

If your brain works differently around the same chemical, it's like the same barbell weighing two different amounts for two different people.

Bullshit. Don't you know that some people put on muscle faster with the same workouts? That doesn't mean people actually say "oh, that barbell weighs 120 lbs, but for that guy, it's 180".

The entire world doesn't boil down to your black and white fantasies.

Or your assholish strawmen.

And I'm sick of pointing out to you that I'm not saying that willpower doesn't matter, but that instead that it is merely one part of a more complicated picture that you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge.

Willpower is the only factor known to exist in terms of combating an addiction once you have it. If there are other factors which help create the addiction in the first place, or certain people who just don't get addicted, that's not my problem, nor is it my argument. Thanks for, yet again, making up shit.

Now you're starting to get better at recognizing more than one factor contributing to the same problem.

Hey dumb-fuck, I just posted evidence to support my "smokers are stupid" statement. How does that refute my point? Oh wait, stupidity isn't a form of weakness either? What is weakness, then? Please, by all means, let us know what your definition is.

[NPComplete]

Total strawman. Show me where I have said that willpower is ineffective. What I have said is that willpower is not a be-all-and-end-all measurement.

In a sociological argument where there is never any such thing as an absolute rule,

You said

"As for being unable to quit, the fact that some people can quit proves that the people who can't quit are weaker than they are. "

Which sounds like a pretty absolute statement to me, and one in which you define weakness to be ability to quit. I gave a counterexample in which people with more ability to quit might actually have a higher incidence of smoking because of a higher chance of becoming addicted in the first place. There appear to be genetic factors contributing to this chance of addiction.

Bullshit. Don't you know that some people put on muscle faster with the same workouts? That doesn't mean people actually say "oh, that barbell weighs 120 lbs, but for that guy, it's 180".

You've just stated my point for me very succintly. If two people do exactly the same workout, and one is more effective, would you say that the other person failed because they were not determined enough? Or would you acknowledge that since some people have an unfair advantage, nothing is gained by measuring everyone to the same standard.

Willpower is the only factor known to exist in terms of combating an addiction once you have it.

This is patently false. Nicorette gum, methadone, and other chemical substitutes are factors which can aid in breaking an addiction. How do they do so? By providing the chemical portion of the addiction while the patient breaks the psychological factors through willpower and counselling (either professional, or the support of their friends and family).

What is weakness, then? Please, by all means, let us know what your definition is.

Weakness can mean many things. At the beginning, you equated it with ability to quit smoking, and I've stuck to this definition.

However, what you seem to have done is say 'weakness is what stops a person from quitting, therefore anything which stops someone from smoking is a weakness'. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that you've been able to keep hammering away at this point, because you appear to be able to shoehorn anything you like into the term 'weakness' without acknowledging that you originally were concerned only with a person's strength of character.

We might be able to see eye-to-eye if we agreed to differentiate between a weak-willed person, and someone who faces other obstacles on the road to quitting. I am unwilling to lump them in together, not because I want to mollycoddle addicts, but because I would prefer to see people given an equal chance of quitting before I lambast those who fail.

[Justforfun000]

I'll leave the specific refutations to DW, but I want to say one thing to you.

Quitting smoking is as simple as refusing to put that cigarette in your mouth and lighting it up. i don't care HOW much you DESIRE it, and that is precisely what the true driving mechanism is behind smoking, you can still stop it any time you CHOOSE.

Any argument to the contrary is nothing but trumped up bullshit. Sure it's harder for some then others. That still can make them weak considering that they would still continue to smoke in light of all the evidence showing egregious harm caused by it. In no way is it unfair to use that word.

[Mrs Kendall]

I'll leave the specific refutations to DW, but I want to say one thing to you... *snip*

Just curious, have you been addicted and have you been able to quit? If so do you still get urges to have one from time to time?

[Justforfun000]

Just curious, have you been addicted and have you been able to quit? If so do you still get urges to have one from time to time?

Yes. I was addicted and quit a few times. The most recent times were when I had quit for a year to the DAY and then smoked a little cigarello someone offered me. Long story short, it went from there and it became more frequent, and ultimately I was smoking those. They were WORSE then cigarettes, so I switched back to cigarettes temporarily.

Now I knew I was quitting and I cut back morning smoking, then afternoon, and finally I was only smoking at late night. Then I got the right mood to say Screw this and stopped entirely. It was a little easier for me being a singer since it was directly impacting me and my breath.

Now that I'm quit, (about 4 months now), I never desire them. No.

The way I quit however was this:

I had to keep drilling all of the reasons in my brain repeatedly as to why I REALLY didn't want to smoke. Keep reminding yourself of all the negatives, and the instant gratification of the cigarette seemed less and less appealing.

I never defended myself and smoking either. I was the first to freely admit that I was an idiot and stupid to be smoking and couldn't wait to get myself STRONG enough to overcome the addiction. Until then, I was weak.

[Mrs Kendall]

That's how I did it too, haven't has a cigarette since February 05 and I'm disgusted when I smell it , but sometimes I feel the urge then I remember how yucky it made me feel, but I had smoked for 7 years while I was in high school, the fact that I fell back into it after stopping for 4 years tells me that some people just can't quit for good and to me from your story you're one of them.

[Aaron]

If there's one thing I've learned from my Percocet and alcohol addictions, is that you have to take it one day at a time. Everyday you tell yourself that you just have to make it through today without having to have a smoke/pill/drink. Eventually it gets to the point where the cravings have disappeared and you can function normally again. Mind you it's not easy but beating an addiction never is. But thats what works for me.

[NPComplete]

I know lots of people who have quit more than once, as Mrs. Kendall and Justforfun000 describe.

I've heard it said that once you're a smoker, you're a smoker for life, and that people don't quit so much as they become 'smokers who don't smoke anymore'.

So, with that in mind, I wish the two of you good luck.

On an unrelated note, it looks like my new neighbours are smokers, so my balcony has just become a lot less appealing to sit out on and read in the evening. Grr.

[Mrs Kendall]

yes our neighbours like to sit out there and smoke their cigarettes or their colts while our windows are open and that's what's keeping me away from wanting to do it again, just the smell when you smell it indoors grosses (sp?) me out, especially when you just want fresh air (which is why our windows are open).

[Justforfun000]

the fact that I fell back into it after stopping for 4 years tells me that some people just can't quit for good and to me from your story you're one of them.

Oh I can quit for good. As far as I'm concerned NOW, i'll never go back. The cigarello threw me for a loop because I didn't see how the damn thing would lead me back to them.

I won't let tobacco of any form touch my lips now. I'm done with it.

[Mrs Kendall]

Well good luck with that. In fact now that I really think about it my parents stopped and haven't looked back since the quit for good so I guess it is possible it's just hard sometimes